Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

is one affirming the general principle, that our society should be esteemed a religious society and have a religious constitution. We proceed to apply it in two ways, first, by rendering the qualification for membership, connection with a contributing church; and secondly by entrusting the representatives of such churches with the management.

It may, perhaps, help towards a clear understanding of our intentions to print the rules as we propose they shall stand respecting "members," and the "general meeting." By a reference to the report our friends will be able to compare the effect of our proposed changes with the rules as they now stand. The rule for members according to our plan will read as follows:

[blocks in formation]

funds."

The rule respecting the general meeting will stand thus, reprinting the law with our proposed alterations :

"General meeting of representatives of the churches."

"A general meeting of representatives of the churches shall be held annually, at which the committee and officers shall be chosen for the ensuing year, the auditors of accounts appointed, and any other business pertaining to the society transacted. This meeting shall consist of representatives of all churches which shall have made a contribution towards the funds of the society during the past year. Not more than the pastor and two other representatives to be allowed to each church."

We are not altogether ignorant of the objections which may be brought against these changes, but regard any inconvenience to which they may subject us as more than counterbalanced by their advantages. Legal objections may be taken, but we believe them to be invalid. It may be said that the plan encourages centralization; it is not, however, more centralizing than the present constitution, and whilst it provides for central action, it neutralizes and destroys central government. It is admitted to be an inconvenience, that it will disfranchise many who are now contributors to the society, but are not members of contributing churches; but if the society is a Christian institution and for the spread of certain principles, it is a natural inference that it should be under the management of those who give to these principles their professed adherence. Any loss to the constituency resulting from this change will surely be amply compensated by the introduction of a large number of persons religiously qualified, who are now disfranchised, but who then as members of contributing churches will become members of the Baptist Missionary Society. The representative system may be thought

too cumbrous and costly for practical purposes. The number of contributing churches will not, however, so far exceed the present members of the society who are entitled to attend the general meeting as to render this an important objection, and the cost may be greatly diminished if churches at a distance think fit to appoint as their representatives persons residing near the place of meeting on whose judgment they can rely. There will be nothing under the amended regulations to prevent the meeting of representatives from being held as may be thought desirable in the country or London; or to preclude two or more churches from uniting as an auxiliary or district in the appointment of representatives. It is admitted that in religious societies the life which animates them is practically of but the latter whilst it is the expression of the more importance than the form they assume, former exerts upon it a beneficial or pernicious influence. The present plan is simple, interferes to a small extent with existing machinery, and is capable of varied application. We recommend it on mature deliberation to the churches, as identifying the society which they sustain with themselves, and enabling them by vigorous and systematic action to maintain, extend, and direct its operations. We remain, dear Sir, Your's truly,

E. S. PRYCE.
J. P. MURSELL.

BAPTIST BUILDING FUND.

To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine. MY DEAR SIR,-I am certain that you will with much pleasure grant the request of the Committee of the Baptist Building Fund, by inserting the gratifying intelligence that they have received from a lady the donation of £100, forwarded by the Rev. George Pope of Collingham. This benevolent gift arose, as he informs us, from her perusal of our last report, opening to her the gratification of a previous desire, "to do something permanent for the benefit of baptist chapels." We entreated her permission thus to mention the circumstance publicly, as an example and inducement to others to make similar deposits. Her money was immediately remitted by the treasurer to the next church upon the rotation list, at Westbury-on-Trym, and is secured as the conditions of the Loan Fund require, by the note of hand of four persons engaging to repay the whole by half-yearly instalments of £5 each.

