Page images
PDF
EPUB

moon. A child born at the rising or setting of the sun, will have a more or less favorable prospect of a long life. To those who entertain such opinions, or others resembling them, I will address a single observation. Would you regard your God half as scrupulously as you do the lifeless matter which He has created; and adhere to His precepts, and the dictates of well informed reason, with half the pertinacity with which you cling to your prejudices, you would live much more happy and successful in the world, and pursue a conduct much better becoming the character of those who have had a Christian education.

Many people who, perhaps, may be free from the imputation of any of the foregoing idola trous notions concerning the sun, are still of opinion that its eclifises are ominous of disasters to that quarter of the world where they take place. But I know of nothing in Scripture, or in the history of the world, to warrant such an opinion. For aught that appears, national calamities as certainly foretell eclipses of the sun, as those eclipses do national calamities. One thing however is certain; if these eclipses do denote any such disasters, it is because God has established them for signs of those events; not because they naturally, and of themselves, denote them. But if God has so established them, he must have given some indication of the fact, either by revelation, or by so ordering in his providence that there should be an unvary ing connexion between the sign,

and the thing signified; making the one uniformly consequent upon the other. Should this connexion fail but once, it must overthrow the supposition of its existing at all; or else another sign must be required in order to show us when the first one is to be taken as denoting nothing. But what renders such a denoting of events very dubious, when we cast our eyes upon the history of Divine providence, is, that an eclipse necessarily extends to a large portion of the globe; and rarely has it happened since the earth was first peopled, that every part of so large a portion has been free from public calamities, for any considerable length of time. Hence it does not easilyappear how an eclipse of the sun can be taken for a sure sign of public calamities, when those calamities almost continually exist, in some part of the world at least, where the eclipse is perceived; and that, whether there Furtherare eclipses, or not. more, let it be remembered, that eclipses necessarily result from the established laws of the planWhenever etary revolutions. they take place, it is in exact conformity with those laws, being perfectly regular, and at determined intervals; insomuch, that instead of viewing an eclipse of the sun as miraculous and portentous, we ought to consider its failure a miracle and prodigy, astonishing in kind and degree. By the aid of astronomical science, eclipses may be calculated with the utmost precision, for any length of time, past, or future. If they are sure prognostics of future events, then

those events may be predicted, by the help of astronomy, with as much certainty a thousand years beforehand, as they can at the time when the eclipse happens. But should an astronomer thus undertake to turn prophet, there would be, I think, but one opinion concerning the propriety and usefulness of his labors. Scripture, I have already observed, gives no warrant, that is, to my knowledge, for any belief in such prognostications; and if none is derived from Scripture, the general course of Divine providence, nor from reason, it is difficult to determine where else to look for one. My apology for these remarks, which to many may appcar entirely superfluous, is derived from the well known fact, that many very worthy men, and Christians, entertain the opinion that eclipses of the sun are unquestionable tokens of the Divine displeasure, and that they ought to be so regarded by all good people. This opinion, or something very like it, was in the course of the last winter, advanced by a very able member on the floor of Congress. Certainly, then, so far as the foregoing remarks are just and pertinent, they are not useless; for it is a matter of consequence that right opinions should be en tertained on this subject.

It is by no means the intention of the writer to advance the idea, that there are no possible circumstances under which a solar eclipse could be considered as portentous. A preternatural eclipse ought, no doubt, to be considered as of this character. Such was the preternatural obscuration of the sun's light at the

crucifixion of our Savior; which obscuration, as astronomers inform us, could not have happen. ed by the intervention of the moon between the sun and the earth, the regular cause of solar eclipses. But if we undertake to make prodigies out of natural appearances, and such as are the necessary result of those laws by which the Almighty is pleased to govern his material creation, we alike transcend the bounds of reason and Christian discretion. Were eclipses regarded simply as displays of the Divine power and majesty, no remarks would have been needed. But would we look for signs of the divine displeasure towards a nation, we can see them, with unfailing certainty, in na tional sins, and depravity of morals. These inform us, far more emphatically than eclipses, when God has a controversy with us, and is about to inflict upon us the rod of his anger. As for those who regard eclipses of the sun as portending calamities independently of any known commission from Him who made the sun, and appointed all the laws to which it is subject; they can not escape the charge of idolatry, however it may be blended with other correct apprehensions of the Divine providence. Such a mixture of real and false religion, but ill accords with the holy jealousy with which the Most High maintains his truth. It is like the mongrel worship of the Samaritans, a religion allowed of indeed by man, but un authorized by Heaven.

ACLETUS.

(To be continued.)

[blocks in formation]

The subject of ecclesiastical government is demanding and receiving very considerable attention from the Congregational clergy in Massa

chusetts. That the result of this

attention may be the promotion of correct principles and Christian practice, every good man desires; and that such will be the result many good men confidently anticipate. It is necessary on this subject, as well as on most others, that all the arguments on both sides should be clearly stated, and dis. passionately considered. The following communication, in answer to the paper on the want of ecclesias tical tribunals in our number for

July, is therefore admitted. Though we are perfectly willing and desirous that every argument on this subject should be presented to the public, we deem it proper to give notice, in order to prevent the disappointment of our correspondents, that we cannot permit more than a moderate portion of our pages to be Occupied with this discussion, without excluding other subjects equally important.

ED.

I HAVE always understood it to be a principle with the editors of the Panoplist to admit into their pages inquiries and discussions,

when conducted with seriousness and candor, though they may not accord with what has been before published. With respect to the form of government, which was first established, and which still prevails, in the churches of Massachusetts, may not the following observations justly claim the attention of the religious public, in connexion with what appeared in the Panoplist for July, on the want of ecclesiastical trbiunals? They are offered for publication.

VOL. V. New Series.

The writer of this communication is not insensible of the power of prejudice, particularly of the prejudices of education. He was born and educated in Massachusetts, was early admitted to a Congregational church, and is now a minister of the congregational order. To this order he acknowledges himself attached. He would undoubtedly be loath to admit objections against it, and willing to see it fairly de fended. Not that he supposes, that we have adopted the only scriptural mode of church government. Few of any denomination are at the present day so bigoted and arrogant, as to make such pretensions. Without doubt many things relating to the church are left to the discretion of Christians, and may with propriety be varied according to circumstances. It neither surprises nor offends me, that in a nation like England, where there are such established differences and gradations of rank in the civil government, something similar should exist in the church. And it seems to harmonize with our republican constitution and feelings, that every minister should be a bishop. Nor can either mode be shown to be in direct violation of Scripture, or subversive of the order or destructive of the prosperity of the Church. God has poured out his Spirit both in England and America;

and neither denomination has

been without rich tokens of his favor. The same remarks may

be extended to Presbyterian and

Consociated churches.

Whilst

we enjoy that mode, which from education, convenience, or convietion, we prefer, we ought

28

cheerfully to accord the same liberty to others.

These remarks are not designed to produce indifference on this subject; so far as the Scriptures are plain and explicit, we are bound to implicit conformity. But where any thing is left to our discretion, some weight may, in a prudential and religious view, be allowed to education, habit, and attachment.

When a constitution, either of ehurch or state is established, we ought not lightly to admit objections against it. Trying experiments on such a subject, is neither proper nor safe. I admit, that when important evils exist, we ought not to shut our eyes against them. When an adequate remedy can be clearly pointed out, and shown to be applicable, without considerable inconvenience, to the case in ques. tion, it ought to be adopted. But it is a precept founded in sound prudence not to make important changes in our situation, without strong, very strong reasons to believe we can improve it. This precept applies with increased force to public bodies.

The great difficulty contemplated in the communication to which I refer, is the want of a power to discipline ministers. I have always supposed, that they, like private Christians, are subject to the discipline of the churches with which they are connected. No other body is constituted or pointed out in the New Testament for this purpose. If thy brother offend against thee, tell it to the church. The precept is general. No exception is made in favor of ministers. In this sense it was understood by our fathers, and is now generally un

derstood, in this commonwealth. Accordingly a minister has never, to my knowledge, until very lately, been ordained over a chuich, without first being joined as a member to that particular church. And where is the impropriety of a minister's being amenable to the church with which he is connected? Have not they the best opportunity to judge both of his conduct, and of his principles; and to watch over him in the Lord? I never until with

in two years even dreamed, that my church was not competent, if there should be occasion, to excommunicate me. It is true that a minister, who should think himself to be excommunicated without just cause, would have a right to a council, provided any members of the church in regular standing would apply for it. But what could such a council do? Could they force him back into the bosom of the church? No. The influence of churches over each other is merely an influence of opinion and advice. They might give to the church such advice, as they thought proper; but if the church should not see reason to adopt it, the council could only express their disapprobation of the church's conduct, and receive the injured member to their own communion, and recommend him to such other churches as might see fit to employ or receive him. The same remedy is in the power of any private Christian, as well as of a minister.

Let this course of discipline be kept in view, and many of Onesimus' difficultics will at once vanish. A minister may be tried and excommunicated by his church without a council. I

churches generally wave this right, and seek the advice of a council, it is from modesty, and respect for the ministerial character, not for want of power. Should a church be fully convinced of the necessity of excommunicating its pastor, it might with perfect propriety proceed to take that melancholy step. If the case were indubitably clear, there would be no call for a council. If a minister be thus excommunicated, his ministerial character of course falls to the ground. If he be innocent, the burden of proof lies on himself. An equal division in a council called on the occasion cannot save him. He must obtain a result positively in his favor. If the council approve the sentence of the church, he stands condemned, not by the act of the council, but of the church. Or,

if the church choose to take advice before they pronounce sentence, still the sentence is their act, and not that of the council. Against this system, which I believe to be generally received, no Scripture authority can be produced And our Lord has

given a general direction to discipline brethren, without making any exceptions. And what are the arguments against the reasonableness of this system? I know of only one; and perhaps that might as well be called an assertion, as an argument. "To constitute in office, and remove from office, are acts belonging to the same power. That authority only which invests can divest. The creating is the annihilating power." Where is the analogy either in nature or religion, that supports this principle?

Many

Many

persons have both a natural and moral power to destroy that, which they cannot create. The civil government of this commonwealth may take away the life of a criminal, which they could never bestow. If the criminal happen to be a minister, ist government obliged to wait for him to be deposed, before they order him to execution?

Let us apply this analogy. Though the ministerial and Christian character are distinct, the former supposes the latter. No council or presbytery would undertake to ordain a man to the pastoral office, who was not a visible Christian in regular standing. Of the Christian character every church is a competent judge. If this be forfeited by a minister, and declared to be so by the church to which he belongs, his ministerial character, a fortiori, falls to the ground, as it would be destroyed by his execution.

There appears to me, therefore, to be no need of such a tribunal as Onesimus has proposed, excepting cases be found, in which the ministerial character is implicated, without affecting the person's right to a Christian standing. Such cases are hardly supposable.

There are without doubt inconveniences attending the congregational method of disciplining ministers; but not greater, than exist with respect to the discipline of lay brethren. Our churches are, to say the least, as deficient in the latter, as in the former. Might not an adequate remedy for the whole evil be found in a spirit of increasing piety and watchfulness for the

« EelmineJätka »