Download the Full Version of textbook for Fast Typing at textbookfull.

com

Essential Discrete Mathematics for Computer

Science 1st Edition Harry Lewis

https://textbookfull.com/product/essential-discrete-
mathematics-for-computer-science-1st-edition-harry-lewis/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWNLOAD NOW

Download More textbook Instantly Today - Get Yours Now at textbookfull.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science 1st Edition Jon

Pierre Fortney

https://textbookfull.com/product/discrete-mathematics-for-computer-
science-1st-edition-jon-pierre-fortney/

textboxfull.com

Ideas that Created the Future Classic Papers of Computer

Science 1st Edition Harry R. Lewis

https://textbookfull.com/product/ideas-that-created-the-future-
classic-papers-of-computer-science-1st-edition-harry-r-lewis/

textboxfull.com

Imaginary Mathematics for Computer Science 1st Edition

Vince

https://textbookfull.com/product/imaginary-mathematics-for-computer-
science-1st-edition-vince/

textboxfull.com

LOGIC: Lecture Notes For Philosophy, Mathematics, And

Computer Science Andrea Iacona

https://textbookfull.com/product/logic-lecture-notes-for-philosophy-
mathematics-and-computer-science-andrea-iacona/

textboxfull.com
Discrete Mathematics 8e Richard Johnsonbaugh

https://textbookfull.com/product/discrete-mathematics-8e-richard-
johnsonbaugh/

textboxfull.com

The Beauty of Mathematics in Computer Science 1st Edition

Jun Wu

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-beauty-of-mathematics-in-
computer-science-1st-edition-jun-wu/

textboxfull.com

Journey Into Discrete Mathematics 1st Edition Owen Byer

https://textbookfull.com/product/journey-into-discrete-
mathematics-1st-edition-owen-byer/

textboxfull.com

Discrete mathematics with ducks Second Edition Belcastro

https://textbookfull.com/product/discrete-mathematics-with-ducks-
second-edition-belcastro/

textboxfull.com

Discrete Mathematics and Applications 2nd Edition Ferland

https://textbookfull.com/product/discrete-mathematics-and-
applications-2nd-edition-ferland/

textboxfull.com
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — page i — ©#1Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

ESSENTIAL DISCRETE
MATHEMATICS FOR
COMPUTER SCIENCE

−
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — page ii — ©#2
Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

−1
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — page iii —©#3
Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

ESSENTIAL DISCRETE
MATHEMATICS FOR
COMPUTER SCIENCE

Harry Lewis and Rachel Zax

−
PR I NC ETON U N I V E R SI T Y PR E S S ∼ PR I NC ETON A ND OX FOR D 0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — page iv — ©#4
Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

Copyright 
c 2019 by Harry Lewis and Rachel Zax

Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work

should be sent to permissions@press.princeton.edu

Published by Princeton University Press

41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540
6 Oxford Street, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TR

press.princeton.edu

All Rights Reserved

LCCN

ISBN 978-0-691-17929-2

British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

Editorial: Vickie Kearn and Arthur Werneck

Production Editorial: Kathleen Cioffi
Jacket Design: Lorraine Doneker
Jacket/Cover Credit:
Production: Erin Suydam
Publicity: Alyssa Sanford
Copyeditor: Alison S. Britton

This book has been composed in MinionPro

Printed on acid-free paper. ∞

Printed in the United States of America

−1
0 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — page v — ©#5Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

To Alexandra, Stella, Elizabeth, and Annie

and
to David, Marcia, Ben, and Aryeh

−
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — page vi — ©#6
Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

−1
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — page vii —© #7
Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

An engineer is said to be a man who knows a great deal about a very

little, and who goes around knowing more and more, about less and
less, until finally, he practically knows everything about nothing;
whereas, a Salesman, on the other hand, is a man who knows a very
little about a great deal, and keeps on knowing less and less about more
and more until finally he knows practically nothing, about everything.

Van Nuys, California, News, June 26, 1933

−
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — page viii —© #8
Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

−1
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — page ix — ©#9
Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

CONTENTS

Preface xi

1 The Pigeonhole Principle 1

2 Basic Proof Techniques 11

3 Proof by Mathematical Induction 25

4 Strong Induction 39

5 Sets 49
6 Relations and Functions 59

7 Countable and Uncountable Sets 69

8 Structural Induction 79

9 Propositional Logic 89

10 Normal Forms 101

11 Logic and Computers 111
12 Quantificational Logic 119

13 Directed Graphs 133

14 Digraphs and Relations 141

15 States and Invariants 151

16 Undirected Graphs 161

17 Connectivity 173

18 Coloring 179

19 Finite Automata 187

20 Regular Languages 201

21 Order Notation 211

22 Counting 233
23 Counting Subsets 243 −
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — page x — ©#10
Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

x contents

24 Series 261

25 Recurrence Relations 277

26 Probability 297

27 Conditional Probability 311

28 Bayes’ Theorem 323

29 Random Variables and Expectation 335

30 Modular Arithmetic 359

31 Public Key Cryptography 371

Index 381

−1
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — page xi — ©#11
Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

PREFACE

Τοῦ δὲ ποσοῦ τὸ μέν ἐστι διωρισμένον, τὸ δὲ συνεχες.

As to quantity, it can be either discrete or continuous.
—Aristotle, Categories (ca. 350 BCE)

This introductory text treats the discrete mathematics that computer scien-
tists should know but generally do not learn in calculus and linear algebra
courses. It aims to achieve breadth rather than depth and to teach reasoning
as well as concepts and skills.
We stress the art of proof in the hope that computer scientists will learn to
think formally and precisely. Almost every formula and theorem is proved
in full. The text teaches the cumulative nature of mathematics; in spite of the
breadth of topics covered, seemingly unrelated results in later chapters rest
on concepts derived early on.
The text requires precalculus and occasionally uses a little bit of calculus.
Chapter 21, on order notation, uses limits, but includes a quick summary of
the needed basic facts. Proofs and exercises that use basic facts about deriva-
tives and integrals, including l’Hôpital’s rule, can be skipped without loss of
continuity.
A fast-paced one-semester course at Harvard covers most of the material
in this book. That course is typically taken by freshmen and sophomores as
a prerequisite for courses on theory of computation (automata, computabil-
ity, and algorithm analysis). The text is also suitable for use in secondary
schools, for students of mathematics or computer science interested in
topics that are mathematically accessible but off the beaten track of the
standard curriculum.
The book is organized as a series of short chapters, each of which might
be the subject of one or two class sessions. Each chapter ends with a brief
summary and about ten problems, which can be used either as homework
or as in-class exercises to be solved collaboratively in small groups.
Instructors who choose not to cover all topics can abridge the book in
several ways. The spine of the book includes Chapters 1–8 on foundational
concepts, Chapters 13–18 on digraphs and graphs, and Chapters 21–25 on
order notation and counting. Four blocks of chapters are optional and can
be included or omitted at the instructor’s discretion and independently of
each other:
• Chapters 9–12 on logic;
−
• Chapters 19–20 on automata and formal languages; 0
1

i i

i i
 i i

“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — pageCopyright

xii — ©#12
Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

xii preface

• Chapters 26–29 on discrete probability; and

• Chapters 30–31 on modular arithmetic and cryptography.
None of these blocks, if included at all, need be treated in full, since only
later chapters in the same block rely on the content of chapters earlier in the
block.
It has been our goal to provide a treatment that is generic in its tastes and
therefore suitable for wide use, without the heft of an encyclopedic textbook.
We have tried throughout to respect our students’ eagerness to learn and also
their limited budgets of time, attention, and money.
.
With thanks to the CS20 team:
Deborah Abel, Ben Adlam, Paul Bamberg, Hannah Blumberg,
Crystal Chang, Corinne Curcie, Michelle Danoff, Jack Dent,
Ruth Fong, Michael Gelbart, Kirk Goff, Gabriel Goldberg, Paul
Handorff, Roger Huang, Steve Komarov, Abiola Laniyonu, Nicholas
Longenbaugh, Erin Masatsugu, Keenan Monks, Anupa Murali,
Eela Nagaraj, Rebecca Nesson, Jenny Nitishinskaya, Sparsh Sah,
Maria Stoica, Tom Silver, Francisco Trujillo, Nathaniel Ver Steeg,
Helen Wu, Yifan Wu, Charles Zhang, and Ben Zheng;
to Albert Meyer for his generous help at the start of CS20; and to
Michael Sobin, Scott Joseph, Alex Silverstein, and
Noam Wolf for their critiques and support during the writing.
Harry Lewis and Rachel Zax, June 2018

−1
0
1

i i

i i
 i i

“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — pageCopyright

xiii —©#13
Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

ESSENTIAL DISCRETE
MATHEMATICS FOR
COMPUTER SCIENCE

−
0
1

i i

i i
 i i

“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:40 — pageCopyright

xiv — ©#14
Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

−1
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:41 — page 1 — ©#1Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

