Select Sermons

question with the more confidence, because I think I see internal evidence that you felt so. For you say in a note, "In another communication from the Rev. Secretary, he says, 'Mr. Judson was admonished and reprimanded in solemn form."" But why did the Secretary write you another communication besides his official one? The obvious explanation is, you observed that admonition was not the opposite of reprimand, and that even on the evidence of Dr. Worcester's Letter, Mr. J.'s veracity was unimpeached. So I presume you wrote another Letter in order to obtain a decided opposition in the two declarations. I shall now proceed to examine this supplementary testimony.

By using the two words admonished and reprimanded, the idea is certainly conveyed that both those words may be considered as applicable to the fact. But by having used the word admonished, and the word admonished only, in the official communication, it is decidedly implied, that admonished was the original word, and that by itself, alone, it conveys the true meaning: while the use of both in the latter communication implies that the word reprimanded by itself, alone, would not convey the true meaning-would not convey the true representation of the fact. The very worst view therefore which can be taken of the case, even upon the supplementary testimony is, that those who looked upon Mr. Judson's conduct with the severest eye, might feel themselves justified in adding the word reprimanded to the word admonished, though not in using the former word alone ; while every one must conclude that those who should take the mildest view, would never think of calling it a reprimand at all. Shall then Mr. Judson be convicted of a "denial of the truth," because he says he never was reprimanded, and never knew that the Board thought him deserving a reprimand?

As I was a witness of the facts at Worcester, it may be proper to observe, that as far as I recollect either the

subjects of blame or the nature of the censure, that I should consider the word admonished the appropriate word, (though whether even that word were used, I am not certain from recollection) and that the word reprimanded is exceedingly inappropriate to the offences which the Board were disposed to blame. For admitting all the faultiness which the Board attached to them at the time, they were to be imputed to no criminal intentions, but to misguided and hasty zeal in a glorious

cause.

But the question on which Mr. Judson's veracity should rest, is not whether Dr. Worcester or myself, or any other witness of the facts, thinks the word repri manded appropriate, but whether that were at the time, the distinct denomination given to the communication of the Board. The question is, Sir, must Mr. J. inevitably have understood and remembered that communication as a distinct and decisive reprimand? Now, Sir, how very far is the testimony you have adduced from proving that it was called a reprimand, and that Mr. Judson

to..

the

av ma

ve considered it inevitably as a reprimand! The ility is, Sir, that the Board, and not himself, took it serious view of his case, and that he, instead of harsher name to their doings, would be likely to give a much milder one. For I doubt not › some points he condemned his own proceedwas conscious of no other motive than a desire te the cause in which he had engaged. In order a clear case, you enter into an explanation of admonition. But, Sir, is Mr. J. to be proved

a denial of the truth," by your definition of Do your readers need a definition that they nvinced of Mr. J.'s guilt? Will you, Sir, decid uilty by fixing upon the severer alternative of ch you acknowledge to be ambiguous? Sir, ng easy work of ruining the character of the ..the gospel!

a wo

this

min

Allow me, Sir, in closing this Letter, to press upon your consideration Mr. J.'s claims to a more kind and candid treatment than he has received at your hands. Many years has he been separated from his friends and countrymen, an exile for the sake of the gospel among a barbarous people. He has experienced abundantly the anxieties and trials, the deprivations and sufferings of a Missionary of Christ. He has laboured faithfully and steadfastly for his Master, and has meekly borne reproach for doing what he considered as his duty. He has shown himself worthy of our respect and admiration, and we should do all we can to encourage and strengthen him; we should not be basty to reproach him. Why renounce with the faithful Missionary that candour of construction which you would not fail to use in the case of your meanest neighbour? Why convert the whispers of suspicion, into clamorous facts, and aim a deadly blow at his character and usefulness?

Excuse these observations: I have too often held sweet counsel with my absent friend, not to feel deeply interested in a cause which touches the apple of his eye.

SAMUEL NOTT, JUN.

OCT 2 5 1916

The Faith once

ree delivered to the Saints

By Leyman Bricher. DD.

2. Tive Discourses on the Stowment

By Moses Stuart,

Missionary Ordination Ferron

for Newell. Ledson. Nott. Hall & Rice

By Loward Woods F.D.