REVIEW
CORRECTIVE CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
nv
A. S. TVORRELL, A.M.,
ATLANTA, GA,
INTRODUCTION BY >T. 31. CRAWFORD, D.D.
NASHVILLE, TEXX.: SOUTHWESTERN PUBLISHING HOUSE,
ATLASTA, CA.:-WOOD & CO.
I860.

w
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by GRAVES, MARKS & CO.,
In the offlie of the CT.ork of the Distrkt Court for the Jtiddlo Dis trict of Tenaosso:.

INTRODUCTION.
I WRITE this introduction for three reasons: First. The author of the Review, once my pupil, and always my friend, has requested me to do it. Secondly. The author of Corrective Church Disci pline, without mentioning my name indeed, has refer red to my opinions and commented upon my positions. This he had a perfect right to do, and I do not com plain of it. While his comments were contained only in the newspapers, I did not think it worth while to notice them; hut as they are now embodied in a per manent form, I think proper, in a similar form, to reaffirm my positions. Thirdly. Some who are looked upon as leaders, have publicly maintained that the matters involved in this discussion are just and even necessary causes of divi sion among Baptists. While I do not concur in this opinion, I am willing to meet every responsibility which may, in any contingency, attach to my opinions or my positions; the more especially as the former are mature, and the latter deliberately taken. I, there fore, readily avail myself of the opportunity now af forded to re-state my opinions. .

iv

INTRODUCTION.

The author or Corrective Church Discipline, iu hia preface, says: " Multitudes in this country have been introduced, within a few years, into our Churches from Pedobaptist organizations,* who are but partially in doctrinated in those opinions which make us a peculiar people. Yielding to the force of argument on the subject of baptism, and instructed no further, they have brought into our Churches confused notions of Church polity, or have even retained, undisturbed, the views which obtained in the communions they have left. While we cordially welcome these brethren to our ranks, we should see to it that they are instructed in the way of the Lord more perfectly."
Now, whether the author had me in his thoughts when he wrote the above, I do not know, nor is it material to inquire; but it is a fact that I was intro duced, seventeen years ago, into a Baptist Church from a Pedobaptist organization. As to how fully I have been indoctrinated in the peculiar opinions of Bap tists, I leave my brethren to judge. If in anything I am in error, I shall be grateful for being taught " the way of the Lord more perfectly;" and I should ill repay the kindness and confidence which, from the very beginning, my brethren have extended to me, by attempting to introduce false notions or to subvert correct usages. Yet I will say, that one who has been led by God's word to renounce a Pedobaptist organ ization on account of human errors embodied therein,

* IB it through accident or design that, whilo the author In bis vork o Baptism calls Pedoba^lst societies Churches, he here calls them only " 01*
g&nlzationv " or " commanlgns ?" Has be made progress ?

INTRODUCTION.

V

will not be apt to be very reverential to human errors which may he asserted to be Baptist doctrine. Nor, it seems to me, will he he less likely to he a sound Baptist who draws his principles from the word of God, and is made a Baptist by the force of truth, than one who simply follows the example of his father, or receives instruction from his grandmother, though she may have been as faithful aa Lois. Paul exhorted the Corinthians to follow him, even as he followed Christ.
It is not my intention to review Corrective Church Discipline. Professor "Worrell has done that. I shall defend only the principles which I have heretofore maintained.
I have objected to the ascription of sovereignty to the Churches of Christ; and have maintained that Churches are not sovereign. But it is argued: " You maintain that they are independent, and they are as much dependent on Jesus Christ as subject to him." The term independent, by usage of the language, refers to the relations of Churches to each other. An inde pendent is " one who, in religious affairs, maintains
that every congregation of Christians is a complete Church, subject to no superior authority, and compe tent to perform every act of government in ecclesiastical affairs." While, therefore, Churches as well as indi viduals and all things, depend on Jesus Christ, the term independent, when applied to Churches, has a special technical meaning, which is well understood. The use of the language for two hundred years has settled it. No such application of the word sovereign is war-
1*

VI

INTRODUCTION.

ranted, and the idea which the word conveys is utterly alien to the true idea of a Church.
Independence has relation to things outside of that which is spoken of. Sovereignty relates to the thing itself; and, wherever it exists, is inherent, inalienable, and incapable of being transferred or delegated. It is, in its very nature, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. God is a sovereign in himself, and can neither divide nor delegate his sovereignty. All will admit that God's sovereignty is tinderwed. Will any contend that it is divided f With whom ? How ? It can not be di vided. But the author of Corrective Church Discipline contends that God has delegated sovereignty to the Churches. Page 65. If the Churches do indeed possess this "delegated sovereignty," does God con tinue absolute and unlimited sovereign? Or is his sovereignty divided ? or multiplied ? If he has given to the Churches part of his sovereignty, he is no longer sovereign in all things. If he has delegated to the Churches a portion of sovereignty, and still himself retains all sovereignty, then sovereignty is multiplied; it is no longer ONE, but many. Or, if he has delegated part and retains the remainder, then sovereignty is divided. On earth we recognize no such thing as a divided sovereignty, an.d without a new revelation we can recognize no such thing in heaven: and especially a division between Almighty God and his creatures on earth.
Let us come down to sublunary matters. Where does sovereignty reside ? In the people. The sover eignty of Georgia is inherent in the people of Geor-

INTRODUCTION.

vh

gia. It is undivided, indivisible, and nndelegated This will be admitted.
The author of Corrective Church Discipline defines the sovereignty of a Church thus: it "signifies Tier . power to govern them [[her members] under the laws of Christ." P. 67. We must have, then, not only two sovereignties, [Christ's and the Church's,] but these two of different orders: an inferior and a superior. This is either an abuse of language or a distortion of things. A superior and an inferior sovereign over the same thing is an impossibility. The fact is, that Christ alone is king, and the Churches are his serv ants.
But we are told that this sovereignty [of a Church] is invested " with judicial and executive powers," but that " it has no legislative power." P. 68.
In their good pleasure the sovereign people of Georgia have organized a Supreme Court, consisting of three judges. This tribunal is invested with the highest judicial powers, and so weighty are its decis ions that they have the force of law until repealed by the Legislature. Is this court, therefore, sovereign f The man who would say so, would be laughed at. The people, in conferring judicial powers on the three judges, have not " delegated sovereignty " to them ; and neither has Christ " delegated sovereignly " in confer ring judicial powers on his Churches.
The Executive power of the United States is vested in the President; yet no one can be found who will say that James Buchanan in this June, 1860, is the sov ereign of the United States. As we understand the

Vlll

INTRODUCTION.

theory of government, the people alone are sovereign, and all government is but a trust; and power [not sovereignty] is delegated to various officers as trustees or stewards. Yet we are gravely told, that because Jesus Christ has 'conferred certain limited executive powers on his Churches, therefore they are sovereign 1 I can not receive this us the tetter way.
But we all agree that Jesus has conferred no leg islative power on his Churches. " There is one Law giver, who is able to save and to destroy." Jas. iv : 12.
Blackstone says: "Sovereignty and Legislature are indeed convertible terms; one can not subsist without the other." Co.mm. i: 46. This may admit of some question; for our Legislatures are not sovereign, being merely intrusted by the people with limited power for a limited time. But it is also unquestionably true that there can be no sovereignty where there is no power to make laws. Jesus Christ, then, THE ONE LAWGIVER, is a sovereign; but his Churches, which have no legislative power, are not sovereign.
Now, it might please the people of Georgia to invest the same tribunal with both executive and judicial" powers; but this tribunal would not be sovereign. It would be inferior and responsible to the people, in whom the sovereignty resides. Yet we are to believe that the Churches, invested only with similar and limited powers, are, by some unexplained abracadabra, constituted sovereigns 1
Further on, (p. 108,) the author of'Corrective Church Discipline illustrates the independence of the Churches by analogy with what he first calls "our county courts,"

INTRODUCTION.

