Come-outerism : the duty of secession from a corrupt church

~_

t
|

3

Mm
bt Bg Pale Madd

* ee

DUTY OF SECESSION

FROM A

x d ontite
P % A ">
op SWF Ww Fg

ho

mR

CORRUPT CHURCH.

BY WILLIAM GOODELL..,

NEW YORK:
AMERICAN AWTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,

142 NASSAU STREET.

| 1845.

James G. Brryey has proved that the ‘* American Church is
the Bulwark of American Slavery,” and Stephen S. Foster,
that ‘“‘the American church and clergy are a Brotherhood of
Thieves.” Having thus shown the American church to be
corrupt, we present our friends with another link in the chain
of argument, from the hand of William Goodell of Utica, being
his well-known Essay on the ‘‘ Duty of Secession from a,Cor-
rupt Church.” '

_The American Anti-Slavery Society is frequently charged
with being opposed to all church organizations. The charge
has been again and again both denied and refuted. Those who
care to know our views in regard to the churches of the coun-
try and the course we urge our members to adopt, will find
them clearly defined in the following pages. Though we
differ on other points, on this Mr. Goodell and ourselves are
entirely agreed.

The very head and front of our offending

Hath this extent — No MORE.
W. P.

DUTY OF SECESSION

FROM

7

A CORRUPT CHURCH.

‘Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her sins, and
that ye receive not of her plagues.’—Rev. xviii. 4.

Our Protestant commentators tell us that by the ‘Basy-
ton’ of the Apocalypse, we are to understand a corRUPT
cHuRcH, and that the proclamation which John heard in
heaven — ‘ Come out of her, my people,’ is to be regarded as a
divine admonition to all faithful Christians, warning them to
secede from such a church, as from the Ant1I-Curist, doom-
ed to perdition, at the brightness of the Savior’s appearing.

It is true they suppose, that the corrupt church, particu-
larly intended, is the church of Rome; but it is nevertheless
equally true that their construction of the passage involves
and is founded upon the priINcIPLE, that whenever and wher-
ever a church, (however distinguished, once, by the divine
presence and favor) becomes corrupt and apostate, it is the
duty of all true Christians connected with it, to secede from
it, because it has thus apostatized, and is become corrupt. It
has never been doubted that the church of Rome was once
a true church, and the reason always given for coming out of
her is her apostacy and corruption.

Nor is it pretended that the Romish church is the only
corrupt, apostate, anti-Christian church that the world has
yet seen, and that is now to be found. The Greek church
has commonly been considered by Protestants to be essen-
tially on the same foundation with the Romish. And both in
‘Old England and New England, the founders of our present
churches and denominational arrangements have repeatedly
gone through the process of ‘gathering churches out of

4

churches,* on the same principle. The Puritans derived
their name from their efforts to secure, in this way, a pure
church. And if it be true, as it doubtless is, that secessions
have often been made on lighter grounds than the alleged
apostacy, and anti-Christian character of the church seceded
from, that fact only places in a still stronger light the univer-
sal recognition, by Protestants, of the duty of seceding from
an anti-Christian church. Indeed, to deny that duty would
be equivalent to renouncing the Protestant faith, and would
require our return to the Romish communion.

Our commentators, moreover, do not commonly construe
the Babylon of the Revelations to mean exclusively the Rom-
ish church, nor do they confine the application of the com-
mand, in the text, to the Protestant reformers, nor to the du-
ty of seceding from the Romish communion. Thomas Scott
says, expressly :

‘This summons concerns all persons in every age; they who believe
in Christ, and worship God in the spirit, should separate from so cor-
rupt a Church, AND FROM ALL OTHERS THAT COPY HER EX-
AMPLE of idolatry, persecution, CRUELTY and TYRANNY, and

avoid being partakers of her sins, even if they have renounced her com-
munion, or else they may expect to be involved in her plagues.’

In describing, still further, the anti-Christian practices, on
account of which the Romish church, ‘and all others that
copy her example,’ should be renounced, and separated from
as corrupt and anti-Christian, the same writer adds:

‘ Not only slaves, but the ‘ souls of men,’ are mentioned as articles of
commerce, which is the most infamous of all traflics that the demon o
avarice ever devised, but by no means the most uncommon. The sale
of indulgences, dispensations, absolutions, masses and bulls, hath great.
ly enriched the clergy and their dependants, to the deceiving and des-
troying the souls of millions, and thus by feigned words they made mer-
chandize of them; nor has the management of Church preferments and
many other things, been any better than trafficking in human souls ; and
it would be gratifying if we could say that this merchandize has been pe-
culiar to the ROMISH anti-Christ.’

Again, in his ‘Practical Observations’ on the chapter, the
Same commentator says:

‘Too often INJUSTICE, OPPRESSION, fraud, avarice or excessive
indulgence are connected with extensive commerce, and to number the
‘persons of men’ with beasts, sheep and horses, as the stock of a farm,
or with bales of goods, as the cargo of a ship, is, no doubt, a most de-
yestable and unchristian practice, fit only for Babylon the Great.’

And, after alluding again to those who ‘ traded in the souls
of men,’ in the way of ecclesiastical traffic in cures and ben-
efices, he adds: ,

* Cotton Mathers’ prediction concerning the churches in New Eng-
and.

5

‘ How fervently should we then pray that God would raise up reform-
ers, who may contend as firmly, as perseveringly, and as successfully,
against this vile merchandize, as some honorable and philanthropical
persons have against the accursed slave trade. For, when Christ shall
come again, to drive the buyers and sellers out of the temple, he will
have much to do with other places besides Rome’

Again:

‘But the vengeance of Heaven is coming upon Rome, not for ges-
tures, garbs and ceremonies, though multiplied, ridiculous, and of bad
consequence in themselves, but for idolatry, ambition, OPPRESSION,
CRUELTY to the people of God, imposture, AVARICE, LICEN-
TIOUSNESS and spiritual TYRANNY. TueEse are the sins, which
have reached to the heavens, the iniquities which God remembers, and
the evils FOR WHICH we must STAND ALOOF from her commun-
ion, and that of ALL OTHERS THAT RESEMBLE HER, or we shall
be involved in their destruction.’

Thus we have Scott’s authority for identifying the abom-
inations of a pro-slavery Protestant church with those of the
church of Rome—for applying the warning voice of the
text to the former as well as to the latter — for insisting that
cruelty, tyranny, injustice, oppression, the traflicking in the
‘souls of men,’ the numbering of the persons of men with
beasts, sheep and horses— with bales of goods —are pre-
emivently among the iniquities, a participation in which
makes a church (however once favored and spiritual) an anti-
Christian church —‘the evils for which we must stand aloof
from her communion, and that of all others that resemble
her, or we shall be involved in their destruction.’

It was a flagrant outrage upon self-evident and fundamen-
tal morality, on the part of the Romish church, that arrested
the attention of Luther, and convinced him that such a
church could not be the true church of Christ. That sale of
indulgences to commit crime was nothing different, in char-
acter, from the tacit consent of the American churches in
general, and with few exceptions, that those to whom they
extend religions fellowship, and with whom they voluntarily
sustain ecclesiastical relations, may continue to practice
abominations equal to any conceived or provided for by the
customers of John Tetzel: and this is true, whether commer-
cial, political, ecclesiastical or social advantages constitute
the purchase money pocketed by the churches. The com-
mon complaint, that the agitation of the subject disturbs and
endangers the churches, and hazards their peace, sufficiently
attests this.

But are our commentators right in teaching the duty of
secession from a corrupt and anti-Christian church----a

1*

6

church guilty of cruelty, tyranny, oppression, avarice, injus>
tice —a church that trafficks in slaves, in bodies and souls
of men —a church that consents to, or tolerates, or licences
such abominations among its allies and supporters? And
were the Protestant Reformers right, in acting upon this
same principle of secession from such a corrupt church: ?

In maintaining the affirmative of this question, we shall
endeavor, first to explain, and then prove and illustrate, the
duty of secession from an apostate church. ‘

1. FALLACIOUS CREDENTIALS.

The discussion before us requires a clear understanding
of what is meant by a corrupt, or apostate, or anti-Christian
church. In order to this, it may be well to notice a few
things, very commonly relied upon as evidences or creden-
tials of a sound Christian church, which, on reflection, will
be found to be no evidences at all; being common to true
churches and to many of those that have apostatized.

-

1. HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS.

Many persons seem to take it for granted, that their church
must be a true church, because it was founded by the au-
thority of God, and by wise and good men, or because it
consisted of good men, at the time of its organization or at
some past period of its history — because it was founded on
the true model, was enriched with divine influences, was
abundantly favored with effusions of the Holy Spirit, and
was remarkably instrumental in the conversion of sinners,
and the spread of the true religion.

Many of the descendants or successors of the Puritans
seem to reason in this way. So do many of the followers of
John Wesley. At least, they evidently feel thus, if they
would not adventure to frame an argument upon the assump-
tion. On the same principle, other sects boast the apostoli-
cal succession of their ministers and bishops. The Roman-
ists, by the same rule, prove their chureh to be the true
church, and all seceders from it to be schismatics. And the
Pharisees could defend themselves in the same way, against
the scathing denunciations of the Messiah, who reproved
them for their oppressions, by boasting, ‘We have Abraham
for our father!’

This method of proving a church to be a true chureh of

v

God, will never become plausible until it is made to appear
that men, whose forefathers or predecessors were righteous,
are always righteous themselves, or that God will accept men
for the righteousness of their progenitors or precedessors,
whatever their own characters may be. But it is a method
which will probably continue in use, so long as any thing
else besides the exhibition of present good fruits and of
sound Christian character shall be made a test either of
church membership, or of the character of an assembly or
church.

