PASTORAL VISISTS.

For the Panoplist.

Mr. Editor, SHOULD you think fit to give my remarks, on the subject of Pastoral Visits a place in your valuable work, you may perhaps be of opinion, that at least a few hints to the people at large, in refer ence to the same subject, ought to follow. Many of the duties of a pastor and his flock are reciprocal. If he is bound to preach, they are equally bound to hear. If he must declare all the counsel of God they must reject nothing, at their peril. So, if it is his duty to visit them from house to house, it is their duty to receive him, as their spiritual guide.

If he visits by previous appointments, surely the least that the heads of a family can consistently do, is to be at home, if possible, themselves, and to require their children and domestics to be present also. Want of time cannot be pleaded as an excuse; for an hour, or two, in ordinary cases, is sufficient; and such calls upon every family in a society, cannot be very frequent. Besides, more than time enough is spent idly, every week, if not every day, by the very persons, who are most ready to urge this excuse.

Complaints are continually brought against ministers, in some places, for neglecting to visit their parishioners, so much as they ought. These

com

well

com

plaints are sometimes founded and sometimes not. More is often required in this way than any minister can perform. Six days in a week, devoted exclusively to visiting, would scarcely be sufficient, to silence every murmur. And where ministers are really deficient in this branch of duty, no small share of the blame, sometimes belongs to plainants. People ought to know and to realize, that if a pastor has any proper sense, of the tremendous responsibility of his office, it must distress him, to waste so much of his time in mere social visits, as is often required. They must not wonder, that he goes out unfrequently and with reluctance, if they are determined, every time he approaches, to sweep a circle around themselves, within the ample circumference of which religion is not to be admitted.

How can he carry on serious conversation, where nobody is willing to hear it? How can he feel animated, when the first sentence he utters freezes a whole tea-party into statues of solid ice? What chance has a spark of fire to kindle, under a deluge of cold water? How discouraging is it for a minister to talk about heaven, in companies where this world occupies the whole field of vision? to talk about the worth of the soul, where all are worshipping the body?

Let not these remarks be misunderstood. They do not apply, nor are they intended to apply, to the majority of people in

Christian communities. Some ministers are so happy as to live at times, and in places, where religion is the welcome topic of conversation, in almost every circle. Others find, at least some inquisitive and serious persons, wherever they go. But still there can be no doubt, that many a conscientious servant of Christ, has met with discouragements like those which have been mentioned; and has by them been deterred from visiting his people, when he would have gone with pleasure, had they been generally disposed to receive him as a messenger of Jesus.

This excuse I know may be carried too far. Let no Christian pastor admit the idea, that he can do little good, in any course of visits, till he has made a thorough trial; and on the other hand, let people so receive their minister at all times; let them enter so cheerfully and unreservedly into religious conversation; and let them listen with such visible interest to his instructions, as that he may be encouraged to repeat his visits as often as possible;that he and they may be profited by every interview, and that thus walking hand in hand during their earthly pilgrimage, they may at length enter into that rest, which remaineth to the people God.

MIKROS.

EXPOSITION OF MARK X, 19.

Thou knowest the commandments; do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, d fraud not, honor thy father and mother.

THERE would be no difficulty in understanding these words con

sidered by themselves. We all know the commandments here enumerated, and are convinced of the importance of keeping them. The difficulty respects the manner in which they are introduced. There came one running, and kneeled to Christ, and asked him, good Master, what shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life? The answer was, Thou knowest the commandments, &c. This answer seems to imply, that he might obtain salvation by his own works. But did not Jesus fully understand the doctrine afterwards taught by his apostle to the Gentiles? Paul's words are, As many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse. Again; If there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law; but by the deeds of the law shall no flesh living be justified. Did Christ then set this person to seek life in a way, in which it cannot be obtained? This difficulty I shall now attempt to obviate.

The very terms of the young man's inquiry seem to suggest our Lord's answer. He did not ask how his sins might be forgiven, nor, in general terms, how he might be saved; but, What shall I do? Matthew records it, What good thing shall I do? May not our Lord's answer be supposed to have this bearing? "If you will by your own works obtain salvation, there is only one way; and that is perfect obedience to the divine law. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law, to do them. Therefore keep the commandments."

But Jesus did not intend to let

this inquirer go away without further instruction. If he had manifested any apprehension of the strict and spiritual sense of the law, acknowledged his imperfections and guilt, and asked, how he might obtain forgiveness of past sins, and strength for the performance of future duties, Christ would undoubtedly have directed him to his own blood and righteousness, by placing him among his disciples, where in due time he would have become fully acquainted with the mystery of salvation by the cross. But the young man exhibits nothing of this spiritual sense of self-abasement. On the contrary, he replies, All these have I kept from my youth up, and, as in Matthew, What lack I yet?" There is no reason to doubt the truth of this assertion, in the sense in which he made it. He thought the commandments extended only to the outward conduct. He had never openly defrauded, stolen, borne false witBess, abused his parents, committed adultery, nor been guilty of murder. His outward deportment had probably been moral and amiable. Being ignorant of bis obligation to love God supremely, and to serve him in spirit and in truth, he was satisfied with his own character, and exultingly asked, What lack I yet? But the merciful Savior did not leave him in this delusion. He goes on to convince him of his deficiency. One thing thou lackest. Go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow me. Now if this young man was convinced, that Jesus was a teacher sent from God, he must have re

ceived this command as divine; and his obedience or disobedi ence was a proper test of his regard for God's authority. His obedience would have manifested a settled disposition to pursue eternal life at any cost;-it would have evinced that he esteemed the favor of God more than all his worldly interests and prospects. He would have been, from that time, a constant associate with Jesus, and the rest of his sincere disciples, and faithful, followers. He would have been led into all necessary truth, and finally would have obtained treasure in heaven, on the terms of the Gospel. Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

But this man did not endure his trial. Being weighed in the balance, he was found wanting.