U

but immediately afterward the " circuit courts." Yet, surely, no one will say that either county or circuit courts are sovereign.
But if the Churches are sovereign, they must have subjects, for "sovereign as a term is the correlative of subject."--P. 67.
Now, a subject is "one that owes allegiance to a sovereign, and is governed by his laws." Webster. This defines accurately the relation between the Chris tian and Christ. We do owe HIM allegiance, and we are governed by HIS laws; for he is our King and Lawgiver. But a Church has no legislative power, and, therefore, can make no laws. The laws which we ought to obey are not the laws of the Church, (for she can make none,) but the laws of Christ. And the allegiance which we owe is to Christ, our only sover eign. The Church herself owes allegiance to Christ, as she is bound by his laws; do I then owe allegiance to a body which itself owes allegiance to a superior Lord ? Is allegiance divided ? or multiplied ? I rec ognize Christ alone as my sovereign; and my alle giance is due to him alone.
"With these views of the nature of sovereignty in general, and of the power conferred by Jesus on his Churches, I reaffirm what I said last October: " That I think the term sovereign is utterly misplaced when applied to a Church, which, by all consent, is subject in all things. We may as well say that a justice's court is sovereign. Jesus Christ is the ONLY KING, the only Sovereign. But under Jesus I not only admit, but MAINTAIN the independency of the Churches." I
1*

Z

INTRODUCTION.

hold that the powers which Jesus confers on his Churches are not sovereign powers, and do not con stitute these tribunals sovereign; while under Jesus these Churches are independent both of each other, and of all earthly tribunals. They acknowledge neither pope, prelate, nor presbytery; neither king, council, nor Kaisar.
But, even if it should be admitted that Churches are sovereign, it by no means follows that a sentence of exclusion pronounced by one Church binds all others to regard the excluded as a heathen and a publican, and that no other Church should, under any circumstances, receive him into membership.
All Churches of Jesus Christ possess similar and equal powers and rights; and nothing can be claimed by one in contravention or disparagement of the equal rights of another.
Yet, because it is incorrectly claimed that a Church is sovereign, it is further contended that its act of exclu sion must be regarded as valid by all others; and that it cuts off the excluded from all others as well as from itself.
All parties, however, admit that the authority of a Church is limited by the law of Christ. Whatever power the king has conferred may be legitimately used; but if a Church exercises a power not granted, she is guilty of usurpation, and her act not only is not legal, but is entitled to no respect whatever.
Now, while Churches are composed of fallible men, they will be fallible tribunals; and, therefore, they may, in ignorance or passion, violate their constitu-

INTRODUCTION.

XI

tion and transgress the law of Christ. No one doubts or will deny this. A Church may exclude a member not only unlawfully but wickedly. Xo one doubts or will deny this. Yet we are told that this unlawful and even wicked act binds every Church on earth to regard the unlawfully excluded man as a heathen and a pub lican ! Are we to receive this as the more perfect way of the Lord ?
In questions involving the validity or legality of Church acts, it is admitted, on all sides, that there is no arbiter between the Churches. The common-sense idea in all such cases is, that each party must judge for itself. But, according to the theory of Church sovereignty which I am combating, we see the exclud ing Church,
" In full-blown dignity, like Wolsey, stand,"

and exclaim, "Hands off I sisters; that fellow is a hea then and publican: / have excluded him. Withdraw from him and let him alone!"
But may you not have excluded him unjustly? "That is my business! Am I not a sovereign? And you shall not interfere between me and my rebel sub ject."
Yet, some of the advocates of this dogma assert a principle which subverts their own position. A pop ular writer on that side says: " Outside or beyond the inspired record the Churches can not go. Such offenses only fall within the legitimate authority of the Churches. Contributions to missions, joining temperance societies, sending children to Sabbath schools, etc., are not proper

lii

INTRODUCTION.

subjects of Church authority, inasmuch as they are not
recognized as offentet by the great law of Christ." Ac cording to this, if a Church excludes a member for holding a slave, (for instance,) another Church may rightfully receive him. Why? Because holding a slave is not an offense which "falls within the legiti mate authority of the Churches." But who is to de cide this question ? The excluding Church has decided it for herself, according to her judgment of the law of Christ; if another Church may, notwithstanding, do the same in this ease, why not in all cases ? And if it may decide upon the law (which is the greater) in'ay it not also decide upon the facts of the case (which is the less)?
But then, we are told, you break up the fellowship between all the Churches. There is no necessity for this. If A and B fall out, it does not follow that I must be a partisan of either and fall out with the other. But if fellowship must be broken, does not the blame properly belong to the wrong-doer? . Shall a Church who has violated the law of Christ call upon all others to sustain her, or else charge them with creating the rupture ?
When a Church excludes a member, she deprives him of all rights which he possesses in that Cbnrch; and he has no rights in any other. By the exclusion he is disfranchised in the excluding Church. All are agreed in this. Allow then all Churches to be sov ereign. Sovereign England disfranchises one of her subjects, and takes away all his civil rights. What then? May not the United States receive the dia-

INTRODUCTION.

xiii

franchised subject, and confer upon him all the rights of an American citizen ? Tet the peace and friend ship of the two nations are not disturbed by the transaction. Why, then, may not. one Church bestow rights upon a disfranchised member of another Church without destroying peace and friendship ?
But we are told that exclusion by a Church does more than deprive a man of the rights which he pos sesses in that Church. The writer before quoted says, "The judgment of expulsion by the Church at B does a great deal more than exclude the member from her fellowship and membership it excludes him from the fellowship and membership of other Churches, and from the communion of all saints." (His italics.) There is some confusion of language, if not of thought, here. If exclude is used in its proper sense (thrust out, eject,) it is implied that membership in one Church is membership in all other Churches also; which, it is presumed, no one will maintain. If it is used as synonymous with preclude, (hinder from entering,") it implies that he had not been a member of the Church which excludes him; which is absurd. If it is simply meant that exclusion from one Church rightfully pre vents any other Church from receiving the excluded members, those who seek truth will desire something more than assertion before they receive it as Gospel.
The object of discipline is the recovery of the of fending brother. " If he hear thee thou hast gained thy brother." But we hare supposed a case in which an innocent brother has been unjustly excluded. How can he be recovered who has not fallen? Tour dis-
2

XIV

INTRODUCTION.

cipline may lead a transgressor to repentance: bat when you have excluded an innocent man on a false accusation, do you expect him to repent? and of what? The object of your discipline is to correct; and you exercise it on one who has not erred I You design to heal; but have given your physic to a well man ! And then you tell him that though the medi cine can not have the effect designed, it will, at any rate, show that he has a good constitution, which even your treatment could not kill!
But the author of Corrective Church Discipline, in his effort to teach us " the way of the Lord more per fectly," undertakes to give us Scriptural authority. Well, nothing less than Scripture can sustain a dogma so monstrous as that a brother, no matter how unjustly or wickedly excluded, can have no remedy, except at the hand of the wrong-doers; as that all other Churches, cognizant of the wrong, must sit still, and, with folded arms, exclaim, "It is the will of the Lord. Let the injured brother be patient, and glory in his martyr dom. Let us all submit. So shall we grow in grace and humility." This seems rather akin to the in difference of the Turk, than the sympathy of the Christian.
The author undertakes to show," BT POSITIVE PKECEPT," that the New Testament teaches "that one Church can not receive to membership the excluded members of another; and that such excluded members can be restored only by the action of the Church, expelliqg them." On page 100, he says, " We have a pro/ cept, first, as to what is to be done with the incorrigi-

INTRODUCTION.

XV

We under each class of offenses." A precept I What is it? " Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." 1 Cor. v: 13. Well, that is capital author ity for excluding a wicked man; for it is the direction which Paul gives the Corinthian Church, not, however, in reference to a member excluded by some other Church, but to the incestuous man who was. then a member with them.
Having produced this single text, which clearly has no bearing on the point he undertook to prove, the author proceeds to give us the Scripture precepts "as to our feelings and deportment toward those who have received the penalty prescribed." Here he is more liberal, and gives us four texts, which I will consider.
This is the first: "Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." Matt, xviii: 17. But the Savior addresses this to an offended brother in regard to one who is not yet excommunicated. It can not, there fore, be the fact of exclusion that constitutes him a heathen. Dr. Dawson, although he has indorsed Cor rective Church Discipline in gross, has admitted that he agrees with me in the interpretation of this text. But, now, to show how an excluded member is to be treated by all the Churches, we are referred to a text which shows how an offended brother should treat one
who has not been excluded! Another proof-text is this: " Now I have written
unto you not to keep company " with them. 1 Cor. v: 11. With whom ? Paul says, " But now I have writ ten unto you, not to keep company, if any man that is caUcd a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an

XVI

INTRODUCTION.

idolater," etc. However guilty these men were, they were still Church-members. It was, therefore, not their exclusion, but their wickedness, which was the ground of the prohibition.
We quote a third text relied on by the author: "Now we-command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly."--2 Thess. iii: 6. Still, the persons against whom the command is given, are not excommunicated persons, but disorderly Church-members. Paul calls them brothers. These three texts, so confidently cited to show how excluded members ought to be treated, all speak of persons who are still in membership.
The only remaining test is Kom. xvi: 17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divi sions and ofienses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them." Now I ask, in all sincerity, what evidence there is that the men here spoken of had been excluded from any Church ? The men who created the dissension in Antioch (Acts xv: 2) were not excommunicated; and there is no evidence that these were. More probably they were Judaizing teachers, men of the class which Paul appears to have met in many places, and always with the strongest opposition.
Not one of the passages quoted as proof-texts bears upon the question; and these are all that the author has presented. Where his clear mind has so signally failed, may we not conclude that it is because there ia no Scripture more applicable to his purpose?