Chapter 1

The Pigeonhole Principle

How do we know that a computer program produces the right results? How
do we know that a program will run to completion? If we know it will
stop eventually, can we predict whether that will happen in a second, in
an hour, or in a day? Intuition, testing, and “it has worked OK every time
we tried it” should not be accepted as proof of a claim. Proving something
requires formal reasoning, starting with things known to be true and con-
necting them together by incontestable logical inferences. This is a book
about the mathematics that is used to reason about the behavior of computer
programs.
The mathematics of computer science is not some special field. Com-
puter scientists use almost every branch of mathematics, including some
that were never thought to be useful until developments in computer science
created applications for them. So this book includes sections on mathemat-
ical logic, graph theory, counting, number theory, and discrete probability
theory, among other things. From the standpoint of a traditional mathemat-
ics curriculum, this list includes apples and oranges. One common feature
of these topics is that all prove useful in computer science. Moreover, they
are all discrete mathematics, which is to say that they involve quantities that
change in steps, not continuously, or are expressed in symbols and structures
rather than numbers. Of course, calculus is also important in computer sci-
ence, because it assists in reasoning about continuous quantities. But in this
book we will rarely use integrals and derivatives.
.
One of the most important skills of mathematical thinking is the art of
generalization. For example, the proposition

? There is no triangle with sides of lengths 1, 2, and 6

2
1

6 is true, but very specific (see Figure 1.1). The sides of lengths 1 and 2 would
Figure 1.1. Can there be a triangle have to join the side of length 6 at its two ends, but the two short sides −
with sides of lengths 1, 2 and 6? together aren’t long enough to meet up at the third corner. 0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:41 — page 2 — ©#2Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

2 essential discrete mathematics for computer science

A more general statement might be (Figure 1.2)

?
b There is no triangle with sides of lengths a, b, and c if a, b, c are
a
any numbers such that a + b ≤ c.
c
Figure 1.2. There is no triangle with The second form is more general because we can infer the first from the
sides of lengths a, b and c if a + b ≤ c. second by letting a = 1, b = 2, and c = 6. It also covers a case that the pic-
ture doesn’t show—when a + b = c, so the three “corners” fall on a straight
line. Finally, the general rule has the advantage of not just stating what
is impossible, but explaining it. There is no 1 − 2 − 6 triangle because
1 + 2 ≤ 6.
So we state propositions in general form for two reasons. First, a propo-
sition becomes more useful if it is more general; it can be applied with
confidence in a greater variety of circumstances. Second, a general propo-
sition makes it easier to grasp what is really going on, because it leaves out
irrelevant, distracting detail.
.
As another example, let’s consider a simple scenario.

Annie, Batul, Charlie, Deja, Evelyn, Fawwaz, Gregoire, and

Hoon talk to each other and discover that Deja and Gregoire
were both born on Tuesdays. (1.1)

Well, so what? Put two people together and they may or may not have
been born on the same day of the week. Yet there is something going on
here that can be generalized. As long as there are at least eight people, some
two of them must have been born on the same day of the week, since a week
has only seven days. Some statement like (1.1) must be true, perhaps with
a different pair of names and a different day of the week. So here is a more
general proposition.

In any group of eight people, some two of them were born on the
same day of the week.

But even that isn’t really general. The duplication has nothing to do with
properties of people or days of the week, except how many there are of each.
For the same reason, if we put eight cups on seven saucers, some saucer
would have two cups on it. In fact there is nothing magic about “eight” and
“seven,” except that the one is larger than the other. If a hotel has 1000 rooms
and 1001 guests, some room must contain at least two guests. How can we
state a general principle that covers all these cases, without mentioning the
irrelevant specifics of any of them?
First, we need a new concept. A set is a collection of things, or elements.
−1
The elements that belong to the set are called its members. The members of
0
a set must be distinct, which is another way of saying they are all different
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:41 — page 3 — ©#3Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

the pigeonhole principle 3

from each other. So the people mentioned in (1.1) form a set, and the days
of the week form another set. Sometimes we write out the members of a set
explicitly, as a list within curly braces {}:

P = {Annie, Batul, Charlie, Deja, Evelyn, Fawwaz, Gregoire, Hoon}

D = {Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday,
Saturday}.

When we write out the elements of a set, their order does not matter—in any
order it is still the same set. We write x ∈ X to indicate that the element x is
a member of the set X. For example, Charlie ∈ P and Thursday ∈ D.
We need some basic terminology about numbers in order to talk about
sets. An integer is one of the numbers 0, 1, 2, . . . , or −1, −2, . . . . The real
numbers are all the numbers on the number line, including √ all the integers
and also all the numbers in between integers, such as 12 , − 2, and π . A num-
ber is positive if it is greater than 0, negative if it is less than 0, and nonnegative
if it is greater than or equal to 0.
For the time being, we will be discussing finite sets. A finite set is a set that
can (at least in principle) be listed in full. A finite set has a size or cardinality,
which is a nonnegative integer. The cardinality of a set X is denoted |X|.
For example, in the example of people and the days of the week on which
they were born, |P| = 8 and |D| = 7, since eight people are listed and there
are seven days in a week. A set that is not finite—the set of integers, for
example—is said to be infinite. Infinite sets have sizes too—an interesting
subject to which we will return in our discussion of infinite sets in Chapter 7.
Now, a function from one set to another is a rule that associates each
member of the first set with exactly one member of the second set. If f is
a function from X to Y and x ∈ X, then f (x) is the member of Y that the
function f associates with x. We refer to x as the argument of f and f (x)
as the value of f on that argument. We write f : X → Y to indicate that f is
a function from set X to set Y. For example, we could write b : P → D to
denote the function that associates each of the eight friends with the day of
the week on which he or she was born; if Charlie was born on a Thursday,
then b(Charlie) = Thursday.
A function f : X → Y is sometimes called a mapping from X to Y, and f
is said to map an element x ∈ X to the element f (x) ∈ Y. (In the same way, a
real map associates a point on the surface of the earth with a point on a sheet
of paper.)
Finally, we have a way to state the general principle that underlies the
example of (1.1):

If f : X → Y and |X| > |Y|, then there are elements

x1 , x2 ∈ X such that x1  = x2 and f (x1 ) = f (x2 ). (1.2)
−
The statement (1.2) is known as the Pigeonhole Principle, as it captures in 0
mathematical form this commonsense idea: if there are more pigeons than 1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:41 — page 4 — ©#4Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

4 essential discrete mathematics for computer science

? pigeonholes and every pigeon goes into a pigeonhole, then some pigeonhole
must have more than one pigeon in it. The pigeons are the members of X and
the pigeonholes are the members of Y (Figure 1.3).
We will provide a formal proof of the Pigeonhole Principle on page 34,
once we have developed some of the basic machinery for doing proofs. For
now, let’s scrutinize the statement of the Pigeonhole Principle with an eye
X Y
Figure 1.3. The Pigeonhole
toward understanding mathematical language. Here are some questions we
Principle. If |X| > |Y| and f is any might ask:
function from X to Y, then the
1. What are X and Y?
values of f must be the same for
some two distinct members of X. They are finite sets. To be absolutely clear, we might have begun the
statement with the phrase, “For any finite sets X and Y,” but the
assertion that f is a function from X to Y makes sense only if X and Y
are sets, and it is understood from context that the sets under
discussion are finite—and we therefore know how to compare their
sizes.
2. Why did we choose “x1 ” and “x2 ” for the names of elements of X?
We could in principle have chosen any variables, “x” and “y” for
example. But using variations on “X” to name elements of the set X
suggests that x1 and x2 are members of the set X rather than the set Y.
So using “x1 ” and “x2 ” just makes our statement easier to read.
3. Was the phrase “such that x1  = x2 ” really necessary? The sentence is
simpler without it, and seems to say the same thing.
Yes, the “x1  = x2 ” is necessary, and no, the sentence doesn’t say the
same thing without it! If we didn’t say “x1  = x2 ,” then “x1 ” and “x2 ”
could have been two names for the same element. If we did not
stipulate that x1 and x2 had to be different, the proposition would not
have been false—only trivial! Obviously if x1 = x2 , then f (x1 ) = f (x2 ).
That is like saying that the mass of Earth is equal to the mass of the
third planet from the sun. Another way to state the Pigeonhole
Principle would be to say, “there are distinct elements x1 , x2 ∈ X such
that f (x1 ) = f (x2 ).”
One more thing is worth emphasizing here. A statement like “there are
elements x1 , x2 ∈ X with property blah” does not mean that there are exactly
two elements with that property. It just means that at least two such elements
exist for sure—maybe more, but definitely not less.
.
Mathematicians always search for the most general form of any principle,
because it can then be used to explain more things. For example, it is equally
obvious that we can’t put 15 pigeons in 7 pigeonholes without putting at least
3 pigeons in some pigeonhole—but there is no way to derive that from the
−1
Pigeonhole Principle as we stated it. Here is a more general version:
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:41 — page 5 — ©#5Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

the pigeonhole principle 5

Theorem 1.3. Extended Pigeonhole Principle. For any finite sets X and Y
and any positive integer k such that |X| > k · |Y|, if f : X → Y, then there are at
least k + 1 distinct members x1 , . . . , xk+1 ∈ X such that f (x1 ) = . . . = f (xk+1 ).

