Miscellaneous Subjects
On the true JVature of Church Power.
In our conversation upon the subject of church government, it is very common to talk of the power, or authority of our churches. But in what does this power really consist, and how far does it extend? Every society has certainly an unquestionable right to regulate all its own temporal and spiritual affairs, to the entire exclusion of all human interference and control whatever. But we must be careful, not to carry the idea of independence so far as to trench upon the dominion of .Jesus Christ. The power of a church is simply a right to put their own construction upon the laws of Christ, and to obey his laws, in the way in which they think will be most agreeable to him. This is neither understood nor remembered with as much distinctness as it should be. Hence it is a very usual thing for churches at their stated, or occasional meetings, to cbiisider themselves as met to make laws, and set in order the affah’s of the spiritual kingdom; and a great deal is said about “our church,” and “the rules that ive have established in oitr church.” Our church I! How came it ours? The church is Christ’s. The rules we have established!! The sole right of making laws, is with Him to whom the church belongs. The church is a kingdom, of which Christ is sole monarch, the New Testament is his spiritual code and all the power we have, is to execute the laws which he has already established. In the whole business of church government, we are to acknowledge the authority, and consider ourselves as doing the will of Christ. Nothing is left to oiisr will, to our wisdom, to our caprice; but in all things we are to be guided by the law of Jesus, laid down in his word.
In the choice of officers, in the admission of members, in the exercise of discipline, we are not to act upon views and principles of our own, but are to be guided by those we find in the New Testament. We have no power to legislate, but merely to interpret the law and obey. When we meet, Christ is in the midst of us, not only by his essential presence, but by his revealed will: and every authoritative voice is hushed, but that which speaks to us from the sacred canon. When a member is proposed, we are not to ask, “Is he such an one as we think will add respectability to our communion; is he of long standing in the ways of God; is he peculiar in his habits?” but, “Is he such an one as Christ has received?” When a measure is submitted for our adoption, we are not first to inquire into its pohcy, but whether it is in exact accordance with the general principles and spirit of the New Testament. Every act of church government must be an explicit acknowledgment of the authority of Jesus, as King in Zion, and an act of obedience to his laws. With respect to all human authority, our power is legislatorial, but in reference to Christ purely executive.
On the Mode of conducting Church Meetings.
Eveiy well regulated church will have its solemn and stated meetings for conducting the business necessarily connected with its existence and progress. Many ministers have imbibed a prejudice against these meetings, and like Charles the First, who, not finding the parliament as suppliant as he could wish, determined to govern without parliaments altogether, they have resolved to rule without calling the church together, except, at least, on extraordinary emergencies. I admit that church meetings have been abused; but this has been more firequently the fault of the pastor, than the peopie. They have sometmies exhibited scenes of confusion, little recommendatory of the democratic form of chm-ch government. This, however, is not the error of the system, but the improper way ill which it is administered. When ignorance or imprudence is elevated to the chair, order and decorum cannot be looked for in the assembly.
It would conduce to the order of church meetings, if it were much inculcated by the pastor, and generally understood by the people, that they were meetings for devotion, and not for debate. They should ever be attended with the usual services of a prayer-meeting, i. e. with singing, supplication, and ministerial exhortation. If business is to be done, it should be thus introduced, and transacted in the spirit, and amidst the services of devotion. These times of assembling should be periodical; for when they are only occasional, they lose the character of devotional seasons, assume the form of business meetings, to which the members come prepared for protracted and general discussion.
All the proceedings at a church meeting should either emanate directly from the pastor, or from others by Ms previous knowledge and consent. The president of every society, and of every meeting, ought to be acquainted with all the business which is to be transacted by the assembly. He announces and explains the object of their being convened, and regulates the discussions which ensue. Every case, therefore, that is to be laid before the church, should be stated by the pastor, who, like the judge upon the bench, is to show what the law saith touching the business in hand. If this be neglected, and the members are allowed to introduce any business which they please, our church meetings would very soon resemble the scene which was exhibited at the base of the tower of Babel. An attention to this single, simple circumstance, will very much tend to ensure the order and harmony of our meetings.
As LITTLE DISCUSSION AS IS REALLY POSSI-BLE, should take place at our church meetings. The admonition of the apostle is always in season, but never more so than in reference to the times of the assernbhng of the saints: “Let every man be slow to speak.” Nothing but the most obvious necessity, should induce a single individual to utter a syllable; and when any one does deliver his opinion, it should not be in a prating, dogmatical manner, but in few words modestly spoken. Not only the pastor, but the people themselves, should discourage those forward, obtrusive spirits, to whom no music or melody is so pleasant as the sound of their own voice. Talking assemblies, soon become disorderly ones. A wise and prudent minister will set his face against them; and a wise and prudent church will support him in this conduct.
It is, of course, no less the interest than the duty of the society, to support, at all its meetings, the just and scriptural authority of the pastor. He should never be addressed but in the most courteous and respectful manner, and every expression of rudeness or insult should be marked with the disapprobation of the members present.
On the Admission of Members to the Church.
When an individual is known to be desirous of fellowship, information of this should be conveyed without delay to the pastor, who upon conversing with the person, and making suitable inquiries about his character and conduct, must be considered at liberty, either to mention him as a candidate for fellowship, Or not, according as his views shall dictate. No member should presume to bring forward a candidate, in opposition to the ophiion of the pastor. It is of course to be expected, that he will never reject an individual, but upon grounds, which appear to him to be quite sufficient, and which he will, without hesitation or reserve, communicate to the person himself.
On the part of the church, there is sometimes a very unscriptural reluctance to receive persons into membership, till after they have had a long trial of their Christian steadfastness and integrity. It is very common for some members to exclaim in surprise, when the name of a candidate is mentioned to them in secret, “AVh at, is he going to be proposed to the church? why, he he has not been converted three months.” I wish these over-cautious Christians to tell me, what length of time ought to elapse after conversion, and before the individual is introduced to communion? Has Jesus Christ stated any term of probation, which we must pass through before we are received into the church? Certainly not. What right then have we to fix upon any? Is it not establishing terms of communion, which he has not established? Is not this a direct invasion of his authority? If we consult the precedents furnished by the practice of the apostles, they most decisively condemn the overstrained caution of those, who would put a Christian upon the trial of a year or two, before he is admitted to communion. The very day in which a man professed himself a Christian, he was added to the church. In fact, his joining himself to the church, was his profession. I would have every step taken to inquire into the knowledge, faith, and conduct of an individual who proposes himself for fellowship; and if they are satisfactory, I would admit him, although he had been converted but a single month; and I call upon the person who would refuse to join in such admission, to show on what ground he acts. Let him not talk about the necessity of caution, and the possibility of being deceived; this is very true, but it must not be allowed to interfere with the rules, vrhich Christ has laid down for the government of his church. Our views of policy cannot improve his institutions, and ought not to oppose the practice of his apostles. The rule of our proceeding is simply this, “We must receive those whom we think the Lord hath received.” Abandon this rule, and we have no directory for our conduct. One person may think a year’s trial enough, but another may think two years’ necessary. It is truly shocking, to see how many excellent and exemplary Christians are kept by some churches month after month at a distance from the fellowship of the faithful, under the pretence of trying their steadfastness. “We must not take the children’s bread,” say these ultra cautious disciples, “and cast it to the dogs.” Nor have you a right to starve the children, any more than you have to pamper the dogs. Our rule is this, “evidence of personal religion, whether that evidence be the result of a month or a year.”
The Lord’s supper is intended no less for babes, than fathers in Christ; and who will contend that the right way to treat a new born infant, is to neglect him, and leave him to himself, to see whether he will live? — to nurse and feed him is the ordained means to preserve his life. It is precisely the same in spirituals as in temporals. And if it be proper to say of a child that died in consequence of neglect, that he would have lived if proper care had been taken, it is not less correct to say of some persons that once appeared hopeful, but afterwards returned to the world, they would have proved honourable Christians, had they not been neglected by the church.
The same unscriptural caution is sometimes displayed towards those converts, who are young in years. It is surprising to see what a panic some members are thrown into, when a young person is proposed as a candidate for fellowship; and if they happen to discover that the youth is only fifteen or sixteen years of age, they seem to feel as if the church was either going to be profaned or destroyed. Is there, then, a canonical age of membership? Is the same rule established in the kingdom of Christ, which is observed in the kingdoms of the world, and every one considered as unfit for the privileges of citizenship, till he arrive at the age of one and twenty? If not, what right have we to speak or think about the age of a candidate? Piety is all we have to inquire into; and whether the individual be fourteen, or fourscore, we are to receive him, provided we have reason to suppose, “that Christ has received him.”