His disobedience proved, that his supreme affection was placed on earth. If heaven were to be obtained only at the expense of the pride and luxury, which his wealth supported, he must relinquish the pursuit. This gave him pain. He wished to obtain eternal life; but the purchase was too dear. He went away sorrowful; but chose to retain his possessions. Whom could he blame? If he would not perform duty which was clearly set before him, he had no reason to expect further instruction.

The solemn admonition suggested by his character and conduct cannot escape the notice of attentive readers. Whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have. CASSEDRO,

XXXVII. A Statement of Proceedings in the First Society in Coventry, Connecticut, which terminated in the removal of the Pastor; with an address to his late people. By ABIEL ABBOT, late Pastor of the First Church in Coventry. Boston; John Eliot, jun. 1811. pp. 68. Reply to Mr. Abbot's Statement of Proceedings in the First Society in Coventry, Connecticut. By THE ASSOCIATION OF TOLLAND COUNTY. Hartford; Peter B. Gleason & Co. 1812. pp. 48. Proceedings of the General Association of Connecticut, June, 1812. Hartford; Peter B. Gleason & Co. pp. 36.

THE subject of which the two first of these pamphlets treat, and which occupies a large portion of the third, has excited, in Massachusetts and Connecticut, a considerable attention among those who feel interested in the ecclesiastical affairs of New England. We have been repeatedly urged to lay before the public the case here disclosed; but, as controversies of this kind are attended with many unpleasant circumstances, we have hitherto declined the employment. Perceiving, however, that much unmerited obloquy has been cast upon the great body of congregational clergy in Connecticut, on account of the decision pronounced, in the case of Mr. Abbot, by the Consociation in Tolland County; and that gross misrepresentations are circulated to the prejudice, not only of indi

viduals, but of Christian order and church discipline, we deem it our duty to submit to the con sideration of our readers a fair statement of the principal facts and arguments in the case, and to add such remarks as appear to us worthy of particular attention. In giving a history of the Proceedings, &c. relative to Mr. A., we shall first give an abstract of his pamphlet, then of the Reply, and lastly of the doings of the General Association of Connecticut on the subject.

Let us attend, first, to the case, as it would appear from the Statement of Mr. A.

The Rev. Abiel Abbot was ordained to the pastoral office, over the first church and society in the town of Coventry, county of Tolland, (Conn.) in Oct. 1795, with unanimity in the church and society. Little dissatisfac tion with his opinions was manifested, except by a very few of his church, before Feb. 1810, 'when most of the brethren met at his house to inquire and to converse concerning his opinions.' After some conversation (a part of which is given, p. 4) Mr. A. observed, that there was a difference between him and some, if not all, the church, and perhaps of the society also, o points in their view fundamental He expressed a willingness therefore, that his pastoral re lation should be dissolved. The replied, that they wished noth ing done rashly, and that "excep what arose from this differend of opinion, they had no desi that the connexion should

dissolved." In June, the same parties had another interview, the result of which was not satisfactory. In Sept., Mr. A. received a written request 'to warn a church-meeting, to consider and resolve on proper measures to be adopted and pursued under the present difficulties.' The church met on the 13th, and Mr. A. made "some observations with a view to conciliate the minds of the brethren." They proceeded, however, to express by vote, their belief of several doctrines; and determined that, as their pastor neither preached nor believed these doctrines, it was expedient to apply to the Association of ministers in the county of Tolland for advice. Early in October, the church was advised "by the Association to take proper measures for convening the council of the consociated churches in the county of Tolland." With this advice the church complied, and requested the society to unite with them in calling the Consociation. The society declined; but proposed a mutual Council. To this proposal the church consented, provided they could agree with Mr. A. in a Council. The committee of the church met Mr. A. on the 27th of November to agree on a council; and again on the 30th for the same purpose, when a majority of the committee refused a mutual rouncil. The church afterwards offered a mutual council for the purpose of dissolving the pastoral connexion by consent. The Society objected. These negotiations all failing of their object, the Consociation met at Coventry, April 16th, 1811. Mr. A., being called upon to answer to

the complaint of the church, read and presented a protest. In this document he denies the authority of the elders and messengers there convened, for the following reasons: 1. Because an impartial mutual council had not been offered to him. 2. Because the council then in session was not a regular consociation, empowered according to the Saybrook Platform, to hear the complaint against him. Under this head Mr. A. labors to prove, that there is no Consociation in Tolland county, that the first church in Coventry does not belong to it, even if it exists, and that, should both these points be yielded, Mr. A. himself does not belong to it. 3. Because councils have no authority in matters of faith. Mr. A. dwells much and earnestly on the opinion, that the Scriptures alone are the rule of faith; and proves undeniably, if it needed any proof, that the framers of the Saybrook Platform were of the same opinion. The protest of Mr. A. occupies fourteen pages. It is followed by a protest, signed by the society committee, which relies upon the same arguments as had been stated at greater length by Mr. A., expresses the attachment of a majority of the society to their minister, and displays the evils which in their opinion, would take place in consequence of his removal. The question, Whether this body have jurisdiction as a council of consociated churches? was amply dis- . cussed, and the council proceeded to vote that they were "duly convened and authorized to try the complaint before them."

Mr. A., being called upon again to answer to the complaint,