The Pigeonhole Principle is the k = 1 case of the Extended Pigeonhole

Principle.
We have used sequence notation here for the first time, using the same
variable with numerical subscripts in a range. In this case the xi , where
1 ≤ i ≤ k + 1, form a sequence of length k + 1. This notation is very conve-
nient since it makes it possible to use an algebraic expression such as k + 1
in a subscript. Similarly, we could refer to the 2ith member of a sequence
y1 , y2 , . . . as y2i .
The minimum value of the parameter k in the Extended Pigeonhole Prin-
ciple, as applied to particular sets X and Y, can be derived once the sizes of
X and Y are known. It is helpful to introduce some notation to make this
calculation precise.
An integer p divides another integer q, symbolically written as p | q, if the
q
quotient p is an integer—that is, dividing q by p leaves no remainder. We
write p  q if p does not divide q—for example, 3  7. If x is any real number, we
write x for the greatest integer less than or equal to x (called the floor of x).
For example,  17 6
3  = 5, and  2  = 3. We will also need the ceiling notation:
x is the smallest integer greater than or equal to x, so for example 3.7 = 4.
With the aid of these notations, we can restate the Extended Pigeonhole
Principle in a way that determines the minimum size of the most heavily
occupied pigeonhole for given numbers of pigeons and pigeonholes:

Theorem 1.4. Extended Pigeonhole Principle, Alternate Version. Let X and

Y be any finite sets and let f : X → Y. Then there is some y ∈ Y such that f (x) =
y for at least

 
|X|
|Y|

values of x.

Proof. Let m = |X| and n = |Y|.If n | m, then this is the Extended Pigeonhole
Principle with k = m m
n − 1 = n − 1. If n  m, then again this is the Extended
Pigeonhole Principle with k = m n − 1, since that is the largest integer less
|X|
than |Y| . ■
.
Once stated in their general form, these versions of the Pigeonhole Prin-
ciple seem to be fancy ways of saying something obvious. In spite of that,
we can use them to explain a variety of different phenomena—once we −
figure out what are the “pigeons” and the “pigeonholes.” Let’s close with an 0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:41 — page 6 — ©#6Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

6 essential discrete mathematics for computer science

application to number theory—the study of the properties of the integers. A

few basics first.
If p | q, then p is said to be a factor or divisor of q.
A prime number is an integer greater than 1 that is divisible only by itself
and 1. For example, 7 is prime, because it is divisible only by 7 and 1, but 6
is not prime, because 6 = 2 · 3. Note that 1 itself is not prime.

Theorem 1.5. The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. There is one and

only one way to express a positive integer as a product of distinct prime
numbers in increasing order and with positive integer exponents.

We’ll prove this theorem in Chapter 4, but make some use of it right now.
The prime decomposition of a number n is that unique product
e
n = pe11 · . . . · pkk , (1.6)

where the pi are primes in increasing order and the ei are positive integers.
e
For example, 180 = 22 · 32 · 51 , and there is no other product pe11 · . . . · pkk
equal to 180, where p1 < p2 < . . . < pk , all the pi are prime, and the ei are
integer exponents.
The prime decomposition of the product of two integers m and n com-
bines the prime decompositions of m and of n—every prime factor of m · n
is a prime factor of one or the other.

Theorem 1.7. If m, n, and p are integers greater than 1, p is prime, and p |

m · n, then either p | m or p | n.

Proof. By the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic (Theorem 1.5), there is

one and only one way to write
e
m · n = pe11 · . . . · pkk ,

where the pi are prime. But then p must be one of the pi , and each pi must
appear in the unique prime decomposition of either m or n. ■

The exponent of a prime p in the prime decomposition of m · n is the

sum of its exponents in the prime decompositions of m and n (counting
the exponent as 0 if p does not appear in the decomposition). For example,
consider the product 18 · 10 = 180. We have

18 = 21 · 32 (exponents of 2, 3, 5 are 1, 2, 0)
1 1
10 = 2 · 5 (exponents of 2, 3, 5 are 1, 0, 1)
2 2 1
−1 180 = 2 · 3 · 5
0 = 21+1 · 32+0 · 50+1 .
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:41 — page 7 — ©#7Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

the pigeonhole principle 7

We have color-coded the exponents to show how the exponents of 2, 3, and 5

in the product 180 are the sums of the exponents of those primes in the
decompositions of the two factors 18 and 10.
Another important fact about prime numbers is that there are infinitely
many of them.

Theorem 1.8. There are arbitrarily large prime numbers.

“Arbitrarily large” means that for every n > 0, there is a prime number
greater than n.

Proof. Pick some value of k for which we know there are at least k primes,
and let p1 , . . . , pk be the first k primes in increasing order. (Since p1 = 2,
p2 = 3, p3 = 5, we could certainly take k = 3.) We’ll show how to find a prime
number greater than pk . Since this process could be repeated indefinitely,
there must be infinitely many primes.
Consider the number N that is one more than the product of the first k
primes:

N = (p1 · p2 · . . . · pk ) + 1. (1.9)

Dividing N by any of p1 , . . . , pk would leave a remainder of 1. So N has no

prime divisors less than or equal to pk . Therefore, either N is not prime but
has a prime factor greater than pk , or else N is prime itself. ■

In the k = 3 case, for example, N = 2 · 3 · 5 + 1 = 31. Here N itself is

prime; Problem 1.11 asks you to find an example of the case in which N
is not prime.
A common divisor of two numbers is a number that divides both of them.
For example, 21 and 36 have the common divisors 1 and 3, but 16 and 21
have no common divisor greater than 1.
With this by way of background, let’s work a number theory example that
uses the Pigeonhole Principle.

Example 1.10. Choose m distinct numbers between 2 and 40 inclusive, where

m ≥ 13. Then at least two of the numbers have some common divisor greater
than 1.

“Between a and b inclusive” means including all numbers that are ≥ a and
also ≤ b—so including both 2 and 40 in this case.

Solution to example. Observe first that there are 12 prime numbers less than
or equal to 40: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, no two of which share
a factor greater than 1. Let’s define P to be this set of 12 prime numbers. −
(We needed to specify that m ≥ 13, because the claim would be false with 0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:41 — page 8 — ©#8Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

8 essential discrete mathematics for computer science

m = 12 instead: the set P would be a counterexample.) Now consider a set

X of 13 numbers in the range from 2 to 40 inclusive. We can think of the
members of X as pigeons and the members of P as pigeonholes. To place
pigeons in pigeonholes, use the function f : X → P, where f (x) is the smallest
prime that divides x. For example, f (16) = 2, f (17) = 17, and f (21) = 3. By
the Pigeonhole Principle, since 13 > 12, the values of f must be equal for
two distinct members of X, and therefore at least two members of X have a
common prime divisor. ■

Chapter Summary

■ Mathematical thinking focuses on general principles, abstracted from the

details of specific examples.
■ A set is an unordered collection of distinct things, or elements. The
elements of a set are its members.
■ A set is finite if its members can be listed in full one by one. The number of
members of a finite set X is called its cardinality or size and is denoted |X|.
A set’s size is always a nonnegative integer.
■ A function or mapping between two sets is a rule associating each member
of the first set with a unique member of the second.
■ The Pigeonhole Principle states that if X is a set of pigeons and Y a set of
pigeonholes, and |X| > |Y|, then any function mapping pigeons to
pigeonholes assigns more than one pigeon to some pigeonhole.
■ The Extended Pigeonhole Principle states that if X is a set of pigeons and Y a
set of pigeonholes, and |X| > k|Y|, then any function mapping pigeons to
pigeonholes assigns more than k pigeons to some pigeonhole.
■ A sequence of terms can be denoted by a repeated variable with different
numerical subscripts, such as x1 , . . . , xn . The subscript of a term may be an
algebraic expression.
■ The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic states that every positive integer
has exactly one prime decomposition.

Problems

1.1. What are each of the following?

(a) |{0,
 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6}|.
(b) 111 .
 55 
(c) 111 .
−1 (d) The set of divisors of 100.
0 (e) The set of prime divisors of 100.
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:41 — page 9 — ©#9Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

