FIDELITY TO CONSCIENCE. One I was conversing yesterday with a friend who entertains an uncommon respect for the Sabbath. He fills the office of steward to a rich man in this neighbourhood. Sabbath evening, not long after he entered on that office, his master and he had just returned from church, when his master began to talk about some worldly concerns of a rather perplexing character, with which his mind was exercised at the time. "To-morrow, sir," was my friend's blunt, laconic reply. "Well, but I have nobody else that I can talk to about it," said the master. Tomorrow, sir, if you please, "the steward replied again. The master once more endeavoured to introduce the subject; but his steward meekly, yet firmly, answered, "at any hour by night or by day, I will attend you, sir; I will come along in the morning, as early as you choose; but to-night, sir, I must be excused, if you please." The master yielded, and though my friend has been in his employment ever since, and though this occurred several years ago, he has never once attempted to introduce worldly conversation on the Sabbath day. W. T. INTELLIGENCE. Jan. 31st, 1841. DEAR BROTHER, The hand of the Lord is day by day more visibly exerted amongst the teeming population of the West Riding. We have held, or have invitations to hold, meetings, or to deliver lectures, in upwards of thirty towns and villages, within its limits. Our Christian Brethren are now meeting regularly in at least twentyfive towns. And in at least ten others we have either already accepted invitations to lectures, &c., or are about to do so, without delay. The following places are among either the former or the latter of these two classes :-Leeds, Bramley, Armley, Pudsey, Low Town, Farsley, Bradford, Horton, Holme Lane, Shelf, Ambler Thorne, Halifax, and about six contiguous villages, Brighouse, High Town, Little Town, Heckmondwicke, Dewsbury, Batley, Huddersfield, and about eight other places near to it, and Sheffield. Deep, decided spirituality, with thankfulness we witness it, is taking the place of cold and soulless indif This is a very strongly ference. marked circumstance in almost every church. Covetousness and sectarian partisanship are tottering more and more. And sinners-even "gospel hardened," sinners, are yielding to the power of God. I have recently heard of some remarkable instances of this kind. I wish I could repeat the account of one of these instances, as related in one of the "fellowship meetings," a few days ago. He One of the brethren, who has recently joined one of the churches in this neighbourhood, stood up, and with a heart manifestly full of deep and thrilling emotion, spoke to the following effect. He was at one time a member of a religious society (and a local preacher), and for a season But the leaven of he ran well. worldliness was prevalent among his brethren, and his mind, instead of being edified, by connection with them, was pained and wounded. "stumbled," he hearkened to temptation, and he fell. He reasoned thus with himself,-"If it be right for others to strive and toil for wealth, is it not so for me? I'll not be singular, I'll seek it too. I'll have it!" But the course he had shaped out was one that his conscience disapproved, and he saw that he must either cease his profession of religion or act the hypocrite. What was to be done? Again he paused, but again the spectacle of a cold and money-grasping church caused him to stumble, and he said, "Let it cost me what it will, I'll have it!" gave up his profession, and then his brethren remonstrated. But he replied, "It means not. It is no use talking. All are grasping after mammon, and I'll have it too! I've flung the bridle on the horse's neck, and -go where he will-he shall not be checked." He did so, but he found no rest, his soul was like the troubled sea. But still he went astray. At last, however, a lecture was to be delivered by W. T., and he went to hear it. The thoroughgoing doctrine reached his conscience, and his heart. He saw and felt the force of truth once more. He was convinced the lecturer was a messenger of God. He felt inclined to cast away his He idols, and once more to worship God. But then it was suggested to him, "count the cost," and he began to count. The sum, per annum, to be sacrificed, he saw almost as soon as he commenced his calculation, would be serious; he dared not pursue it further, and once more he staggered. But the preacher came once more also, and he could not stay away. He was irresistibly attracted to the very dart that already had so deeply wounded him. The truth was great. He said, "Well, this is the Gospel. There is something in religion after all." He relinquished his idolatrous career. He had now ceased to worship Mammon, he had joined the church of God, and his soul had entered into rest. Exclamations of thanksgiving, and many tears of joy followed this simple, unaffected tale of our Redeemer's mercy. Several other deeply interesting cases of restoration to the fold of the Saviour were related at the same meeting. At Pudsey, the church increases weekly. In