INTRODUCTION.

XVli

But no one has ever contended that a wicked man ought to be admitted into any Church. The question is whether a good man who has been unjustly excluded may not be received. The exclusion is indeed pre sumptive evidence that the man is guilty. So is ex clusion from a Masonic lodge. But suppose I happen to know that the excluded man is not guilty; am I to surrender my judgment and conscience to other men's keeping, and treat an innocent brother as a heathen ? to "withdraw" myself from him? not even "eat with" him? I say NO, not if he had been excluded by a thousand Churches! And so I believe would answer the very men who contend for the theory which I oppose. Why, then, should a Church, composed of individuals, be required to do what no individual among them would do, or is required to do ?
The author goes on to sustain his propositions " BY INSPIRED EXAMPLE." That I may not be suspected of unfairness, I will quote all that he says under this
head. " Scripture example shows that the excommunica
ting Church alone can restore to membership. But one example is given in the Scriptures of the exclu sion and restoration of a member. The incestuous man at Corinth was, at the instance of Paul, excom municated ; and when he had given satisfactory evi dence of repentance and reformation, at the solicitation of Paul, he was restored to membership by the same Church. There was a large number of others in exist ence at that time besides the Church of Corinth. Paul was not compelled, therefore, to apply to it, because it
2*

xii

INTRODUCTION.

subjects of Church authority, inasmuch as they are not recognized as offenses by the great law of Christ." Ac cording to this, if a Church excludes a member for holding a slave, (for instance,) another Church may rightfully receive him. Why? Because holding a slave is not an oflFense which "falls within the legiti mate authority of the Churches." But who is to de cide thit question ? The excluding Church has decided it for herself, according to her judgment of the law of Christ; if another Church may, notwithstanding, do the same in this case, why not in all cases ? And if it may decide upon the law (which is the greater) may it not also decide upon the facts of the casa (which is the less)?
But then, we are told, you break up the fellowship between all the Churches. There ia no necessity for this. If A and B fall out, it does not follow that I must be a partisan of either and fall out with the other. But if fellowship must be broken, does not the blame properly belong to the wrong-doer ? . Shall a Church who has violated the law of Christ call upon all others to sustain her, or else charge them with creating the rupture ? ' "When a Church excludes a member, she deprives him of all rights which he possesses in that Church; and he has no right* in any other. By the exclusion he is disfranchised in the excluding Church. All are agreed in this. Allow then all Churches to be sov ereign. Sovereign England disfranchises one of her subjects, and takes away all his civil rights. What then? May not the United States receive the dis-

INTRODUCTION.

Xlii

franchisee! subject, and confer upon him all the rights of an American citizen ? Tet the peace and friend ship of the two nations are not disturbed by the transaction. Why, then, may not one Church bestow rights upon a disfranchised member of another Church without destroying peace and friendship ?
But we are told that exclusion by a Church does more than deprive a man of the rights which he pos sesses in that Church. The writer before quoted says, " The judgment of expulsion by the Church at B does a great deal more than exclude the member from her fellowship and membership it excludes Mm from the fellowship and membership of other Churches, and from the communion of all saints." (His italics.) There is some confusion of language, if not of thonght, here. If exclude is used in its proper sense (thrust out, eject,} it is implied that membership in one Church is membership in all other Churches also; which, it ia presumed, no one will maintain. If it is used as synonymous with preclude, (hinder from entering,') it implies that he had not been a member of the Church which excludes him; which is absurd. If it is simply meant that exclusion from one Church rightfully pre vents any other Church from receiving the excluded members, those who seek truth will desire something more than assertion before they receive it as Gospel.
The object of discipline is the recovery of the ofI fending brother. " If he hear thee thou hast gained ' thy brother." But we haVe supposed a case in which
an innocent brother has been unjustly excluded. How can he be recovered who has not fallen? Your dis-
2

XTV

INTRODUCTION.

cipline may lead a transgressor to repentance: bat when you have excluded an innocent man on a false accusation, do you expect him to repent? and of what? The object of your discipline is to correct; and you exercise it on one who has not erred I You design to heal; but have given your physic to a well man ! And then you tell him that though the medi cine can not have the effect designed, it will, at any rate, show that he has a good constitution, which even your treatment could not kill!
But the author of Corrective Church Discipline, in his effort to teach us " the way of the Lord more per fectly," undertakes to give us Scriptural authority. Well, nothing less than Scripture can sustain a dogma so monstrous as that a brother, no matter how unjustly or wickedly excluded, can have no remedy, except at the hand of the wrong-doers; as that all other Churches, cognizant of the wrong, must sit still, and, with folded arms, exclaim, "It is the will of the Lord. Let the injured brother be patient, and glory in his martyr dom. Let us all submit. So shall we grow in grace and humility." This seems rather akin to the in difference of the Turk, than the sympathy of the Christian.
The author undertakes to show, " BY POSITIVE PBECEPT," that the New Testament teaches "that one Church can not receive to membership the excluded members of another; and that such excluded members can be restored only by the action of the Church expelliqg them." On page 100, he says, " We have a pre* cept, first, as to what is to be done with the incorrigi-

INTRODUCTION.

XV

We under each class of offenses." A precept I 'What is it? " Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." 1 Cor. v : 13. Well, that is capital author ity for excluding a wicked man; for it is the direction which Paul gives the Corinthian Church, not, however, in reference to a memher excluded hy some other Church, but to the incestuous man who was. then a member with them.
Having produced this single text, which clearly has no bearing on the point he undertook to prove, the author proceeds to give us the Scripture precepts " as to our feelings and deportment toward those who have received the penalty prescribed." Here he is more liberal, and gives us four texts, which I will consider.
This is the first: " Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." Matt, xviii: 17. But the Savior addresses this to an offended brother in regard to one who is not yet excommunicated. It can not, there fore, be the fact of exclusion that constitutes him a heathen. Dr. Dawson, although he has indorsed Cor rective Church Discipline in gross, has admitted that he agrees with me in the interpretation of this text. But, now, to show how an excluded member is to be treated by all the Churches, we are referred to a text which shows how an offended brother should treat one
who has not been excluded 1 Another proof-text is this: " Now I have written
unto you not to keep company " with them. 1 Cor. v: 11. With whom ? Paul says, " But DOW I have writ ten unto you, not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an

Xvi

INTRODUCTION.

idolater," etc. However guilty these men were, they were still Church-members. It was, therefore, not their exclusion, but tJieir wickedness, which was the ground of the prohibition.
We quote a third text relied on by the author: "Now we-command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walkcth disorderJy."--2 Thess. iii: 6. Still, the persons against whom the command is given, are not excommunicated persons, but disorderly Church-members. Paul calls them brothers. These three texts, so confidently cited to show how excluded members ought to be treated, all speak of persons who are still in membership.
The only remaining text is Rom. xvi : 17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divi sions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them." Now I ask, in all sincerity, what evidence there is that the men here spoken of had been excluded from any Church ? The men who created the dissension in Antioch (Acts xv: 2) were not excommunicated; and there is no evidence that these were. More probably they were Judaizing teachers, men of the class which Paul appears to have met in many places, and always with the strongest opposition.
Not one of the passages quoted as proof-texts bears upon the question; and these are all that the author has presented. Where his clear mind has so signally failed, may we not conclude that it is because there ia no Scripture more applicable to his purpose ?