*

2. RITUALS—OBSERVANCES,

Hither with or without a reference to the historical doc-
uments of their sect, many persons seem to claim a Christian
character for their respective churches, on account of their
present adherence to a scriptural church polity—regular or-
ganization—regular ordained pastors—exact and scrupulous
observance of positive institutions—rites—ceremonies—or-
dinances — baptisms — sacrifices—fasts—feasts—sabbaths—
meetings—prayers—worship.

One sect is founded and supported on the simple ground
of its supposed scriptural accuracy in respect to water bap-
tism—another on the ground of its supposed observance of
the precise day originally designated as the Sabbath—an-
other on the ground of its rejecting outward rites and obser-
vances altogether. Partizans of these and other religions
sects not unfrequently manifest their reliance on these cir-
cumstances, in estimating the Christian character of their
church or sect. Tell them wherein their chureh or sect has
vpenly violated the fundamental principles of a sound Chris-
tian morality—trampled upon the crushed poor, or neglected
to plead faithfully in their behalf—alas! they know it all—
they confess it all—they lament it all. They are even loud,
perhaps, in their complaints of these delinquencies; they
have been so, for many years, and they see no prospect of a
change for the better. But they cannot think of seceding
from their sect or church. Oh! no! That would be the sin
of ‘schism.’ Why so? Because they think their church is,
after all, a true Christian church, and they thus judge, be-
cause their definition of a church of Christ obliges them to
give the Christian name to all the churches that they regard
as having been scripturally constituted and regularly organ-
ized and governed, and who maintain in their purity and
integrity the scriptural observances and rituals of religion.

If this sort of credentials can prove a church to be a true
church, then the Pharisees, in Christ’s time, and their fathers

8

in the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah, could have readily proved
themselves to constitute the true church of God. The first
and fifty-eight chapters of Isaiah, and the seventh of Jeremiah,
will show in what estimation God regards credentials of this
sort, when separated from a practical regard for the oppress-
ed and the crushed.

3. AN ORTHODOX CREED.

But when, in addition to their historieal and ritual creden-
tials, the members of a church can point to their correct
orthodox creed, they often seem to think that the evidence
is complete, and that no dereliction of duty towards the op-
pressed can prove that such a church is not a true church of
Christ.

A profession of correct Christian principles is a very good
thing, but it is only a profession, after all, and professions
without practice will avail nuthing to prove Christian char-
acter, either in an individual or in a church. The creed of
a church is its profession—and if it be a correct creed, it is a
profession of sound prineiples—nothing more. ‘These prin-
ciples. or ‘doctrines’ are ‘according to godliness.’—'They
furnish the grounds, the reasons, the motives for a correct
Christian practice. If truely loved and obeyed, a correct
Christian practice and a sound Christian character will be
the result. An intelligent profession of these principles
amounts to an intelligent promise to perform all the duties of
religion; and therefore a church covenant is appended to the
church creed. But what if the promise is babitually and
constantly broken, at vital points, stead of being performed ?
Will the promise avail instead of the performance ? If so (but
not otherwise) a correct orthodox creed may prove the
Christian character of a church that neglects and refuses to
plead for the Lord’s poor! ull then, it will be true that the
orthodox creed of such a delinquent church will be its con-
demnation, instead of itssecurity. It will be the sure evidence
of its guilt. It will testify that (unless the ereed were stupid-
ly adopted, without a consideration even of its meaning) the
church bas sinned and is sinning against its known and re- -
cognized principles of duty, and must therefore be doubly
condemned. The orthodox Pharisees, on this account, were
more pointedly condemned by the Savior than the heretical
Sadducees, who made lower professions. ‘The grossly here-
tical churches of our own day, that do not plead for the op-
pressed, have sinned against less light,and probably contrac-
ted less guilt, and become less intolerably odious and offensive
in Ged’s sight, than many of the churches that rely on their

9

evangelical creeds to screen them from censure on account
of their practical derelictions. They do less dishonor to
God, to Christ, to Christian principles—to the very principles
in the distinctive profession of which they glory; and on the
loving reception of which human salvation depends. When
God rises to judgment, the churches that ‘hold the truth in
unrighteousness’ must-drink a double portion, and drain the
cup of trembling to the last dregs. Far be thy feet, Chris-
tian reader, from the threshold of such churches then! In
that day it will be seen that the positive institutions of Chris-
tianity and the revelations of asound Christian faith, in their
integrity and purity, were falents put into the bands of the
churches, to be improved; and that if buried and disregarded,
they will prove swift witnesses against them.

4, MISSIONARY ZEAL—EFFORTS TO CONVERT SOULS—RELI-
GIOUS EXCITEMENTS.

‘These are often regarded as the sure signs that a church
is, of course, a true christian church, and no exhibitions of its
inhuman CRUELTY and its CONTEMPT of fundamental
MORALITY will reverse the decision! All this betrays an
utter ignorance or forgetfulness of true religion itself—of the
things wherein it essentially consists. ‘This is the love of
God, that we keep his commandments, and his command-
ments are not grievous.’ The ‘pure religion’ of James—of
the ‘ golden rule’—of the two great commandments on which
‘hang all the law and the prophets,’ seems tu have no place
even in the conceptions of those who rely on such tests.

Equally regardless are such men of the facts of the world’s
history and of its present spiritual condition. 'The Pharisees
could compass sea and land to make one proselyte. In their
devotions, they were sufficiently vociferous and earnest,
breaking out, as by irrepressible impulse, at the very corners
of the streets. ‘They were by no means the cold-hearted,
stiff, dull, phlegmatic formalists that some men picture them
to be. Paul regarded himself as having been exceedingly
mad, absolutely insane, with the prevalent enthusiasm of the
sect, before his conversion. The same spirit composed the
atmosphere of the Romish church, at the very period when
its spiritual despotism and its manifold corruptions were
engendered and ripened into giant maturity. The present
mummeries and superstitions of that church are but the
skeletons, the shells, the monuments of its ancient enthu-
siasin, fanaticism, mysticism and rbapsody.* To galvanize

*See ‘Spiritual Despotism,’ by the author of ‘ Natural History of
Enthusiasm’—a work in which the rise of the Papal power is traced

10

this skeleton into its former life and activity, to revive again
and to restore the departed spirit of its now unmeaning
rituals—the spirit of the most soul-stirring and wide-spread-
ing enthusiasm the world ever saw—appears to be the object
of Dr. Pusey, and the writers of the ‘Oxford tracts’ And
not a few of the most zealous among the English clergy, of
the ‘evangelical’ stamp, the patrons of ‘revivals, have been
captivated by them, and drawn away to ‘wander after the
beast, whose deadly wound’ is likely to be ‘healed’ by the
process. If modern travellers may be credited, something of
the spirit invoked by the Puseyists has been conjured up, in
Popish countries, not infrequently, within the last century.

At Naples, in Sicily, in various parts of Italy, in Portugal,
and in South America, there have been repeated religious
excitements, among the Romanists, in our own day, the
description of which casts into the shade—so far as excite-
ment and intense emotion are concerned—the religious
excitements of our own country. Whole cities have spon-
taneously thrown aside their secular avocations, for a suc-
cession of days, and in some cases for weeks, it is said. ‘The
population, en masse, have eagerly thronged the streets in
procession, moved by alternate terrors and transports—some-
times wringing their hauds in agony, dashing themselves
headlong upon the pavements or into the mire, and implor-
ing the intercession of the ‘Blessed Virgin’ for the forgive-
ness of their sins. Then receiving absolution from their
priests with frantic gestures and clamorous exultations. But
did these Romish ‘revivals’ bring forth the fruits of righteous-
ness 2 Ah! that is the question by which Protestant as well as
Romish revivals should be tested. What should be thought
of revivals conducted by itinerating evangelists, who carry
on, likewise, a traffic in men, women and children, during
their revivals? Such things have been witnessed, and a
prothinent minister lately preached, in Baltimore, with a pair
of handcuffs in his pocket, which, immediately after the
sermon, he put upon a female slave, on ship board, to be
transported tothe South. And we have, all over the country,
‘revivals’ conducted by preachers who will not plead for
the enslaved—nor listen to such a plea—nor suffer their
church doors to be opened for one—by preachers in close
fellowship and brotherly intercourse with the slave-buying

with a graphic pencil, and shown to have grown up, along with its ab-
surd and blasphemous pretensions and dogmas, out of the rank soil of a
spurious religious excitement, in which reason and common sense were
outraged, and the practical duties of life set aside, as unworthy the at-
tention of the spiritually minded and devout,

11

preachers of the South,* and making up a common purse
with them, to send the gospel to the heathen! What shall we
think of such efforts to convert sinners and to evangelize the
world? Can such missionary exertions and revival efforts,
with the excitements growing out of them, prove that a
church, though devoid of humanity, and trampling decent
morality and common honesty under foot, is a true Christian
church? If so, why may we not join with the clergy of Rio
Janeiro and of Naples, in promoting revivals, and with the
Jesuits in carrying the gospel to China? No revivalists have
got up greater excitements. No missionaries have been
more enterprising, or have numbered a greater company of
converts. ‘There is a philosophy that counts it a sign of a
sickly state of religion to make nice metaphysical distinctions
between true religion and false. The healthiest state of re-
‘ligion, it teaches, is that in which men are religious, without
knowing why or wherefore—without understanding or in-
quiring wherein true religion consists. If this be sound
philosophy, and if ignorance be, therefore, the mother of de-
votion, all we need is zeal and excitement, and we may
venture to harmonize with all who exhibit quantum sufficit of
those qualities, without stopping to dissect, to analyze, to
scrutinize either their character or their fruits. But if relig-
ion be a ‘reasonable service’—if God invites us to ‘consider
our ways’—to ‘know what manner of spirit we are of ’—to
‘examine’ ourselves—to ‘try the spirits whether they be of
God ’—to ‘ beware of false prophets’—to ‘take heed and be-
ware of men’ ;—then the philosophy of unconscious, unknow-
ing, undiscriminating, impulsive, mystic, unexplainable re-
ligious excitement should be tossed to the breeze or into the
moonbeams; and mauly reflection, and logical scrutiny, and
homely common sense should be welcomed into the field of
experimental religion, as well as of every day business and
demonstrative science. The missionary and revival claims
of churches in league with oppressors will be understood
and adjusted then.