The MODE OF ADMISSION is various in different churches. The church is to receive the member, and any mode which they may adopt to ascertain the sincerity of his piety, is lawful, provided that it is not so rigid, as to deter persons from applying for admission. In every case, the church ought to have the means of ascertaining the piety of the individuals; without this there can be no real communion. In some churches the pastor only, examines the candidate: But this is too great a power to delegate to a man, and too great a responsibility for any man willingly to incur.* It is deeply interesting to hear a simple,, artless account of sinner’s conversion from his own lips; and then by his particularizing the very sermons which were the means of his conversion, he helps in no small degree to raise the pastor in the estimation of the church, by these proofs of his usefulness and success, and to endear him to their hearts.
* In most of our American churches, candidates are required to appear before the assembled church, and detail the methods of grace by which God brought them to his knowledge and service. Ed.
On Discipline.
By discipline, is meant, the right treatment of offending members. The church which neglects this duty, resembles a state in which the administration of justice is omitted, and crime is permitted to be practised with impunity. That part of the design of church union, which consists in mutual watchfulness, is lost; backsliders are encouraged to go farther astray, hypocrites are patronized in their self-delusion, the ruin of men’s souls abetted, the society is corrupted, and the honour of religion is compromised. It is this sin which the apostle describes in those awful words, “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy.” The church is that temple, and to defile it, is to introduce improper members to its communion, or to tolerate them in the practice of sin. To suffer offences to be committed from time to time, without being noticed and removed, must be as displeasing in the sight of God, as it would have been, if the Jews had permitted any filthy substances to remain in the temple of Solomon, or had swept the impurities of the sacrifices into the holy of holies. A single unpunished transgressor troubled the whole camp of Israel, and brought calamity upon a nation; nor could the favour of God rest upon the people, till Achan was discovered and destroyed. Nothing can be conceived of, more likely to grieve the Holy Spirit, or to induce him to withdraw his gracious influence from a church, than a neglect of scriptural discipline. And it is worth while to examine, whether this is not one of the causes of the dechning state of many Christian societies.
The advantages of discipline are obvious and numerous. It reclaims backsliders, it detects hypocrites, it circulates a secret and salutary awe through the church, supplies an additional incentive to watchfulness and prayer, by exhibiting at once the most affecting proofs of human frailty, and the painful consequences resulting from its exposure; while in addition, it is a public testimony, borne by the church, against all unrighteousness.
Here several things deserve particular consideration.
I. What offences should become subject to discipline.
1. Of course, all scandalous vices and immoralities. “Not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no not to eat — put away from yourselves that wicked person,” (mentioned verse 1,) 1 Cor. v. 11 — 13.
2. The denial of essential articles of the Christian faith, and persisting in the elrror.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that we have preached, let him be accursed.” Gal. i. 8. “Of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus, who, concerning the truth, have erred, saying the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some — whom I deliver to Satan.” 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18. “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the words of Christ and sound doctrine, according to godliness — from such withdrawthyself” lTim.vi.3 — 5. “If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed, is a partaker of bis deeds.” 2 John 10, 11. Nothing can be more plain than that these passages require us to separate from our communion those who deny what we consider to be the essential articles of our faith. Every church has an indubitable right of determining for themselves, what they consider to be fundamental truths; they should, however, be extremely cautious, not to set up other truths than those which are established in the Word of God. It is difficult to say, where forbearance should terminate, and discipline begin; but there can be no doubt as to the path of duty, when a member denies the divinity, atonement, and spiritual influence of our blessed Lord. With such a person, it is impoa* Q sible to have any spiritual communion, and we ought not to hold with him any visible union. Reason as well as revelation forbids it.
3. Disturbing the peace of the church in any way, is an offence that imperatively demands the exercise of discipline.
“A man that is a heretic,’^’ after the first and second admonition reject.” Titus iii. 10. “I would they were cut off that trouble j’ou.” Gal. V. 12. “Mark them which cause divisions, and avoid them.” Rom. xvi. 17. “We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly.” 2 Thes. iii. 6.
We are here taught, that if any man disturb the peace, or break the unity of the church, no matter in what way, whether by insinuating that the pastor does not preach the gospel, or by forming a party against him, or by raising up a division to oppose the proceedings of the society in a factious and contentious manner, he must without delay be dealt with as an offender. He may be a moral, and in appearance a holy man, but this is not to screen him from discipline: on
* The word here translated heretic signifies, rather the author and leader of a party, whatever his opinions may be, than one who holds erroneous sentiments. It means a factious person, who raises a sect in the society, whether the ground of their association be a matter of feeling or opinion.
the contrary, these very qualities enable him, if suffered to continue, to do the greater mischief A factious temper, when united with reputed sanctity, is the most dangerous character that can exist in a Christian society. An immoral man can do little harm; his vices have a repellent power to drive away from him, all who have a regard for their own reputation; but a iiian who, under the guise of piety, becomes a troubler of Israel, will be a troubler indeed. He should be instantly called to account for his conduct, and if not reclaimed by mild and affectionate adraouition, separated from communion. As long as the church contains such an individual, it is cherishing a viper in its bosom.
4. Suffering near relatives to want the necessaries of life, when able to relieve them.
“If any man provide not for his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” 1 Tim. v. 8.
5. Living in a state of irreconcileable enmity with any of the brethren, and refusing to make suitable concessions for an injury inflicted. “If he will not hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Matt, xviii. 17.
II. The manner of proceeding in cases of discipline.
There are many things, of which no other notice should be taken than the private admonition of one member to anothef. When the offence is comparatively trivial, and known only to an individual or two, nothing more is necessary than for these individuals, without saying a syllable about the matter to any one else, to go in a spirit of great meekness and affection to the offender, and to admonish him. If the desired effect is not produced, they should then acquaint the pastor with the fact, who will join his admonition to theirs, and this will in most cases be sufficient to produce a spirit of contrition. It is very undesirable to bring any thing more into our church meetings than is absolutely necessary; they will otherwise become the scene of endless contention. It must be intrusted to the pastor’s discretion, to decide what matters shall be brought under the review of the society. If the sin be attended with much aggravation, and be generally known, it is his duty to mention it to the church. Should the offender confess the fact, and manifest satisfactory proofs of contrition, a simple and affectionate admonition to him to go and sin no more, is sufficient. The church should be satisfied, and restore him forthwith to their confidence. But if he be obstinate — if he either deny the charge, or palhate his sin, it would be proper to appoint two or three discreet individuals to inquire into the fact, and to endeavour to bring him to repentance. At the time the deputation is appointed, a resolution ought to be passed, suspending the individual from the privileges of communion.^ Time after time be should be visited by the pastor, and admonished; and if after one, or twoj or
* The suspension from the table, which is denominated the lesser excommunication, is opposed by some as a measure that has no Scripture warrant. But may it not, like many other of our practices, be fairly deduced from general principles, and be as proper as though it were expressly enjoined? Does not reason and the very nature of things require it? Is there no medium between a mere admonition and the awful extremity of expulsion? What is to be done in those cases, where neither the guilt nor the innocence of an individual is at once apparent to the church; but still a strong, very strong case, so far aspriijia/acie evidence goes, is made out against him; or where there is some appearance of penitence, but yet that penitence is equivocal? Are we to admit that individual to the full privileges of communion? what, while his conduct is under examination, and his character, to say the best, suspicious? It is useless to affirm that he is innocent till proved guilty; this may do in worldly matters, where no communion of heart is necessary; but not in the church of God, where the very act of sitting down at the sacred table is an expression of mutual confidence, esteem and love. Besides, even in civil affairs, a man is denied the rights of innocence before he is proved guilty; I mean during the interval between his arrest and trial. He is thenia discover satisfactory contrition, he should without delay be restored to the confidence and communion of the church. But after waiting a reasonable time, and waiting in vain, for any marks of repentance, the church should proceed to separate him from their communion. His contumacy has immeasurably aggravated his original offence. He has now resisted pertinaciously, the command and will of Christ, declared through the church, and must be treated as a heathen man and a publican. If he neglect to hear the church, he must, what ever might have been his original transgression, be expelled from its fellowship.
a state of suspension. Analogous to his, is the case of a suspected member, and who must therefore be suspended till proved innocent or penitent. Still more culpable, would it be, to proceed to ex-comnumication, while there arc signs of penitence, even though those signs were not quite satisfactory. Exclude the act of suspension from discipline, and the churches will often be involved in the dilemma of either having their confidence impaired by retahiing suspicious members, or being obliged to expel those who are not so hopeless as to be consigned to this awful condition. To say that they may be admitted again as soon as they are proved to be penitent, is to destroy the salutary terrors of a sentence, which ought not to be pronounced, but in the last extremity, and the solemnity of which, nothing should be allowed to impair.!