INTRODUCTION.

XT11

But no one has ever contended that a wicked man ought to be admitted into any Church. The question is whether a good man who has been unjustly excluded may not be received. The exclusion is indeed pre sumptive evidence that the man is guilty. So is ex clusion from a Masonic lodge. But suppose I happen to fcnoio that the excluded man is not guilty; am I to surrender my judgment and conscience to other men's keeping, and treat an innocent brother as a heathen? to "withdraw"myself from him? not even "eat with" him ? I say NO, not if he had been excluded by a thousand Churches! And so I believe would answer the very men who contend for the theory which I oppose. Why, then, should a Church, composed of individuals, be required to do what no individual among them would do, or is required to do ?
The author goes on to sustain his propositions " BY INSPIRED EXAMPLE." That I may not be suspected of unfairness, I will quote all that he says under this head.
" Scripture example shows that the excommunica ting Church alone can restore to membership. But one example is given in the Scriptures of the exclu sion and restoration of a member. The incestuous man at Corinth was, at the instance of Paul, excom municated ; and when he had given satisfactory evi dence of repentance and reformation, at the solicitation of Paul, he was restored to membership by the same Church. There was a large number of others in exist ence at that time besides the Church of Corinth. Paul was not compelled, therefore, to apply to it, because it
2*

INTRODUCTION.
was the only one extant. Now, Baptists claim that inspired example is as binding as inspired precept. In this way alone do they discover the form and organiza tion of a Gospel Church. Nowhere in the New Test ament is to be found a precept containing a rule for the organization and government of a Gospel Church. For our ideas and our practices upon these subjects, we are dependent exclusively upon inspired example. And in no instance do we reason against our Pedobaptist friends more forcibly and conclusively than when we maintain the binding force of New Testa ment example. Now, can we be honest when we denounce others for disregarding inspired example in the organization and government of the Church, if wo refuse to receive that same example as binding on any other subject? We ask : How can an expelled man be restored to membership ? and are answered: JBy New Testament example., that lie is to lie restored ly the same Church that expelled him, after satisfaction rendered. Now, if we decline to receive the answer, while we sin against God, we lay ourselves open to the retort from our Pedobaptist friends: ' Physician, heal thyself.' Inspired precept and example, then, forbid one Church to receive the excommunicated members of another, and declare that when a Church expels, her action is JinaV Pp. 102, 103.
Besides the italics of the author, I have italicised in three sentences of the above, that the reader may see, at one glance, the argument. This quotation, I repeat, contains all that the author says under this head. It is worth while to examine it with some minuteness.

INTRODUCTION.

xi*

Is it not remarkable ? that he now says: " Nowhere in the New Testament is to be found a precept con taining a rule for the organization and government of a Gospel Church. For our ideas and our practices upon these subjects, we are dependent exclusively upon inspired example;" when he has just three pages before undertaken to establish a rule for the govern ment of a Church " BY POSITIVE PKECEPT," and when he has just quoted jive texts as settling the question, saying " these precepts are enough." Is it not re markable that he now says: " We are dependent ex clusively upon inspired example," and just below adds: " Inspired precept and example, then, forbid one Church to receive the excommunicated members of another?"
But the example cited does not apply to the case which we have supposed of an innocent man unjustly excluded. There is no doubt of the Corinthian's guilt. A Church excludes a guilty man; does this warrant a Church in excluding an innocent man? Whenever 3 rule is deduced from an example, we can apply it safely in similar cases only. In this example of Cor inth, we are told the excluded member was restored "when he had given satisfactory evidence of repentance and reformation;" and, therefore, the rule is deduced that a member must be restored by the same Church that expelled him, after satisfaction rendered." But as an innocent man can not repent of a sin he did not commit, either the rule does not apply, or the man can never be restored. He who has done no wrong, can render no satisfaction.
Now, does it follow, because the Corinthian Church

XX

INTEODUCTION.

restored its own excluded guilty member upon his re pentance, that, therefore, no other Church can receive an excluded innocent member at all ? There is noth ing common to the two propositions. We might aa well argue that because Paul wore a cloak, we must not wear overcoats. If it is meant that a Church can do nothing but what Churches did (by recorded ex ample) in the New Testament, it is unnecessary to refer to the ease at Corinth at all; for it is freely conceded that we have no New Testament example of a Church receiving an excluded member of another Church. If our opposers, therefore, will prove that a Church now can do nothing for which example can not be shown, we submit.
But, then, we may go further and demand an exam ple of a Church restoring one of her own excluded members. Where is the example recorded? I am referred to the case of the incestuous man at Corinth; but I ask, where is it recorded that he was restored? Some doubt whether he was formally excluded; but if the New Testament example alone is binding, we must see the Scripture which states that he was re stored. Now, I believe firmly that he was restored, although the New Testament does not say so; but because Paul commanded the Church at Corinth to forgive him. " Sufficient to such a man is this pun ishment, which was inflicted of many. So that con trariwise, ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest, perhaps, such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore, I beseech you, that you would confirm your love toward him."

INTRODUCTION.

Xxi

2 Cor. ii: 6-8. We have, therefore, no inspired example at all; hut a sufficiently positive precept " to authorize a Church to restore a justly excluded memher on his repentance." This is a question about which there is now no debate; but which, in the time of Cyprian, produced a long and violent controversy. But again I ask: Because a Church ought to restore her own excluded member on his repentance, does it follow that another Church shall not receive a holy man unjustly excluded ? Neither logic nor Scripture warrants it.
The example adduced by the author of Corrective Church Discipline, as well as his precepts, fails to support the proposition sought to be established.
Some of the "general principles" which do hear upon the issue, have been discussed in my remarks on what is called Church sovereignty. I add but little more, for these principles are few and simple.
Every Church derives all its power from Jesus Christ. Every act of a Church which is according to Christ's law is authorized, and therefore valid; and every act not according to Christ's law is unauthorized, and therefore not valid. Each Church is independent of all other Churches, and at the same time subject in all things to Jesus Christ. Every Church, therefore, is lound* not by the action or opinion of other Churches, but by the law of Jesus Christ.
*Ths author of ComOai Church Discipline, following O> SoiUh-Watern Baptist, says, that thin word contains a fiillacy, but ha ha* not pointed it ont, and, as wo have seen, Jit um Oa taint vxrrd Tiimttl/. If I knew a. less ambiguous word, I wonld nso it, for I have nothing to gain by fallacy or by falsehood.

XX11

INTRODUCTION.

I can hardly conceive that any man will deny either of the foregoing propositions. In their application brethren appear to honestly differ. I proceed to point out what seems to me to be their proper application to the question in hand.
A Church is not hound to receive a member because another Church has received him. Usually, indeed, one Church does receive a member on a letter certi fying his fellowship in another Church; but this is a matter of courtesy and not of right: and I have known such applicants to be rejected, and properly rejected. The Greenesboro' Church has, within my knowledge, acted twice on this principle; and no breach of fellow ship or good-will occurred between the Churches on this account.
A Church is not bound to receive as a minister every one whom another Church so receives or ordains; but decides for itself whether it will receive him or not; and I have known more than one instance where Churches have refused to receive ministers recognized and received by other Churches.
Again, a Church is not bound to reject a member who has been rejected by another Church. If an individual applies to one Church for membership on experience, and is rejected because his experience does not satisfy them, he may, nevertheless, be received by another Church upon the very same experience. No one will deny this; for every Church must judge and decide for itself. These instances show that neither in receiving nor rejecting members can one local Church bind any other local Church. Each is inde-

INTEODT7CTTOS.
pendent, in its widest sense, of all others. To its own Master it standeth or falleth.
Upon the same principle, one who has been excluded by one Church may be received by another. But it ia said that this case differs from that of receiving a member after a simple rejection of the applicant's experience. In the one. we are told, there is a moral disability and a censure: in the other, none. But this certainly is a mistake. In the judgment of the rejecting Church, the applicant must have been con sidered deficient in Gospel faith; and that surely is a great moral disability, when the question is the pro priety of admitting any one into a company of regen erated persons. In regard to the other point, a man may be laboring under charges from other tribunals than a Church. An individual may apply to a Church for membership while he is charged with crime; shall a Church of regenerated sinners reject him on that ground alone ? Is it not more according to the spirit of the Gospel to examine the facts and reject him (if he ought to he rejected) on account of his guilt ?
When a Church receives a member she confers upon him certain rights. What are those rights? Christ has established no great hierarchy; no -universal Church, visible; no grand confederacy of Churches, even, in which membership in one confers rights in all the rest. By admission, therefore, an individual obtains rights in the Church admitting him, and in no other. And when an individual is excluded from a Church, he is deprived of the very same rights which admission conferred upon him. I do not see how he can b