Allow me to remark what should not escape observation, that by the simple process adopted for the dissemination of those loans and their gradual restoration to the common stock of the whole amount so leat, this single £100 will, during its progressive return form parts of loans to twenty other churches, and at the end of the ten years will, although di

vided, continue to be as at first an entirety of benefit. Now it has not only immediately paid off £100 of debt, but has, by the annihilation of interest, added £5 to the future annual amount of remuneration to the minister. And proceeding onwards it will in every future return and re-issue again repeat a like proportionate benefit to others, yet still remaining part of an undiminished source of blessing. Would, my dear sir, that many, very many persons may, as this Christian lady has done, under the influence of duty to God and his cause, bestow a living legacy, free from tax or mortmain, the advantages of which they may witness during life with a holy satisfaction, and leave as their lasting memorial when they shall worship in a temple not made with hands.

I am, my dear sir,

Very sincerely yours,
JOSEPH FLETCHER, Treasurer.

Union Dock, Limehouse,
February 18, 1850.

ON MINISTERIAL ATTENDANCE AT MIXED

MARRIAGES.

To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine. SIR,-In your number for January appeared a letter from a country pastor containing an inquiry to this effect, Shall I be committing sin by being present at the marriage of one of my members to an individual who gives no evidence of a change of heart. This inquiry has evoked two letters in your periodical for the month of February, one an affirmative, the other a negative, the preponderance then of evidence as far as it may influence the conduct of the pastor, in point of numbers, is neutral, and his mind may be as little satisfied as ever. I propose to examine the claims of the two letters, with a view to turn the scale either on one side or the other, and to investigate whether of the two will be the safest to take as a rule of action. It is possible this may be too late to have any effect in the present case, but assuming that it is not I call upon the country pastor to pause ere he commit an act, commendatory of a proceeding acknowledged by all parties to be fraught with mischief to the church of Christ.

It may be laid down as a maxim that the way to the truth is short and easy; if truth be the object sought, the God of truth has declared with respect to it, that whosoever should seek should find. To be acquainted with the truth and to act up to its dictates, are two very different things. It may be also asserted, that error decked in the garb of truth, supported by specious and fallacious reasoning, often has been and still is palmed upon easily deceived human nature as that high and holy principle of which she is the deally opponent. Such are the thoughts

suggested by considering the two letters in answer to the pastor's inquiry as stated at the outset. To descend a little to minutiae. The letter signed A Member of a Baptist Church is short and to the point; after briefly touching upon the evils arising from mixed marriages, he goes at once boldly to the issue and quoting the highest authority says, "Be not partaker of other men's sins."

Not so, however, Respondent. Suppose the course advised by this writer to be adopted, and what will be the result, 1st. Upon the mind of the Pastor himself. 2nd. Upon the minds of the parties interested. 3rd. Upon the minds of uninterested parties residing in the town or village. Upon the mind of the Pastor it must be painful in the extreme, he tells us he has faithfully and affectionately remonstrated with the party concerned; and great grief, doubtless, does arise in his heart to see one of the members of his flock thus wilfully breaking Christ's commands; but notwithstanding every warning the day arrives upon which the two unite themselves in indissoluble bonds, he receives and accepts an invitation to solemnize the marriage and become one of the guests, can he-dare he-ask the God of heaven to bless a union so contracted and celebrated in defiance of His prohibition and his own earnest protestation? I think not; if he can, the sooner he resigns his office as minister of the truth the better. Upon the parties themselves, secure under the patronage and countenance of their minister, they may, perhaps, go on in life without one thought of sorrow or compunction-the good man could not after all have meant what he said, or thought it so bad as he described. Upon the uninterested in the locality,-the sentiments of the pastor are sure to become known, and when he is found acting contrary to his declared opinion a bad impression invariably follows, his character for Christian consistency materially damaged, and the progress of the cause of Christ materially hindered. These remarks might be extended to a much greater length, and the contrast from an opposite course drawn, but that would occupy too much of your valuable space, and a word to the wise is enough.

I am, Sir, yours very truly,

MINIMUS.

To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine.

DEAR SIR,-This subject appears to me one of deep importance and deserving the most serious treatment of your correspondents. Without commenting upon the answers which appeared in your last number, I offer my own contribution to the discussion.