Are we censorious, severe, profane or hostile towards
revivals of pure religion, because we thus speak ? Turn over
the voluminous writings of our own distinguished American
theologians, on this very subject. Examine what Edwards,
and Bellamy, and Smalley, and Hopkins, and Emmons have

* The editors of our northern religious newspapers, for the most part,
are just as ready to record, in tones of gratulation, the revivals in the
alave States, as any other 3 though they cannot be ignorant that the
preachers are commonly slaveholders, and that the mass of the converts
continue to be either slaveholders or slaves!

12

written concerning religious revivals and conversions, and
upon the necessity of discriminating between the false and
the true. You shall there see, in substance, all we have
here written, and much more, that we have not room to
write. You shall learn from those unimpeachable witnesses,
the abundant occasion there has been, in this country, to
enter into discussions and discriminations of this sort. You
shall be instructed that religious excitements are, (of them-
selves, and aside from the good fruits they produce,) no
evidences in favor of either an individual or a church, being
common to all the religions of the known world, the false as
well as the true, the Romish as well as the Protestant, the
Pagan as well as the Christian—that they are as common on
the banks of the Ganges as on the Connecticut or the Hudson
—that nothing short of practical good ‘fruits and holy living
can furnish any evidences of truly gracious affections, and
that where Icve to God and man, and a filial discharge of the
relative duties of life, are not exhibited, all religious emotions,
and excitements, and transports, are worthless and vain.*

An almost incredible amount of labor, (and by the ablest
and most honored ministers of the country,) has been ex-
pended to expose the worthlessness of ‘revivals’ that do not
bring forth the fruits of righteousness. And yet, after all, the
well substantiated and unrebutted charge against a large
portion of the ‘American churches, that they ere the very
‘bulwarks of American slavery,’ with all its abominations
and its blood, is gravely met, forsooth, with the plea that
these churches must not be charged with apostacy, beeause
they are blessed with ‘ revivals.’!

5. CONVERSIONS — PIOUS MEMBERS AND MINISTERS.

It will be pleaded, nevertheless, that there are, to some ex-
tent, true revivals of religion in the churches that stand aloof
from the cause of the enslaved —at any rate, that some in-
stances of true conversion take place in their midst, and that
among their members and ministers they enrol many persons
of undisputed piety, including a large portion of the active
friends of the enslaved. How, then, it will be asked, can we-
come to the conclusion that they are not to be regarded as
true churches of Christ? And how can we be called upon to

* To this very point, the closing part—the climax of ‘ Edwards on the
Affections’ is devoted, and the absurdity of the too prevalent notion to
the contrary is shown up with the cool, latent, solemn, weighty irony
for which the gigantic author is so remarkable. ‘ Edwards on the Revival’?
contains much to the same purpose.

ow

Pe a4" »

13

abandon the churches which Christ bas not abandoned, and
whom be still visits with the converting and reviving influ-

ences of his Spirit?

Answer.—Zecharias and Elizabeth, and many others of
their day, were pious persons, and were converted, of course,
in the bosom of the Jewish church. But the Jewish church,
at that time, was, nevertheless, apostate, and as such, was
doomed to he cast off speedily, and overthrown. And the
multitude of converts, afterwards, under the preaching of
John the Baptist, of Jesus Christ, and of their disciples, and
even on the day of Pentecost, did not prove the Jewish
ehurch to be in a sound state, nor avert the catastrophe that
followed. The great majority, including the leading and gov-
erning influences and officials, were corrupt, and, instead of re-
penting, filled up the measure of their iniquities, in the midst
of these conversions and revivals. Andso the Jewish church,
as such, was broken off for its unbelief.

The Romish church, in her worst state, could boast her
truly pious members and ministers. True conversions, of
course, took place in her bosom. Who doubts the piety of
Thomas a Kempis, and Fenelon,and Massillon, and Bourda-
loue — men whose writings are still read for edification and
instruction by the best Protestant Christians? Luther and
the reformers were converted while members of the Romish
church. Was that circumstance a good reason why they
should not repudiate and abandon her, as anti-christian ? By
this rule, the Protestant Reformation could never have taken
place. For none would abandon the Romish church for her
anti-christian character, before they were themselves con-
verted, but as soon as they were converted, the rule we have
under consideration would require them to regard the
church wherein they were converted a true church, because
of their conversion, and therefore it would be schismatic to
secede.

It is commonly held that the frue church was comprised
for the most part within the Romish communion, until the
time of the Reformation, when it ‘came out’ in accordance
with the admonition of our text. Had they listened to the
objection under review, they would, nevertheless, have re-
mained. And when the Protestant secession took place, it
was not on the principle that no trne Christians were left be-
hind, or that conversions there had utterly ceased to take
place; but it was on the principle that the church, as such,
the church as a body, the church as governed, was anti-
ehristian and corrupt.

2

14

The truth is, the converting grace and power of the Holy
Spirit are not limited wholly to the churches and the com-
munities that Jesus Christ regards as truly Christian—nor to’
the instrumentalities that true churches embody and wield
in his service. God converted Abraham amidst the idola-
trous worshippers in Ur of the Chaldees; but that did not
prove the idolaters true worshippers, nor nullify the call to
Abraham to come out from among them, and be separate.
He converted Cornelius, and ‘in every nation, be that fears
God, and works righteousness, is accepted of him.’ Mahom-
edans and Hindoos, when converted at all, are converted be-
fore they secede from their anti-christian, ecclesiastical con-
nections, but this does uot prove that those connections are
sacred, and divinely appointed. In short, the objection as-
sumes a principle which would prove that the wide world
itself is the Christian church, for it cannot be doubted that
conversions sometimes take place in the world, and without
the employment of any direct instrumentalities by an organ-
ized church.

We conclude, then, that neither historical credentials, nor
ritual observances, nor orthodox creeds, nor missionary zeal,
nor religious excitements, nor real conversions, nor a minor-
ity of truly pious members and ministers, nor all of these
combined, can prove a church, as a whole, to be a true Chris-
tian church.

I]. DEFINITION OF A CORRUPT CHURCH.

What then do we mean by a corrupt church ? ?

A church is not to be renounced as corrupt and anti-chris-
tian, merely because its members are not absolutely fault-
less — nor merely because it may contain some corrupt and
wicked members, whose hypocrisy is undetected by their
associates — nor because its faith and practice may be, in
some measure, and in minor particulars, defective and faulty.

But a church becomes manifestly corrupt and anti-chris-
tian, whenever a majority of its members, or its leading and
governing members, and officers, and influences, become so.
A Christian church is an assembly or congregation of ‘ faith-
ful men.” An anti-christian church is an assembly or con-
gregation of unfaithful men. The character of an assembly
or church is nothing distinct from the character of the mem-
bers of which it is composed, and the influence which, as
body, it exerts.

A professed Temperance Society ceases to be really such,
when its members, or a majority of them, cease to be tem-

15

perance men, and to exert, individually, and as‘a body, an in-
fluence in favor of true temperance. And so a professed
Christian church ceases to be truly Christian, when its mem-
bers, or a majority of them, cease to be so, and when, at vi-
tal points, they fail, either individually or collectively, to ex-
ert an influence in favor of righteousness, humanity and
truth.

A church may prove itself corrupt and anti-christian, by
its course, in either of the following particulars, viz:

By its renunciation of any of the fundamental truths of
the Christian religion :

By trampling on humanity, or disregarding its essential
claims:

By habitually violating the precepts of a sound Christian
morality :

By becoming carnally minded, and covetous, instead of
spiritually minded and benevolent:

By an absence of the spirit of Christ — or by ceasing to
do his work — the work for which Christian churches were
founded :

By despotic usurpations — and lording it over God’s her-
itage :

By wilfully retaining ungodly and wicked men in their
communion and fellowship: for ‘a little leaven leaveneth
the whole !nmp. (1Cor. v.6— 13.) The church becomes
responsible for, and is infected with the iniquity which it
sanctions by its fellowship with the transgressor.

Ill. SECESSION A REASONABLE AND INDISPEN-
SABLE DUTY.

What good reason can any one give for retaining a con-
nection with a corrupt church — an anti-christian church —
such a church as has been described? For what purpose
should youremain? What obligation do you thus discharge ?
What divine precept do you thus obey ? What heaven-ap-
pointed relation do you honor? It cannot be the relation be-
tween Christians and the church of Christ, for an anti-chris-
tian church is not his.

What is there to cling to, in remaining with such a
church ? Do you thereby fasten yourselves to the throne of
the Eternal —to the great principles that form the pillars of
the universe ? Do you : thereby cling to God, to Christ, to the
Holy Comforter, the Reprover of Sin, the Revealer of Right-
eousness and Judgment to come? On the other hand, do
you not weaken, if not sever, the cords that bind you to

16

these, to the kingdom of heaven, by cherishing connections
of so opposite and hostile a character? Ponder, carefully, a
few of the reasons why you should secede from such an
apostate church.