XX17

INTRODUCTION.

deprived of more, for he possesses no more. They are rights in the particular, local, visible Church; not in a Church general, nor in a hierarchy, nor in a con federated republic of Churches; for none of these things exist by the authority of Christ. I, therefore, hold that the phrases to admit a member into a Church, and to exclude a member from a Church are correla tive phrases, and represent correlative ideas; which are also coextensive and commensurate ideas. When I stated this opinion some months ago, Dr. Dawson, of the South- Western Baptist, said, with more candor than courtesy, (I thank him for the former, and am not ruffled by the lack of the latter,) that they were " truisms, clothed in great swelling words" which, how ever, threw " no light on the subject." He has since indorsed enthusiastically Corrective Church Discipline, whose author boldly affirms that they are NOT "cor relative " nor " commensurate " ideas. The inconsist ency of an individual, however, is of little consequence to a seeker for truth.
What strong reasons then are offered to disprove my proposition ? " Before he is received, he bears no relation to the Church; but when he is expelled, he sustains the relation of one who is the subject of its reformatory discipline." Page 107. But is it trae that, before an individual is received into a Church, he bears no relation to iff I can not think so. The Church and the world do bear certain relations to each other, for Jesus has said: "Ye are the light of the world," and again: "Ye are the salt of the earth." Doubtless, an individual does bear some relation to a

INTRODUCTION.

XXV

Church before he is received into its membership. If, by the latter clause of the sentence quoted, it is meant that the excluded is a subject of the Church, there is a fallacy in the proposition. A few years ago Captain Ingraham released an American citizen who visa a subject of Austrian discipline, though not a subject of the Austrian government. In like manner it may happen that one may be the subject of Church disci pline who is not a subject of the Church.
To confirm his proposition, the author adds, that the expelled " can never be received again in the same way as he was from the world at first. Then, he was admitted by experience and baptism; now, he must be not admitted, but restored according to the Scriptures, by satisfaction rendered, without baptism." But the man may not have been admitted into the excluding Church at first from the world; he may have come from another Church, not by baptism and experience, but by letter. As he was not, therefore, admitted by baptism into the expelling Church, the manner of his readmission does not vary. But really this matter does not appear to me to touch the merits of the question. The member is not admitted by his expe rience and baptism in the first instance; nor by his letter in the second; but BY THE VOTE op THE CHURCH, based upon his experience or letter: and when he is re stored, it is by a similar vote, based upon his repentance.
The author goes on: " Expulsion does not leave a man in the same condition that reception found him." Granted; what then ? " Therefore, reception and ex pulsion are not commensurate ideas, nor correlative
3

INTRObUCTION.
terms.'1 I must confess I do not see any connection between the conclusion and the reason from which it professes to be drawn. I suppose the terms reception and expulsion are used to mean what I meant when I said admit and exclude. Now, if receiving or admit ting one into a Church, and excluding or expelling one from a Church, are not correlative phrases, I must confess myself ignorant of the meaning of the words. Because the man is not in the same condition as before, therefore the terms are not correlative I John leaves home, and, after an absence of six months, re turns home. But he left home gay, and happy, and well; he returns dejected, miserable, and sick; there fore, leaving home and returning home are not correl ative terms, nor commensurate ideas 1 " To gain a fortune," and " to lose a fortune," appear to me to be " correlative " and " commensurate," although the man, may be left in a very different condition. At first, he may have been young and strong, and industrious, and energetic; at the last, he may be old and infirm, ami indolent, and enervate. The things spoken of in all these instances are correlative and commensurate; while the condition of the individuals are only inci dental, and do not affect the thing itself.
The author concludes the paragraph thus: "Do you ask me. in reply: ' Is every Church bound by the action of others?' Without stopping to expose the fallacy contained in the word 'bound,' I reply: ' Every Church is bound to obey the commands of the Master; and they prohibit it to interfere with the internal discipline of its neighbors.'" P. 108.

INTRODUCTION.

SITU

Only remarking that the word " bound" in the reply contains just as much fallacy as the same word in the question, we all agree that every Church is bound to obey the commands of the Blaster. But we hare seen that wheu the author undertook to produce " POSITIVE PRECEPT " that " one Church can not receive to mem bership the excluded members of another," he failed most egregiously. And when he said "Nowhere in the New Testament is to be found a precept contain ing a rule for the organization and government of a Gospel Church. For our ideas and practices upon these subjects we are dependent exclusively upon inspired example" we have seen that his solitary example not only did not sustain him, but did not even exist. And now, again, he speaks of commands, which he Tuts not produced, and does not produce.
Turn it, twist it as you may, the question resolves into this: Is the action of a Church, WHETHER RIOHT OB WRONG, binding on all others? Take the case before supposed, where a Church unjustly excludes an innocent man; we are told that this unjust action is FINAL ; that THEEE is NO REMEDY except " from the Church expelling him;" that all Churches must treat him as a heathen; that the commands of Christ re quire this: BUT these commands are never produced.
The precepts of the New Testament and the re corded usage of the Apostolical Churches do furnish us complete instruction in regard to the organization of a Church. But in the government of a Church organized after the New Testament pattern, regard must often be had to general principles, drawn from

XXV111

INTBODUCTIOX.

particular precepts and individual cases. It is of ne cessity so: for no book could contain special rules for every particular case.
I come back to recapitulate the essential principles of Church organization and government.
Every Church of Jesus Christ is composed of regen erated, faithful, and holy persons, men and women, who have been properly immersed into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Every Church is alike subject in all things to Jesus Christ; and therefore no Church is sovereign.
Every Church derives all its power from Jesus Christ; and is responsible to him alone for its use or abuse.
Every act of a Church which is according to Christ's law, contained in the New Testament, is authorized and valid; and every act not according to Christ's law is unauthorized and invalid.
Every Church is independent of all other Churches; and is bound, not by their action or opinion, but by the law of Jesus Christ.
Each Church must be the sole judge of the qualifi cations of its members; and should receive or reject, retain or exclude an individual, according as his char acter, in its judgment, conforms or fails to conform to *;he standard laid down in the New Testament.
If an innocent member is unjustly excluded by a particular Church, that exclusion does not make him an unregenerate, unholy, or unfaithful man: and there fore does not disqualify him for membership in any Church that obeys the Gospel.

INTRODUCTION.

XXIX

If one Church receives, or retains in its membership an individual deemed by another Church unfit to be a member, this does not constitute a breach of fellow ship ; for each is independent, and its right to judge for itself is indefeasible.
If one Church excludes one of its members, believ ing him to be guilty, and another Church, believing him to be innocent, receives him, this does not con stitute a breach of fellowship. It is only a particular application of the preceding principle.
If the two Churches themselves get into a quarrel about the matter, there is no reason why other Churches should join in and swell the tumult. It can never be made an article of faith whether John Smith is or is not a bad man. Let those who know him form their judgment in soberness and charity.
These are my opinions, not lately adopted, nor now for the first time advanced. I do not cherish them because they are mine; but I have adopted them be cause I believe them to be true; and while I believe them to be true, I will cherish them. If I should be convinced that they are wrong, I will discard them as promptly as I adopted them; and will renounce them as publicly as I have maintained them. Brethren who profess to have written with reference to no particular case, have charged me with writing with reference to the Nashville difficulty. At the same time, strenu ously opposing my views, they affirm that these views do not bear upon that difficulty. Be it so: then why should not these opinions be calmly considered and
3*

XXX

INTRODUCTION.

soherly adjudged ? I ask: What ground is there for division in holding these principles or in reducing them to practice ? But the case has gone to the jury.
Let them decide.
N. M. CRAWFORD.