the pigeonhole principle 9

1.2. Let f (n) be the largest prime divisor of n. Can it happen that x < y but
f (x) > f (y)? Give an example or explain why it is impossible.
1.3. Under what circumstances is x = x − 1?
1.4. Imagine a 9 × 9 square array of pigeonholes, with one pigeon in each
pigeonhole. (So 81 pigeons in 81 pigeonholes—see Figure 1.4.) Suppose that all
at once, all the pigeons move up, down, left, or right by one hole. (The pigeons
on the edges are not allowed to move out of the array.) Show that some pigeon-
hole winds up with two pigeons in it. Hint: The number 9 is a distraction. Try
some smaller numbers to see what is going on.
1.5. Show that in any group of people, two of them have the same number of
friends in the group. (Some important assumptions here: no one is a friend of
him- or herself, and friendship is symmetrical—if x is a friend of y then y is a
friend of x.)
1.6. Given any five points on a sphere, show that four of them must lie within a
Figure 1.4. Each pigeonhole in a closed hemisphere, where “closed” means that the hemisphere includes the circle
9 × 9 array has one pigeon. All that divides it from the other half of the sphere. Hint: Given any two points on a
simultaneously move to another sphere, one can always draw a “great circle” between them, which has the same
pigeonhole that is immediately
circumference as the equator of the sphere.
above, below, to the left, or to the
right of its current hole. Must some 1.7. Show that in any group of 25 people, some three of them must have
pigeonhole wind up with two birthdays in the same month.
pigeons?
1.8. A collection of coins contains six different denominations: pennies, nick-
els, dimes, quarters, half-dollars, and dollars. How many coins must the
collection contain to guarantee that at least 100 of the coins are of the same
denomination?
1.9. Twenty-five people go to daily yoga classes at the same gym, which offers
eight classes every day. Each attendee wears either a blue, red, or green shirt to
class. Show that on a given day, there is at least one class in which two people
are wearing the same color shirt.
1.10. Show that if four distinct integers are chosen between 1 and 60 inclusive,
some two of them must differ by at most 19.
1.11. Find a k such that the product of the first k primes, plus 1, is not prime,
but has a prime factor larger than any of the first k primes. (There is no trick for
solving this. You just have to try various possibilities!)
1.12. Show that in any set of 9 positive integers, some two of them share all of
their prime factors that are less than or equal to 5.
1.13. A hash function from strings to numbers derives a numerical hash value
h(s) from a text string s; for example, by adding up the numerical codes for the
characters in s, dividing by a prime number p, and keeping just the remainder.
The point of a hash function is to yield a reproducible result (calculating h(s)
twice for the same string s yields the same numerical value) and to make it likely
that the hash values for different strings will be spread out evenly across the
possible hash values (from 0 to p − 1). If the hash function has identical hash −
values for two different strings, then these two strings are said to collide on that 0
1

i i

i i
 i i

“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:41 — pageCopyright

10 — ©#10
Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

10 essential discrete mathematics for computer science

hash value. We count the number of collisions on a hash value as 1 less than the
number of strings that have that hash value, so if 2 strings have the same hash
value there is 1 collision on that hash value. If there are m strings and p possible
hash values, what is the minimum number of collisions that must occur on the
hash value with the most collisions? The maximum number of collisions that
might occur on some hash value?

−1
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:42 — page 11 —©#1Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

Chapter 2

Basic Proof Techniques

Here is an English-language restatement of the Pigeonhole Principle (page 3):

If there are more pigeons than pigeonholes and every pigeon goes
into a pigeonhole, then some pigeonhole must contain more than
one pigeon.

But suppose your friend did not believe this statement. How could you
convincingly argue that it was true?
You might try to persuade your friend that there is no way the opposite
could be true. You could say, let’s imagine that each pigeonhole has no more
than one pigeon. Then we can count the number of pigeonholes, and since
each pigeonhole contains zero or one pigeons, the number of pigeons can be
at most equal to the number of pigeonholes. But we started with the assump-
tion that there were more pigeons than pigeonholes, so this is impossible!
Since there is no way that every pigeonhole can have at most one pigeon,
some pigeonhole must contain more than one pigeon, and that is what we
were trying to prove.
In this chapter, we’ll discuss how to take informal, specific arguments
like this and translate them into formal, general, mathematical proofs. A
proof is an argument that begins with a proposition (“there are more pigeons
than pigeonholes”) and proceeds using logical rules to establish a conclusion
(“some pigeonhole has more than one pigeon”). Although it may seem easier
to write (and understand!) an argument in plain English, ordinary language
can be imprecise or overly specific. So it is clearer, as well as more general,
to describe a mathematical situation in more formal terms.
For example, what does the statement

Everybody loves somebody (2.1)

mean? It might mean that for every person in the world, there is someone
whom that person loves—so different lovers might have different beloveds.
In semi-mathematical language, we would state that interpretation as −
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:42 — page 12 —©#2Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

12 essential discrete mathematics for computer science

For every person A, there is a person B such that A loves B. (2.2)

But there is another interpretation of (2.1), namely that there is some special
person whom everybody loves, or in other words,

There is a person B such that for every person A, A loves B. (2.3)

There is a big difference between these interpretations, and one of the pur-
poses of mathematical language is to resolve such ambiguities of natural
language.
The phrases “for all,” “for any,” “for every,” “for some,” and “there exists”
are called quantifiers, and their careful use is an important part of mathe-
matical discourse. The symbol ∀ stands for “for all,” “for any,” or “for every,”
and the symbol ∃ stands for “there exists” or “for some.” Using these symbols
saves time, but in writing mathematical prose they can also make statements
more confusing. So we will avoid them until we discuss the formalization of
quantificational logic, in Chapter 12.
Quantifiers modify predicates, such as “A loves B.” A predicate is a tem-
plate for a proposition, taking one or more arguments, in this case A and B.
On its own, a predicate has no truth value: without knowing the values of
A and B, “A loves B” cannot be said to be either true or false. It takes on a
truth value only when quantified (as in (2.2) and (2.3)), or when applied to
specific arguments (for example, “Romeo loves Juliet”), and may be true for
some arguments but false for others.
Let’s continue with a simple example of a mathematical statement and its
proof.

Theorem 2.4. Odd Integers. Every odd integer is equal to the difference
between the squares of two integers.

First, let’s make sure we understand the statement. An odd integer is any
integer that can be written as 2k + 1, where k is also an integer. The square of
an integer n is n2 = n · n. For every value of k, Theorem 2.4 says that there are
two integers—call them m and n—such that if we square them and subtract
one result from the other, the resulting number is equal to 2k + 1. (Note the
quantifiers: for every k, there exist m and n, such that . . . .)
An integer m is said to be a perfect square if it is the square of some integer,
so a compact way to state the theorem is to say that every odd integer is the
difference of two perfect squares. It is typical in mathematics, as in this case,
that defining just the right concepts can result in very simple phrasing of
general truths.
The next step is to convince ourselves of why the statement is true. If the
reason is not obvious, it may help to work out some examples. So let’s start
−1 by listing out the first few squares:
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:42 — page 13 —©#3Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

basic proof techniques 13

02 = 0
12 = 1
22 = 4
32 = 9
42 = 16.

We can confirm that the statement is true for a few specific odd integers,
say 1, 3, 5, and 7:

1 = 1 − 0 = 12 − 0 2
3 = 4 − 1 = 2 2 − 12
5 = 9 − 4 = 3 2 − 22
7 = 16 − 9 = 42 − 32 .

After these examples we might notice a pattern: so far, all of the odd integers
are the difference between the squares of two consecutive integers: 0 and 1,
then 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4. Another observation—those consecutive
integers add up to the target odd integer: 0 + 1 = 1, 1 + 2 = 3, 2 + 3 = 5,
and 3 + 4 = 7. So we might conjecture that for the odd integer 2k + 1, the
integers that should be squared and subtracted are k + 1 and k. Let’s try that:

(k + 1)2 − k2 = k2 + 2k + 1 − k2 ,

which simplifies to 2k + 1.
So our guess was right! And by writing it out using the definition of an
odd integer (2k + 1) rather than looking at any specific odd integer, we’ve
confirmed that it works for all odd integers. It even works for negative odd
integers (since those are equal to 2k + 1 for negative values of k), although
the idea was inspired by trying examples of positive odd integers.
This chain of thought shows how we might arrive at the idea, but it’s too
meandering for a formal proof. The actual proof should include only the
details that turned out to be relevant. For instance, the worked-out examples
don’t add anything to the argument—we need to show that the statement is
true all the time, not just for the examples we tried—so they should be left
out. Here is a formal proof of Theorem 2.4:

Proof. Any odd integer can be written as 2k + 1 for some integer k. We can
rewrite that expression:

2k + 1 = (k2 + 2k + 1) − k2 (adding and subtracting k2 )

= (k + 1)2 − k2 (writing the first term as a square).
−
0
1

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:42 — page 14 —©#4Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

14 essential discrete mathematics for computer science

Now let m = k + 1 and n = k. Then 2k + 1 = m2 − n2 , so we have identified

integers m and n with the properties that we claimed. ■

Before examining the substance of this proof, a few notes about its style.
First, it is written in full sentences. Mathematical expressions are used for
precision and clarity, but the argument itself is written in prose. Second,
its structure is clear: it starts with the given assumption, that the integer is
odd, and clearly identifies when we have reached the end, by noting that m
and n are the two integers that we sought. Third, it is rigorous: it gives a
mathematical definition for the relevant term (“odd integer”), which forces
us to be precise and explicit; and each step of the proof follows logically and
clearly from the previous steps.
Finally, it is convincing. The proof gives an appropriate amount of detail,
enough that the reader can easily understand why each step is correct, but
not so much that it distracts from the overall argument. For example, we
might have skipped writing out some of the arithmetic, and stated just that

2k + 1 = (k + 1)2 − k2 .

But this equality is not obvious, and a careful reader would be tempted
to double-check it. When we include the intermediate step, the arithmetic
is clearly correct. On the other hand, some assumptions don’t need to be
proven—for example, that it is valid to write

2k + 1 = (k2 + 2k + 1) − k2 .