IT 18S A SHAM CHURCH —A DECEPTION,

Its credentials are fallacious, its claims are not valid. It
relies on its historical documents, its parchments, its rituals,
its creeds, its professions, its partizan zeal, its proselyting ac-
tivity, its periodical or occasional excitements. It claims to
be true, because there are true men who have not yet deser-
ted it! Itclaims to be Christ’s church, because its iniquities
have not yet wholly intercepted and quenched the overflowing
streams of divine mercy, avd driven away the Divine Spirit
from all of its members, and from the entire human race!
This is the full inventory of its fair claims. Here its ap-
peal rests. Farther than this, it cannot honestly go. — As for
performing its abundant promises, as for preaching deliver-
ance to the captives, executing judgment for the oppress-
ed, pleading the cause of the poor, delivering the spoiled out
of the hand of the oppressor, remembering them that are
in bonds as bound with them, showing the people their
transgression, and the house of Jacob their sin, coming up to
the help of the Lord against the giant crimes of the age, —
cleansing her own garments from the clotted gore of hu- |
man vietims—this, THIS is a work that she cannot pretend to
have performed, to have commenced, to have desired, to have -
contemplated, at all! How worthless, then, are her ‘claims tg

Such a churebh professes to be what it isnot. Itisa coun-—
terfeit, an imposition, a deceit, a sham. What right can any
man have to cling to a deception, to say by his connection —
with it that he considers ita veritable reality, a thing of
worth, and deserving veneration and confidence ? Reader!
If you believe such a church to be Christ’s chureh, you are
deceived, and do dishonor the Savior, and the institutions
he has founded: If you believe no such thing, and yet main-
tain a connection with it, you certify to an untruth, for your
connection with it says to every body that you consider it
true church.

‘CONNECTION WITH SUCH A CHURCH MUST BE SINFUL.

You cannot maintain.a connection with a corrupt chun 2
without becoming partaker of her sins, and receiving of her
plagues. So says the voice from heaven, which John hear rd,
in Patmos. And conscience, and reason, and common sense

17

testify to the same thing. In all human affairs, the princi-
ple now insisted upon is practically recognized.

GUILT OF ACCESSORIES,

é

All communities hold persons responsible for the crimes
to which they are accessory, by giving countenance and sup-
port to the principals, or actual offenders. Ifa person mere-
ly looks on and sees the commission of a crime, but does
nothing to prevent it, if he conceals it, or still associates
with the wrong doers, thereby giving them the currency and
support of his influence in society, and thus enabling them
to continue and extend their injuries in the community, all
men will hold such an individual responsible for the crimes
of his associates ; and, in most cases, the civil law itself will
deal with him as severely as with the principal transgressors
themselves,

If an organized society or association of any description
commits a criminal act — if, for example, it authorizes the
murder of one of its own members, or of. any other person,
whom -it may deem an enemy or offender — if the murder
be accordingly committed by the officers or committees of
the society, or by volunteer executors of its will— an intel-
ligent and right-minded community will hold each and eve-
ry member of that society responsible for the crime, if they
knew of it either before or after its commission, and did not
do all in their power to prevent it, or to bring the criminals
fo justice. And, in case the society, as such, or its leading
members, seek to shelter the criminals, or justify or apolou-
gize for the crime, or refuse to repent of its commission, the
persons who still continue to remain members of such a so-
ciety, will always be held more or less culpable or guilty,
whatever protestations of their own personal innocency they
‘may make. This weight of responsibility will rest on them,
so long as they live, unless they withdraw their fellowship
and support from the society or association that committed
the crime, or sheltered the criminals. God has so framed
the human mind, that men must, and will, of necessity,
throw the blame of a society’s criminal acts upon the indi-
vidual that continues to give the society his support. And
God himself has abundantly revealed (as in the text) his own
fixed and settled determination to do the same thing. On
the same principle, the punishment of national sins falls up-
on the individuals, however humble their station, of whom
the guilty nation is composed.

Suppose now, that, instead of the crime of murder, a so-

ciety commits the crime of enslaving or imbruting their fel-
u Q*

18

low-men, or of countenancing its members, or others, in that
practice, what reason can be given why the same principle
should not be applied? And suppose that society should call
itself a church, a Christian church —a Presbyterian church
—a Methodist church—a _ Baptist ehureh —a Congrega-
tional church — can any body tell why the same rule should
not apply to the associated body, and to the members of
whom it is composed ? Will the sacredness of church insti-
tutions release them from the operation of those great mor-
al laws by which God governs the universe ? Such a thought
would savor of blasphemy! It would contradict the express
declarations of God. It is specially and emphatically in res-
pect to a corrupt church that God says, ‘Come out of her,
my people, that ye partake not of her sins, and receive not
of her plagues.’ Of all the societies that ever existed among
men, a professed Christian church is the association to whom
the universal principle of holding the members responsible
for the acts of the body, should be most faithfully applied.—
For the nature of the organization, and of the objects it was
designed to promote, gives prominence to individual accoun-
tability, and repudiates the doctrine of subjecting the con-
science of the individual, or of the few, to the control of the
many. The very business of this organized society, is to
teach and exemplify human duly, and when it becomes itself
a transgressor, and betrays its high trust, a ten-fold weight
of obligation rests on the individual member to withdraw the
support of his connection with the apostate body.

A church, like every other associated body, is nothing dis-
tinct from the individuals of whom it 1s eomposed. And
their individuality is not to be destroyed or merged in the
‘corporation.’ To deny the duty of secession from a cor-
rupt body, is to deny and reverse these self-evident axioms.
It is to make the man the creature of the association. It is to
nullify the command, ‘Thou shalt not follow a multitude to
do evil.’ It is, moreover, to deny, in effeet, that accountabil-
ity or guilt can pertain to associated action, for if these do
not pertain to the individuals of whom the body is composed,
they can exist no where, at all.

SECESSION IS REQUIRED BY COMMON HONESTY.

It cannot be consistent with honesty to remain connected
with a corrupt and anti-christian church, especially with a
church that will not protest against the dishonest robberies
and thefts of slavery —a church that maintains fraternal fel-
lowship with the robbers, whichis ‘a companion of thieves,
and a partaker with adulterers.’ If there be any dishonesty

Re

19

in slavery, there is dishonesty in the churches that sustain it,
and there is dishonesty in those individuals by whom such
dishonest churehes are knowingly sustained. ‘'T’o deny this,
is to deny that men can be ‘ partakers in other men’s sins.’

And it must be doubly dishonest to remain connected with
such a church, when convineed that the church is anti-chris-

tian, apostate, corrupt. For such a church, as already noti-

ced, is itself a deception, a counterfeit, a sham. And he that
knowingly gives his countenance and endorsement to a de-
ception, a sham, becomes himself a deceiver. He leads oth-
ers, so far as his influence extends, to rely upon that which
he is persuaded, in his own mind, is unworthy of confi-
dence —to rely upon that upon which he is unwilling him-
self to rely —a plain breach of the command, ‘Thou shalt»
love thy neighbor as thyself’

Suppose you should join with some of your neighbors in
establishing a bank, the business of which, you suppose, is
to supply the community with a sound circulating medium,
a truly trust-worthy currency, that may be depended on, a
currency of intrinsic value, and, in reality, what it professes
or purports to be. But, after a while, you discover that the
main business carried on by the company or the directors, is
to manufacture and put in circulation a spurious or counter-
feit currency, of no real value, but which the people around
you, relying on the reputation and standing of the company
and its members, (including such men as yourself,) are ready
enough to receive, and render an equivalent for, and pass

from one to another. Some of them part with all they have

to obtain it; they hoard it, and think themselves independ-
ent for life, while you know or suspect that they will find
themselves bankrupt, whenever a scrutinizing eye, that of a
creditor, perhaps, comes to be fastened upon it.

What would people think of you, if, with a full persuasion
of all this, you should continue your connection with such a
company? And what would you think of yourself? Would
you ever suspect yourself of being an honest man? Or
could you satisfy your own conscience, or vindicate your
course to your neighbors, by merely declaiming against
counterfeit money, and scolding, perhaps, at the directors,
for making and passing it? Or could you satisfy yourself or
your neighbors, by pleading that the company was regularly
organized—that its officers were duly elected and commis-
sioned—that the forms and etiquette suitable, or authorita-
tively prescribed for such companies, had been scrupulous-
PI observed—that they had been very active, zealous, inde-

atigable, in prosecuting their business, and in multiplying

20

to the greatest possible extent, the specimens of their work-
manship, and in filling every nook and corner of the land or
of the world with them? Would you maintain that, after
all its delinquencies, it was, nevertheless, a true and trust-
worthy banking company, on the whole, because of these
things, or because, in addition to them all, it had for a long
time, in years past, very faithfully circulated a sound cur-
rency, and because, even now, a certain proportion of
genuine and good money was to be found among its issues ?

Would your remonstrance against the spurious emissions
satisfy your own conscience, or your injured neighbors, so
Jong as you continued your connection with the company,
supported its cashier and clerks by your payments, met with
the company at its festivals, enjoyed its warm firés and its
sumptuous fare, pocketed your portion of the dividends, and
discountenanced, by your example, the efforts of those who
would have the charter of the company taken away, for its
malpractices, and the community warned against its de-
ceptions?

The cases, to be sure, are not parallel, in all things, for
‘parables, (as the old divines tell us,) ‘do not run upon all
fours ’—they do not, and cannot agree in all the minor traits
of the picture. The finite cannot fully explain the infinite,
nor things temporal shadow forth, perfectly, the things un-
seen and eternal. ‘The loss of an estate, by counterfeit
money, is a small matter, compared with the loss of the soul,
by receiving, as trustworthy, a counterfeit and worthless
religion. ‘The man that makes and passes counterfeit money
commits a small crime, and inflicts a light injury, in the
comparison with him who gives currency to a spurious
religion. A shamchurch is as much more mischievous and
abominable than a sham bank, as the bankruptey of the soul,
for eternity, is worse than pecuniary insolvency for life.

The difference between time and eternity, between gold
and heaven, between dollars and holiness, is the measure
of the different degrees of criminality between the adherent
and supporter of a sham bank, and the adherent and sup-
porter of a sham church. No wonder, then, that God says,
‘Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her
sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues,’

COMMON HUMANITY REQUIRES IT.