almost all the meetings I have attended lately, the power of genuine godliness is once more work ing wonders. The members in all places almost unanimously say, better days are coming. One hoary headed Christian, in one place, thanked God he had been spared to witness the dawn of them. Another, apparently a "Mother in Israel," a Wesleyan, exclaimed, “I am re minded of the days of Bramwell." And a third said, that after being a hardened wanderer from the fold for many years, he had once more been attracted back again, but he found the piety of the brethren so deep, and their zeal so burning, that he must altogether alter, or be forced to fly. In short, Evangelical Reform is already producing those delightful fruits which I have all along anticipated. And every passing week affords increasing evidence that only the iniquities of God's people have diminished the omnipotent energy and influence of true religion. It does appear to me, that NOTHING can withstand its progress in the world, if the whole be practised by those who already are professors. The work that is going on in the West Riding, reminds me of a thaw. Cold, icy, frozen-hearted worldlings, both in the church and out of it, begin to speak of returning warmth and spiritual life. Prejudices, grown strong during half a century's contact with inconsistent, hypocritical profession, are being melted down. And men of all creeds and all persuasions, on seeing the whole truth enforced without respect of persons, exclaim, "Christianity is not to blame !" I have recently visited our brethren in Sheffield. They now are about sixty in number. They have a quiet, lightsome, and convenient room for worship. Christians of other denominations come and worship with them. There are many labourers for Christ among them, and they increase weekly. I preached there on the morning and evening of the Sabbath, Jan. 23rd. In the evening the room was much crowded with persons of almost all persuasions. In the afternoon, we held a Love-feast, and the testimonies uttered called forth a continuous shower of joyous grateful tears. I found that the very same quickening, reanimating process was proceeding there, which I have previously said is taking place in other places. On the next four evenings, viz. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, I gave a course of lectures there. The first was on the Hindrance to Religion. The second and third on the Wealth Question. And the fourth on the Liberty and Unity of the Church of Christ. Discussions took place after each lecture, which, from all I could learn, resulted uniformly in the firmer establishment of the truths I had maintained. Many seemed quite astonished to find long-neglected passages of Scripture developing remedies for evils which had previously appeared to them irremoveable. Many say, "the Bible is a new book now! Christianity is a new religion now! We have hitherto been in the dark!" Great is the Truth, and all-sufficient is the Word of Inspiration. I am, Dear Brother, very affectionately, yours, THOS. SMITH. THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT Obj. 3. Ought not a man quietly to withdraw from a church when he finds that he cannot agree in opinion with the majority of his brethren? And if he refuses to do so, is it not he, rather than his brethren, that interferes with the right of private judgment? Ans. I have often heard this asserted, but I have never yet heard any thing more than assertion on the subject. My reasons for disapproving of such a plan are these. 1. It is directly contrary to the course pursued by the Saviour. He was a Jew according to the flesh, and, of course, a member of the Jewish church. That church was exceedingly corrupt at the time of his appearance on earth. The rulers of that church had long taught for commandments the traditions of men, and on all these and many other subjects he differed from the rulers, and the greater portion of the members of the Jewish church as widely as possible. Many parts of the Jewish institution that were divinely ordained, he came to supersede; and his object was to establish a dispensation as much superior to the Jewish economy, as noon-day is superior to the early dawn. But did he leave the Jewish church? Did he forsake its ordinances and cease to assemble with its members in the synagogues and in the temple? No; he remained amongst his brethren. He taught in the synagogue, preached in the temple, and observed all the solemn fasts established in the Jewish ritual. He did not forsake its members in order to convert them. No, he opposed their errors, he reproved their sins, he called them to repentance, and by unfolding to them the truths of his own spiritual dispensation, he sought to transform the Jewish into the Christian church, Paul and the other Apostles of Christ pursued exactly the same course. Notwithstanding the differences between them both in sentiment and practice, -differences as wide as the distinction between degenerate Judaism, and perfect Christianity,--he remained a member of the Jewish church to the last; and it was