This relies on the fact that if we move the terms around and group them
in different ways, they still add up to the same value. In this context, these
rules seem rather basic and can be assumed; proving them would distract
the reader from the main argument. But in a text on formal arithmetic, these
properties might themselves be the subject of a proof. The amount of detail
to include depends on the context and the proof ’s intended audience; as a
rule of thumb, write as if you are trying to convince a peer.
Let’s return now to the substance of the above proof. First, it is construc-
tive. The statement to be proved merely asserts the existence of something:
it says that for any odd integer, there exist two integers with the prop-
erty that the difference of their squares is equal to the number we started
with. A constructive proof not only demonstrates that the thing exists, but
shows us exactly how to find it. Given a particular odd integer 2k + 1,
the proof of Theorem 2.4 shows us how to find the two integers that have
the property asserted in the statement of the theorem—one is k + 1 and the
other is k. For example, if the odd integer we wanted to express as the differ-
ence of two squares was 341, the proof shows that we can subtract 1 from 341
and divide by 2, and that integer and the next larger integer are the desired
−1 pair—170 and 171. This is easy to check:
0
1 1712 − 1702 = 29241 − 28900 = 341.

i i

i i
 i i
Copyright
“525-76072_ch01_1aP” — 2018/10/6 — 14:42 — page 15 —©#5Princeton University Press, 2018
i Please do not circulate. i

basic proof techniques 15

There was no real need to check this particular case, but doing so makes us
more confident that we didn’t make an algebraic mistake somewhere.
In general, a procedure for answering a question or solving a problem is
said to be an algorithm if its description is sufficiently detailed and precise
that it could, in principle, be carried out mechanically—by a machine, or
by a human being mindlessly following instructions. A constructive proof
implicitly describes an algorithm for finding the thing that the proof says
exists. In the case of Theorem 2.4, the proof describes an algorithm that,
given an odd integer 2k + 1, finds integers m and n such that m2 − n2 =
2k + 1.
Not every proof is constructive—sometimes it is possible to show that
something exists without showing how to find it. Such a proof is called
nonconstructive. We will see some interesting examples of nonconstructive
proofs—in fact, the proof of the Pigeonhole Principle will be nonconstruc-
tive, since it cannot identify which pigeonhole has more than one pigeon.
But computer scientists love constructive arguments, because a construc-
tive proof that something exists yields an algorithm to find it—one that a
1 A stronger meaning of the term “con- computer could be programmed to carry out.1
structive” is used in the school of con- One final note about Theorem 2.4. The proof not only is constructive,
structive mathematics, which disallows
any mathematical argument that does but proves more than was asked for. It shows not just that every odd integer
not lead to the construction of the thing is the difference of two squares, but that every odd integer is the difference of
that the argument says exists. In con- the squares of two consecutive integers, as we noted while working through
structive mathematics it is impermissi-
ble to infer from the fact that a statement
the examples. After finishing a proof, it is often worth looking back at it to
is demonstrably false that its negation is see if it yields any interesting information beyond the statement it set out to
necessarily true; the truth of the nega- prove.
tion has to be demonstrated directly.
For example, constructive mathemat- .
ics disallows proofs by contradiction
(explained below) and arguments like A common goal in mathematical proof is to establish that two state-
that of Problem 2.14. Computer scien- ments are equivalent—that one statement is true in all the circumstances
tists prefer arguments that yield algo-
rithms, but generally don’t insist on in which the second statement is true, and vice versa. For example, consider
“constructive proofs” in the strict sense the statement
used by constructive mathematicians.
For us, to show something is true it suf-
The square of an integer is odd if and only if the integer itself is
fices to show that its negation is not true.
odd.

Or, to write the same thing in a more conventionally mathematical

style:

Theorem 2.5. For any integer n, n2 is odd if and only if n is odd.

This is a fairly typical mathematical statement. Several things about it are

worth noting.
• It uses a variable n to refer to the thing that is under discussion, so the −
same name can be used in different parts of the statement to refer to 0
the same thing. 1

i i

i i
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea,
and things that are not, to bring to nought things that are.” And why?
That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Perhaps, next to the first publishers of the gospel of the blessed

God, these sayings were never more strongly exemplified in any
single individual (at least in this, or the last century) than in the
conversion, ministry and writings of that eminent servant of Jesus
Christ, Mr. John Bunyan, who was of the meanest occupation, and
a notorious sabbath-breaker, drunkard, swearer, blasphemer, &c. by
habitual practice: And yet, through rich, free, sovereign,
distinguishing grace, he was chosen, called, and afterwards formed,
by the all-powerful operations of the Holy Ghost, to be a scribe ready
instructed to the kingdom of God. The two volumes of his works
formerly published; with the great success that attended them in
pulling down Satan’s strong-holds in sinners hearts, when sent forth
in small detached parties, are pregnant proofs of this. Some of them
have gone through a great variety of editions. His Pilgrims Progress
in particular, hath been translated into various languages, and to this
day is read with the greatest pleasure, not only by the truly serious,
of divers religious persuasions, but likewise by those, to whom
pleasure is the end of reading. Surely it is an original, and we may
say of it, to use the words of the great Doctor Goodwin in his preface
to the epistle to the Ephesians, that it smells of the prison. It was
written when the author was confined in Bedford-goal. And ministers
never write or preach so well as when under the cross: the spirit of
Christ and of glory then rests upon them.

It was this, no doubt, that made the Puritans of the last century
such burning and shining lights. When cast out by the black
Bartholomew-act, and driven from their respective charges to preach
in barns and fields, in the highways and hedges, they in an especial
manner wrote and preached as men having authority. Though dead,
by their writings they yet speak: a peculiar unction attends them to
this very hour; and for these thirty years past I have remarked, that
the more, true and vital religion hath revived either at home or
abroad, the more the good old puritanical writings, or the authors of
a like stamp who lived and died in communion of the church of
England, have been called for. Among these may be justly reckoned
those great luminaries, Bishop Jewel, Usher, Andrews, Hall,
Reynolds, Hopkins, Wilkins, Edwards, who, notwithstanding a
difference of judgment in respect to outward church-government, all
agreed (as their printed works manifestly evince) in asserting and
defending the grand essential truths for which the Puritans, though
matters of an inferior nature were urged as a pretext, chiefly
suffered, and were ejected. The impartial Doctor Hodges therefore
(late provost of Oriel College in Oxford) in his elaborate treatise
intitled Elihu, hath done himself honour in saying, that “the old
Puritans and Presbyterians in general, till a division happened lately
among them, deserve praise for their steady and firm adherence to
the principal and fundamental doctrines of christianity.” Their works
still praise them in the gates; and without pretending to a spirit of
prophecy, we may venture to affirm, that they will live and flourish,
when more modern performances, of a contrary cast,
notwithstanding their gaudy and tinselled trappings, will languish and
die in the esteem of those, whose understandings are opened to
discern what comes nearest to the scripture standard.

This consideration, hath induced me to preface the present large

and elegant edition of the Reverend Mr. John Bunyan’s works;
which, with the unparalleled commentary of the good Mr. Matthew
Henry, the pious and practical writings of the excellent Mr. Flavel,
and the critical and judicious commentaries and tracts of the
accurate Doctor Owen, I hear are enquired after, and bought up,
more and more every day. The last forementioned worthy, though
himself so great a scholar; and for some time chancellor of one of
our most famous universities, as I have been credibly informed,
attended on the sermons, and countenanced the ministerial labours
of our Reverend author; when, by reason of his being unskilled in the
learned languages, and a few differences in lesser matters (as will
always be the case in this mixed state of things) he was lightly
esteemed by some of less enlarged sentiments. But this, I must own,
more particularly endears Mr. Bunyan to my heart; he was of a
catholic spirit, the want of water adult baptism with this man of God,
was no bar to outward christian communion. And I am persuaded,
that if, like him, we were more deeply and experimentally baptized
into the benign and gracious influences of the blessed Spirit, we
should be less baptized into the waters of strife, about
circumstantials and non-essentials. For being thereby rooted and
grounded in the love of God, we should necessarily be constrained
to think, and let think, bear with and forbear one another in love; and
without saying “I am of Paul, Apollos, or Cephas,” have but one
grand, laudable, disinterested strife, namely, who should live, preach
and exalt the ever-loving, altogether lovely Jesus most. That these
volumes may be blest to beget, promote and increase such divine
fruits of real and undefiled religion in the hearts, lips and lives of
readers, of all ranks and denominations, is the earnest prayer of,

Christian reader,
Thy soul’s well-wisher in our common Lord,

George Whitefield.

London, January 3, 1767.

 A

L E T T ER
TO THE

Reverend Dr. D U R E L L,

Vice-Chancellor of the University of

Oxford.
OCCASIONED BY

A late EXPULSION of Six Students from

Edmund-Hall.
Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?

Luke xii. 57.

Judge righteous judgment.

John vii. 24.

L E T T ER
TO THE
 Reverend Dr. D u r e l l.
London, April 12, 1768.