PREFACE.
THE Baptists of the South, generally, are aware that Professor P. H. HELL, of the University of Georgia, has written a treatise on " Corrective Church Discipline." This treatise, at first pub lished in several Baptist papers, has recently been given to the public in " book form." On the other hand, the Baptists of the South do not, so generally, know that this treatise has been reviewed. The reason why many of them are unacquainted with, the fact is to be attributed mainly to another fact, viz.: That a large portion of the Baptist press could not be induced, by fair means, to publish the review, though they published the series written by Professor MeU. Whether this fact can be said to the praise of those who have governed the press, I will leave it to others to decide. " Fair," " free," and " full discussion" where, indeed, such a priv ilege has been allowed them, had, as I had always thought, characterized Baptists; and though this
(sxxi)

XXXH

PREFACE.

may be true as a general rule, yet the above forms one decided and unmistakable exception. But Baptists know how, if any people do, to appreci ate such proscription.
The treatise above referred to, while names are not allowed to appear, seems to look to a well-known case of discipline (?), which has been agitating the Baptist mind no little of late. The review as cautiously omits all names, but discusses the prin ciples attempted to be established by the author of Corrective Church Discipline, even at the ex pense of having it said, "He is writing for the defense of a certain party!" Why the reviewer should be thus censured for reviewing a work, the design of which is to establish principles con demning one party and apologizing for another, while both parties ignore names, it is difficult to see! For principles and not for men, has the reviewer contended. When principles vital to the Church of Christ are assailed, who ivould te so cowardly as not to speak forth his sentiments ?
But what are these principles ? I answer: They are principles that affect the foundation of right. The main question involved is this: Does the right to exercise discipline originate in the will of the majority of a Church ? or does it take its origin in the witt of Christ, as expressed in his word ?
Those who advocate the former of these ques tions, run into a number of gross absurdities.

PBEFACE.
They destroy, or at least greatly abridge, the in dependence of all those Churches that think that all right to exercise discipline is derived from Christ's word. They think that a wicked act of discipline, performed by one Church, deserves the respect of all other Churches! The direct ten dency of which is, to make wrong right and rigid wrong. The object of the reviewer has been to expose such monstrous faUticies, and present the claims and authority of Christ above all other claims; striving to show that an act of discipline is right and valid, not because a majority happen to vote for it, but because the act itself was done in accordance with, and by authority of, THE LAWS OP CHEIST ; and that all acts of discipline, which are not authorized by, or in violation of his laws, are wrong--invalid--and hence deserve the dis approbation and disrespect of all other Churches and Church-members connected with the invalid acts.
The reviewer has tried, (with what success he will leave it to others to say,) to fairly and fear lessly expose these Romish peculiarities, defend the honor of Christ, and place the important sub ject of Church discipline on its proper basis--the word of God.
Induced by a love of the truth to write this review, and thinking it not amiss to add, as an
3

XXXIV

PREFACE.

appendix, some of the most important principles of Church discipline, as taught in the sacred ora cles, the author respectfully submits them boih to all truth-loving Baptists.
A. S. WORRELL.

CONTENTS.
no* ISTEODUCTIOS...................................................... 3 PREFACE............................................................. 31 Review of Corrective Church Discipline.................. 39 Private Offenses examined and exposed.................. 42 The Offense in Matt xviii properly defined Personal
Offense......................................................... 43 Public Offenses examined and exposed Defined as
General Offenses............................................ 49 Mixed Offenses, as used by Professor Mell, Impossi
bilities......................................................... 56 Treatment of Private Offenses shown to be worse
than folly..................................................... 63 Treatment of Public Offenses examined........... . 73 Treatment of Mixed Offenses absurd...................... SO Questions Suggested by the Previous Discussion...... 81 The Church Feelings appropriate to an innocent
Man under false Charges Submission to God's Will not Submission to the wicked.................. 90
(xxxv)

XXXVI

CONTENTS.

The Duty of Pastors in Church Discipline--Church Sovereignty and Independence--What implied in Church Independence.................................... 97
Deductions from previous Principle--"Church Sov ereignty and Independence"--Charge irregularly preferred--A dangerous Fallacy exposed--Inten tional and unintentional Errors considered-- Other Errors exposed...................................... 117
Trials of Ministers--"Why Councils should be called in............................................................... 135
Deductions--"Church Independence"--The Decision of a Church final, when, and how--Scripture Pre cepts and Examples misquoted--Doctors some times disagree--Reception and Expulsion: com mensurate Ideas--Other Fallacies exposed-- Christian Union destroyed............................... 142
Third Plea--His Analysis turned against him--Brief Summary...................................................... 160

APPENDIX.
PAOS.
OFFESSES DEFINED--Personal and General............... 180
General Ofienses alone concern the Church............ 183 Two Classes of Personal Offenses........................... 185
How to settle Personal Ofienses--The Law Slatt xviii ppplicablo to First Class of Personal Offenses...... 187

CONTEXTS.

XSXV11

r.vei How to proceed in Second Class........................... 192
How to proceed in General Offenses...................... 198 How to proceed in Case the Offense may be atoned
for by Penitence and Confession--Other import ant Questions................................................ 204 The duty of the Church to exercise Discipline--Indi vidual Responsibility in the Exercise of Discipline 20S
Women not to vote in Church................... ........... 209 Ought Minors to be allowed a Vote--Why not?......... 216
Who ought to vote in Church................................ 220 From whom the Church derives the Right to exercise
Discipline.................................................... 221 Christ, the only Lawgiver...................................... 224 The Design with which a Church should discipline
her Members--When one Member suffers, the whole Body suffers......................................... 224 Has a Church the Right to discipline her Members contrary to the Law of Christ........................ 225
How should a properly-excluded Person be regarded by other Churches......................................... 22G
How should a Member improperly excluded, as also the Church excluding him thus, be regarded..... 220
The Relation an excluded Member sustains to the Church excluding him.................................... 229
How should a justly-excluded Member be restored... 229
Articles from Professor T. F. Curtia--Restoration of the Excludc'l................................................ 201 4

XXXV1U

CONTENTS.

PAOK
How is an unjustly-excluded Member to be restored 241 Can another Church rightfully receive an, unjustly-
excluded Member........................................... 241 How is such an excluded Member to be received by
another Church............................................. 242
Which is the Church, the obedient Minority, or the rebellious Majority............. .......................... 243
Has a Minority the Eight to withdraw from a rebel lious Majority............................................... 245
Elder Dayton's Articles--Had we the Right to do it?.. 247 Is our Example dangerous?................................... 207
Has an. oppressed Member the Eight to decline Trial by his Church, when he knows that they design to crush him?.............................................. 271
Elder Dayton's articles from the Southern Baptist Review--Associations and Churches.................. 276

REVIEW
CORRECTIVE CHURCH DISCIPLINE
A UUMBER of articles, on the subject of " Cor rective Church Discipline," have recently ap peared in several Baptist papers, from the pen of Professor ilell, of the University of Georgia. Why these articles have been published simulta neously in so many papers, the author has not informed us. Possibly, by sending manuscripts to the difierent editors, their publications might be more certainly secured. Possibly, too, the design may have been to make a simultaneous impression. Certain it is, that some important end is designed to be accomplished. What that end is, the writer has not informed us; nor will time be unnecessarily consumed in guessing.

40

REVIEW OF

though the end seems to me to be very trans parent.
The object of every writer should be to know and set forth the truth. Where this is not the case, an opportunity for the display of learning may be afforded, but the work does no credit to the heart of the one who performs it. The pres ent writer has no " pet theory " nor partisan end to urge. To follow the truth, wherever it may lead, is his only object.
It is suggested by Professor Mcll that all strict ures be withheld until he shall have closed his series. But as no intimation is given as to the probable length of the series, and there is a considerable amount of labor to perform before reaching his " conclusions," it is to be hoped that he will not object to our commencing the work at once.
On reading his first article, I was led to inquire, " What emergency has called out this long arti cle ?" " Is the New Testament so obscure on the subject of Church discipline as to need such an elaborate piece of composition ?" Even after re flection, I am unable to see that Professor Mell's teachings, or expositions, are any more easily un-

CORRECTIVE CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

41

derstood than those of Christ and his inspired apostles. The writer himself affirms that the great Lawgiver in Zion has left his people in no doubt as to the remedy to be applied in every instance--that "he has not left us to legislate on the subject," nor to resort to expedients to meet cases as they arise; but himself has classified offenses, and prescribed the course to be pursued in every case. Now, if the great Lawgiver "has left his people in no doubt as to the remedy to be applied in every instance," and if he has pre scribed the course to be pursued in every case, what more can be desired? What need have we of additional light? Has there been any case of discipline which deserves approbation or condem nation ? If so, why not measure that act of dis cipline directly by the Divine lain, which is so plain as to leave no douU as to what ought to be done? The verdict, in this case, could be easily made. But the articles are now in print, and I will proceed to notice them with all respect and kindness.

42

PRIVATE OFFENSES EXAMINED.

PRIVATE OFFENSE8 EXAMINED.
OFFEXSES are divided into two general classes-- "Private and Public." The former he defines thus: " A Private Offense is one in which the act is not essentially a crime against religion and morality, and the object affected by it is a brother."
With regard to this definition, I remark: 1. That an act which is a crime against neither religion nor morality, deserves not to be called a crime, in the sense in which it is used in the definition--it is an imaginary, and not a real crime. True, every crime is not committed with the view of reproaching religion or morality--in deed, crimes thus committed are very few; but it is also true, that no act ought to be denominated a crime which does not violate the laws either of morality or of religion. 2. The examples given to establish the rule, do not, in my judgment, sustain it. As speci mens, here are three: " As when encroachments are made against individual rights, interest, or feelings." Will it be contended that an encroach ment against an individual's rights, his interest, or

MUTATE OFFENSES EXAiUXED.

43

his feelings, is a crime against neither religion nor morality ? The professor must be exceedingly strict in his notions of what it takes to constitute a crime, if he supposes a crime can be perpe trated which is not essentially a crime against religion or morality. There are crimes enough, essentially against morality or religion, without flooding the Church with this new species. The definition, to my mind, is entirely novel. The definition of " private offenses" ought to have been more explicit.
3. The definition does great violence to the Scrip tures. The definition, be it remembered, is based upon Matt, xviii: 15: " Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee" etc.
What is the Greek verb, which is translated "offend" in the eighteenth chapter and fifteenth verse of Matthew ? Read, every one who can-- it is 'afjiap~^arj, Eay os 'afiaprqfffl s:z as 6 dds?.for) literally, and if the brother sin into (against) thee.
Now the reader's attention is called to the fol lowing facts:
1. That the verb, translated sin in the New Testament is, invariably, latuaprava> in some one

44

PRIVATE OFFEXSES EXAMINED.

of its forms. The verb, translated "offend" in Matt, xviii: l^is'afiapr^ffrj, (the Aorist sub.)
The verb appears twice in the participial form in composition with the preposition, xpo--once in 2 Cor. xii: 21, [-^o^yua^r^orwv] again, 2 Cor. xiii: [xr>oy;jtalorrjx6fft.~]
2. The lexicons all agree as to the meaning of the verb, viz.: in the classics, " to err from," " to miss the mark," "to err," "to sin;" in the New Testament it means to sin.
3. That the Greek adjective, corresponding, is 'a/iapTa>).o;--one who is a sinner. OtpscteTcu, translated "sinners," in Luke xiii: 4, means a debtor; hence, by implication, a sinner.
4. That the Greek noun, translated sin, is ^aftaprla and ''afiapTq/xa, sin, or sinfulness.
These words all belong to the same family ; all have a common root, and are the words which God selected to designate the act of sinning, the state of being a sinner, and the action of sin itself.
In view of these facts, I affirm: . 1. That if the verb ^a/tapTuvoi does not imply a violation of moral or religious law, there is no verb in the New Testament that does.

PRIVATE OFFESSES EXAMINED.

45

2. That if this same verb does imply a violation of moral or religious law, it implies as much in Matt, xviii: 15, unless there is something in the context to destroy this meaning. There is noth ing in the context to neutralize its meaning, un less it be the phrase " against thee," [if thy brother sin against thee.] But a sin is none the less a sin, because it is committed against a brother. The object of the sinful action can not, in the nature of things, destroy the elements of the act itself. Besides, here is one text which will forever settle the question: " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." It is impossible to sin against a brother, without violating, at the same time, this law of God. The verb 'a^aonjOTj in Matt, xviii: 15, must have its ordinary meaning. It must signify to sin, or it does not. If it does not mean to sin, then Christ and his apostles were mistaken about the condition of the human family--supposing that they were guilty of hav ing violated some moral or religious law, when such was not the fact! On this supposition, the human race has been cruelly and wantonly slan dered ; having been charged with unholiness, wick edness, and rebellion, when they have, all the

46

PRIVATE DEFENSES EXAMINED.

time, been holy, righteous, and obedient! any one believe that Christ did not use the verb 'afiap^avca to denote the act of sinning? If he who showed himself, by miraculous works, to be God, did noc thus use the word, he said nothing about the existence of sin. If the noun 'ajua/vrt'a did not mean sin, and the verb 'aftapravto, to sin, in the days of Christ, there is no word that did.
And if sin did exist, and was spoken of, it must have been designated by some term. No terms were used for the pui-pose of denoting the action of sin, and the act of sinning, if 'aftaprla and 'a/tapravco were not. If, then, the noun 'apapTia did not mean sin, and the verb '/*/>riw, to sin, we must conclude that there was no sin, or if there was, no one recognized it. Why, then, was it necessary for Christ to die ? Was not he, by his death, to "save his people from their sins ?" If his people had not sinned, then the angel of the Lord lied when he said: " He shall save his people from their sins." Are we not compelled to believe there was sin in the world, and that it was designated by some term?
But if ''afjLap-avia does mean to sin, Professor Hell's definition of private offenses must forever

PRIVATE OFFEJTSES EXAMINED.

47

fall. If the verb 'aftap-yoTf, in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, does not "essentially" ne cessarily denote a violation of some moral or religious law, then Christ and his apostles used no word that does. But we know that sin does abound; that it has, ever since the days of Adam's transgression ; that the verb fafiaprq<rfl does imply sin; that Christ so used it; and that, therefore, Professor Mell's definition is not correct.
It astonishes me beyond measure, and, I will add, pains me, too, that my old professor, and teacher of Greek besides, should have taken such a strange and untenable position !
Let us see how Matt, xviii: 15, will read, when literally translated: " And if (thy) brother sin against thee," etc. The common version, which renders afiaprrt a^ trespass, is not strong enough. The imperfection of Bang James's version has, in all probability, given rise to an erroneous inter pretation of this verse, quite common of late. The author of the articles now under reView is the professor of Greek, I believe, in the University of Georgia. "Will he show that the above criti cisms are wrong ? "Will he affirm that Matt, xviii: 15 does not imply a violation of religion ? Will

48

PRIVATE DEFENSES EXAMINED.

any one who knows anything of the Greek dare to make such an affirmation? I here challenge Greek schqlars, the world over, to show that the criticisms above made are not strictly correct. To place this point beyond dispute, I give the text again, literally translated: " And if (thy) brother sin against tkee," etc. If the word translated " sin " does not imply a violation of religion or morality, then may the human family be at peace; for, on this supposition, the Bible contains no threat against them; indeed, there would be noth ing upon which to base a threat. Furthermore, if this doctrine be true, the Bible is a work of supererogation, and may well be attributed to the superstition and deceit of priests. But if the Bible be the word of God, and if that word be true, then the word (translated in the common version " trespass," but properly rendered " sin ") does imply, and necessarily so, a violation of re ligion or morality.
If it does*imply such a violation, then is Pro fessor Mell's definition of "private offenses" worthless; having nothing but the conjecture of man to rest upon. Let this definition, then, as containing the seeds of universal skepticism, be

VCUUC OBTESSES EXASECIED.

49

rejected, and let ons which harmonizes with the word of God, be given in its stead.
"And if (thy) brother sin against thee." Is there any specific sin here referred to? I an swer, the term is wholly unlimited, except by the phrase " agaitist thee." Thy brother may sin against thee in a great variety of ways, too nu merous to mention. He may sin " against thee " cither privately, or publicly. Hence, to call a sin, which may be private, or public, a " private offense," does not clearly designate the nature of the sin, or ofFense. If there is any word in our language by which this act can be properly des ignated, that word should be sought. There is no word that can perform this office better than the term personal. If thy brother sin against thee, the sin is personal to thee, and why not call it personal instead of private ?