If the keepers of a light-house, on the sea-coast, instead of
maintaining a true light, should hold out a false light,
calculated to deceive the mariner, and make him think him-
self on a remote and safe point of the coast, when, in fact,

21

he was about running on a reef of rocks, all mankind would
ery out against the inhumanity of the person who should
contitiue to lend the keepers of that light-house his support,
while he knew perfectly well the mischiefs they were doing.

But the church is set to be the light-house of the world,
and a false church is a false light-house, and lures men to
destruction. The man that knowingly supports sucha
ehurch, is equally guilty with those whose character and
teachings make it a false church. Nay, he is, oftentimes,
more guilty than they, because he sins against more light.

The pro-slavery members and ministers of a pro-slavery
church may really think it to be a true Christian church.
But abolitionists belonging to such churches know better,
or ought to know better, and cannot well plead ignorance in
extenuation of their conduct, in supporting such false and
mischievous moral lights. If the light that is in them be
darkness, how great is that darkness!

DUTY TO THE UNREGENERATE.

Men who know not, experimentally, the truth and reality
of religion, have a claim on us for truthfulness and fidelity
in all our exhibitions of the religion we profess. ‘Those
exhibitions are most impressive that are made by our ex-
ample. When they see us maintain a visible connection
with a church, they have a right to infer that we regard it a
true Christian church, and that the example there exhibited
is, in our view, and in the main, and notwithstanding our
eomplaints of some defects, a fair Christian example, a
specimen of Christian conduct, an exemplification of the
religion of Jesus Christ. But if the church is radically
corrupt and apostate, then we hold up to them a false speci-
men of the Christian religion. If they rely on our truthful-
ness and fidelity, they will be led into fatal mistakes in
respect to the nature of that religion. If they are disgusted
with it, on account of its injustice and despotism, their
rejection of it will be likely to involve their rejection of
Christianity altogether, believing (as they must needs do, if
they credit our testimony,) that injustice, pride and despotism
are not inconsistent with the Christian religion. But if injus-
tice, pride and despotism, be their besetting sins, and if they
are inteut on finding a religion that will allow them in the
practice of these vices, then our testimony will embolden
them to trust in the religion of a pro-slavery church, (and
the more especially if we profess to be the earnest friends
of the enslayed,)—but such a religion being a false religion,

22

and not the religion of Jesus Christ, will do them no good,
but bind them more firmly in the delusions of the grand
deceiver of souls.

DUTY TO OUR FAMILIES.

Some abolitionists cannot bear to think of disconnecting
themselves with the pro-slavery churches to which they
belong, because, as they say, they want to take their families
to some religious meeting on the Sabbath, and they know of
no other place of public worship.where they could attend,

But the first question to settle is, whether slavery be a
self-evident and aggravated sin, utterly inconsistent with the
Christian religion, and whether an earnest advocacy of the
claims of the oppressed be essential to the character of a true
Christian, IF THIS BE THE TRUTH, THEN AN IN-
CORRIGIBLE PRO-SLAVERY OR NEUTRAL CHURCH
IS AN ANTI-CHRISTIAN CHURCH. And to educate
your family in such a church, is to educate them in a false
religion, which they must renounce before they can be
saved ; and the renunciation of which, as already observed,
will be likely, under such circumstances, to be connected
with the renunciation of the Bible itself! If you would do
all in your power to shut up your children to the horrible
alternative of either embracing a false religion, or else re-
jecting religion altogether, the most effectual way of securing
the result will be, ‘while you profess to abhor and loathe
slavery, to educate them in a pro-slavery church to which
you lend the sanction of your own membership and support.

Would you educate your children in the Romish church, or
teach them to worship in a Mahomedan mosque, because
you could get access to no other place of public worship?

You know you would not. And there are professed
Protestant Christian churches in this country, whose errors
are such, in your view, that you probably would not educate
your families in their places of worship. But can they be
more odious in God’s sight, or more dangerous to your chil-
dren, than those professedly evangelical and orthodox
churches, where the Lord Jesus Christ himself, (in the persons
of his crushed poor, ‘ the least of his brethren,’) is scornfully
thrust into a corner, or out of doors, and where not a lisp
must be uttered in his behalf ?

DUTY TO THE CHURCHES——-TO CHURCH MEMBERS,

We are bound to deal truthfully and honestly with the
members of the churches with which we have connected

23

ourselves. If we think them true Christians, and the churches
true churches, then we ought to walk lovingly with them, and
not pester them incessantly with ‘doubtful disputations’ con-
cerning minor points in which we do not happen to be precise-
ly agreed. Let them gotheir own way, and we will go ours,
in respect to such things. But if the points on which we dif-
fer are manifestly vital points, in which the very pith and es-
sence of true religion are, in our view, plainly involved, and if
their course be exactly opposite to ours, it follows clearly that
either they or we are fundamentally wrong, and that, on one
side or the other, there must be a radical change, or else there
can be no foundation left, upon which we can truthfully and
honestly walk together, in the mutual recognition of each oth-
er as Christians. A solemn re-examination of their ground,
must then become the duty of both parties. If, after such a
review on our part, we still find ourselves unable either to
change our opinions, or to conceive that the point at issue is
otherwise than fundamental to true religion, then we are bound
in common honesty and common humanity to acquaint our as-
sociates with the convictions to which we have arrived. And
if they cannot be persuaded to review and to change their po-
sition, we are bound, as faithful men, to shape our conduct in
accordance with the principles we profess, and separate our-
selves from them.

: COVENANT OBLIGATIONS.

Nothing short of this is demanded by the covenant obliga-
tions into which we enter, on joining ourselves to a church.— -
We then solemnly promise to watch over and admonish each
other in love. If we see the members of the church astray,
and that too on points essential in our view to human salva-
tion, and do not warn them of their danger, their blood and our
own broken vows will settle, together, upon our guilty heads.
And no mere lip-service will suffice to the discharge of this
duty, if our actions do not agree with our words; whici they
cannot, if we continue to sustain church relations with those
whom we regard as having proved themselves by their practice
to be deficient in the vital elements of sound Christian charac-
ter, and whom we cannot reclaim.

OUR SINCERITY — INTEGRITY — AND USEFULNESS.

How can we secure the respect and the confidence of our
neighbors, (whether church members or others) unless our faith-
fulness be exhibited, when the proper occasion presents itself,
in the manner that has been described? We profess to believe,
for example, that human rights are inalienable and self-evident

24

— that chattel slavery is the most palpable and deadly violation
of those rights — that its victims have a claim upon the prayers
and exhortations of all men, especially of all Christians — that
Christian character is, in fact, defined and moulded by the ad-
vocacy of their claims. Yet we continue by our church rela-
tions to certify, to endorse, as it were, the Christian character
of those who notoriously neglect, and even contemn and de-
precate the performance of that heaven-imposed duty! Here
our acts are in direct contradiction to our words. And which
will our neighbors believe? If our remonstrances and argu-
ments and scripture quotations were beginning to make church
members tremble and inquire, our fraternal recognition of them
as Christians, at the communion table, and in other associated
religious action, takes back againall we had said. Their con-
sciences are relieved. They conclude we are insincere or
mistaken, for they know we are inconsistent, and they are more
and more disgusted with our apparent pertinacity and stub-
bornness in pressing upon them sentiments by which we our-
selves will not practically abide,and which our actions show
that we do not regard vital to Christianity, after all! Is it
strange that, under such circumstances, a number of abolition-
ists, retaining church connections year after year with churches
whom their professed principles should lead them to discard as
anti-christian; have been dealt with by those same churches,
and suspended and excluded, (not for their abolitionism—
Oh! no! this. is always disclaimed,) but for their disturbing
the peace of the church, and annoying the members perpetu-
ally with their notions which they evidently hold as notions,
merely, and not as principles, upon which their own lives are to
be squared, and their ecclesiastical relations determined ? .

Abolitionists are evidently losing the public confidence, on
account of their inconsistency in this respect, and especially are
they losing their influence with the members of the churches
to which they belong. Just as their reputation and influence
were destroyed at one time by their adhesion to the political
parties* that sustain slavery, so do they now suffer, in thesame
way, from their support of the churches that are equally sub-
servient to the same wicked system.

Abolitionists who have seceded from their old political par-

* All political parties in this country mus? sustain slavery; since all
voters and office-holders, either by implied or express oath, agree to
sustain the United States Constitution; and that isa pro-slavery instru-
ment, Abolitionists, therefore, should have nothing to do with any po-
litical party—NoTkz BY THE EDITOR. poe

25

ties on account of their pro-slavery character, and yet cling to
churches and ecclesiastical bodies of the same character, bring
their sincerity, even in their political efforts, into suspicion,
and diminish their strength, even in that favorite department of
their activity.

DUTY TO THE SLAVE.

We cannot discharge our duty to the slave, while connected
with a pro-slavery church, any more than we can while con-
nected with a pro-slavery party in politics. ‘The churches can
no more be nevtral than the political parties. And the churches
not enlisted on the behalf of the enslaved, are as truly the
props of the slave power, as any political party in the land.
Indeed, such churches furnish, to a great extent, the mora! at-
mosphere i in which the political vices of the country vegetate.*
And the morals of the State can hardly be expected to be in
advance of the Church. ‘To support a pro-slavery church is to
place our feet upon the necks of the crushed poor — and upon
their mighty Avenger and our own Judge, who has declared
that he will constitute them his representatives at the last day,
and treat us according to our treatment,of them. Of course,
we must abandon such churches, if we would not ‘ partake of
their sins, and receive of their plagues.’

THE HONOR OF GOD— OF CHRIST—OF RELIGION — OF
THE CHURCH.

