Page images
PDF
EPUB

we should all very soon become much more closely united.

The first defect which Constant Reader discusses in my argument, he states thus :

1. "The Reviewer assumes, that whatever renders a person an improper subject for admission to a church, renders him a proper subject for excommunication. And the reason which is assigned why this principle is false, is, that to refuse admission to a church would not injure a man's standing in society, whilst exclusion would pro

that refusal would be considered a
"sufficient cause for church disci-
pline, and if it were persisted in,
of exclusion," p. 409. In fairness
it ought to be stated, that there
has probably been no case in New-
England, at least for many years
past, of a member being disciplined
for refusing to baptize his children,
where he was restrained by con-
scientious scruples. Such scruples
might be a sufficient reason for re-
fusing to admit to membership;
but neither they, nor their conse-
quences, have been thought suffi-
cient to authorize exclusion. Un-bably ruin" him.
less I mistake, the Reviewer has
not uniformly regarded quite e-
nough the actual practice of his
Podobaptist brethren.

The above is all I have to say respecting the defects of this very interesting article. But I cannot help desiring, that, if the Reviewer takes up the subject again, he will shew that baptism is an essential prerequisite to partaking of the Lord's supper, (if such is the fact;) and, also, that we are not at all inconsistent in admitting our Poedobaptist brethren into our pulpits. I love the practice, however, so much, that if it were inconsistent, I would have it continued.

A Constant Reader.

[blocks in formation]

His

I must confess this reason has not at all altered my opinion, and I question much whether it will that of your readers. Certain qualifications entitle a man to membership in a church. right to membership depends upon his possessing them. If he possess them not, he has no right to membership, and of course neither to admission to nor continuance in a church. These qualifications cannot be varied at pleasure. They are as immutable as any laws of Christ. None of the relations which exist among men can in the least affect them. This point, I am aware, might be argued at greater length; but I apprehend that this simple statement will be sufficient to put the question of abstract right wholly beyond dispute.

But your correspondent will ask, Are there not many persons in all our churches of such equivocal religious character, that had they not given more evidence of piety before their admission, they would not have been received into the church. And if it be asked again, why are they not excluded? We answer, because we have no means of ascertaining their present condition. candidate is proposed to a church, he makes a declaration of his present moral feeling. An opportunity is then offered for admission or

When a

rejection. But such opportunity || sertion on which it rests. It sup

does not occur after admission. Whenever any outward conduct brings the moral condition of a member a second time before a church, we presume the same rule is adopted as in the case of admission. It seems, then, that the reason why equivocal members are continued in a church, is, that from the fallibility of human judgment, no opportunity is afforded for deciding upon them a second time, unless for some moral deviation, and that as soon as an opportunity offers, we always act upon the same principles. I will go farther, and state, that if, without any outward moral deviation, a member of a church should make such a declaration of his religious views as I would have barred him from admission, they would be fully justified in suspending or excluding him, after proper efforts had been made to reclaim him.

And here permit me to add, I cannot but believe the course which is so generally adopted by our churches of both denominations to be exceedingly judicious. At any rate I can conceive of none other which the present fallible condition of human nature would justify. The practice is precisely in accordance with the well known rule of charity and good sense, to retain an opinion concerning another which is founded on facts, until other facts oblige you to alter it. Should it therefore be insisted on that we use more lenity towards those within than to those without the church, this rule, in cases where no vicious conduct can be proved, would evidently justify it. The evidence of religion which a member gave at the time of his admission, offers a very marked distinction between him and one of whom we never had this evidence.

poses that a man's character is affected by the simple act of exclusion. Instances in abundance could be mentioned to show, that this is not the fact. The loss of character depends wholly on the cause for which the exclusion takes place. If it be immorality, the same effect is produced as would be produced in any other case when impartial judges found a inan guilty.

If the cause were worldly mindedness or doctrinal error, and he remained unstained by immorality, his character would remain precisely as before. I presume the recollection of your Constant Reader, or of any other of your readers, will furnish them with abundant instances to show that I am correct.