In some cases, where the crime is highly scandalous, and very notorious, it is necessary, for the honour of religion, the credit of the society, and the good of the offender, to proceed immediately to excommunication, as soon as the fact is clearly proved.
By excommunication, we mean nothing more than an entire separation of the offender from all relation to the church whatever, and an utter exclusion from its privileges. The solemn sentence is purely spiritual, designed to maintain the purity of the church;, and to manifest the glory of Christ’s holiness in the government of his kingdom, and cannot extend to the person, estate, liberty, or any civil rights whatever, of the excluded member.^
* There is some difficulty, and consequently has been much dispute, about the precise import of the apostle’s expression, 1 Cor. v. 5, “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” The same expression is used in reference to Hymeneus and Philetus, 1 Tim. i. 20. “Whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.” Some have supposed, that nothlno: more is intended than their being delivered over again to the kingdom of Satan, from which they were translated into the kingdom or church of Christ. In other words, that they were sent back again to the state of unconverted men, to be subject to the usurped dominion of the god of this world, and led captive by him at his will. But I do not see
The sentence of excommunication should never be proceeded to by the church, but with the greatest caution and seriousness; it should be accompanied with sorrowful and humble confession of the delinquent’s sin, and earnest
how by this means they were to learn “not to blaspheme,” or to have “the flesh destroyed,” which are stated by the Apostle, as the end and design of his thus dealing with them. To get over this, some have supposed that the offender’s pride, lust, and other fleshly passions, would be mortified when he found himself despised and shunned by all. This view of the case, is rather far-fetched, and does not agree so well with the more natural interpretation of the words given by others, nor with the threatenings denounced by the Apostle in other places. 1 Cor. iv. 21. 2 Cor. xiii. 1. It is certain the Apostles bad power to punish notorious offenders with disease and death. If so, may we not beliere that the command which the Apostle gave on this occasion to the Corinthians, “to deliver the incestuous person to Satan for the destruction of his flesh,” was an exertion of that power? The only difficulty which occurs in regard to this interpretation is, that it ascribes to Satan an instrumentality in the infliction of disease, which is no where acknowledged in the word of God. More than hints, however, are to be found both in the Old Testament and New, that such an influence is possessed by him. The case of Job, and the woman whose case is mentioned, Luke xiih 16, “whom Satan hath bound, lo these eighteen years,” are quite in point.
prayer that it may have a suitable effect upon his mind, and the mind of others; it should be done in the name of the Lord Jesus, and not as an act of the church’s own authority; it should have an immediate reference to the ends of church fellowship, and the benefit of the offender; it should be unattended by any emotions of wrath, malice, party spirit, or personal resentment; in short, from the beginning to the end of the fearful proceeding, there should be a manifestation of all that deliberation, discretion, seriousness, grief, and awe, which this solemn act of excision seems naturally to demand. There appears in this act, a reference to the future judgment of Christ. In one sense, the church now judges for Christ in matters of his kingdom; and wo to them who dare to pronounce this sentence, without being persuaded on good grounds, that it is the sentence of Christ himself It is the echo of his awful voice, saying even now to the offender, “Depart from my house;” and unless the offender repent, an anticipation of his sentence, saying at the last day, “Depart from my heaven.”
Mr. Hall’s description of the nature and usefulness of excommunication, is very striking.” I am far from thinking lightly of the spiritual power, with which Christ has armed his church. It is a high and mysterious one, which has no R parallel on earth. Nothing in the order of means, is equally adapted to awaken compunction in the guilty, with spiritual censures impartially administered; the sentence of excommunication in particular, harmonizing with the dictates of conscience, and re-echoed by her voice, is truly terrible: It is the voice of God, speaking through its legitimate organ, which he who despises, or neglects, ranks with ‘^ heathen men and publicans,’ joins the synagogue of Satan, and takes his lot with anunbeheving world, doomed to perdition. Excommunication is a sword, which, strong in its apparent weakness, and the sharper, and the more keenly edged for being divested of all sensible and exterior envelopements, lights immediately on the spirit, and inflicts a womid which no balm can cure, no oiijtment can mollify, but which must continue to ulcerate and burn, till healed by the blood of atonement, applied by penitence and prayer. In no instance is that axiom more fully verified, ‘The weakness of God is stronger than men, and the foolishness of God is wiser than men,’ than in the discipline of his church. By encumbering it with foreign aid, they have robbed it of its real strength; by calling in the aid of temporal pains and jienalties, they have removed it from the spirit to the flesh, from its contact with eternity, to unite it to secular interests; and as the corruption of the best things is the worst, have rendered it the scandal and reproach of our holy religion.
“While it retains its character, as a spiritual ordinance, it is the chief bulwark against the disorders which threaten to overturn religion, the very nerve of virtue, and next to the preaching of the cross, the principal antidote to the ‘corruptions that are in the world through lust.’ DiscipUne in a church occupies the place of laws in a state; and as a kingdom, however excellent its constitution, will inevitably sink into a state of extreme wretchedness, in which laws are either not enacted, or not duly administered; so a church which pays no attention to discipline, will either fail into confusion, or into a state so much worse, that little or nothing remains worth regulating. The right of inflicting censures, and of proceeding in extreme cases to excommunication, is an essential branch of that power with which the church is endowed, and bears the same relation to discipline that the administration of criminal justice bears to the general principles of government. When this right is exerted in upholding the ’ faith once delivered to the saints,’ or enforcing a conscientious regard to the laws of Christ, it maintains its proper place, and is highly beneficial. Its cognizance of doctrine is justified by apostolic authority; * a heretic, after two or three admonitions, reject:’ nor is it to any purpose to urge the difference betwixt ancient heretics and modern, or that to pretend to distinguish truth from error, is a practical assumption of infalhbihty.”
It is a question worthy of consideration, “How church members should conduct themselves toward those who are thus separated from their communion.’’’’ We are not left without instructions on this head. “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” 2 Thes. iii. 14, 15. “I have written unto you, not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no not to eat.” 1 Cor. v. 11. Two things are here evident: first — We are expressly commanded, to withdraivfrom all voluntary association with such individuals. We are to shun their company. We are not even to sit down with them at an ordinary meal, nor freely to converse with them on secular affairs, except they are our relations, or we are necessarily thrown by the contingencies of business into their society. Of course, none of the relative ties are to be dissolved, nor any of the social duties to be neglected; but all voluntary intercourse with excommunicated persons, who are not related to us by the ties of nature, is to be cautiously avoided: and this is to be done, to testify our abhorrence of the sin, and that the offender himself may be ashamed, and feel the awful situation in which his transgression has placed him.
But it is equally evident from the apostolic injunction, that excommunicated persons are not to be utterly forsaken and abandoned. “Count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” Pains should be taken to bring them to repentance. They should not be given up to their sins, and given over as it were, to become more and more vile. The pastor and members should seek opportunities to admonish and warn them: “Peradventure God may give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” Upon their penitence and reformation, they should be again received into communion with compassion and love, joy and gratitude. “Better,” says Dr. Owen, “never excommunicate a person at all, than forsake and abandon him when he is expelled, or refuse to receive him back again upon his repentance; but there is a class of persons unto whom, if a man be an offender, he shall be so for ever.”
Great care should be taken by a church, to display the most inflexible inpartialpty in the exercise of discipline. To allow the riches, talents, or influence of any offender, to blind the eyes of the society, and to screen him from punishment, is a most flagrant crime against the authority of Christ, and the laws of his kingdom. We can scarcely conceive of any thing more displeasing in his sight, any thing more likely to bring down his fearful indignation upon a church, than to allow his temple to be defiled, owfo/compliment to secular distinctions.
