Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

The difficulty which has not unfrequently made this a vexed ques tion, lies in another (always possible) aspect of the case-when there is not entire unanimity in the movement, and the dissolution of the Church is resisted by a minority of its members, who claim that their right in the organism, and its responsibility in covenant to them, are such as cannot be vacated by the mere vote of a majority.

It is urged, on the one hand, that the very nature of a covenant implies the mutual establishment of rights which cannot be resumed without the consent of all parties; that as every Church exists by the personal covenant of each with each, it can cease to exist only when each releases each from that covenant;1 and that the right to the permanent enjoyment of Church privileges in that particular organization being the consideration on which the covenant was made, it is unjust and oppressive to take away that consideration without consent. On the other hand, it is urged that, as a Congregational Church is a democracy, the common law of the power of the majority ought to apply to it; that every member comes into covenant with it on that express understanding, and so has no ground of complaint if he is unchurched by it; and that to take the ground that unanimous assent is requisite for the dissolution of a Church, is to put the final decision always into the hands of that one factious and unreasonable member, who contrives to slip into almost every Church.

We suggest that the true ground lies between these two extremes. There can be no doubt that the common rule of majority action is measurably limited by the covenant, when it comes to touch the fundamental matter of the very existence of the body. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the welfare of a whole Church should not be left where it can hang upon the unreasonable and contumacious conduct of a solitary member. We hold, then, that if a Church ought to be dissolved, it should be done by the unanimous consent of all its members, who are in good and regular standing; and only for reasons so grave and clear that they ought to carry the consent of every such member. And if a majority of one, or more, unreasonably and

have become extinct in Massachusetts- nine of them in Boston- since its settlement; have gone through with this process - the movement not taking place until, by unanimous consent, it was the only wise thing to be done.

1 See Result of Howard Street Council (Salem, 1850, pp. 64), p. 26. See Review of that Result (Boston, 1850, pp. 140), p. 61.

contumaciously refuses consent; that minority becomes guilty of an offense, and for that offense (unrepented of) should be labored with as if guilty of any other—until brought to a better mind, or cast out from membership, when in either event- the way is opened for the regular dissolution of the body by unanimous assent.1

1 For various considerations affecting this general subject, see the Result of Council before cited, and its Review, in extenso; also Clark's Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, p. 281. A Council, held April 14, 1847, called to dismiss Rev. Joel Mann, from the Howard Street Church, in Salem, advised the disbandment of the Church, as well as his dismission. May 4, 1847, the Church voted, 17 to 10, to disband. The minority resisted, and continue as the Church to this day. A Council convened in Poughkeepsie, N. Y., March 31, 1857, advised the disbandment and reorganization of that Church, expressly to drop out some alien elements. Dec. 15, 1857, the Church voted, 16 to 7, to follow the advice of Council. The minority acquiesced, and the Church was reorganized. But the effect of the procedure was not considered happy, by those best acquainted with the facts.

I append here the judgment on this question of one of the clearest and ablest of our New England thinkers, recently called home- Rev. Worthington Smith, D D., late President of the University of Vermont. He says:

"My own observation has convinced me that it is no easy matter to terminate a Church corporation. However loosely organized, and, I might almost say, however corrupt, it has a wonderful tenacity of life. It ought not to be attempted unless we are quite sure of success. Let the Church edifice be disposed of and vacated, Church furniture sold, and the avails given. to the poor, and letters of recommendation voted, before the power shall pass out of the hands of the Church.

"I am not clear that it is proper to disband a Church that has not forfeited its claims to visibility, except it is by the unanimous consent of its members. The word volun ary, as applied to Church organization, has an equivocal, if not a malignant import, and should bo used in a guarded sense, or not used at all. The Church is as much the imperative state of a Christian people as the state of laws and society is the imperative state of rational beings. Church associations are of the nature of a contract, and they are understood to be permanent. Rights are created by these associations, or at least recognized by them; and these rights are to be respected, until at least they are voluntarily surrendered. If, without common consent, a Church is disbanded, some are forced into other churches against their will, or they are left by the wayside, deserted of those who engaged to watch over them, and to walk with them in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord. I have no difficulty in regard to the union of the churches, or the distribution of the members of one Church among many, provided it is done with the concurrence of those interested. I do not say that any one is obliged to remain in a Church because it is reduced in numbers; for the liberty of transferring one's relations to another Church is understood when he joins a Church; but I know of no liberty he has, on leaving a Church, to pull down the house where others have found a refuge, and would still seek one "— Memoir, by Rev. J. Torrey, D. D. (Boston, 1861. 12mo, pp. 368,) p. 70.

On the other side the reader is referred to the following opinion of Rev. Calvin Hitchcock, D. D., who warmly urges :

"Church covenants have been revised and altered in numerous instances, and since the days of Jonathan Edwards, some scores of' half-way covenants' have been dissolved. Was not this done by majorities? Was Edwards obliged to wait till every man in the Church would agree to abolish a half-way covenant, before the thing could be done? . . . . . . . It belongs to the very genius of Congregationalism to have the right to modify a covenant, because it arose, and has lived, in opposition to an established religion. If we may not modify a covenant, we have as truly an established religion as any in the world. Any obstruction which we throw in the way of so doing, would be suicidal. If the next generation shall introduce un

SECTION 13.-The Restoration of Offenders.

The intent and hope of Church discipline is always of reclamation.

We have already intimated1 that the lifting of the sentence of suspension, or exclusion, from a censured member by vote of the Church, consequent upon their acceptance of his manifested penitence with its accompanying works, will restore him to the possession of all which he had forfeited. The thus restored excommunicant does not need to "join the Church" as if de novo, because he has always remained a member, though under censure.