in the act of purifying himself in the temple according to the directions of the Jewish law, that he was apprehended and given into custody. And it cannot be wrong to imitate the example of the Saviour and the Apostle Paul. 2. To leave a church with which we are connected because we cannot agree on all points with our brethren, is to oppose the will of Christ. He commands his followers to be of one heart and of one soul; and he prayed both for his disciples that then were, and for all who should afterwards believe on him through their word, that they all might be one in him, that the world might believe that the Father had sent him. But if every difference of opinion is to be made the ground of separation among the followers of Christ how is his prayer to be answered? how are his designs to be accomplished? 3. To separate from our Christian brethren as soon as we find that we cannot agree with them on all points, is to take the most effectual way to prevent the church from ever arriving at perfection. The church is composed of individuals, each of whom is liable to fall into error and sin, and one great object for which the church is instituted is, that the members of it may correct one another's views, and thus contribute to the growth and maturity of the whole. But how can this be done on the plan proposed in the objection? A certain member of a certain church is persuaded that on some points his brethren are in error. What is he to do in this case? he to leave his brethren, as he supposes, under the influence of mistaken views? How, then, are their errors to be rectified? Or if he be in error himself, how is he to be reclaimed, if he renounces the fellowship of those whose views on the point in question are correct? Or suppose that, in the course of time, a number of unscriptural usages creep into the church, and almost H Is universally prevail. Some few of the members are led to see and to lament the wide-spread evil that exists in the church. But how is it to be remedied, if, as soon as ever they discover its existence, they forsake the church itself? Is it not plain that on this plan error must go unrectified, and abuses untouched for ever? Had Luther acted on this plan, the Reformation from Popery would never have taken place. Had Wesley adopted this course, he would never have succeeded in giv ing such an impulse to the cause of truth and holiness as he did. In fact, on this principle, reformation and improvement are impossible; if a community be imperfect, it must be imperfect still! 4. How it can interfere with the right of private judgment, for a man who differs on some points from his brethren, quietly to remain in his place, and meekly and kindly to bear testimony to what he regards as truth, I confess I cannot see. If he attempted to curtail the liberties of his brethren; if he sought to obtain a majority in favour of his sentiments, and through the influence of that majority make his sentiments the authoritative standard to others; then he would unquestionably interfere with the right of private judgment. But as long as he only claims the liberty to hold his sentiments in peace, or peaceably to lay them before his brethren for their consideration, to be received or rejected by them as they may see best, when this is all the liberty he uses, and when he freely concedes to others the liberty he claims for himself, how can his conduct be any interference with the right of private judgment? These are my reasons for thinking the objection to be without force; and until I see some equally conclusive reasons advanced in support of the objection, I must continue to believe that it is the duty of every man to remain in the religious community to which he is attached; kindly, yet firmly avoiding every thing that he believes his Maker has prohibited, and doing everything that he believes his Maker has enjoined, and peaceably bearing testi mony to every thing that he believes to be important truth. Obj. 4. But is there no difference between a voluntary church and the churches of Christ? May not the terms of communion be stricter in the one than in the other? May not a man be excluded from a voluntary church without being excluded from the church of Christ? Ans. 1. That a voluntary church may do this, we have abundant and melancholy proof; but whether it be right for a voluntary church to do this, is another question. 2. If it be right for one voluntary church to expel a good man for differing in sentiment from his brethren, then it is right for another to do the same, and if it be right for two, then it is right for all; and so the man may at length be excluded from all the visible churches of the Redeemer. A man agrees in some particulars with the Calvinists, and in some with the Methodists. The Methodists reject him because he agrees on some points with the Calvinists, and the Calvinists reject him because he agrees on some points with the Methodists. He applies to the Baptists; but in some respects he differs from them, and they cannot receive him. He next turns to the Friends or Quakers, but he does not agree in all points with them, and by them he is rejected also. And thus he may proceed, trying all the denominations that are in existence, and while they all admit that he is a good man, and ought not to be excluded from the church of Christ, they all by turns reject him from their communion, and thus they do in fact wholly exclude him from the visible church of the Redeemer. 