No member should be allowed to resign,{n or der to avoid expulsion. If he has done any thing worthy of censure or separation, he should not be allowed to retire with his conduct unnoticed* “It becomes not the wisdom and order of any society, intrusted with authority for its own preservation, as the church is by Christ himself, to suffer persons obnoxious to censure by the fundamental rules of that society, to cast off all respect unto it, to break their order and relation, without animadverting thereupon, according to the authority wherewith they are intrusted. To do otherwise is to expose their order unto contempt, and proclaim a diffidence in their own authority for the spiritual punishment of offend-On the Removal of Memhers from one Church to another in the same Town.
This of course can happen only in those places where there are more than one church of
* Dr. Owen on Church Government, p. 222.
the same denomination, and in such places it is a very common occurrence. Church fellowship is a very sacred bond, which ought not to be formed without serious deliberation, nor broken without just cause. No member should dissolve his connexion with a Christian society, but upon such grounds as will stand the test of reason and revelation. The slight pretexts on which some persons transfer themselves from one church to another, betrays a frivolity and volatility of mind, which looks like trifling with sacred things. On the least oflfence, either imaginary or real, produced either by minister or people, they send for their dismission to another communion, and are off.
Sometimes a disagrtement with one of the members, is the cause of secession. This is manifestly wrong. The scripture is very exphcit on the subject of offences. Instead of leaving a church on this ground, we ought to take immediate steps towards reconciUation. It is no justification to say, “If I cannot sit down at the Lord’s Supper in love with a person, I had better not sit down at all;” because we ought without delay to have the offence removed, and come to an agreement with the offender.
Some persons break their connexion with a church, because they think that there are sinful members retained in its communion. Instead ot removing, their duty is either by private admonition to reclaim such supposed delinquents, or by informing the pastor, to take the proper measures for their expulsion. If the matter should be brought before the church, and the brethren should not be convinced that there is sufficient ground to proceed to discipline, we ought immediately to acquiesce, and to suppose that through want of information, or some secret prejudice, we had formed an incorrect opinion, and from that time should feel charitably toward the individuals in question. And even if we were persuaded that the church had erred in its judgment, yet as they examined the evidence and acted upon conviction, it is not our duty to retire. They endeavoured to decide impartially, and as they did not connive at wickedness, their communion is not defiled. Societies must be governed by fixed general laws, which may sometimes fail to reach particular cases. We must always act upon evidence, and if this fail to prove a member guilty, we must still consider ourselves bound to continue him in the privileges of communion.
If a church refuses to take cognizance of flagrant immorality, or in order to screen some rich and powerful member, declines to receive testimony, or acts in direct opposition to the clearest evidence, a case which rarely happens, then the communion is defiled, and a member may conscientiously withdraw.
It happens not unfrequently that members secede, because a pastor is chosen, whose election they cannot approve. This forms a difficult case of casuistry. It ought, however, to be a last resort. We should never form a separation on this ground in haste. We should give a patient and impartial hearing to the minister, and strive, by every possible effort, to have our prejudices removed. We should not suffer ourselves to be disaffected towards him, by circumstances trivial and indifferent. We should not lend our ear to those who have similar views, nor suffer a iparty feeling to be excited; but acting singly and for ourselves, strive to edify so far by his ministry, as to render a secession unnecessary. If, however, after earnest prayer for direction, coupled with great efforts to subdue every thing of prejudice, we still find our religious edification not promoted by his preaching, then we may quietly and peaceably retire, provided there are numbers and proi)erty sufficient to found another congregation, and erect another place of worship. We should never attempt to prejudice the minds of others; a step which is not unfrequently taken by some to justify their own conduct; but which is attended with more guilt than words can describe.
It is quite unlawful to separate, merely on the ground of dissatisfaction with the decision of the church, in its ordinary affairs.
It is equally sinful to retire, because of some imaginary or real offence given us by the pastor.
The same steps of explanation and reconciliation are to be taken in this case, as in that of a private member. We should go to him alone, but in the spirit of the greatest meekness and respect, on account of his office. Nothing should be said in the way of accusation, crimination, or demand: but a kind, respectful, modest statement of the supposed offence should be given, which, with any reasonable man, will be always sufficient to lead to a satisfactory explanation.
A member ought not to retire, even on the ground of supposed misconduct on the part of the pastor. If his inconsistencies affisct his Christian character, they should become matter of church investigation: if they are but imprudences, or the hghter imperfections to which even the best of men are subject, we should be rather disposed to treat them with all reasonable candour, and cover them with the veil of love; at the same time it would be proper, that a respectful and kind expostulation should be delivered to him by the deacons, or senior members of his flock.
In cases where a newly married couple are members of two churches, it is quite lawful for the wife to withdraw from her own church to that of her husband, provided she can edify by his minister; if not, the husband ought not to desire her to accompany him. If by a removal
CHURCH 3IEMEEr’5 GUIDE. 203
of our dwelling place, we are siru&:e i at an inconvenient distance from the houie of God, it is quite justifiable in this case, to connect ourselves with a religious society nearer to our abode.
On the Conduct to he observed by a Church in the EUdion of a Pastor.
Whex a ChrL«tian minister is removed, either to his eternal rest, or to some other sphere of labor in the present world, the choice of a successor always brings on a crisis in the history of the church of which he was the pastor. No event that could happen, can place the interests of the society in greater peril- Distraction and division have so frequently resulted from this circumstance, so many churches have been rent by it, that an argument has been founded upon it, if not against the right of popular election to the pastoral office, yet against the expediency of using it. It must be adtuitted that on these occasions, our principles as dissenters, and our practices as Christians, have not been unfrequeutly brought into disrepute. We have been accused of wrangling about a teacher of religion, till we have lost our religion itself in the affray: and the state of many congregations proves, that the charge is not altogether without foundation. God sometimes overrules these divisions for the ftirtherance of the gospel, even as he has made the introduction of evil into the
I moral world, an occasion of displaying his glory; but this alters not the character of the event. Schisms are altogether evil in themselves, and are always to be deprecated, and if possible, avoided. This occurrence forms no solid objection, however, against the great principle — the right of every Christian to choose his own spiritual instructor. We must carefully separate in a system, between what is accidental, and what is essential; and if through the infirmity of our nature, some evils of an adventitious kind, arise in the administration of a system clearly founded on reason and revelation, we are no more authorized to subvert the latter on account of the former, than we should be, to demolish a hospital, in order to suppress the litigations which arise in its committee, about the direction of its concerns. What we have to do in one case and the other, is to leave the institution untouched, and endeavour to avoid these evils, which arise from our imperfections, to obscure its excellence, and limit its benefits.
Under these views, I shall proceed to point out in what way a church should conduct itself, when called upon to exercise its right in the choice of a minister.
Let all the members as soon as their pastor is removed or dead, seriously reflect on the cHsis into which the church is brought, the great importance of preserving its peace, and the influence that their individual conduct may have upon the future prosperity of the society. Let them de-Hberately reflect thus, “The church is now coming into circumstances of peril, and I, as an individual, may be accessory, according as my conduct shall be, to its injury or prosperity. God forbid our harmony should be disturbed, or our Zion become otherwise than a quiet habitation. So far as depends upon myself, I will sacrifice any thing but principle, rather than have those scenes of distraction and division amongst us, which are soommon in the religious world.”
Let the members instantly make it an object of fervent and constant prayer, that the church may he kept in harmony and peace, guided in the choice of a minister, and that they may be enabled, each in their private capacity, to conduct themselves in a spirit of quietness and brotherly love. Each one alone should pray for the Christian temper; and periodical seasons should be appointed, when these objects should be recognized, and their desires expressed by social prayer. Prayer is the best bulwark against strifes. The spirit of healing and union, descends in the cloud of incense formed by the church’s prayers.
Let the members recollect, that the choice of a pastor is one of those occasions, which render pre-eminently necessary the exercise of that love, which St. Paul has so beautifully described in the first Epistle to the Corinthians. This chapter should be devoutly read at every church meeting, together with the 122d and the 133d Psalms. These should form the standing lessons for the occasion. The business now under consideration will require on all hands the utmost caution, candour, patience, and mutual forbearance. Many opinions are now to be consulted, many tempers to be tried, and each one should subject the passions of his own mind to the government of the word of God. If LOVE were elevated to the throne of the church, all would go right. No division would then take place. Difference of opinion might be expressed, but it would produce no alienation of heart. Directly therefore as it becomes necessary to elect a new pastor, the relationship of the church as brethren, and the new commandment of Christ, as the law of his kingdom, should by a solemn act of the church be recognized afresh.