But were the assertion true, it would not be sufficient to overturn the argument. A church is a voluntary association. Every one who joins it knows that he is, and believes that he ought to be, liable to discipline as soon as he fails to exhibit evidences of Christian character. There is therefore no hardship in acting upon the principle to which he voluntarily assented, and by which he submitted to be governed. But were there ever so great hardship in the case, still we must do what is right. We hesitate not to say, that after gospel measures to reclaim him have been used, any member is liable to church discipline, who gives his brethren reason to believe that he is really and truly unworthy of the privileges of membership. Let it affect his standing as it will, this cannot be helped. A church would be worth little, which was kept together because a profession of the name of Christ was necessary to support the tottering character of its members.

I will add a word or two on the Your correspondent's second obreason by which your correspond-jection is as follows. 2. "The ent supports his objection. And Reviewer assumes, that whatever first, I doubt the truth of the as-renders it proper to refuse admis

sion to a church, renders it proper || partakers in his sin, and assume to withdraw occasional commun- to ourselves the responsibility of ion." He allows that my argu-dispensing with a positive enactment is sufficient to silence our ment of our Supreme Lawgiver. Podobaptist brethren; that it is a If we do this in one case, we may fair application of the argumentum do it in another. If we dispense ad hominem. That is, he allows with obedience to one commandthat I have shown our practice on ment, we may upon the same printhis subject to be perfectly in ac- ciple dispense with obedience to cordance with the principles adopt- the whole code, and thus place ed in the standard works of our ourselves in the attitude of lawPodobaptist brethren. He allows, givers rather than of subjects." then, what I have asserted in the Review, that we stand in this respect precisely upon the ground of all other Protestant churches. If this be the case, it was what I wished to show, and I certainly am not obliged to show any farther. It does not devolve upon me any more than upon any one else, to defend a practice or a principle common to all. Nor does it become others who admit the prin-ion, is, to testify our disapprobaciple, and in general practise upon it, to blame us for following their example.

But though not actually obliged to do so from the state of the question, I did really attempt to go farther, and to show that this so general practice of churches of different denominations, was necessary from the fact of diversity of opinion, and justified on the ground of conscience. If your correspondent will read again, pp. 406, 407, he will see the reasoning by which we defended the practice, and which seems some how or other to have escaped him. Allow me to quote a passage from p. 407, which embraces the leading idea of the argument. "Where Christ has left a positive rule, we have no right to infringe it. We must take it just as it is, and leave the consequences with him. All the means in our power for enforcing obedience to the commands of Christ, are the refusal of admission into a church, or the exclusion from it, of him who continues in a course of disobedience. If we do not take these means, we become JAN. 1825.

The justness of this principle in general, will not, we presume, be questioned. It is always admitted in cases of discipline for immorality or heresy. We presume even your Constant Reader will allow it to be true even on the "principles of sound common sense. 99 And if it be asked how it shall be applied to the case in question, we answer, what we mean by close commun

tion of an institution which we conceive to have no warrant in the word of God, and which we believe to have produced incalculable evil in the church of Christ, and also to maintain, in so far as it is within our power, obedience to what we consider a command of Christ. I beg that your correspondent will show me, if either the principle be incorrect, or our application of it unjustifiable.

But it is asked, why may we not admit of occasional communion ? This question I must confess sounds rather oddly. It is like saying, Granting you are right, I pray you go a little wrong; or like admitting the principle to be correct, and then asking us to deviate from it in practice. If we have any conscientious difficulty in the case, it is the same in one instance as in a hundred. If we have none, we might as well abolish the practice altogether. And in a word, the distinction so frequently urged between occasional and constant open communion, seems to us altogether vain. What real communion could I have with a

3

church, which, to gratify me, would relinquish what they really considered a principle of obedience to Christ? And what fellowship could they have with me, who partook with them on such terms? We should reciprocally respect each other more, and love each other better, and enjoy more real communion in declining, than in partaking, of the Lord's supper on such terms. The figurative question with which your correspondent closes his second remark, I believe I understand. If I do, it literally means, why cannot churches of different belief commune together? As this is the very question which I have attempted to answer, I conceive no farther attention to it will be necessary:

[ocr errors]

3. The third remark of your correspondent is, a declaration that among Podobaptist churches in New England, the declining to offer up children in baptism is not considered a sufficient cause for church discipline. To this I would remark, that when I wrote, I was ignorant of the fact. I have since however been informed, that the cases are becoming numerous of members of congregational churches refusing to have their children baptized. But even granting this to be true, I presume the omission would be considered censurable, and an appeal would be made to such parents from the articles which they had professed to believe, and had promised to obey. It would in all ecclesiastical judicatures be allowed, that the articles and standards were correct. And hence what is appealed to for one purpose, may be also appealed to for another.

claim, or if I have supposed them more interested in the support of infant baptism than they really are, I rejoice to be corrected. The more widely their principles and practice on this subject differ, the better shall I be pleased; and when the practice of infant baptism shall have grown into utter desuetude, the great barrier will have been removed, which stands in the way of open communion.

