feited all privilege by his own misconduct, while he cannot forfeit the claims of duty which rest upon him in virtue of his covenant with God. a covenant from which God never will release him. Hence, he remains an excommunicated Church member, not a non-Church member; as the criminal imprisoned for life ceases not to be a member of human society, but is an imprisoned member. And, as such a prisoner resumes his status in society when he is "pardoned out ;" so, should an excommunicated Church member repent, and ask to be forgiven, the lifting of the sentence of excommunication from him, on his humble confession, would at once restore him to 'good and regular standing' in the Church without his needing to be admitted by profession,' de novo.1

Public notice ought to be given to the congregation usually worshipping with a Church, of any vote of extreme censure; because the scandal which rendered it necessary, has become public, and the cause of Christ is entitled to the public benefit of its acts of self-purification. (b.) Private offences between two or more. These are, perhaps,

the commonest form of Church offence; as when two members "have a difficulty," or when one member "has a difficulty" with a nonChurch member- - when the matter has not been noised abroad so as to become a public scandal. In the former case, one or the other of the two who are aggrieved, would naturally commence to labor with the other, and, failing to secure satisfaction upon the attempt to do

1 It used to be held that excommunication was a delivery to Satan, and that the meaning of "let him be unto thee as an heathen man, and a publican," required civil and social non-intercourse. (See Cummings' Congregational Dictionary, pp. 171-181.) It was held, of course, that the act put one out of the Church in such a manner as to "make a member no member." But Samuel Mather sets the matter right (in his Apology, p 108), where he says, the churches pretend to no more power and jurisdiction over their members than a society of discreet and grave Philosophers over such as are admitted into their society, whom they see meet to admit when they are duly qualified; and they think themselves obliged to censure, and exclude from their society, when they have forfeited the privileges of it by their exotic sentiments or indecent carriages 'Tis true, some of our Congregational brethren, who verge toward Presbyterianism, pretend to much more in their discipline than that for which I have been pleading; but all such as are thoroughly Congregational will be content with this. I must confess, that this is all the power to which the churches have any rightful claim; and, I conceive, all that they pretended to exercise in the early times of Christianity." So Hornius says (Hist. Eccles. p. 145,) of the excommunications of the Apostolic Church, "neque vero excommunicatio aliud tum erat quam separatio, non-communio, renunciatio communionis; non vero damnatio, execratio," etc. Alford's comment. on Matt. xviii: 17, is "let him no longer be accounted as a brother, but as one of those without -as the Jews accounted Gentiles and Publicans Yet even then not with hatred ; (See 1 Cor. v: 11, and compare 2 Cor ii. 6, 7, and 2 Thess iii: 14 15)." Vol. i. p. 177.

would bring it to the notice of

so in the presence of witnesses the Examining Committee (or the Pastor and Deacons), who would proceed as before. If neither of the two commence to labor with the other, it would be the duty of any brother who should become cognizant of their disagreement, to commence labor with both of them, for its removal; and to pursue it until the end should be reached. There is no greater hindrance within the Church to the progress of the Redeemer's kingdom, than the sullen, or violent, differences of those who have covenanted to walk with each other in all brotherly love and fellowship, but who fall out by the way, and even stay away from the table of the Lord, because they will not partake with their enemy. Such a scandalous state of things should not be suffered to exist, and the surest way to end it, is for the first brother who gets knowledge of such a quarrel, to commence Gospel labor with both parties to it, and to pursue that labor until the breach is healed, or the Church purified by the excision of the offenders.

In the latter case referred to, the party to the difficulty who is not a Church member may properly tell his grievance to some one who who may undertake the work of reconciliation, and of the discipline of his brother - if he seems to deserve it.

is;

(c.) Matters of public scandal. It has been said by some Congregational authorities, that in matters of open and notorious offence on the part of a Church member (as where he should have committed murder, or eloped with the wife of another, etc.,) there is no need of any preliminary and private steps, but the Church ought to purify itself by the instant expulsion of the criminal. But this forgets that the first aim of Church discipline must always be the reformation of the offender, and that the 'blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin.' And although the Cambridge Platform (Chap. xiv. Sec. 3) warrants such a course, it seems to us that nothing can be lost, while much may be gained by adhering rigorously, in all cases, to the rule that the Church will not entertain a complaint against one of its members, except in the regular way, and on assurance that the 'private steps' have been rightly taken. The only difference which we

1 We say "rightly taken," because we have known the most absurd misapprehension to exist in regard to those steps. We have known one Church member, who had a difficulty' with a brother, to have a conversation with him which contained not the most distant allusion to their 'difficulty,' nor the faintest attempt to reconcile it on Gospel principles, and then to turn back

should allow, then, between procedure in cases of open scandal, and those of a private nature, is that in them it would be the duty of the Examining Committee (or, in their absence, of the Pastor and Deacons) to commence their labor preparatory to discipline, without waiting for complaint from any individual.