The members should study St. PauVs Epistles to Timothy and Titus, to learn what are the qualifications of a Christian minister. They should well consider and settle with themselves, what objects should direct their choice. It appears to me, they should unite in their view, personal edification and general benefit. They should seek for a man, whom they can hear with pleasure, and who is likely to prove attractive to others. The benefit of the society at large, is the ultimate standard, to which private and personal taste must ever give way.
Great care should be taken by those to whom the church has delegated the power of procuring candidates, not to invite upon probation any individual of whose suitableness they have not received previous and satisfactory testimony. Let it by no means be thought necessary to wait long after the decease of a pastor before a successor is elected. Respect for his memory, does not require that the pulpit should be continued vacant, or that the weeds of widowhood should be worn by the church, for any given period. When an officer falls in battle, the welfare of the army requires that a successor should be immediately appointed.
Neither is it necessary, that a church should hear a great vaHety of candidates, before an election is made. To set out with the intention of hearing many, in order to choose one, is of all plans the most injudicious and mischievous. The very idea that others are to follow, will suspend the impartial exercise of the judgment concerning every one, will in all probability lead to a variety of opinions, and ensure a repetition of the state of things at Corinth, where one said, “I am for Paul; another, I am forApoUos; and a third, I am for Cephas.” As soon as an individual is found who possesses the scriptural qualifications of a Christian pastor, and in whom the great body of the church is united, he should be immediately chosen, even if he be the first that has presented himself.
Great caution, however, ought to be exercised, in forming a judgment upon the suitableness of an individual. That a proper opportunity might be aftorded to the church for coming to this opinion, the probationary term of a candidate’s labours should not be too shoj-t. Preaching is not the only thing to be judged of; piety, prudence, diligence, general deportment, are all to be taken into the account: and for a trial on all these points, a period of three jrionths cannot be thought too long.
Especial deference should be paid by the younger and inexperienced members of the church, to the opinion of their senior and more experienced brethren. The sentiments of the deacons, and those individuals who have grown grey in the service of the Lord and the church, should be received with great attention, and have great weight. A youth of seventeen is a very incompetent judge of ministerial qualifications, compared with a venerable father of seventy. That haughty spirit which leads a young person, or a novice to say, “I have a vote as well as the oldest and richest, and have as much right to be heard and consulted as they,” is not the spirit of the gospel, but of turbulence and faction. How much more amiable and lovely is such a declaration as the following: “I, young and inexperienced, am a very inadequate judge of the suitableness of a minister for this situation, and therefore shall be pretty much guided in my decision, by the opinion of others, older and wiser than myself” This is independency exercised in the spirit of the gospel.
All secret canvassing and attempts to influence the minds of others should be studiously avoided. To see the mean, petty arts of a contested election, carried into the church of God, is dreadful.
It would be well for every church to have a standing rule, that no pastor should be chosen, but by the suffrages of two thirds, or three fourths of the members present. This would preclude much of that cabal and intrigue, which are sometimes employed in cases, where the matter is decided by a mere majority. Besides which, the choice of a pastor is a business of too much importance, to be carried simply by a majority.
It would be well, if in every case, the church could be unanimous; but this is more than can be looked for. It should certainly be sought for in the use of all proper means. The majority should exercise peculiar forbearance and ae-FECTioN towards those who are opposed to them, carefully avoiding to impute their objec-S tions to any improper motives; listening to their statements with patience; treating them with candour; reasoning with them in the spirit of love; and giving them time to have their difficulties removed. The happiest results have been often the issue of such kind and Christian conduct. If, however, instead of this, the dissentients are treated with harshness and intolerance; if their o])position he attributed to a factious and cavilling temper; if they are regarded with contempt, as a despicable minority, of which no notice should be taken; and are left immediately to themselves, without any conciliatory measures being taken, while the majority proceeds immediately to decide, a schism is sure to be the consequence, as mischievous to the church, as it is disgraceful to religion.
The party who wish a minister to be elected, should seriously reflect thus: “If we choose this man, we may give pain to the minds of a large body of our brethren, which we most anxiously deprecate, and cannot allow ourselves to do, but under the conviction that we are promoting the permanent welfare of the church at large.” While the party opposing should say, “The general body appear to consider this minister as possessing the requisite qualification for their pastor, and this has been so satisfactorily ascertained, that it ought not to be with us a light matter to obstruct the general edification.
Nothing but the good of the church shall lead us to set up our opinion in opposition to that of a large majority of its members.” Such a lovely temper would generally lead to beneficial results.
It would be very advisable in some cases, for even so large a majority as two thirds, or even three fourths, to give up the point, rather than carry it in opposition to a minority, which includes in it the deacons, and many of the most experienced and respectable members of the society. The majority, in such instances, have the right to decide; but it is a question whether they ought not, for the sake of peace, to waive the exercise of it.,
Persons of property and influenc%should he very careful how they conduct themselves, on these occasions.
There are in many churches individuals whose circumstances must necessarily give peculiar weight to their opinions. Let them, however, not assume the office of dictators. Let them not robe themselves in the dress of Diotrephes, nor display amongst the brethren the love of pre-eminence. The system of independency admits of influence, but not of patronage; men may lead, but not drive. Democracies are as liable to the control of a few leading individuals, probably more so, than any other system; but then these individuals should act, by causing the people to act for them. If such an application of the words of scripture were admissible, I would say, “They should render the people willing in the day of their power.” An attempt to exert their influence, in opposition to the wishes of the people, is a most irrational, unscriptural assumption of power. To sacrifice the interests of the church for the gratification of their taste; to attempt to force upon a society a man not approved by it, or to reject one who is chosen by it, is the most disgusting exercise, of the most disgusting tyranny.
It unfortunately happens, that when one party has given up a minister in comphment to the other, they almost insensibly oppose an individual, ivhoj in future, may M the favourite of their opponents. It is most sinful to allow the corrupt passions of our nature, thus far to prevail in our hearts, as to turn aside our judgment in affairs so sacred and so important.
When a minister is at length brought in by a large majority, it then becomes a question, what ought to be ,the conduct of the minority. Should they separate and form another religious society? Certainly not, except as a dernier resort. Let them consider the evils connected with such a state of things. What ill will is often produced between the two societies; how much anti-christian feeling is excited; how it injures the spirit of both parties; what envies, and jealousies, and evil speakings, commence and continue, to the injury of religion, and the triumph of its enemies! Let them, before they separate, endeavour to lay aside their prejudice, and hear for a season, with as much impartiality as possible, the man to whom they object. On his part, much consummate prudence is necessary, and the most conciliatory conduct. All he does and says should have a healing tendency. Much depends upon himself. Great credit is due to that minister, who has conciliated his
OPPONEXTS WITHOUT ALIENATING HIS FRIENDS,
and who has become the reconciling medium OF two parties, once at variance about himself.
In some cases, a division is necessary. Where this is unavoidable, great efforts should be made to affect it in love. If the two parties cannot unite in peace, at least let them separate in peace. Let the separation take place without ahenation. Alas! that this should so rarely be the case!
What we want, to preserve the peace of our churches unbroken, is a more distinct recognition, and a more powerful influence of the pnndples of the gospel: More humility, more spirituality, more zeal for the divine glory. We carry into the sanctuary, and into the church, our pride, our self-will, our personal taste. That spirit of mutual submission, brotherly love, and surrender of our own gratification to- the good of others, which the word of God enjoins, and our profession avows, would keep the church always happy and harmonious, and enable it to pass in safety through the most critical circumstances in which it can b’e placed. Instead of seeking the good of the whole, the feeling of too many of our members may be thus summarily expressed — “I will have my way.” Such a spirit is a source of all the evils to which our churches are ever exposed, and of which it must be confessed they are but too frequently the miserable victims.
On the Propriety of occasionally administering the Lords Supper in private Houses, for the Sake of sick Persons who are incapable of attending the Solemnities of Puhlick Worship.