The only question relevant to this heading which needs consideration here, is this: Suppose a minister who for any reason has been deposed, to desire-and in the judgment of charity, to deserveto be restored; what steps are orderly to that end?

We have explained2 what we conceive to be the proper Congregational method for the deposition of an unworthy Pastor, as being by the action of his Church in connection with the advice of an Ecclesiastical Council. If such a deposed minister, becoming penitent and worthy, wishes to resume the Pastoral office, and any Church shall judge it suitable that he should do so, and desire him for its Pastor, it may proceed to call him to that office, as it would invite any unor

.....

christian covenants, and some future Edwards shall be raised up to reform churches, shall we hamper him with the rule that on such a subject, a majority shall not govern, and all the stereotype heresy and petrified folly which a godless generation shall have thrust into Church covenants, must stand till every member of the Church shall agree to their removal? .... It is self-evident that any authority which can modify a covenant, can abolish it. The Apostle appealed to our common sense when he declared that only such things as cannot be shaken are the things that remain. I therefore enter my remonstrance against the proposed rule, that no Church can be dissolved until every member consents."- Remonstrance. Review of Howard Street Council, p. 140.

I add an extract in the same line of thought from another eminent living New England Congregationalist — - Rev. N. Bouton, D. D., of Concord, N. H. He says:"1. There may be good and sufficient reasons why a particular local Church should be dissolved. 2. Of these reasons, a majority have the right to judge. 3. The minority have the right to protest, and, if they wish it, to have the advice of Council, before the act, or, if aggrieved by the act of the majority, have a right to appeal to a Council. But to

.......

claim that they are the identical Church which was disbanded by vote of the majority, in accordance with the advice of a Council, seems to me preposterous. On that principle a single member may claim to be "the Church" in opposition to the disbanding vote of ninety-nine, and contrary also to the advice of a Council thereunto." — Review of Howard Street Council, p. 102.

[blocks in formation]

1

dained man, and then call an Ecclesiastical Council to advise with them. That Council will naturally desire to be exceedingly thorough in its inquiries, and should proceed only on the best evidence. But if its members are satisfied that it is for the good of Christ's cause that this once deposed Pastor should be set over this Church in the Lord, they will so advise, and the subsequent co-action of Church and Council in ordaining him as Pastor will, in effect, be his restoration to the ministry.2

1 "A deposed minister is restored by becoming a pastor of a Church; and whoever is competent to install is also competent to remove a censure, at least to the extent to which its authority is recognized; and the authority of no Ecclesiastical Council can extend beyond their limits. . . . . . . An installing body ought to be satisfied with the qualifications and fitness of the candidate; and, if they restore to office one who has been deposed, it must be on their own responsibility, and for reasons that will commend themselves, first or last, to the religious public, or they become liable to reproval themselves." Worthington Smith, D. D., Torrey's Memoir, p. 76.

2 Rev. Thomas Cheever [son of the famous Master Ezekiel] was deposed from the pastorship of the Congregational Church in Malden, Mass., May 20, 1686, by a Council, and, nearly thirty years after, restored by a Council which ordained him first pastor of the new Church at Rumney Marsh [Chelsea], Mass., October 19, 1715.

The case of the Rev. J. H. Fairchild is slightly exceptional. He was conditionally deposed by a Council which met at Exeter, N. H., July 24, 1844; their language being, "unless he can present a clearer vindication of himself before some tribunal more competent than ourselves to compel the attendance of witnesses, and the utterance of all the truth; and till such act be done; he ought not, and so far as our decision goes, does not, longer hold the place of a minister in the Church of Christ." When acquitted by the civil court of the infamous charge in reference to which the Council had acted, Mr. Fairchild assumed that the deposing clause of the Result of Council had expired by its own limitation, and thenceforth resumed his ministry. We think he was right in his judgment; which was, at the time, sustained by Drs. French, Cogswell, Bouton, Richards, Woods, Burgess, Perry, Ely, Blanchard, Vaill, Cummings, and other eminent Congregationalists; and subsequently fully endorsed by the Coun. cil which installed him over the "Payson Church," in South Boston, November 19, 1854. See Life of Rev. J. H. Fairchild, pp. 53-110.

CHAPTER IV.

WHY CONGREGATIONALISM IS BETTER THAN ANY OTHER FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

We hold that this Congregational system, which we have shown to be founded both upon Scripture and common sense, is essentially superior to any other form of Church government; in what it is, and what it is fitted to be and to do in the world. We speak of its natural tendencies and legitimate possibilities. We do not affirm that it has ever yet done itself full justice; nor that other forms of Church life may not sometimes have seemed to earn preëminence over it. But we do insist that, taking the ages through, and fairly considering the relation which it holds to the nature of individual man, the tendencies of human society, the necessities of the world, and the needs and aims of the cause of Christ, it is best, and can justify its claim to be such.

We now proceed briefly to hint the grounds of that claim, in its most important particulars.

SECTION 1. It is more in accordance with the mind of Christ than any other.

We do not affirm that Christ will not aid his people in working through any other system. He will do so; has always wrought through all faithful men, however mistaken might be a portion of their views; however inexpedient a moiety of their life. But He prefers that which is best, and will most bless that which most deserves his blessing. And three considerations indicate His preference for our simple polity.

(1) It is the New Testament Polity. We have seen very fully in the preceding pages, that it is the only form of Church government which can exactly respond to the few precepts on that subject which fell

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »