disagreeable necessity of hearing principles inculcated, and of seeing them continually acted upon, which are opposed to his belief of the will of God.

But, in case an individual be willing to submit to these unpleasantnesses, what should be the conduct of the church which he proposes to join? Far be it from us to cherish the spirit which says to any, "Stand by, I am holier than thou." As intimated above, however, I consider that statedly aud fully joining our ecclesiastical body rather than another, ought to proceed from the persuasion that the body joined, is, in the peculiarities by which it is distinguished from others, more consonant with the divine word. When a person offers himself as a candidate for church fellowship with us, the first inquiries made regard his experimental knowledge of the Gospel. Having satisfied myself upon that point, I next inquire, (as an enlightened and sincere regard to the will of God should regulate the Chris, tian in every thing,) does he, after examining the Scriptures, conscientiously approve of our ecclesiastical order? If his reply be in the negative, and he avows the constitution of another community to be, in his view, more scriptural, I have no hesitation in recommending him to attach himself to that body which he religiously prefers. I do no violence to his conscience; I only endea vour to prevent his taking a step opposed to its dictates. I am guilty of no breach of charity; I rather act in the spirit of love, advising him to practice as he be lieves to be most consistent with that which is, in all things, the rule of faith and duty. We conceive agreement in the general principles of church order, as well as in the leading doctrines of Chris

tianity, requisite among church members, in order to preserve identity and harmony in the body. Were conscientious Episcopalians and conscientious Independents united in fellowship, the former would naturally wish that the congregation should be placed under episcopal jurisdiction, which the latter would conscientiously resist. In the admission of members, where it is, as with us, vested in the body, Episcopalians would desire that almost indiscriminate admission to the Lord's table should be granted, whereas the Independents would insist that none but those who were, in appearance at least, capable of discerning the Lord's body, should have the privilege of that ordinance. In the appointment of a minister, serious difficulties would arise as to with whom the power of appointing lay. How could a church, con stituted of persons differing so widely and conscientiously upon ecclesiastical order, unite to act in such cases as are described in Matthew xviii. 15-17, and 1 Corinthians v. 1-8? I appre hend that in such cases the much extolled "safety-valve of private opinion" would be insufficient to prevent a disastrous explosion.

Miss Lister, the Modern Martyr, inquires of her dissenting friend, Miss Winkworth, whether the church to which she belongs does not require, when a person wishes to partake of the Lord's Supper, that his name shall be announced to the whole body, when assem→ bled together? "and do you not for a whole month keep him in suspense respecting the issue of his application? and do you not require from him, in writing, a detailed account of his religious experience? and then let the vote of the majority decide, whether he shall, or shall not, do what he conceives to be his duty?" &c.

To these enquiries Miss W, replies, with much self-complacency, "I know that such requirements are made by some dissenting churches, but I am happy to inform you, that they are not demanded by us: if they were, I should blush for our inconsistency. You ask me, what chapter or verse of the New Testament gives its sanction to them; and, in reply, I unhesitatingly say, I cannot tell. I have read the Gos pels, and the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles which were addressed to the churches; but I have never met with a single paragraph or sentence that authorizes the adoption of such a plan of admission to Christian communion; and, in my opinion, it is as anti-scriptural as indiscriminate admission to communion-taking its rise amongst us, from the same principle of domination which placed the Bishop of Rome in the papal chair; and which principle has led to all the corruptions which, in every age and in every country, have disfigured and defiled the beauty and the purity of the Christian church."- "Our plan resembles that which was adopted by the Apostles, in the first ages (Query, age?) of the church, which was the purest. If a person wish to join the church, and partake of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, he waits.on the minister, as the primitive convert waited on an Apostle, who converses with him, and, if satisfied with his confession of faith, and avowed motives, he admits him into fellowship with his Chris. tian brethren, without being subjected to that anti-scriptural ordeal, against which you have so very justly entered your sarcastic protest." Of all this, Miss L. approves, and declares," I can have no objection to submit myself to the examination of the pastor

of the church, who is invested by Jesus Christ with power to con duct it."

At

Now, Gentlemen, I cannot but think that the plan of admission thus commended, savours much more of "the principle of domination which placed the Bishop of Rome in the papal chair," than the plan which is so strongly censured; for it is ever to be remembered, that the papacy had its origin in the usurpations of the clergy, not of the laity. I am not going to defend the conduct of those churches, if such there be, who require a detail of experience in writing, as a sine qua non of admission. I think the requiring it altogether unwarranted. the same time, I have been accustomed to read the New Testament, and do not recollect any passage which warrants the ordinary ministers of the Gospel assuming in the churches now, whatever powers may have been exercised Apostles in the beginning; neither have I met with any passage which invests ministers with the whole and sole power of deciding on the admission or non-admission of members to a church. On the contrary, there. are some statements in the New Testament which seem to imply that the people had a voice in such affairs, even in the first age, which was the purest.

by

For example, from Acts ix. 26-29, we learn, that when Saul attempted to join himself to the church in Jerusalem, the disciples, not believing him to be a sincere convert, declined receiving him to their fellowship. Barnabas then made such representations to the Apostles, as gave full and universal satisfaction. I infer from the statement, that a church has a right to decline holding communion with those, in whom they have not confidence, that they are sincere in their profession. Here

is at least the power of a veto, lodged in the people. To whom I would ask, was the direction given, Romans xiv. 1. "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations," or, "not to judge his doubtful thoughts." Here, I conceive, the right of deciding upon the admission of persons to fellowship, is recognized as belonging to the body who are united in fellowship. The power of admission, it is reasonable to suppose, rested originally where the power of excommunication rested, which was undeniably in the church, Matthew xviii. 17; 1 Cor. v. 4, 5. The bond of fellowship, in a Christian church, I understand to be mutual affection and confidence, inspired by rational evidence of each other's piety, and as it is among the members generally, and not merely between individuals and the minister, evidence of piety must, in some way, be given to the church, and the sufficiency of it be recognised by them. As the union is mutual, there being a proposal to join on the one part, there must be, in order to complete it, a declaration of willingness to receive on the other.

1

I cannot but consider the plan of investing the minister exclu sively with the power to decide on the admission of members, as likely to endanger the prospriety of churches. Men of the greatest piety and penetration are liable to be imposed upon. In the case of young ministers especially, who have little knowledge of the world, and of the plausible appearances assumed by false professors, there would be great liability to imposition. If at any time a minister imbibed erroneous opinions, his having the prerogative of admitting members to the church would be a most effective.

means, under his control, of extirpating orthodoxy, and of establishing in its room, the profession of doctrines subversive of the Gospel of Christ.

Whether, Gentlemen, you will consider the subjects I have referred to of sufficient importance for discussion in your miscellany, or the observations offered sufficiently in point, I leave with yourselves to decide. Convinced as I am, that our principles are sanctioned by Scripture, and that the interests of Christianity depend upon their being maintained inviolate, I cannot regard without apprehension the disposition which is sometimes discovered, to sacrifice those principles in accommodation to the spirit and fashion of the world. By adopting the course of spirit and practice recommended in the Modern Martyr, we may secure a short-lived and useless applause with some time-serving worldlings; but we shall gain nothing in our stability as a denomination, or in Our spirituality as Christians. I am not for depreciating the influence of pastoral authority. The testimony of the minister, if he be a person such as the Scripture requires to sustain the office, should be principally relied upon by the church, in regulating their decisions.

My object in these remarks has been merely to caution the friends of truth and godliness, against which I cannot but consider, an evil fraught with disastrous results to evangelical piety. Upon maintaining the purity of church communion, and adhering to the rules of Scripture in its administration, depends the preservation among us of the faith which was once delivered to the saints. I am, Gentlemen,

Your's, most faithfully,

THE operation and design of grafting are generally understood: it is ascertained, that the kind of the fruit uniformly follows the nature, not of the stock, but of the graft; and it is commonly asserted, that whatever be the stock, the flavour and quality of the fruit will remain unaffected.

That such a process should be employed by the Apostle to illustrate the introduction of the Gentiles to evangelical blessings, has been considered, by many, perplexing, if not unaccountableadapted to convey impressions opposed to his own reasoning, as well as to established facts.

Perhaps it may not be useless to remark in passing, that the received hypothesis concerning the indifference of the stock to the quality of the fruit, is not strictly correct. That the stock will occasion no change of mixture of species, is allowed; but that it will affect the flavour and quality of the fruit, has been ascertained by experiment. Cherries produced by a graft on a laurel, are impregnated with a flavour of the original plant, so highly aromatic, as to be very offensive to the palate. And from the uniformity of natural operations, we may therefore fairly infer, that a similar, though less observable change is in every case ef fected.

These remarks, however, do not apply to the case before us.

The difficulty above noticed arises, partly, from misapprehend ing the case supposed by the Apostle; and partly from inat tention to the precise point which he aims to illustrate.

According to the usual pro

cess of grafting, the difference be tween the graft and the stock is specific; a stem of an inferior kind is employed to afford support, and convey nourishment to the engrafted branch. It is otherwise in the case supposed by the Apostle. According to this, the difference arises not from kind, but from cultivation. The wild olive (aypieλaioç) differs from the good olive, simply for want of attention, and especially of judicious pruning. Olives neglected, degenerate and become barren; wild olives need nothing but care and cultivation to improve and render them fruitful. The branch of wild olive, removed from its neglected stock, and engrafted among the branches of another, which is diligently cultivated, presents a significant image of that gracious alteration in the circumstances of Gentiles, which had taken place by the introduction of the Gospel.

As just observed, there will, in the case supposed, be naturally expected a change in the graft from barrenness to fertility, from, degenerate to excellent fruit. But this is not the precise point which the Apostle intends to illustrate. He is aiming to impress on them, as converts from heathenism, a sense of their mercies, their high advantages, for growth, beauty, fertility, by their introduction to those moral means, which had for many ages been the exclusive privileges of the descendants of Abraham. "Destitute of divine revelation, and the instructions vouchsafed to Israel, you converts from heathenism, have been like the branches of a neglected olive, degenerate and barren,