Reverend Sir,

Y OU being a Master of Israel, and placed at the head of one of

the most renowned seats of learning in the world, need not be
informed, that the mission of the Holy Ghost is the one grand
promise of the new, as the coming of Jesus Christ was the great
promise of the Old Testament dispensation. “I will pray the Father,
(says our blessed Lord to his almost disconsolate Disciples) and he
shall give you another Comforter.” And again, “It is expedient for you,
that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto
you; but if I depart (it being the purchase of his all-atoning blood, and
designed to be the immediate fruit and proof of the reality of his
resurrection, and subsequent ascension into heaven) I will send him
unto you.” And that they might know, that this Comforter was not to
be confined to, or monopolized by them, but was to be of standing
general use, he immediately gives them intimations of the design
and nature of his office; and therefore adds, “and when he is come,
he will convince the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of
judgment.”

A strange, and till then unheard of, promise, this! Such as a

Confucius, Zoroaster, or any other fictitious uninspired prophet or
lawgiver never dreamt of. A promise, which none but one, who was
God over all, could dare to make; a promise, which none but one,
who was God over all, could possibly fulfil.

Agreeable to this promise, he having ascended up on high, led

captivity captive, and received this gift for men, the divine Paraclete,
this Holy Ghost, “on the day of Pentecost, came down from heaven
like a rushing mighty wind; and there appeared cloven tongues, like
as of fire, and sat upon each of the Apostles.” The effects were
immediate and visible; poor, illiterate fishermen, instantaneously
commenced scholars, preachers, orators. And well they might; for,
being filled with the Holy Ghost, as the Spirit gave them utterance,
they began to speak with other tongues the wonderful things of God.

But what was all this divine apparatus, this divine preaching, this
divine oratory intended for? The following verses inform us: the
hearers of those wonderful things, the spectators of this
transcendently amazing scene, “were pricked to the heart, and were
made to cry out, Men and brethren, what shall we do? And the same
day were added to this infant church about three thousand souls.”
Here were proofs, substantial, incontestable proofs, of the reality of
the resurrection and ascension, and likewise of the efficacy of the all-
powerful intercession of their once crucified, but now exalted Lord;
not only substantial and incontestable, but at the same time entirely
suitable to the nature of his mission, who in the days of his flesh, by
his doctrines and miracles declared, that his only design in coming
into our world, was to save sinners.

Upon this rock, namely, “an experimental manifestation and

application of his divinity to the renewed heart,” (which flesh and
blood, human reason, vain philosophy, moral suasion, or any, or all
barely external evidence whatsoever, cannot reveal) hath he built,
doth he now build, and will continue to build his church; and
therefore it is, that the gates, neither the power nor policy of hell,
shall ever be able to prevail against it. By the influence of this
almighty Agent, hath he promised to be with his ministers and
people, even to the end of the world. And agreeable to this, hath
taught us daily to pray, that his kingdom may come; which being to
be begun, carried on and completed, by one continued emanation of
divine influence communicated to believers in the use of all
appointed means, can alone enable us to do God’s will on earth,
with any degree of that unanimity, chearfulness, universality and
perseverance, as it is done by the holy Angels above. And as this is
the daily united prayer of the whole catholic church, however
distressed or dispersed, and however varying as to circumstantials
and non-essentials, over the whole earth; it followeth, that every
addition of any individual monument of divine mercy, out of every
nation, language, or tongue, must be looked upon in part, as an
answer to the daily prayer of every individual believer under heaven.

Hence, no doubt, it is, that as the angels are sent forth to be

ministring spirits, to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation,
that there is said to be “joy in heaven over every sinner that
repenteth.” And as there is joy in heaven, so in proportion as men
rise into the nature of angels, will there be joy also upon the same
account amongst good men on earth. Accordingly, the lively oracles
inform us, that “when the Apostles and Brethren which were in Judea
heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God, they
glorified him, saying, then hath God also to the Gentiles granted
repentance unto life.”

And conformably to this, we are told, that “when Barnabas came

to Antioch, and saw the grace of God, he was glad.” And why?
Because he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith.
And as the same cause will always be productive of the same effect,
persons endued with the same benign and godlike disposition with
this good man, will always be glad when they see or hear of any
scriptural marks, or practical evidences of true and undefiled religion,
wrought in, or appearing upon any subject of divine grace
whatsoever. And this joy must necessarily rise, in proportion as such
subjects, either by their abilities, or circumstances, and situation in
life, promise more important and extensive usefulness in the world
and church of God.

No wonder therefore, reverend Sir, that it hath gladdened the

hearts of many, and afforded matter of uncommon joy and
thanksgiving to the Father of mercies and God of all consolation, to
hear, that for some time past there hath been a more than common
religious concern and zeal for promoting their own and others
salvation, among some of the sons of the Prophets. What a pleasing
prospect hath hereby been opened of a future blessing to the rising
generation! A blessing, which we well hoped, would be not less
salutary and beneficial to the moral, than the new cruse of salt was
to part of the natural world, which the Prophet Elisha, when
complaint was made that the water was naught and the ground
barren, cast into the spring of waters, with a “thus saith the Lord,
there shall not be from thence, any more dearth or barren land: so
the waters were healed unto this day.”

But alas! how is this general joy damped, and the pleasing
prospect almost totally eclipsed, by a late melancholy scene
exhibited in that very place, from whence, as from a fountain, many
of their preachers frequently and expresly pray, that pure streams
may for ever flow, to water the city of the living God? You need not
be told, reverend Sir, what place I mean: it was the famous university
of Oxford. Nor need I mention the scene exhibited; it was a tribunal,
a visitatorial tribunal, erected in Edmund-Hall; six pious students,
who promised to be the salt of the earth, and lights of the world,
entire friends to the doctrines and liturgy of our church, by a citation
previously fixed upon the college door, were summoned to appear
before this tribunal. They did appear; and, as some were pleased to
term it, were tried, convicted, and to close the scene, in the chapel of
the same hall, consecrated and set apart for nobler purposes, had
the sentence of expulsion publicly read and pronounced against
them.

So severe a sentence, in an age when almost every kind of

proper discipline is held with so lax a rein, hath naturally excited a
curiosity in all that have heard of it, to inquire, of what notable crime
these delinquents may have been guilty, to deserve such
uncommonly rigorous treatment. But how will their curiosity be
turned into indignation, when they are told, that they were thus
rigorously handled for doing no evil at all, and that “no fault could be
found in them, save in the law of their God?”

It is true indeed, one article of impeachment was, “that some of

them were of trades before they entered into the university.” But
what evil or crime worthy of expulsion can there be in that? To be
called from any, though the meanest mechanic employ, to the study
of the liberal arts, where a natural genius hath been given, was
never yet looked upon as a reproach to, or diminution of, any great
and public character whatsoever. Profane history affords us a variety
of examples of the greatest heroes, who have been fetched even
from the plough, to command armies, and who performed the
greatest exploits for their country’s good. And if we examine sacred
history, we shall find, that even David, after he was anointed king,
looked back with sweet complacence to the rock from whence he
was hewn, and is not ashamed to leave it upon record, that “God
took him away from the sheep-folds, as he was following the ewes
great with young ones;” and as though he loved to repeat it, “he took
him, (says he) that he might feed Jacob his people, and Israel his
inheritance.”

But why speak I of David? When Jesus of Nazareth, David’s

Lord, and David’s King, had for his reputed father a carpenter, and
in all probability, as it was a common proverb among the Jews, that
“he who did not teach his son a trade, taught him to be a thief;” he
worked at the trade of a carpenter himself? For this, indeed, he was
reproached and maligned; “Is not this, said they, the carpenter’s
son? Nay, is not this the carpenter?” But who were those maligners?
The greatest enemies to the power of godliness which the world ever
saw, the Scribes and Pharisees; that “generation of vipers,” as John
the Baptist calls them, who upon every occasion were spitting out
their venom, and shooting forth their arrows, even bitter words,
against that Son of man, even that Son of God, who, to display his
sovereignty, and confound the wisdom of the worldly wise, chose
poor fishermen to be his Apostles; and whose chief of the Apostles,
though bred up at the feet of Gamaliel, both before and after his call
to the apostleship, laboured with his own hands, and worked at the
trade of a tent-maker.

If from such exalted and more distant, we descend to more

modern and inferior characters, we shall find, that very late, not to
say our present times, furnish us with instances of some, even of our
dignitaries, who have been called from trades that tended to help
and feed the body, not only to higher employs of a spiritual nature,
but even to preside over those that are entrusted with the cure of
souls. And who knows but some of these young students, though
originally mechanics, if they had been suffered to have pursued their
studies, might have either climbed after them to some preferment in
the church, or been advanced to some office in that university from
which they are now expelled? One of the present reverend and
worthy Proctors, we are told, was formerly a Lieutenant in the army;
and as such a military employ was no impediment to his being a
minister or Proctor, it may be presumed, that being formerly of trades
could have been no just impediment to these young men becoming,
in process of time, true gospel ministers and good soldiers of Jesus
Christ.

Their being accustomed to prayer, whether with or without a form,

I humbly apprehend, would by no means disqualify them for the
private or public discharge of any part of their ministerial function. “In
that day, that gospel-day, (these last days wherein we live) saith the
great God, I will pour out a Spirit of grace and a Spirit of supplication
upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”
And the Apostle Paul speaks of it as the common privilege of all
believers, that “the Holy Spirit helps their infirmities, and maketh
intercession for them with groanings which cannot be uttered.”
Forms of prayer, certainly, have their use; and take it altogether, our
English liturgy is, without doubt, one of the most excellent
established forms of public prayer in the world: but then, as no form,
in the very nature of the thing, can possibly suit every particular
case, it is to be feared that many must never pray, at least for the
particular things they most stand in need of, if they are so to be tied
up to their forms, that they cannot vary from them, or use free prayer
at all.