I take it for granted that it is contrary to the spirit of Christianity for a believer to unite himself in marriage to an unbeliever.

I assume also, and this reduces the question to its practical form, that the believing in

dividual is not prepared to affirm that his proposed partner is a decided Christian.

Now if it be reckoned improper for me to proceed with the marriage of parties who avow a fact which I believe to constitute, according to the law of England, "a lawful impediment " to such marriage, is it less plainly my duty to take no part in the celebration of a marriage which a fact, confessed or not disavowed by one of the parties, renders unlawful in the sight of God! The human law cannot be entitled to a more exact obedience than the divine law.

The only answer which I have heard made to this is, that the mere presenting of devotional services on the occasion of a marriage does not necessarily imply the sanction of it. This opinion partly arises from a misapprehension of the position of a minister in relation to marriages. The registrar and the clergyman are officers of government required to perform the ceremony whenever requested to do so in consistency with the law. They have no discretion. Their responsibility is limited by the terms of their office. No one, therefore, now thinks of attributing to them moral approval or disapproval in those matters. But the pastors of our churches act freely. They are under no obligation to perform such acts, and it is therefore naturally understood that when they do so they express their good-will to the parties, and their general approval of the union. But if it be denied that there is any positive sanction, I ask whether there be not, at least, a somewhat dangerous appearance of it? Supposing the pastor of a baptist church is invited to be present on the occasion of an infant being submitted to a certain ceremony, and that for the mere purpose of offering prayer and praise. Would it be advisable for him to comply? He might not intend either his presence or his prayers to be expressive of an approval of the service; but would not his conduct be equivocal and liable to be construed in such a manner as to be highly injurious in its consequences? Yet in this case the ceremony might be one arising out of solemn convictions of duty, while in the one under our attention, there would be an admitted departure from implicit divine injunctions. In the one instance he would be present at the commission of an error, in the other at the perpetration of a sin. If it is inexpedient to countenance the one, it is, in my humble judgment, something more to

countenance the other.

It must frequently be painful, doubtless, to a pastor, to act out these views. His refusal will often grieve his dearest friends at a time when they are peculiarly sensitive to public opinion. These consequences may be mitigated by having his views of duty clearly made known to his congregation before hand, but as Dr. Gutzlaff said the other day to our Mission Committee, "He who enlists as a

soldier makes no condition not to be wounded." Misapprehension and harsh judgments must be borne for a time, and cheerfully borne too, where interests so tremendous are at stake. I have reason to believe, from some enquiries on the subject, that at least one half of all the marriages contracted by members of our churches are "unequal," and that not one in a hundred of those who were non-professors at that time ever afterwards take their place at the Lord's table with their believing partners; while, on the contrary, the instances of abandonment of religious profession are distressingly numerous. It is surely demanded of every pastor to ascertain whether he is innocent in this matter.

Liverpool.

Your's most truly,

C. M. B.

EDITORIAL POSTSCRIPT. In a village about fifty miles from London, within a mile from a railway station, there is a place of worship free from debt in which a small congregation assembles, which desires a pastor, but is unable to do much towards his support. Mr. Carey Tyso of Wallingford will feel pleasure in affording the requisite information to any respectable baptist minister possessing independent resources, whose desire to do good may incline him to make inquiry respecting the sphere of usefulness which the locality affords.

The Rev. James Smith, acting under medical advice, has resigned his pastorate at New Park Street. He has no other sphere of labour in view, but it is thought that the air Midsummer is the time that he has fixed for of the metropolis does not suit his lungs. the cessation of his public duties.

The friends of the Rev. Owen Clarke, and of the church under his care at Vernon Chapel, Pentonville, will be glad to hear of the restoration of his sight. Having been deprived of it partially the last three or four years and totally for many months, he underwent the distressing operation for cataract a few weeks ago, and is now so far recovered

as to be able to walk out alone and see the

faces of his old acquaintance. His constitution is rallying and his eyes are rapidly regaining their power.