All these require that Christians should secede from a cor-
rupt church. Such a church professes to be a true Christian
church —to exemplify true religion — to follow Jesus Christ
—to do the will of our great Father in heaven. But all these
professions are hollow and vain. Most manifestly is this the
case with those churches that sympathize with oppressors, that
will not plead for the oppressed —~ nor testify against a system
of man-stealing, of theft, of forced concubinage, of impurity,
of cruelty, of ‘compulsory heathenism, of tyranny, and of
blood. ‘To endorse the pretensions of such churches, as true
churches of Christ, is to dishonor, wrongfully, the institution of
the Christian Church — is to belie the nature of true and un-
defiled religion — it is virtually to blasphemme Christ — it is to
insult the God of purity, the Avenger of the oppressed. To

*The legislature of the State of New York excused themselves from
recommending the constitutiona] extension of the elective franchise to
the colored people, because, as they alleged, the Christian churches did
not give them an equal place i in their houses of worship, and seminaries
of religious learning !

26

say that these churches are his churches — that their religion
is his religion — that their character is his character — is to say
the very worst thing of him that can possibly be said. But to
retain membership in these churches is to say that we do regard
them as his churches. » And to say that they are his churches,
is virtually to say that they bear in a good measure his moral
image, and that the character they habitually exhibit is recog-
nized by us as a reflection of his own!

Many who would deem it a sin and a disgrace to support a
pro-slavery party in politics, orto vote for any pro-slavery man
as a candidate for civil office, will nevertheless support a pro-
slavery church, a pro-slavery religious sect, and pro-slavery
teachers of religion: thus plainly declaring, by their acts, that
they consider a political party a more sacred and holy thing
than a church—that while they cannot endure the spirit of
slavery in the former, they can very well tolerate it in the
latter—that a man whose moral character does not qualify him
to be a constable or a path-master, may nevertheless be a mem-
ber, or even minister of a Christian church! Whata practical in-
sult to Christian institutions—to church and ministry—have we
here! Can it be that such persons honor the church and min-
istry of Jesus Christ? One is almost tempted to suspect that
they sympathize with those who would bring those divine in-
stitutions into contempt. Certain it is, that this is the natural
tendency of their course. Nor will it remove the difficulty to
plead that men may be entitled to a place in the Christian
Church, yet nevertheless lack the information and clearness of
vision requisite to the proper discharge of a civil office. Our
teachers of religion, at least, should know as much, on great
ethical questions, as our legislators, and magistrates, and con-
stables. And besides, the question of supporting the old po-
litical parties and their candidates, is a moral question, and not
a question of intellectual qualification, at all, The friends of
freedom require of them no test but that which the nation itself
has, long ago, declared to be self-evident, and made the foun-
dation of the government. From President down to path-master,
the candidates all acknowledge the ‘self-evident truth.’ Not
a man of them is so stupid as not to know the difference
between a man and a brute. And all the friends of freedom
ask of them is to ACT in conformity with this knowledge.

Let them only do this—let them but ‘remember them that
are in bonds as bound with them,’ and the ‘independent nom-
inations’ of abolitionists would be instantly abandoned. It is
a MORAL disqualification, and NOTHING ELSE, that de-
prives them of anti-slavery votes. And yet this same moral —
disqualification is made no obstacle to the introduction of these

27

same men into the Christian ministry and the Christian church!
Very evidently, no community that permanently insists on a
higher MORAL TEST in political life than in ecclesiastical life,
will long retain any affectionate reverence for the latter. The
moral test must rise as high, at least, in religion, as in politics,
in the Church, as in the political party. Otherwise, the moral
test in political life cannot be maintained, and will be aban-
donea in despair. There can be no possible alternative, unless
it be the utter DISGRACE and ABANDONMENT of church
institutions, altogether. The problem whether an embodied
political morality could long survive an embodied religion, is
one which we need not now stop to discuss. Those who think
tt could, must already have arrived at the conclusion that
churches are of little or no value—a conclusion that it will be
impossible for those to avoid, who think to secure liberty by
political action without their aid. Our ‘liberty party’ men-
‘may very honestly and very properly disclaim the anti-church
doctrines that another class of abolitionists propagate.* But
they ought to know that no such disclaimers, however earnest
and sincere, can do away the anti-church tendencies of an at-
tempt (should it be made) to save a corrupt and sinking State
without the aid of a purified and true church—a tendency from
which their own minds could not long escape, though they
may be insensibie of it, now.
CHRISTIAN USEFULNESS
Requires that Christians should secede from corrupt
churches. In such churches they are fettered and crippled,
and prevented from doing the good they might do, as indivi-
duals, if connected with no church at all. But Christian
churches were designed to enable Christians to do more good,
by a connection with them, than they could do while standing
alone. So long as true Christians remain connected with
corrupt churches, they not only diminish their power, and
curtail their opportunities of doing good, but all the good they
do accomplish, and all the good fruits they exhibit, are made

* This is intended by the writer as a reflection on those who are com-
monly known as “Garrison Abolitionists.”” But he overshoots the
mark. That body have never maintained, as abolitionists, any “ anti-
church doctrines,” other or different from those set forth by the writer
himself in this tract; which they now and here republish as one of the
best expositions of their views. If individuals have taught any other
doctrines, the ‘‘ class” he refers to, is not responsible, since it has never
endorsed them.--NorE BY THE Ep1ToR.

28

subservient to the honor and credit of a corrupt church, and
are used up, so to speak, in their service, instead of going to
the support of a true church; just as Romanism has been
strengthened by the adhesion of pious members, and as the
Colonization Society, for a long time, deceived and sponged up,
and turned into its own impure channel, all the anti-slavery
feeling of the free States. In the same way, there are now
scores and hundreds of pro-slavery churches, with pastors and
officers of the sane stamp, sitting like an incubus upon the
poor slaves, and upon the cause of Christian freedom, that
derive their main strength, or much, at least, of it, from ‘the
support of the professed friends of the enslaved. In multiplied
instances, churches of that stamp (leaving pecuniary support
out of the account) keep up a creditable appearance of being
Christian churches, merely because there are abolitionists
enough connected with them to carry on their prayer-meetings,
conferences, Sabbath schools, Bible classes, and monthly
concerts for them, while the majority, or the officials, content
themselves, chiefly, with an attendance on the Sabbath day
exercises ; and with a magisterial supervision that shuts out the
claims of the enslaved, erects the negro pew, forbids the use
of the house for an anti-slavery meeting, refuses to read a
notice, and snarls, perhaps, at the mention of the oppressed in
a prayer.

TEMPTATIONS—APOSTACY

‘Evil communications corrupt good manners’ in a meeting-
house, and ina church, as well as every where else. ‘ Lead
us not into temptation,’ is a prayer that requires of the petitioner
that he runs not wantonly into temptation, nor remain there,
without necessity and without warrant. How shall a Chris-
tian and a friend of freedom secure himself from the seductions
that must beset him in a corrupt church—in a pro-slavery
church? What necessity is laid on him to encounter this
temptation? Or where is his warrant forso doing? What
right has he to expect the divine protection while disre-
garding the injunction—‘ Come out of her, my people? In what
way can such a person be preserved from temptation and from
apostacy, but by being induced to comply with this command ?

If he continues to protest against slavery as a heinous sin,
and against the support of it by the church, as inconsistent
with her Christian character—and if (the church still retaining
its position) he nevertheless continues his connection with it,
and thus endorses its Christian character, then his acts contra-
dict his professicns, aud he makes shipwreck of his fidelity in
this way. The only alternative left him (short of secession) is

29

the more common one of relaxing, modifying or suspending his
testimony against slavery, defending his continued connection
with the church by seeking out apologies for the church itself,
and thus bringing his principles down to the low standard of his
practice. Scores of prominent ministers, and thousands of active
church members, once zealous in the cause of Christian free-
dom, have in this way, and for the sake of peace and quiet
with their religious associates, and of maintaining a reputable
standing among them, (and under the delusion of making
themselves useful by this means,) relaxed their exertions in the
cause of the oppressed, til! their voices are no longer heard in
their behalf, and they cease to indentify themselves with their
_ former fellow-laborers in the cause. This well known power
of pro-slavery churches and ministers to neutralize first, and
then silence, their anti-slavery members, constitutes altogether
the most formidable obstacles with which the anti-slavery
cause has ever had to contend, and the prolific parent of
apostacy, in its varied forms. The recreancy of professed
abolitionists in their political relations, may be chiefly charged
to the delinquencies of the churches and ministry by whom
their political ethics have been shaped; and little must that
man know of human nature, or of human history, who should
expect the purification of the State, without the purification of
the Church.

As this power of a pro-slavery church and ministry is most
effectual against freedom, so we know it is the power most re-
lied upon by the conservators of oppression, both at the North
and at the South. Such churches and ministers calculate, with
certainty, upon the ultimate dereliction of the abolitionists whom
they can retain in their connection. Hence their confident
boasts and predictions, that ‘the excitement’ will speedily sub-
side. And hence, too, their sensitive outcry against any at-
tempts at secession, on the part of those whom they stigmatize
as ‘fanatics,’ incendiaries, and ‘ disorganizers,’ and whom they
ought to have excommunicated as such, long ago, if they were
sincere, and prebably would have done, but for their encour-
aging prospects of success and progress in curing them of their
sympathy for the enslaved.

The Christian church was designed as an asylum into which
men of integrity might run, in order to secure themselves from
the evil communications and temptations that almost overwhelm
them elsewhere. But when churches become the most effect-
ive tempters to transgression, it is high time for the people of
God to ‘come out of them, lest they partake of their sins, and
receive of their plagues.’