(d.) Violations of the Articles of Faith and Covenant. This class of offences sometimes grievously perplexes a Church. Where a man of irreproachable-even of an eminently useful, and beautiful-life, gradually, under the influence of friends, or it may be of mental idiosyncracy, strongly inclining him toward some plausible error, departs from the faith once delivered to saints until he holds and advocates doctrines destructive of the creed of the Church with which he is in covenant relation, that Church must necessarily take cognizance of the change. It has covenanted to watch over him' and to seek his edification.' No charge can be made against his moral character; perhaps, even, those who know him best are confident that he is still a true disciple of the Saviour. Under these peculiarly trying circumstances, what shall be done?

In reply, it is clear that not all who are hopefully Christians, can rightly belong to any given Church, but only those who, as Christians, hold, for substance, the faith as the Church holds it. Baptists and Methodists, though ever so eminent as Christians, could not walk with a Church holding the ordinary Pædo-baptist, and Predestinarian Congregational creed. It is not a foregone conclusion, therefore, that the withdrawal by a Church, of its fellowship, from a person whose faith has lapsed from the articles of its creed, is necessarily a remission of him to hopeless destruction, or even to uncovenanted mercy. The Church is responsible before God to walk according to

as he was walking away, and tell him 'he might please to consider that the first step according to the 18th of Matthew, had been taken with him!' And we have known the second man, thereafter, to dodge the first, as if he were an assassin waiting to fire the pistol of the second step' at him, and the first-after long patience - to corner his victim, and follow his opening salutation with the words, 'I hereby notify you that I have taken the second step, in the presence of these witnesses, and shall immediately enter a complaint before the Church against you!'

All such formal and merely technical procedure disgracefully violates the Saviour's intentwho had in mind, evidently, a tender fraternal conference in the use of every means of persuasion from error, in the first place; and, in the second, the seconding of that by the added entreaty and influence of the one or two more' — who might also serve as witnesses of the subsequent reconciliation, or renewal of the offence.

its covenant with Him; and the individual is responsible before God for his own belief, whatever it may be. Each must do its own duty.

The first step in such a case, should then be careful, and faithful, and most fraternal labor with the individual—either by some brother specially interested in him, and grieved by his position, or by the Pastor-in the hope to persuade him to return whence he has strayed. This failing, a regular process of discipline must issue, in ordinary form (which will most likely be cut short by the frank avowal on the part of the individual, of his changed belief) ultimating in final separation from the Church. Some would argue from Paul's use of the phrase "withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us," (2 Thess. iii: 6) that the proper Church act in this case would be called “withdrawal of fellowship," rather than excommunication; urging that the latter implies forfeiture of Christian standing, the former only forfeiture of Church standing. Mr. Punchard ably argues thus, in the appendix of his View of Congregationalism (pp. 329-336), but acknowledges a lack of Congregational authorities in support of his position. The truth would seem to be that there is little, if any, difference between the two methods of cutting off a member — in their practical results, and that if it would make it easier for any Church to discharge its painful duty by calling the act of excision by the milder name, there can be no objection to its doing so. Whether it do so, or not, all who are cognizant of the transaction, will always understand the difference between expulsion for a faith against the covenant, and for a life against the Gospel.

Other cases of violation of covenant sometimes arise as when members remove, and are gone years without taking letters of dismission; or when they, for some fickle reason, neglect their own spiritual home, and wander about from Church to Church, in the vicinity, ever on the watch for the last new pulpit light, etc. Such cases must be dealt with tenderly, and always in the loving aim of reclamation; yet, where worst comes to worst, they should not be spared from the extreme sentence of the law of Christ.

SECTION 4. How to vacate Church offices.

The general understanding with which the lesser officers of a Congregational Church are chosen, is that they will serve until the next

annual meeting; or if that meeting should not take place at the usual time until others are chosen in their places. With regard to Deacons and Pastors, the understanding is, usually, that they will serve during good behavior, or until such time as the best interests of the Church may require their removal; though, of late years, some churches have introduced the custom of choosing Deacons for a term of years, taking care that they shall be so chosen that all shall not retire, or take their chance of reëlection, at the same time. Cases sometimes occur, however, when the best interests of the Church demand the removal of an officer, while his official term is unexpired, and when he himself is not forward to move in the matter. It is important to the welfare of the Church that whatever steps may be taken, in such a case, should be taken prudently.

(a.) How to vacate lesser Church offices. It may often be best, where it is unquestionably the desire of the majority of the Church that such an officer should retire from his official position, to allow him to serve out the remainder of his term until the annual meeting, rather than to risk 'hard feeling' in his removal. But there may be cases where the longer continuance of a brother in office would clearly be so detrimental to the Church, that less harm would result from his removal, than from his continuance. In such a case, the Church should pass a vote requesting him to resign his office, and, if that prove ineffectual, a second vote, removing him from that office which it may then proceed to fill. The claim that a man once chosen has a right to his office during the whole term for which he was expected to hold it when elected, and in expectation of which he based his acceptance, is good only while the state of things in which he was elected remains essentially unchanged. If he has developed traits of character which were unsuspected before, and which, if known, would have prevented his election; that changes the whole aspect of the matter, and terminates his right. Or, if any circumstances have arisen, affecting his usefulness, which the Church did not anticipate when electing him, and which, if anticipated, would have made his election impossible, that terminates his right. The general principle which must always govern, in such a case, is that the welfare of the Church is of more importance than the pride or the desire of office of an individual, and that the power which set up-always supposing it has not hampered itself by any organic law which would take away its power