To A Correspondent who asks "Where is the scripture warranty for pews and pulpit ? What passage in the New Testament mentions such things?" we beg to say that we have too many questions under discussion just now to admit his letter and the answers which it would draw forth, but that if he will accept our own opinion it is this: That in the New Testament there is no mention of either pew, pulpit, stove, ventilator, scraper, door-mat, or glass window, and that a church that is so minded is at perfect liberty to dispense with any or all of them.

[merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][subsumed]

INDIA.

CALCUTTA.

The news from the mission field by the last mail is on the whole most cheering. The gospel is not only making progress, but evidently leavening with its influence all the social relations of Hindooism. The proposed measure of government, releasing converts from the intolerant operation of the laws of the Shaster and Koran, by which on making a confession of Christ they lose every earthly possession and break every earthly tie, naturally arouses the wrath of the rigid devotees of Vishnu, Siva, and Mahomet. But the time is at last come when the authorities in India no longer regard the prejudices of the Hindoo as their standard of duty, and the legislation of Menu as the basis of their own. The following extracts from the Friend of India will give a just view of the importance of the act.

It is not for us, as Englishmen, to censure the votaries of the Hindoo Shasters for clinging with such tenacity to their penal and persecuting enactments. We were once under the influence of the same spirit of illiberality. If Menu has ordered that melted lead should be poured down the throat of the man who spoke disrespectfully of a brahmin, it must not be forgotten that our code has also been disfigured by equally barbarous laws. We have had our act" de heretico comburendo."

This is the great charter of religious liberty | They have no idea of liberty of conscience; now about to be established for the first time they have been trained up in the notion that throughout the British dominions in India. the profession of their ancestral creed was to The new law will establish the rights of con- be enforced by pains and penalties, and that science in India, and enable any man to heresy was to be repressed by the forfeiture profess the creed he prefers, without the fear of property. of being thereby deprived of all the property to which he would otherwise have been entitled. It was idle to talk of the existence of any thing like liberty of conscience in India while the provisions of the Hindoo law which were designed to extinguish it, formed part and parcel of our code. The present act is, of course, a complete abrogation of that portion of the Shaster which was intended to keep the land of India for ever bound to the support of Hindooism, by ordaining that no one should enjoy the fruits of the soil who did not manifest his adherence to the Hindoo religion, by the type of offering the funeral cake to the manes of his diseased parent. But the legislation of Menu belonged to the age of Hindoo conservatism, when the rights of conscience were as little understood as in the days of St. Dominick, and it would be preposterous to suppose that it should continue in force in the present age, when India has come into the possession of those who pride themselves on honouring those rights.

We perceive that the Hindoos of Calcutta have expressed their disapprobation of the new law. This was fully to have been expected, and we shall be the last to censure them for the free expression of their opinion.

We are fully aware that the feeling of abhorrence towards all who embrace Christianity is almost incredibly intense in the Hindoo community, and that it burns with equal vehemence in the breast of the orthodox and liberal; of the man who lives according to the ritual of the Hindoo shasters, and of him who eats beefsteaks and drinks champagne at Wilson's; of those who believe thefable of the earth resting on a tortoise, and of those who have gone through the whole circle of European sciences; and we can easily account for the feelings of indignation which the new law will, for a time, engender. But it is a law of essential justice and equity, and no effort which the Hindoos can make will turn government from its purpose.

But even under the oppressive laws of Menu, the gospel has been making progress, as the following interesting communication from our brother WENGER will testify. His letter is dated December 8th. Referring to the state of the native mind in certain parts of Bengal, he says,

Barisal and Jessore.

I feel that the Society ought to strike the iron whilst it is hot, and unquestionably the

minds of the people in some parts of the Barisal and Jessore districts are now in a state which, if proper advantage be taken of

« ElőzőTovább »