The great Bishop Wilkins therefore wisely wrote an excellent

treatise on the benefit and importance of this kind of prayer: and
could our university-youth be trained up to use proper extempore
prayer, both before and after sermon; in the opinion of all good
judges, it would be as commendable, as that strange custom of
putting off our auditories with what is called the bidding prayer; in
which there is not one petition for a blessing upon the following
sermon, and scarce any thing mentioned, but what hath been prayed
for over and over again, in the preceding common service of our
church.

But supposing such liberty should be denied in public, as,

blessed be God it is not, surely we may be allowed, at least it cannot
be deemed sinful, to use free prayer in our secret, or private social
exercises of devotion. If so, what sinners, what great sinners must
they have been, who prayed, and that too out of necessity, in an
extempore way, before any forms of prayer were or could be printed
or heard of? The prayers we read of in scripture, the prayers which
opened and shut heaven, the effectual, fervent, energetic prayers of
those righteous and holy men of old, which availed so much with
God, were all of an extempore nature. And I am apt to believe, if not
only our students and ministers, but private christians, were born
from above, and taught of God, as those wrestlers with God were,
they would not want forms of prayer, though we have such a variety
of them, any more than they did.

The sick, the lame, the blind, the lepers that came to our Lord
for healing, wanted no book to teach them how to express their
wants. Though some were only poor beggars, and others, as the
self-righteous Scribes and Pharisees superciliously chose to term
them, “Gentile dogs,” yet, conscious of their wants, and having a
heart-felt sense of their distress, “out of the abundance of their
hearts their mouths spake;” and the compassionate Emmanuel, who
came to heal our sicknesses and bear our infirmities, sent them
away with a “Go in peace, thy faith hath made thee whole: be it unto
thee even as thou wilt.”

How unlike, yea how very unlike such a blessed dismission, is

the treatment these young students have lately met with at Edmund-
Hall? who, amongst other crimes of a like nature, were expelled for
using extempore prayer. A crime not so much as mentioned in any of
our law-books; a crime, for which, in this last century at least, no one
hath ever been called to the bar of any public court of judicature; and
a crime, for which, it is to be hoped, no student will ever hereafter be
summoned to appear and hear himself expelled, at the bar of any of
the reverend Doctors of divinity, or heads of houses in the university
of Oxford. But should any be so infatuated as to determine, Jehu-
like, to drive on thus furiously; as judgment hath unhappily begun, as
it were, at the very house of God, it is to be hoped, that as some
have been expelled for extempore praying, we shall hear of some
few others of a contrary stamp, being expelled for extempore
swearing, which by all impartial judges must undoubtedly be
acknowledged to be the greater crime of the two.

Singing, composing, or reading hymns composed by others, and

doing this in company, seems to be as little criminal, as praying
extempore. When the last words of David are about to be recorded,
he is not only stiled, “the son of Jesse, the man who was raised up
on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob,” but the grand title of
being “the sweet Psalmist of Israel,” brings up the rear. And “to teach
and admonish one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual
songs,” is as truly a scriptural command, as “thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
strength, and thy neighbour as thyself.”

When Elisha the Prophet was about to prophesy before two

kings, he called for a minstrel, on which he played, to sooth his
ruffled passions, and prepare his heart the better for the reception of
the Holy Spirit. And were the sons of the Prophets more frequently to
entertain themselves thus, I believe it would be as suitable to the
ministerial character, and recommend them as much, perhaps more,
to all serious christians, than their tripping up their heels, skipping
and dancing at the music of a ball-room, or playing even a first fiddle
at a concert. And was the voice of spiritual melody more frequently
heard by those who come occasionally to visit our colleges, it might
be as much to the honour of the university, as the more common and
too, too frequent noise of box and dice, at the unlawful games of
hazard and back-gammon.

Popish countries, popish seminaries, think it no shame, no

disgrace to be heard singing the high praises of their God in their
convents, their houses, or even in their streets; and why protestants
in general, and protestant students in particular, should be any more
ashamed of, or restrained from the free exercise of such acts of
devotion, either alone, or in private societies, no good reason can be
given; unless it be proved to be good reasoning to assert, that
“Protestants ought to be less devout than Papists.” We must
confess, that Papists, though they take this liberty of singing and
chanting privately and publicly themselves, yet deny this liberty of
conscience to our protestant assemblies; those attending divine
worship at our ambassadors chapels not excepted. But for
Protestants to disuse it themselves, and at the same time lay as it
were a spiritual embargo upon their fellow Protestants, nay punish
and expel them for so doing, is very unaccountable.

What spirit then must those be of, Reverend Sir, who have lately
joined in pronouncing the sentence of expulsion against six religious
students, not only for having been of trades, and praying extempore,
but for reading and singing hymns also? His Royal Highness the late
Duke of Cumberland, was of a very different disposition, for when
abroad in Germany, in one of our late wars, (as I was informed by a
person then on guard) hearing one evening, as he was passing by, a
company of soldiers singing at some little distance in a cave, he
asked the centinel what noise that was; and being answered, that
some devout soldiers were singing hymns; instead of citing them to
appear before their officers, ordering them to the whipping post, or
commanding them to be drummed out of the regiment; acting like
himself, he only pleasingly replied, “Are they so? Let them go on
then, and be as merry ♦as they can.” In this he acted wisely; for he
knew, and found by repeated experience, as did other commanding
officers, that singing, nay, and praying extempore too, in these
private societies, did not hinder, but rather fitted and animated these
devout soldiers to engage, and to fight their country’s battles in the
field. And it may be presumed, that if these students had not been
expelled for singing hymns, and praying extempore, they certainly
would not have been less, but in all probability much better prepared
for handling the sword of the Spirit, the word of God, and fighting
therewith, either from the press or the pulpit, the battles of the Lord
of hosts.
 ♦ removed duplicate word “as”

To see or hear such divine exercises treated with reproach, and

spoken of with contempt by common and open blasphemers, is bad;
but that any who came on purpose to be trained up for the sacred
work of the ministry, should be looked on as criminal, and expelled
♦at university for being sometimes employed in them, is too sad a
proof, not only that “our gold is become dim, and our fine gold
changed, but that our very foundations are out of course.” What then
must the righteous do?

♦ “an” replaced with “at”

What indeed, but weep and lament! And weep and lament indeed
they must, especially when they hear further, that meeting in a
religious society, giving a word of exhortation, or expounding and
commenting a little now and then upon some portion of scripture, are
not the least of the accusations for which some of these young
worthies had the sentence of expulsion pronounced against them.

It is recorded in the Old Testament, that in a degenerate age,

“those that feared the Lord spake often one to another; that the
Lord hearkened and heard, and that a book of remembrance was
written before him for those that feared the Lord, and thought on his
name: and they shall be mine in that day, saith the Lord, when I
make up my jewels; and I will spare them as a man spareth his own
son that serveth him.” Thus it was in the Old Testament times. Nor
are such meetings mentioned with less approbation in the new: for
therein, in order that we may hold the profession of our faith without
wavering, we are commanded to “consider one another, to provoke
unto love and to good works; not forsaking the assembling ourselves
together, but exhorting one another, and so much the more, as we
see the day approaching.” Nay, one immediate consequence of that
grand effusion of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, we are
told, was this, that “they who gladly received the word, and were
baptized, continued stedfast in the Apostles doctrine, in fellowship, in
breaking of bread, and in prayer.” This is a short, but withal a full and
blessed account of the first truly apostolic primitive church; and we
may venture to affirm, that as we are more or less partakers of a true
apostolic primitive spirit, such kind of religious, fellowship-meetings,
will in proportion increase or decrease among us. To talk therefore,
or write, or preach against, or by private persuasion or open violence
to oppose, or endeavour to suppress, and discountenance such kind
of religious societies, is flying, as it were, in the very face of the
scriptures of truth, and of the Holy Ghost himself.

In all charters granted by the crown, wherein authority is given to

bodies corporate to enact laws, it is always with this limitation, “that
no laws shall be enacted by such bodies corporate, contrary to the
laws of the realm.” And as the scriptures are our grand Codex
Legum and Magna Charta, in respect to our religious principles and
practices; what affront must we put upon our country in general, and
the church of England in particular, even by barely imagining, that
any law now exists which prohibits her members from frequenting
such societies as have the divine authority and superscription, so
apparently stamped upon them?