I do not now allude to the practice so common in the Church of England, of administering the sacrament to dying persons, as a preparative for eternity; this custom, so unscriptural in its nature, and so delusory in its te-ndency, is unknown, I believe, amongst our churches. But instances have occurred, in which our ministers, for the sake of some of their members, who have been long confined to their own habitations by chronic diseases, without the prospect of ever going to the house of God again, have assembled a few others in the chamber of the afflicted person, and administered to tbeni the Lord’s supper. The infirm individual is supposed to be a real Christian in church fellowship; the others, joining in the act, are also members of the same, church, or Christians of undoubted piety; and the design of the act is not to countenance any Pharisaic notions of human merit, which the sick person might have connected with the reception of the sacrament, but simply to give him an opportunity of expressing his obedience, and gratifying his love to Christ, by an observance of our Lord’s own institution. Is it right under these circumstances to gratify his request, and observe with him the sacred supper? I think not; and on the following grounds:
1. The Lord’s supper is strictly a church ordinance, and not an exercise of mere social religion, such as joint prayer, and therefore ought not be observed but when the church is professedly assembled. It is not an act of social religion which may be performed in any place, where two or three Christians are convened together, by accident or design, but in the place of their public convention, and at the time when they are so convened. All the directions of the apostle, concerning this institution, are given to the church in its collective capacity; and besides this, there are many incidental expressions, which plainly show that this was the view, which he took of it, under the guidance of the Holy
Ghost. In the eleventh chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, he interferes to regulate the abuses which upon this subject had crept into the Corinthian church. He begins the subject thus, “When ye come together in one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.” Now his meaning in this language must evidently be, that merely coming into one place together for a feast, was not enough, but in that one place conforming to all the other Regulations delivered by our Lord concerning it. The act of coming together into one place was right so far as it went, but it was not enough. In 1 Cor. V. 8, the apostle says, “Let us keep the feast,” i. e. the Lord’s supper, “not with old leaven:” in the 7th verse they were commanded to purge out the old leaven, i. e. to put away the offending member; and this was to be done when they were gathered together; the feast was to be observed then, when the church were gathered together.
It is plain therefore that the Lord’s supper is a church ordinance, and can with propriety be only observed by the church in its assembled form. But it will probably be said, “Do not two or three persons convened together at any time, or in any place, constitute a church?” The answer to this question depends on circumstances. If these two or three meet together for the purposes, and in the character of a distinct and separate society of Christians, and in the usual tinie and place of assembly, they are a church, notwithstanding the smallness of their number; but if they meet together as the acknowledged members of another society, which in its general capacity neither do, nor can assemble with them in that place, they are not a church, but merely a part of one; and as such have no right to perform acts which belong to the whole number. This does not imply that it is necessary for every member to be present in order to a meeting of the church, for provided all be invited to assemble in one place, those who meet constitute the church, however few may attend. This may be illustrated by a reference to the British parliament. Two or three members meeting together in one place, do not constitute the senate, nor are their acts legislatorial. The parliament, are the members assembled by appointment, whether few or many, in the specified place of meeting. Such is the church, not a casual, ambulatory or private meeting of a few of its members, but the body of Christians convened by general notice. The words of Christ, “Wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the -midst of them,” more immediately refer to the exercise of social prayer; but viewed in their most extensive sense, will by no means countenance the idea, that two or three members of a church T constitute of themselves a church, until they have separated from their late connexion, and formed themselves into another distinct society.
2. The practice in question is contrary to one of the ends of the Lord’s supper, which is to be a visible sign of the oneness of the church, of the union of all its members in one body. Hence said the apostle, “We being njany are one bread (loaf) and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread (loaf.)” 1 Cor. x. 17. The loaf by its unity shows the oneness of the church; by its division into many parts, its many members. But is not this design of the Lord’s supper defeated by its private celebration amongst a few members of the church? Are the two or three assembled in private, detached from the public body, a representation of its unity?
3. There is not a single instance of any company of Christians whose meetings were merely occasional, and who were not united for the purpose of stated fellowship as a church, in a particular place, observing the ordinance of the Lord’s supper. And as we have no example, so we have no precept for such things, not so much as a hint that they may be done. Should ministers, therefore, without the shadow of scriptural authority, consent to them?
4. As a precedent, the practice is dangerous; for if the scripture mode of observing the Lord’s supper be departed from in one way, it may in ’ another. If ministers depart from the regnlations of the New Testament for the advantage of the sick, may they not be led on to do it in other cases, till even the purposes of faction shall be promoted by the practice?
It is not enough to justify it, to say that it is a great loss to the individual who is deprived of the possibility of attending public worship, and therefore it is an act of Christian love to make up, in this way, the privation. We must not, in any instance, exercise charity at the expense of principle. The regulations of the word of God are not to be violated, even for the pious consolation of his people. Every one who is visited by an affliction which confines him to his house, is released from all obligation to observe this command of Christ, “Do this in remem brance of me.” The duty to him is impossible at least in the scriptural mode of it, and impossibility always supersedes obhgation. If it ceases to be his dutj’, it ought no longer to be considered a privilege. All he has to do, is to submit to the privation, and not attempt to supply it in a manner unauthorized by the Word of God»
On the Causes of those Schisms which sometimes distract and disturb the Churches.
The existence of this evil, truth will not allow us to deny, nor ingenuity enable us to conceal.
Divisions in our churches produce incalculable mischief, since they not only prevent the growth of religion, in the distracted societies, but they impair and destroy it; they excite a prejudice, a fearful and destructive prejudice, against the principles of independent churches, and extend their mischief still farther, by obscuring the glory of religion itself. Infidels, like vultures, drawn by the scent of battle, hover over the scenes of these lamentable conflicts, ever ready to gorge their sanguinary appetite, with the blood of the slain. A distracted church is a feast to which the fiends of one world invite the fiends of another, where infidels and devils join in thechorusof infernal irony, — “See how these Christians love one another.”
In searching for the causes of these divisions, we are not to suppose, for a moment, that they are inseparably connected with the congregational form of church government. Even if it were attempted to be proved, that these principles give more opportunity than some others, for the developement of the imperfection yet remaining in the Christian character; yet as long as it can be shown, that they are fairly deducible from scripture, we are not to reject them, but only double our vigilance against the depravity of our own nature. Even these evils are less than others which are connected with the systems of national establishments. That uniformity which is produced by legislative enactments, is far more fatal to the interests of piety, than the occasional disturbances of those churches which are formed upon the ground of voluntary consent. The occasional storm is less mischievous in its effects, than the stagnant and quiescent atmosphere which is purified by no breeze, and settles in the form of fever and pestilence on the face of the earth. But what are the causes of these schisms?
I. Some of these lie with ministers.
1. A defective education not unfrequently prepares a minister to be the cause of much uneasiness in a Christian church.
Deprived by the circumstances of his bu’th, of the advantages of education and cultivated society, he enters upon his academic pursuits with little knowledge both of books and of the world. When he has been a student but two or three years, some injudicious congregation, captivated by a few sermons, solicits him to become their pastor. He accepts their invitation, and with little information, still less acquaintance with the habits of society, he enters upon the duties of his office. He soon betrays his ignorance, incompetence, and want of all those qualifications, which fit a person for government in the church, and prepare him for esteem in the world. At length, by the meagreness of his preaching, and the want of prudence and respectability in his conduct, he disgusts his flock, and a conflict ensues. Both parties are to blame; they in tempting him so soon to leave his preparatory studies, and 7ie, in acceding to their wishes. They however, are mostly to be censured; and so far as their own comfort is concerned, are rightly punished for plucking that fruit which, had it been permitted to hang till it was ripe, would have done them much service. A longer term of education would not only have given him more information, but more knowledge of men and things, and more capacity to conduct himself with propriety. Knowledge is power, by increasing a man’s weight of character and degree of influence.
The churches ought to be very cautious of tempting students to leave the schools of the prophets, before the term of education has been completed; and this term in the present age ought to be lengthened rather than diminished. This is an age of activity, more than of study, and therefore a young man should be well instructed at the academy, for he is sure to meet with many interruptions to self-improvement, when he becomes a pastor. An inefficient minister is the cause of many disturbancies; and that inefficiency, where it does exist, is to be often traced up to a contracted term of education.
Much, very much pains should be bestowed by all our tutors, not only to form the scholar, the divine, the preacher, but also the pastor.
2. In some cases, the evil is to be traced to the want of ministerial diligence.
Instead of devoting their time and their energies to the pursuits of the study, they spend one half of their weeks in running about the country to attend public meetings, and the other in gossipping either at their own house, or the houses of their friends. The natural consequence is, that their sermons are poverty itself, or mere repetition of the same sentiments, in the same words. The people become dissatisfied, perhaps remonstrate in a disrespectful way; the minister takes offence; forms a party of his own; and the consequence is, a divided, distracted church. I believe one half of our church quarrels originate in lazy, loitering ministers.