*
x

30
PERVERSION AND MISCHIEFS.

And this suggests the general remark, that Christians aré
bound to secede from corrupt and apostate churches, because,
instead of answering the original ends of their institution and
organization, they become, by their perverted use, the most
effective of all possible or conceivable instrumentalities for
destroying the cause of righteousness they were designed to
promote, and for promoting the cause of unrighteousness they
were intended to destroy. Universal church history may be
cited as presenting one extended commentary on this remark.
And those who shall come after us will read and perceive, in
the records of our own age and nation, one of the most striking
illustrations of the same truth. Common sense teaches us the
absurdity of sustaining arrangements and wielding instruments
that produce results directly opposite to those which they were
intended to subserve, and which their supporters design to pro-
mote. To this, likewise, the sacred Scriptures agree. ‘The
salt that has lost its savor is to be cast out and trodden under
foot of men. The well-arranged and highly cultivated vine-
yard, that instead of producing grapes, brought forth wild
grapes, was to be trampled down and laid waste. (Isa. ch. v.)
Of churches, as well as of individuals, it may be demanded —
‘If the light that isin thee be darkness, how great is that dark-
ness?’ And the candlestick that cannot be made to diffuse
useful light, is to be removed out of its place. To cling toa
corrupt and perverted church organization is to sacrifice the
end tothe means. It is to idolize the instrument, instead of
using it, nay, after it has become an instrument of evil instead
of good. This is the essence of superstition, and the very way
in which the worst superstitions are engendered, introduced
and perpetuated.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

The duty of secession froma corrupt church is the same

thing, in essence, as the duty of maintaining gospel doctrine
in a true church. In both cases, the pith of the matter is the
separation of the good from the evil, and the evil from the
good — that the faithful may be preserved from corruption, and
that the apostates may be rebuked, and, if possible, reclaimed.
In both cases, the duty devolves on each and every member of
the church, and is not confined to majorities or to those in of-
ficial stations. IT WAS AS COMPETENT IN LUTHER
TO EXCOMMUNICATE THE POPE AND THE RO-
MISH CHURCH, AS IT WAS IN THE POPE AND THE
ROMISH CHURCH TO EXCOMMUNICATE LUTHER.

a a,

31

DEFINITION AND OBJECT OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

Secession from an anti-christian church is demanded by the
very definition, as well as by the object of a true church. ‘A
church of Christ is an assembly of believers’ —‘ a congrega-
tion of faithful men.’ All, therefore, who honor and prize the
Christian church, are bound to secede from a congregation of
practical unbelievers — of unfaithful men. To do otherwise is
to sin against the organization itself. It is disorganization of
the worst kind. It mixes good men with bad men in the church
just as they are mixed in the world, and thus it practically de-
nies the distinction between the church and the world. Equally
clear is it that no Christian can have a right to support a church,
or remain connected with it, if the church does not promote the
object for which Christian churches were originally founded.
Christian churches were organized to separate God’s people
from a wicked world —to embody their Christian example —
to secure their mutual watch-care over each other — to main-
tain wholesoine discipline —to act as a reformatory body —
to instruct the ignorant —to rebuke and reclaim the trans-
gressor. ‘To support churches that fail to do these things, and
that do the very reverse of them all — (churches that knowingly
admit and retain the wicked within their enclosures, that ex-
hibit an ungodly example, that strengthen the hands of the
wicked, that oppose reformatory efforts, that stifle instructive
discussion, that apologize for flagrant transgression)— to sup-
port such churches, we affirin, is to oppose the high and holy
objects for which Jesus,Christ instituted a church on earth.

CHURCH OR NO CHURCH.

In a word, the reasons for seceding from a corrupt and un-
godly church are the same with,the reasons for joining and
supporting a true Christian church. For the one is the oppo-
site of the other. No man can belong to, and support a true
church and ministry, while he belongs to and supports an anti-
christian churchand ministry. All the time he retains a mem-
bership in a corrupt church, he neglects, of course, the duty of
joining himself to, and supporting, and being supported by, a
true Christian church. He does that which, if every other
Christian should do, there would be no Christian church (as an
organized visible body) on the earth, and there would be no
organized churches, except corrupt, anti-christian churches,
tu be used for the conversion of the world. Whether the final
triumphs of Christianity are to be achieved under such auspices,
let those judge who have learned that ‘out of Zion shall go
forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.’

32
IV. HOW THE DUTY SHOULD BE DISCHARGED,

The duty of secession from a corrupt church implies, of
course, that all proper and scriptural measures for its refor-
mation have been kindly and faithfully, but unsuccessfully em-
ployed. Such a work as secession 1s not to be undertaken
without counting the cost, nor without seeking counsel of God,
in humble reliance upon the divine aid. No selfish or
partizan feelings should be admitted or indulged. The
too common practice of breaking up church relations in a
pet, in a spirit of personal contention, with angry altercation
and expressions of resentment, cannot be too pointedly con-
demned. Whenever churches are divided in this way, the
seceders, though they may have the right on their side, (and
though the deserted church may be never so corrupt,) can ac-
complish little or nothing in favor of the objects they would
promote. ‘Their bad temper and wrong conduct will be ob-
-served and perhaps magnified,and the moral effect of their tes-
timony will be neutralized, if not destroyed. And when the
excitement shall have subsided, they will discover, perhaps,
themselves, that they have acted passionately and rashly, and
not in the spirit of Christ. Intelligent Christian principle, and
a deliberate, conscientious, holy, disinterested regard to God’s
glory and the good of mankind, having had little, comparatively,
to do with their movements, do not now come to their aid, to
sustain them in their new and trying position. They are thus
exposed to the dangers of seduction and compromise; and, un-
der given circumstances, will be likely to recede from their
ground, and join affinity, either in church relations, or by asso-
ciated religious effort, with the same corrupt churches from
whom they have come out, or with some others of a similar de-
scription. ‘Thus the cause of church reformation will be re-
tarded, on the whole, instead of promoted, by their secession.
On this subject, we cannot now treat as fully as its importance
demands, but we may be certain that the true spirit of Chris-
tian reformation is evermore the spirit of holy love, of conse-
cration, of humility, of prayer, and of a sound mind.

As a matter of form, it should be added that, whatever efforts
may have been previously made to enlighten and reform a re-
lapsed church, the final measure of secession should not ordi-
narily, if ever, be taken, without distinctly stating to the church,
in some formal way, by letter or otherwise, the grievances of
which the parties complain, and stating also that unless those
grievances are redressed, by a return of the church to the path
of Christian duty, a division or secession must, of necessity,
take place. If this communication produces no salutary effect,

33

the way will then be open for going forward in the work of
secession, and of organizing a new church. This measure
will cut off occasion for saying that the secession was irregu-
larly made, and that it was a breach of the covenant obligations
into which Christians enter, when uniting themselves toa
church.

V. OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS.

1. ‘Schism! schism! ! scnism!!? What! ‘Schism’ to
come outof Babylon? If it be schismatic to be separated from
the churches of Jesus Christ, then it is ‘schismatic’ to remain
in an anti-christian church — not schismatic to come out from
it.

2. ‘But we are too few and too feeble. In whom then, is
your strength, your life? Is it in yourselves, or is it hid with
Christ, in God? You had better not enter into or hold any
_ church relations, until you learn that the strength of the church
is in Jesus Christ — not in herself, nor in the number and _re-
putable standing of her members. ‘ Where two or three are
met together, in my name,’ says the Savior, ‘there am I in
the midst of them.’ And he says this with special reference to
church organization and church action. [See Matthew xviii.]
If the real Christians belonging to a church are ‘too few and
too feeble’ to constitute a church by themselves, how much
more strength do they gain, in addition, by their connection
with those who are not the people of God, and who oppose, in-
stead of cherishing their aims? You would not, (would you ?)
maintain ecclesiastical connections with Belial, on account of
the pecuniary streneth he might afford you ?

3. «But what if [ cannot find “two or three” to come out of
Babylon with me? Must l come alone? Yes, certainly, if
you would not ‘partake of her sins and receive of her plagues.’
At Constantinople, at Rome, at Mecca, you would not ask
whether you ought to stand alone, or stand with the enemies of
the cross of Christ. Would you? Why, then, ask the same
question in the State of New York, or in New England, or
in Ohio ?

4. ‘ But we are conscious of a ]ow tone of spirituality among
ourselves, and do not fee] competent to the task of organizing
a new church.’ No wonder your spirituality is at a low ebb,
and that you are chilled, almost to death, by the icebergs that
embrace you. How are you to get warmth in such company ?
The slaves, it is sometimes said, are not yet prepared for free-
dom. But is slavery the school in which to prepare them ?

34

God commands you ‘to come out from among them, and be
separate,’ and he ‘ will receive you.’ This plain command you
disobey, and excuse your disobedience by pleading that you
have little spiritual life. Disobedience is not the way to gain
spiritual vigor. The way to gain more spiritual strength is to
exercise what you have. ‘Then shall ye know, if ye follow on,

to know the Lord. Ye are not straitened in him. Ye are |

straitened in your own selves. To obey is better than sacrifice.
Let not obedience be deferred, because the fire on the altar
burns dimly.

5. ‘But by separating from the church with which we are
connected, we shall lose our influence with the members, and
can then do them no good.” How much good are you doing
them, now? What progress have they made under your in-

fluence, during the past year? for the last five years? Is it.

you that are exerting an influence upon them, or is it they
that are exerting an influence upon you?

The probability is, that you have lost your influence upon
them; already, by your inconsistency, in; maintaining a con-
nection with a church that your professed principles require
you to regard as anti-christian; and that no measure, except
secession, on your part can give you any hold upon their con-
sciences, or make them believe that you are. sincere, and in
earnest. The case must be so, if you have continued your
connection with them for many months after the righteous
cause they contemn had been fairly presented, or offered to be
presented before them, and they had turned a deaf ear, or
rejected the claim. If your duty in this respect has not yet
been discharged, you should lose no time in discharging
it, and not make the neglect of one duty your excuse for ne-
glecting another. The claims of the slave have been dis-
tinctly before the nation for ten years. And the justice of
the claim was declared ‘self-evident’ by the same nation,
nearly sixty-seven years ago. It is the simple question
whether a man should be made a chattel—a brute—and such
a question need not perplex a Christian church, many
weeks.