A constant reader closes his letter by requesting, that I will show that baptism is a necessary prerequisite to communion. With regard to this request, I answer, If I have succeeded in showing, that any as great difference of opinion as that respecting the mode and subjects of baptism, must in the present imperfect state lead to close communion, his request is already complied with. It was partly the object of the Review to show, that this was one among many differences of sentiment, which must, until we all know our Lord's will better, divide conscientious Christians into different denominations, and confine them to separate communions.

As

I fear I have occupied your pages already too long; I will therefore hasten to conclude. For aught I can see, separate communion is one of the evils attending necessarily upon the present imperfect state of the church. the church advances in holiness, it will, I presume, be done away; but in what manner I cannot yet foresee. In the mean time, let us each one do all in our power to alleviate the unpleasant circumstances attending it; let us unite in every thing where we can do it conI remark again, where the arti- scientiously; and where we cannot, cles and practice of men disagree, let us separate with Christian charit is always considered most char-ity, and each one devoutly pray that itable to judge of them by the the time may come when we shall former. This I have done. If in all see eye to eye. If we do this, so doing, I have given those who we shall not certainly be very far differ from us praise for consist- asunder. I am, gentlemen, ency to which they resign the Yours truly, THE REVIEWER.

MISSIONARY INTELLIGENCE.

BURMAN MISSION.

To our minds it appears very probable, that the events which have recently transpired in Burmah will be for the furtherance of the gospel in that benighted empire.

OUR readers will be gratified to || usefulness. learn, that after waiting with much anxiety, we have at length received letters from the Missionaries who sailed from this port a year ago last June. Although they are of a date anterior to the attack of the British on Rangoon, yet they will be found interesting, as they exhibit the earnestness and determined resolution, with which, they were seeking to prepare themselves for mission-ed of the character and prospects ary service. of the Mission at the last date.

The letter from Dr. Judson at Ava, does not lead us to expect that the Emperor would grant them any particular marks of favour, should the enemy appear before the metropolis of the empire. Unless the inhabitants should be filled with the same consternation which was manifested at Rangoon, and which was so favourable to the safety and lives of our friends; the mildest act would probably be, an order that all Europeans and Americans should be banished from the country.

It would no doubt be presumption in us to predict what intelligence we shall next receive from this station. We may, however, derive consolation from a conviction that "the Lord reigneth," and that however dark and afflictive the dispensations of his providence may seem, "righteousness and judgment the habitation of his throne. 99 are The cause in which our Missionaries in Burmah are engaged, the degree of success which has already attended their labours, the translation of the New Testament into that language, and the deliverance || of the Missionaries at Rangoon from death, although they had executioners placed over them, induce the hope, that they will yet be spared for future and eminent

But perhaps we have detained our readers too long from the communications of our friends, and some other sources of information, from which some idea may be form

[blocks in formation]

I EMBRACE the first opportunity to inform you of our safe arrival in Rangoon,

which was on the fifth of the present

month. Our whole voyage from Boston to this place was peculiarly prosperous.

I need not attempt to describe the joy that Mr. and Mrs. Judson felt at meeting each other again in health, in this heathen land; nor our own feelings upon seeing this place, which we had so often prayed might be the scene of our future labours and sufferings in behalf of the heathen, whose deplorable condition had often drawn from our eyes the tear of Christian sympathy.

Mr. Judson, as you have already been informed, had determined to remove from this place to Ava, and only waited the arrival of Mrs. Judson for this purpose. Accordingly they left us on the 12th, just one week after our arrival. May the Lord make their way prosperous, and give them favour in the sight of the king.

Mr. Hough is employed in printing the New Testament, which was translated by Mr. Judson; but he labours under much inconvenience, and makes but slow progress for want of proper types.

« PreviousContinue »