3. Others are imprudent.
They live beyond their income, involve themselves in debt, and their people in disgrace; or they speak unadvisedly with their hps, and involve themselves in litigation, with either their own friends, or persons of other denominations; or they hastily engage in paper wars with their neighbours; or they marry persons unsuitable to their character, and offensive to their congregation, and thus lay the foundation of uneasiness and dislike; or they become involved in politics, or public business, and thus neglect the interests of the church; or they speak ill of some members to others, and thus raise a prejudice and party against them in the society; or they let down their dignity by becoming the go9- sipping companions of some of their congregation. In all these, and many other ways, do ministers often prepare the way for dissatisfaction or schism. Piety and prudence in the ministerial character would prevent many of the divisions of our churches.
4. Others are men of 6ac? femjer: hasty, impetuous, and peculiarly susceptible of offence.
They are easily offended, and frequently where no intention really existed to wound their minds. They then show their resentment in a w-ay very unpleasing to the people. Many hard speeches, and disrespectful terms drop from their lips, which are by some mischief-makers, conveyed to the individuals against whom they were uttered. A fire of contention is soon kindled, and the whole church is enveloped in the flames.
5. Others are immoral.
They commit sin, and yet, attaching to themselves a party, they introduce great disorder and confusion into the society.
It is a point in casuistry, which I do not take upon me to decide, how far a minister might go in sin, and yet, upon his repentance, be authorized to continue his office as a preacher and pastor. I am inclined, however, to think, that if his transgression has been very flagrant, no penitence, however deep, no reformation, however manifest, can justify him in continuing an oflfice, one qualification of which is, that he who holds it should be “blameless,” and another, that he should have “a good report of them that are without.” Instances have occurred, in which men who have fallen into gross sin, have been restored to penitence, and with it to their accustomed labour and success; but whether these are sufficient to justify the practice admits of a doubt. It has been alleged, that Peter was not discharged from the apostleship because of his crime, which was a very great one. But it may be questioned if our Lord’s conduct in this instance can be drawn out into a precedent for ours. This was an extraordinary case under his own direction. Moreover, if our Lord’s conduct in retaining Peter after his fall, is a precedent for our retaining ministers who have committed “presumptuous sins,” his conduct in employing Judas, whom he knew to be a bad man, may be quoted as authority for employing such as are wicked.
The wonder is, that any church should wish to retain a minister, whose conduct has been grossly immoral, whatever fruits of repentance he might bring forth. It appears to me, therefore, upon the whole, for the interests of true piety, that he who has grossly violated the principles of Christian morality, should think no more of the ministerial office. It is of infinite importance to the interests of religion, that the ministry be not blamed, but its honour maintained with singular care.
6. The tenacity with which some ministers retain their situation, when their labours are no longer acceptable to their people, is another c-ause of uneasiness.
When from any cause a minister’s services are no longer desired by his people, or the bulk of them, it is manifestly his duty to give up his situation as soon as he can procure another. Any attempt to remain in opposition to their wishes, is certainly wrong, as the union is not only formed on the ground of mutual consent, but for the purpose of mutual edification.
Let all ministers consider how much the peace and prosperity of the churches depend on their diligence, prudence, temper, and piety. Let them tremble at the thought of introducing strife and division to any part of the kingdom of Christ.
n. Other causes of division are to be found amongst the people.
1. A very large proportion of our schisms arise at the time of choosing a minister. This has ah-eady received a distinct and separate consideration.
2. A hasty choice of an unsuitable person to fill the pastoral office, has frequently ended in great uneasiness.
The people have discovered their error, when its rectification was sure to cause much trouble to the society. Upon our system of church government, it is not easy to displace an unsuitable individual, and therefore great caution should be observed in choosing him. Few men will venture to remain in opposition to the wishes of a whole society; but how rarely does it happen that an individual has no party in his favour.
3. A peculiar and dishonourable fickleness of disposition on the part of the church, is in some instances the cause of division.
They soon grow tired of the man whom they chose at first with every demonstration of sincere and strong regard. They seldom approve a minister beyond a period of seven years, and are so uniform in the term of their satisfaction, as to make their neighbours look out for a change, when that term is about to expire.
4. Uneasiness has often arisen between a minister and his people, by the unwillingness of the latter to raise the necessary support for their pastor.
They have seen him struggling with the cares of an increasing family, and marked the cloud of gloom, as it thickened and settled upon his brow; they knew his wants, and yet, though able to double his salary, and dissipate every anxious thought, they have refused to advance his stipend, and have robbed him of his comfort, either to gratify their avarice, or indulge their sensuality. He remonstrates; they are offended: love departs, esteem is diminished, confidence is destroyed; while ill will, strife, and alienation, grovr apace. How easily might all this have been prevented. A few pounds a year more, given by some individuals who could not have missed the sum, would have spared the peace of a faithful servant of Christ, and what is of still greater consequence, the harmony of a Christian church. Can those persons be disciples of Jesus, who would put a religious society in peril, rather than make so small a sacrifice? Let not the voice of avarice reply, “Can that man be a minister of Christ, who would feel offended with his church, for not increasing his salary?” But what is a minister to do? Starve? or beg? or steal? If he is already living in luxury, and expects more, he deserves to be denied. But I am supposing a case, where, in the judgment of candour, he has not enough to support his family in comfort.
5. An improper meihod of expressing dissatisfaction with a miyiiste7-’’s labours or conduct, has often led to trouble in a church.
I do not pretend to say, that a minister occupies a seat too elevated for the voice of complaint to reach him, or that he is entitled (like his Master) to an entire exemption from all that interference which would say unto him, “What doest thou?” There are times when it might be proper to remind a minister of some duty neglected, some pastoral avocation overlooked. But if anonymous and insolent letters are sent him; if young, impertinent, or dictatorial persons wait upon him; if, instead of the modest, respectful hint of some individual whose age and station give him a right to be heard, ho is schooled in an objurgatory strain, by those who have nothing to recommend them but their impudence and officiousuess, no wonder, considering that he is but an imperfect man, if he feel offended with the liberty, and almost command the intruders from his presence. The apostle has spread over the ministerial character the shield of his authority, to defend it from the rude attacks of those who would act the part of self-elected accusers. “Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father.” 1 Tim. v. 1.
6. The domineering spirit and conduct of some leading members, has often been the source of very considerable uneasiness to our churches.
If amongst the first disciples of Christ, there existed a strife for pre-eminence, and in the churches planted by the apostles there was to be found a Diotrephes; it is not to be wondered at, however much it is to be regretted, that there should be individuals in our days, who carry the spirit of the world into the church, manifest a love of power, and struggle with others for its possession. Their property, and perhaps their standing, give them influence, and this unhappily is employed in endeavouring to subjugate both the minister and the people. No scheme is supported unless it originates with them; while every plan of theirs is introduced, almost with the authority of a law. They expect to be consulted on the most trivial occasions, and if in any thing opposed, become resentful, sullen, and distant. Little by little, they endeavour to gain a complete ascendency in the society, and watch with peculiar jealousy every individual who is likely to become a rival. The minister at length scarcely dare leave home for a Sabbath, without asking their leave, nor can the people form the least scheme of usefulness without their permission. When they are at any tinie resisted, they breathe out threats of giving up all interest in church affairs, at which the terrified and servile society, end their resistance, consolidate the power of their tyrant, and rivet the fetters of slavery upon their own necks. At length, however, a rival power springs up: a family of growing reputation and influence refuse any longer to submit to the thraldom; o]jposition to unlawful domination commences, the church is divided into factions, the minister becomes involved in the dispute, distraction follows, and division finishes the scene. Lamentable state of things! Would God it rarely occurred. Let the leading individuals of our churches, the men of property, and the deacons, consider what mischief may be occasioned by the least assumption of undue influence. Let them watch against the lust of power: it is a passion most guilty and most mischievous: it arises almost imperceptibly fi’om their situation, and its progress, like that of sin in general, is slow but certain. Let them conduct themselves with humiUty, and deliver their opinions with modesty, and remember that every exertion of illegal authority is an invasion, not only of the liberty of the church, but of the prerogative of its Divine Head. Let them consider themselves as persons, whose opinion is to have no other influence than that which its own wisdom gives it; and that the measure of this wisdom is to be estimated, not by them, but by their brethren. Let them seek for that humility, which can bear to be opposed, and that gentleness of temper which can submit to contradiction. Let them distinctly bear in recollection that the church of God is a society, where all are equals, all are brethren; where the government of terror, or interest, or property, is unknown, but where love and humility are to prevail, and no other rule is to be acknowledged but that of Jesus Christ.