6. ‘Our secession would weaken and discourage those who,
in the main, hold our views, but who cannot, at present, be
persuaded to abandon their church. Answer.—They ought to
be weakened and discouraged in a course of wrong-doing.
Your example of obedience may encourage them to the dis-
charge of the same duty. What if Luther had remained ina
corrupt church, until he could have persuaded all whom he
considered true Christians, to come out with him? and until

35

he could thus persuade them, without setting himself the exam-
le !*

. 7. ‘But secession, as a means of reformation, is without pre-
cedent. Even Lutlier did not secede, till he was first thrust
out of the church.’ Perhaps the church of England, the Pari-
tans and other Dissenters, might furnish us with a precedent
for secession, not to claim higher authorities, which onr ob-
jector might be inclined to dispute. But if the practice were
without precedent, it would not be without command, The
text is explicit—‘ Come out of her, my people, that ye partake
not of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.’ Sup-
pose nobody had ever furnished us with a ‘ precedent,’ by com-
plying with the divine injunction, would that blot it out, or ex-
cuse our neglect of it?

8. ‘But we must wait till we are excommunicated for our
faithful discharge of duty, before we secede.’ Who says so?
Does God say it, in the text,or any where else? And what is —
the philosophy of the maxim? How can we faithfully dis-
charge our duty, while our actions contradict our professions,
and while we give our support to an anti-christian church?
And suppose Satan should adopt the more cunning policy of
not casting us ow of his Babylon, at all? Must we remain
there, and give it our sanction, until the mighty Angel from
heaven takes it into his hand, and plunges it like a mill-stone
intd the sea, to be found no more at all? Shall we not be in
danger of sinking with it, and of remaining in it, whether
Satan ever gets ready to thrust us out of it, orno? What
says the text? And what warrant have we for deferring to
obey the divine mandate, until Satan chooses to give the sig-
nal for us to obey? Or will it be said that a church does not
give evidence of being anti-christian until it excludes all pious

* Will any suggest that the principles of Christian union are violated
by leaving a corrupt church? ‘Chose principles, certainly, cannot re-
— us to cling to such churches, nor to the corrupt portion of them.

uch a union would be anti-christian union. And as to the sound por-
tion of such churches, we cannot be bound to hold anii-christian con-
nections, in order to remain withthem. If seceders from such churches
will establish new ones on the principle of receiving all Christians, they
will be guilty of*no schism, and it will be no fault of theirs, if some of
their brethren consent to a separation from, rather than quit a corrupt
ehurch, to go with them.

+ What was it but secession, when the Apostles organized new
churches among the Hebrews and the Gentiles? Whenever the mem-
bers of an old church organize a new one, are they not accounted sece-
ders? Butthe Jewish church was a national church, from which the
ancient prophets could not secede, as they might have done under the
New Testament economy.

36

persons from its communion? What occasion or what mean-
ing could there be in the command to ‘come out’ froma corrupt
church, if we were to remain till we are thrust out?

9. ‘ But ifthe persons whom you call upon to secede from a
corrupt church, be admitted to be godly and righteous persons,
_ now, notwithstanding their present connections, (and to such
only-is the exhortation addressed,) how can it be made to ap-
pear that their quitting the church is necessary to their
escaping the divine judgments? Ifthey are Christians already,
is not that sufficient? Will secession change their character ?
Will it make them more than Christians? Or will the Judge
of all the earth destroy the righteous with the wicked ?”

Imagine to yourself the righteous Lot, addressing this same
plea to the angel that was urging his speedy flight from
Sodom? What would yousay to such an argument? Would
it not occur to you that ‘the righteous are scarcely saved?
That persevering obedience to the divine commands is the
only condition of their salvation? ‘That in such obedience,
- the salvation of the Bible essentially consists 2?

But be it so, that good men may live and die in the bosom of
a corrupt church, and escape final perdition, at last—what then ?
They may possibly do thus, because they are not aware of the
corruption of the church, or because their duty to come out of
it, has not been distinctly presented to them. If their ignor-
ance be their excuse, can you make the same plea? Or are
you content to do wrong, to support a counterfeit church, and
thus destroy souls, so long as you can be persuaded that you
are safe, yourself? Is this the religion that can preserve you
amid the seductions of a corrupt church? Beware! Itisa
hazardous experiment, at best, aud remember that severe chas-
tisements and lamentable privations, short of final banishment,
may punish your derelictions of duty.

10. ‘ But we make a wide distinction between Christian fel-
lowship and church connection. We do not extend Christian
fellowship to corrupt churches, or to the corrupt portion of
them. Our connection with these is merely nominal—it is a
nonentity.’

But the church of the living God, to which you ought to be-
long, is no ‘nonentity’—no counterfeit—no sham. Anda vital
connection with such a church and its members is not ‘ merely
nominal.’ What right, or what good reason can you have for
maintaining a nominal connection with a nonentity’—a sham ?
A ‘nonentity,’ too, that claims to be a true church of Jesus
Christ? ‘That is recognized, and honored, and confided in, as
such, because, perhaps, of your ‘nominal’ connection with it?

, 37
q
Of all shams, church shams are the worst, and from their sure
doom, how shall their supporters be divorced ?
] To say that you maintain a connection ‘ nominailr ly,’ is to say
that you maintain that connection ‘by name, or in name only.’*
It is to say that you ts: hie to maintain a connection which
you do not maintain really! What right have you to make
“such a hollow profession? After all, are you quite certain that
a connection is ‘merely nominal’: >? When Paul urged the
Corinthian church to put away from themselves that “wicked
person, (1 Cor. v.) he demanded, ‘Know ye not that a little
Jeaven leaveneth the whole lump: ? Whatif the Corinthians
e argued that the connection was a merely nominal one ?
11. ‘ But is not the kingdom of heaven likened unto leaven
“hid in three measures of “meal, till the whole was leavened ?
‘Yes, truly. And this parable was designed to illustrate the
_ power of truth on the heart, or the power and progress of the
“gospel, or of a true church (remaining such) in converting the
world. And mark! the leaven must be wholesome leaven, not
saturated with poison! ‘The figure is never used in the Bible
to show that Christians must remain ina corrupt, anti-christian
church, in order to restore it, nor has church history yet re-
corded the successful experiment. The ‘old leaven’ of iniqui-
ty is always to be ‘ purged out’ of the church (1 Cor. v. 7.)—the
4 very doctrine for which we contend.

12. ‘But the tares and the wheat must be peste to grow
together until the harvest.’ Where? In the church? Or in
ee world? Christ’s own exposition of the parable (Mat. xiii.
) informs us explicitly that ‘the field, in which the tares and
the wheat are ajlowed to ‘grow together’ is ‘the world” Noth-
ing of the kind is said about the church. And those who ap-
' ply to the church what Christ says of the world, very evidently
_ take it for granted that there should be no distinction made
Jetween the church and the world; and no more church @is-
eipline maintained in the one than in the other! ‘ Disorgani-
zation’ follows, of course.

_ 13.‘ But we cannot see into men’s hearts’—‘ Judge not, that
ye be not judged.’ (Mat. vii. 1.) This text, as Scott justly
‘Observes, cannot forbid the exclusion from the church of such
‘members as disgrace their profession—nor forbid Christians to
withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly. In the
me chapter, Christ bids us, ‘ Beware of false prophets,’ and
ecause we cannot see directly into men’s hearts, bids ns know
*the tree by its fruits.’ Censorious and rash judgments alone

\

_* “Nominally. By name, or in name only.’— Webster’s Dictionary.

4

38

are condemned. Some judgment of men’s character we can-
not but form and express. .

14. ‘Does it not savor of Phariseeism to secede from
churches, and call them corrnpt?? No. Not if the evidence
of their corruption is plain and palpable—no more than it dogs’
to refuse the admission of openly wicked men into the church,
in the first place—no more than it does to gather churches out
of the world, in any case, (unless all are permitted to, join the
church, who desire it.)

GENERAL REMARK.

Of each and every one of these objections, and of many more
‘like them, it may be observed that, if valid, at all, they are
equally so against secessions from all corrupt churches (the
Romish, for example,) as well as from corrupt Protestant
churches, in America. They likewise forbid all excommuni
cations of unworthy members. ‘T'hey equally forbid all tests
of church membership, particularly those predicated on evi-
dences of Christian character. They involve principles which
if carried out, would disband all the church organizations in
the world, except those (such as national churches, for exam
ple,) that claim or welcome the entire community, good an¢
bad indiscriminately, as their members. Above all, they are
objections against the discharge of a plainly revealed Christiar
duty.

It will be understood that we advocate secession from anti-
christian churches, with the view of organizing Christia
churches in their stead. Of this work, we intend to treat, ix
our next number.’

* With regard to the formation of new churches, abolitionists, as sue ,
have nothing to do. ‘Their duty is performed, and their responsibility
ends, when they have persuaded a man to disconnect himself from %
pro-slavery body. His conduct after that, in relation to church organi

gations, must be left to himself and his own convictions.—NozTE B

. THE EDITOR.

Ee aay \ hy, hi
iy ere .

) C Sah wea ae

Phe 4 ) fi if
Damas

fg

e)

7 Mi

P ae

y
‘ P
on as

i My Ns; mn My ty
; oN {\} 7 Sia
MIT F \ } nh
OL hi Sy Nes

Ny fi f

Ay utp
jerk e A nlite
raeein s et

a My

tie ) Ny! Hy }

*

*,

ee

eth
a

S

ee

es