The private meetings that are in any wise deemed and

denounced illegal, are such, and such only, as are seditious, and
composed of seditious persons; who associate, indeed under a
pretence of religion, but in reality to plot against the state. The
sooner any that can be convicted of this, are made to forsake the
assembling themselves together, the better; and though composed
of a threefold, three hundred fold, nay a three thousand fold cord, no
matter if, like the cords wherewith the Philistines bound Sampson,
they were immediately broken. But as nothing of this nature can with
the least shadow of truth be objected against the meetings and
societies frequented by these students, but quite the contrary urged
in their favour; if scripture and the practice of the primitive christians
are to be our guides, they ought not only to be permitted, but be
countenanced and encouraged by every true lover of our church and
nation.
 And supposing, that in any such religious society one of them
should venture now and then to drop a word of exhortation, or even
attempt in a small degree to open, expound, or enlarge upon some
practical text of scripture, how can even this be looked upon as
illegal, much less sinful, or worthy of expulsion? when, I could almost
say, it is a necessary preparation for the future service of the
sanctuary. To be “apt to teach,” is one indispensable qualification
required by scripture in a Bishop and Presbyter. But how can this
aptness or an habit of teaching be acquired, without the exercise of
previous acts? Or what business is there in the world, even from the
lowest mechanic, to the highest profession amongst us, (except that
of divinity) wherein pupils, clerks, nay common apprentices, are not
by previous exercises trained up for a complete proficiency in their
respective callings and occupations?

Our all-wise Master, we know, sent his Disciples on short

excursions, before he gave them the more extensive commission to
go into all the world: and were our students in general, under proper
limitations, to be thus exercised and employed, while they are
keeping terms at the university, or among their poor neighbours in
the country, when they return home in time of vacation, they would
not turn out such meer novices, or make such awkward figures, as
too many raw creatures do, when they make their first appearance in
the pulpit. I remember, above thirty years ago, after some young
students had been visiting the sick and imprisoned, and had been
giving a word of exhortation in a private house, that upon meeting
the ordinary and minister of the parish in their return to college, they
frankly told him what they had been doing; upon which, he turned to
them, and said, “God bless you; I wish we had more such young
curates.” A milder, and therefore a more christian sentence this, than
that of a late expulsion for the very same supposed crimes and
misdemeanors.

As for the reports of these young students being accused or

condemned, for barely being acquainted with, or the occasional
visitors of some of the most laborious, pains-taking, worthy parish-
ministers in England, it is almost altogether incredible. And yet the
standers-by, as well as the supposed culprits themselves, we are
informed, aver this to be real matter of fact: attended with this
melancholy aggravation, that they were hissed at, pushed about, and
treated in a manner that the vilest criminal is not allowed to be
treated, either at the Old-Baily, or any court of justice in the kingdom.
We are likewise told, that a copy of their indictment was asked for,
but denied them; and not only so, but that one, from whose polite
behaviour in the worldly walk, better things might have been
expected, was heard to say, as he came out of chapel, to their grand
accuser, after sentence of expulsion was pronounced, that “he would
have the thanks of the whole university for that day’s work.”

Pudet hæc opprobria nobis

Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli.

What thanks, reverend Sir, he may meet with from the whole
university, I know not; but one thing I know, that he will receive no
thanks for that day’s work from the innumerable company of angels,
the general assembly of the first-born, which are written in heaven,
or from God the judge of all, in that day when Jesus, the Mediator of
the new covenant shall come in his own glory, in the glory of the
Father, and his holy angels, and gather in his elect from all the four
corners of the world.

But, reverend Sir, may we not presume to hope, that this

voluntary speaker for the whole university, whoever he be, it maketh
no matter to me, was somewhat out, and mistaken in his calculation.
For it seems, not above three or four doctors, if so many, were
present, at least sat as judges at this extraordinary tribunal. The
worthy Provost of Queen’s (and undoubtedly many other worthy
heads of houses were and are like-minded) was for prescribing more
lenient methods; and all are glad to hear, that these young students
worthy principal, who must necessarily be supposed to be the best
judge of their principles, practices, and qualifications, boldly stood up
in their defence, asserted their innocence, confronted their accusers,
and brought in books to vindicate both their principles and conduct.
But how this worthy principal, as well as the pupils, were treated, is
best known to those who had an active hand in all.

However, as the Holy Ghost hath left it upon record, to the

honour of Nicodemus, that he stood up in defence of our Lord
before the whole Jewish sanhedrim, and was not consenting to his
death; so wherever this act of expulsion is recorded (and recorded it
will be, even to latest posterity) it will be mentioned to the honour of
Doctor Dixon, (and for acting thus he will have the thanks of all
moderate, serious, sober-minded christians in the three kingdoms)
that he had no hand in, but did all he possibly could to prevent these
young mens expulsion. An expulsion for articles of impeachment to
which indeed the accused pleaded guilty; but for articles which
(wherever hereafter they may be called to minister in holy things) will
be their best testimonial; and their expulsion for holding and
confessing those articles, the strongest letters of recommendation.

How these young worthies are now to be disposed of, or how

they will dispose of themselves, as it was not so much as hinted that
they had the least connection with me, is not my business to inquire.
But surely such an expulsion as this, cannot deter them from
pursuing their preparations for their ministerial calling: friends they
cannot want, because “he is faithful who hath promised, that
whosoever forsaketh father or mother, houses or lands, for his sake
or the gospel’s, he shall have an hundred fold in this life, with
persecution, and in the world to come life everlasting.” But if any act
so dastardly, as to make unscriptural concessions, or be terrified by
unscriptural, and therefore mere bruta fulmina, if they were of trades
before, the sooner they return again to their trades the better: for it is
to be feared, such cowards would only make a trade of the ministry if
they were admitted into the church, and the fewer of such kind of
tradesmen our church is troubled with, the safer she will be.

But what a mercy is it, reverend Sir, that we live under a free
government, under a King whose royal grandfather repeatedly
declared (and he was as good as his word through a long and
glorious reign) that there should be no persecution in his time; under
a King who in his first most gracious and never to be forgotten
speech from the throne, gave his people the strongest assurances
“that it was his fixt purpose, as the best means to draw down the
divine favour on his reign, to countenance and encourage the
practice of true religion and virtue, and maintain the toleration
inviolable.”

That both students and common people will be in danger of being

tempted by such violent proceedings, to put themselves under the
act of toleration, may easily be foreseen: and it may as easily be
guessed, how such treatment will necessarily discourage serious
people from sending their sons to the university, at least to the
university of Oxford; and at the same time will furnish them with a
new argument for entering their youth in some of our dissenting
academies, where they will be in no danger, it is presumed, of being
expelled for singing hymns, speaking a little now and then in a
religious society, or using extempore prayer.

Alas! alas! in what a disadvantageous point of light, must all

concerned in such an extraordinary stretch of university-discipline
stand, among all foreign universities whatsoever? In what point of
light it will be viewed by our ecclesiastical superiors at home, a very
little time will discover. Nay, it is to be feared, the discovery is made
already: for by a letter dated so lately as March 29, it appears that a
certain venerable society “on account of some circumstances that
have lately happened (probably the circumstances of a late
expulsion) are under a necessity of coming to a resolution, to accept
of no recommendation for persons to go abroad as missionaries, but
such as have had a literary education, and have been bred up with a
design to dedicate themselves to the ministry.” This resolution seems
to be taken, in order the better to prevent any of these cast-outs, or
any other laymen, however otherwise well qualified and
recommended, from applying to the society for holy orders, that they
may be employed and sent abroad as missionaries. But to what a
sad dilemma will many serious persons be hereby reduced? They
must not, by such resolutions it seems, be allowed to be lay-
preachers, and yet if sent by their friends to the university to pursue
their studies, in order that they may be regularly and episcopally
ordained, if they sing hymns, pray extempore, or give a word of
exhortation in a religious society, though entirely made up of the
members of the established church, they must be ipso facto expelled
for so doing. O tempora! O mores! If matters proceed in this channel,
of what stamp, Reverend Sir, may we not suppose, our future
missionaries to the islands and continent will be? To my certain
knowledge, all of them are not looked upon as very burning and
shining lights already. But if what little light of true religion some may
have, is to be thus damped by acts of expulsion before they leave
the university, and even this little light, as far as lies in the power of
man, is to be thus turned into total darkness, how great must that
darkness be! Surely it must be worse than Egyptian darkness; a
darkness that will be most deplorably felt by all true lovers of our
common salvation both at home and abroad.

You need not be apprized, Reverend Sir, that a design for the
establishment of episcopacy in our islands and plantations, hath
been long upon the tapis; and that it hath been, in part at least, the
subject of annual sermons for several years last past. No longer ago
than in the year 1766, the present Bishop of Landaff insisted upon
the necessity and expediency of it in the most explicit manner; nay,
his Lordship carries the matter so far, as to assure us that this point,
the establishment of episcopacy, being obtained, “the American
church will go out of its infant state; be able to stand upon its own
legs, and without foreign help support and spread itself: and then this
society will have been brought to the happy issue intended.”
Whether these assertions of his Lordship, when weighed in a proper
balance, will not in some degree be found wanting, is not for me to
determine. But supposing the reasoning to be just, and his
Lordship’s assertions true, then I fear it will follow, that a society,
which since its first institution hath been looked upon as a society for
propagating the Gospel, hath been all the while rather a society for
propagating Episcopacy in foreign parts: and if so, and if it ever
should appear, that our Right Reverend Archbishops and Bishops do
in the least countenance and encourage the unscriptural
proceedings at Edmund-Hall, how must it increase the prejudices of
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

textbookfull.com