7. The relaxation of scriptural discipline, may be mentioned as another source of evil.
Where the church is unscripturally lax in the admission of members, and for the sake of enlarging its bulk, admits improper materials, it is certainly multiplying the causes of schism and decay. If a wall is built with unsound bricks and untemjjered mortar, it may stand for a while, but cracks and delapidations must sooner or later be visible in its structure. Thus if men of unsanctified dispositions be admitted to the church, what can be expected from such individuals in a time of conflicting opinion, but fuel for the flame of contention? The danger is considerably increased, where the individuals, improperly admitted, are persons of property. If the ordinary rules of admission are dispensed with for the sake of bringing into fellowship the wealthy and the worldly; if a less rigid examination of their personal religion take place, it is little to be wondered at, that mischief should ultimately ensue. For the sake of its glittering exterior, many a church has taken a serpent to its bosom; or to adopt a scriptural allusion, has welcomed an Achan to the camp, for the sake of his Babylonish vest and golden wedge. If a rich member be an unsanctified man, he has a double power of mischief, and in the time of trouble, this will be felt to the bitter experience of the church. “Whence come wars and fightings amongst you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?” James iv. 1. Of course, then, if we are careless in the admission of members, and receive those who do not give satisfactory evidence of personal religion, we are multiplying the sources of contention within our societies. Civil wars are to be expected in that country, which extends without caution the rights of citizens to aliens and enemies. Wolves admitted in sheep’s clothing will worry and scatter the flock. As, therefore, we would not prei)are for division and distraction, let us act upon scriptural principles, in the admission of members.
8. The existence and prevalence of an Antinomian spirit, is a fruitful source of schism in our churches.
“As every age of the church is marked by its appropriate visitation of error, so little penetration is requisite to perceive that Antinomianisni is the epidemic malady of the present, and that it is an evil of deadly malignity. It is qualified for mischief by the very properties which might seem to reader it merely an object of contempt — its vulgarity of conception, its paucity of ideas, its determined hostihty to taste, science, and letters. It includes within a compass which every head can contain, and every tongue can utter, a system which cancels every moral tie, consigns the whole human race to the extremes of presumption or despair; erects religion on the ruins of morality, and imparts to the dregs of stupidity all the powers of the most active poison.”*
This ruinous spirit has already disorganized or convulsed so many churches, that it is high time the tocsin should be sounded against it, and all good citizens of Zion take the alarm. It must be confessed, however, that it does not always onginate amongst the people. A perversion of divine truth so monstrous, so mischievous, and absurd, would hardly have acquired such power and prevalence, if it had not received the
* Robert Hall.
U sanction of ministerial authority. I speak not now of those ministers who are the avowed and consistent patrons of the system, but of men more reputable, and whose strain of preaching is in general more scriptural; men who abhor the tenets of Antinomianism, but who are ignorantly the abettors of these tenets. When such ministers dwell only on the doctrinal parts of revealed truth, and state these in a phraseology capable of misconstruction; when their preaching is exclusively confined to a few topics, and to a stiff systematic exhibition of them; when a wretched taste for spiritualizing and allegorizing pervades their pulpit discussions; when the facts and doctrines of the gospel are ahstractly stated, without being made the grounds and motives of social duty and moral excellence; when terms obviously scriptural are avoided, in comphment to a system which reprobates without understanding them, and their sermons are encumbered and disfigured with the phraseology of a false experience; when believers are flattered and caressed into a high conceit of their peculiar excellence; then, whatever be the preacher’s tenets or intentions, must Antinomianism be generated and cherished. Ofttimes has this elfish spirit risen up to be the tormentor of the father that begat him; but if quiet till his head was beneath the «lods of the valley, he has possessed and convulsed the church during the time of his successor.
To cure this evil, then, let ministers be cautious how they preach. Let them give a full exhibition of the doctrines of grace; but at the same time let them exhibit these doctrines in a scriptural manner, as the basis of holiness and moral excellence: let them introduce, in their preaching, all the varieties of revealed truth; let them avoid the trammels of system, nor ever attempt to corrupt the testimonies of scripture by making a text say what it was never intended to affirm. The chief source of Antinomianism is in the pulpit, and let the first effort, therefore, be employed on the fountain, to render this pure and salutary; and the next be devoted to drain off these streams, which are corrupting the churches. When an individual, or any individual?, are known to cavil at the sermons of the minister, and to be- employed in exciting a prejudice against him, by insinuating that he does not preach the gospel, they should be reasoned and expostulated with, both by the minister and the more judicious members of his flock. Every mild and persuasive method should be adopted and employed either to convince, or silence them. If they cannot be convinced, they should at least be bound over to keep the peace, and brought under promise not to trouble the church, or attempt to sow the seeds of disaffection in the minds of the brethren. If they consent, ou these terms, to remain in communion, they should of course be retained; but if again detected in the act of disturbing the society, they should forthwith be put away, as the troublers of Israel. I have known instances, in which ministers of great eminence and influence have suffered such individuals to remain in communion, for the sake of peace, and have trusted to their own authority to prevent the mischief from spreading. This, however, is chaining the fiend, not casting him out, and leaving him to burst his fetters, when the hand that held him in vassalage is paralysed by death, and permit-’ ting him to waste and devour the church, under the rule of a younger or inferior minister. An act of authority, scripturally and seasonably exerted, would thus have destroyed an evil, which by a temporizing policy, is bequeathed to a successor, who can neither destroy nor control it.
9. After all that has been said upon distinct and specific causes of disturbance, it must be admitted that the grand source of ecclesiastical, distraction, is the very feeble operation of Christian principles on the hearts of church members. There is not that solemn recognition and powerful influence of these principles which there ought to be. The two virtues of love and humility, if prevalent, would effectually preserve the peace of the church against the evils of intestine commotion. Without these, even the kingdom of Christ, no less than the kingdoms of this world, is sure to be convulsed with faction, and torn by schism. As long as Christians suffer the passions of men to agitate their minds and direct their conduct in the assembly of the saints so long must we expect to see even that holy convention liable to the distractions of mere worldly communities. Pride is the polluted and polluting fountain of faction. It is pride that makes men turbulent and contentious; that renders them imperious, dogmatical and overbearing; that drives them upon the inflexible determination to have their own way, and that makes them regardless of the opinions and feelings of others. Humility and love would keep all quiet and orderly. There is one single passage of scripture, which, if sacredly observed, would forever shut out the divider of the brethren. “If there be, therefore, any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fufil ye my joy, that ye be Uke minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife, or vain glory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which also was in Christ Jesus.”* The observance of this single injunction would ever pre-
* This passage of Scripture should be printed in large letters, and hung up in the full view of the congregation, every time they meet as a Christian church, that it might be referred to as the rule of their conduct and their spirit.
serve our harmony, and make our church meetings to be scenes where all the air is love, and all the region peace.
And where is our religion, if we do not obey this apostolic command? We must come back to the first principles of practical piety, and cultivate the passive virtues of the christian temper. We must remember that Christianity is being like Christ, and that unless we partake of that love “which sufFereth long and is kind; which envieth not, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up; which doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; which believeth all things, beareth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things;” we are only “as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.” The necessity of the Christian temper as a personal possession, and its importance as a relative blessing, has hitherto been but feebly perceived, and reluctantly acknowledged. Amidst the controversies which have been carried on about the doctrines of revelation, the spirit of religion has been too much lost sight of: And what, after all, is the doctrine without the spirit, but the body without the soul? Strange indeed it is, that men, who by their own confession are apostate, ruined, helpless sinners, should want humility; and that they who believe themselves to be saved from hell by unmerited mercy, should be destitute of love!
Never until we are brought to a more implicit submission to the authority of Christ, and to a more distinct and practical recognition of the principles of true religion, can we rationally expect to see Zion a quiet and peaceable habitation. Heaven itself would be a region of storms if pride could enter, or love diminish, in those realms of perfect peace. We must crucify that selfishness, which fixes its exclusive observation on our own gratification, and cherish that expansive benevolence which looks upon the good of others. We must contend who shall be lowest, not who shall be highest. AVe must seek to please, and not merely to be pleased. In these things must our efibrts begin, to suppress and prevent the division of our churches. Let ministers inculcate this temper from the pulpit, and exhibit it in their conduct; let private Christians receive the instructions, and copy the example of their pastors. Let both remember that humility and LOVE are the necessary fruits of our doctrines, the highest beauty of our character, and the guardian angels of our churches.