3. Each denomination desires, and some expect, the arrival of the day, when there shall be but one denomination in the world; that denomination, of course, to be their own. Now suppose that day arrived, would it be right then to expel from that denomination a man who could not properly be excluded from the church of Christ? The question manifestly contains its Own answer. And can that be right now, which would then be so obviously wrong? 4. The terms of communion in a voluntary church may be stricter than in the church of Christ; that is, a connexion, a sect, or a particular church, may require something as a condition of membership that Christ does not require: but what then? As a certain writer observes, if any connexion, or sect, requires any thing as a condition of membership that Christ has not required, it must be either something good, and that is as much as to say that Christ does not require every thing that is good; or something bad, and that no church or connexion ought to require or something indifferent, and things indifferent ought never to be made terms of communion. 5. There is a difference between a voluntary church and the church of Christ. Just such a difference as there is between a province and a kingdom, or between a part and the whole. A voluntary church is a number of Christians in any particular place, voluntarily assembling together for Divine worship and religious fellowship; the church of Christ is the whole body of the faithful, comprising all those voluntary churches assembling in particular places, throughout the world. 6. There may be a wider difference than this between a voluntary church and the church of Christ. A voluntary church may be an assembly of men united together to make laws of their own, admitting those who obey these laws, and rejecting all who decline to do so, whether they obey Christ's laws or not. But just as far as a voluntary church places itself in a position like this, it forfeits its title to the character of a Christian church. Just so far it usurps Christ's prerogative, and places itself in opposition to Christ's authority, and frustrates the very end for which Christ came into the world. Obj. 5. And would you receive men of different persuasions into one church? Would you admit Calvinists and Arminians, Baptists and Quakers, all into one church? Ans. 1. I would never ask a man whether he was a Calvinist or an Arminian, a Baptist or a Quaker; my one simple question would be, "Is he a Christian?" 2. That all Christians should be admitted into the Christian church, and that no man should be excluded from a Christian church for any thing that leaves his personal christianity undestroyed, is so plain that one might be disposed to wonder how any one could believe the contrary. But as there are many who do dispute the truth of this proposition, I will lay before the reader a few of my reasons for believing it. 1. To exclude a Christian from the communion of his fellow-christians, is in direct opposition to the command of Christ. By the mouth of his Apostle Paul, he says, "Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God." Romans xv. 7. Who are they that Christ receives? Those who believe in him and obey his commands. Does he receive all such, whatever their differences of sentiment may be on minor points? Yes, undoubtedly. And are we to receive one another as Christ has received us? How, then, can we reject any that Christ receives, without setting ourselves in flat opposition to Christ's authority? 2. To reject from our communion any of Christ's disciples, is to violate the new commandment that Christ gave to his followers. How frequently is this command repeated, and in what solemn, affecting terms? Obedience to it is even represented as the great test of regeneration. "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." 1 John iii. 14. And how much love do we manifest to the brethren, when we expel them from our fellowship; and refuse them a share in the privileges that we enjoy? We love them, but we avoid their company! We love them, but we refuse to have our names associated with theirs! And that not on account of any wickedness in their character, or immorality in their sentiments, for then they would cease to be brethren; but we disclaim all fellowship, and avoid all intercourse with them, because they hold opinions different from ours? Is this obedience to the Saviour's solemn command, THAT WE LOVE THE BRETHREN? 3. If it be right to reject any sincere Christians from communion with us, one half of the New Testament is utterly unintelligible. Christians are represented as branches in Christ, who is the true and living vine. And must it not deface the beauty, |