PUBLIC OFFEKSES.
"A PUBLIC OFFEN'SE," says the professor, "is one in which the act is essentially a crime against

50

PUBLIC DEFENSES EXAMINED.

religion and morality, or the object of it the Church in its organized capacity."
The objections to this definition are: 1. That unless religion and morality are co extensive terms, it is possible for " public oflenses " to exist, without being committed essentially against both religion and morality. If these terms are co extensive, one of them is superfluous, and ought, therefore, to be rejected. Such distinctions ought to be noticed, especially in definitions of such im portant subjects. 2. I enter a philosophical protest against the latter part of the definition: " Or the object of it the Church in its organized capacity." Philoso phers ordinarily give a definition, and then adduce their examples to show the applicability of prin ciple or law defined; but never, till I read this definition, have I seen what might be an example under the rule, incorporated into the definition of the rule itself! Arithmetic is the science of figures, or (it is) 2-f-6=8. Again: Grammar is the science of lan guage, or (it is) boys love to play. The former, while it is an example in arithmetic, is, by no means, arithmetic itself. The latter, though a

PUBLIC OFFENSES EXAMINED.

51

sentence involving some of the principles of grammar, is, certainly, not grammar itself. Read his definition of public offenses, and compare it with the'above.
The philosopher will be astonished, either at the carelessness of the author of such a definition, or at the ignorance -which must attach to readers, if it is supposed that they receive, as valid, such a remarkable definition!
3. Still another objection is, that this same defi nition is as illogical as it is imphilosophical. Sup pose it should become necessary to discuss the merits of some " act against the Church, in its or ganized capacity," and Professor JVIell should, in stating his premises, affirm "thatvan act against the Church in its organized capacity," is a crime --" a public offense," he might justly be required to prove his assertion. His opponent would say to him : " Sir, you have assumed as true what you must prove." The question to be discussed is simply this: Is the particular act a crime--" a pub lic offense ?" Tou, sir, affirm that it is a crime-- a public offense. But you must prove it. Your fault is called, by logicians, " Petilioprincipii"-- a legging of the question.

52

PUBLIC OFFEXSES EXAMINED.

It is true that some such acts may be crimes, or even public offenses; but it is equally true that other acts committed against the Church, even in its organized capacity, are not crimes, and conse quently not public offenses in the offensive sense of the term. Numerous examples might be ad duced. Here is a comprehensive one: A refusal, on the part of a member, to acquiesce in any vio lation of the Scriptures by the Church, can not.be a crime, however offensive it may be to those who are called the Church.
Let us illustrate. Suppose a Church, " in its organized capacity," should say to one of its members: " Sir, you must go to China, and preach the Gospel to the heathen," and threaten him with exclusion if he refuse to obey; would it be a sin, public or private, for him to inform them that he could not obey their order? Yet it is a sin, if Professor Mail's definition be correct!
An act against the Church is a specific crime, if a crime at all; but it is by no means self-evident that such an act is a crime, unless the CJiurch is infallible. The only proper course for the pro fessor to pursue was, first to have given a correct definition of a publie offense, if the Bible is not

PUBLIC OFFEXSES EXAMINED.

53

sufficiently plain; then, if there is any act against the Church in its organized capacity, lie should have compared that act, taking into the account the facts in the case, with his definition; and had said act been found to contain the necessary elements of a public offense, then, but not till then, ought he to have asserted that that act is a public offense. Lo gicians Trill ever remain astonished at reading the professor's definition of a public oSense!
4. This definition is objectionable in a theologi cal point of view. As intimated above, his doc trine can be true only on the supposition that the Church is infallible. Will Professor Mell advo cate such a Romish dogma ? He does advocate it in the definition we are now considering, and will continue to do so, until he rejects from the sen tence the clause " or against the Church in its organized capacity." Will he do this ?
Would he impress his less intelligent breth ren with the belief that whatever the Church does is right? Does he wish to be understood as teaching that a member is rightfully bound to do whatever his Church may require of him ? If so, he need not modify what he has written. This doctrine, if language has any definite import, is
5*

54

PCBLIC OFFENSES EXAMIXED.

clearly taught in his definition of "puhlic offenses." If, however, he desires to teach the doc trine that Churches, as -well as individuals, may, and do sometimes sin, let him reject from his defi nition the phrase " or against the Church in its organized capacity."
Moreover, the term "public" fails to give the distinguishing characteristic of this class of offenses. Since thy " brother may sin against thee," in private or public, we see, at once, that " public " does not distinguish the act. Besides, some offenses which Professor Mell calls public, may be as pri vate as his " private offenses," or even more so.
Since, then, some offenses which he calls " pri vate " may be public, and some of his "public offenses" may be ''private" the term "public" ought to be rejected, if a better one can be found. Is there any better term ? If there is not, why not coin one for the purpose? But there is no necessity of coining a word. The word general, as opposed to particular, individual, or personal, is the term which is proposed. If any one will suggest a better, this will be readily withdrawn.
The cli'iraeteristic difference between the two classes of offenses will then be denoted by the

PUBLIC OFJTEXSES EXAMINED.

OO

terms .personal and general; and this is as it should be. There is not, necessarily, any differ ence between personal and general offenses, other than this, viz.: That a personal offense is an <<ffense against a brother; while a general offense is not committed against a brother.
There may he just as bad a moral element in the one as in the other, yet Professor Hell con tends that the characteristic difference between them 'is, that private (personal) offenses are not essential ly violafive of religion or morality, and that pi'blic (general) offenses are! But there can be no real offense which does not violate either religion or morality. This definition, therefore, is objection able.
1. Philosophically--since it has incorporated in it \vhat may or may not be an example under the definition of general offenses.
2. Logically.--It assumes the thing to be proved. 3. Theologically.--It is based upon the absurd dogma of Church infallibility. And 4. The term " public " does not character ize the act. The foundation, thus far, must give way, and with it, the vast superstructure resting thereupon

56

MIXED OFFEXSES EXAMIXED.

MIXED OFFENSES.
LET us now examine, with accuracy, this new class, called " Mixed Offenses."
It has been shown that a " private offense," as defined by Professor Mell, is only an imaginary crime, since it does not essentially violate the laws of religion or morality; and that only the first part of the definition of " public offenses "--viz.: " A public offense is one in which the act is essen tially a crime against religion" or "morality"-- is at all admissible, inasmuch as the latter part, viz.: " The object of it, the Church in its organ ized capacity," is not only unphilosophical and illogical, but also unscriptural, being based upon the absurd dogma of CJiurch infallibility.
By " mixed offenses" is, of course, meant of fenses which contain the "essential elements of private and public offenses" In order, then, to ascertain what a " mixed offense " is, we have only to find the elements of these two classes, and form a " mixture " of them. In the lan guage of the professor: " "When the act is essen tially a crime against religion and morality, and

MIXED OFFEXSE3 EXAMINED.

57

the object affected by it is a brother, we have both oSenses in combination."
Let us obtain the elements of the first class: An act not essentially a crime against religion and morality, and the object affected by it a brother. Inspiration says: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." A private offense, according to The above definition, is not essentially violaliee of this command; otherwise it would be essentially against religion. It is not an act against morality; then, if the act has any moral element, it must be a good one. To put the least favorable construction on the act, it does not contain a lad clement. The1 first term we may consider as containing not a bad moral clement. Let the moral element of the second, or public qffenses, be found. It is an act essentially against religion and morality--taking the first part of the definition. This act, of ne cessity, contains a bad moral element. The two elements being found, let us form the compound. The mixture will be not a bad moral clement, plus a bad moral dement. Is not this a remarkable compound ? An act possessing the very opposite elements of bad and good! A simple impossi bility !

58

MIXED DEFENSES EXAMINED.

Suppose we find the element in the second part of the definition of public ofienses--in the ex pression, an act against the Church in its organ ized capacity. Such an act may he bad, and con sequently contain a bad moral element; or it may be good, and contain a good moral element. If the Church act in accordance -with the spirit of the Scriptures--is acting right--an act of resist ance to the Church in its organized capacity would contain a bad moral element. But if the Church act contrary to right, (which it sometimes does,) proper resistance to the Church, even in its organized capacity, would be a good act, and con sequently contain a good moral element. Whether an act against the Church in its organized capa city is a bad or a good act, must always be de cided by taking into the account what the Church has done, how she Jias done it, and the manner of the resistance against the given act, or position of the Church, as the case may be. But let ug form the mixture. Taking the moral element of a private ofiense, and putting it with the moral elements found to exist in the latter part of the definition, we will obtain :
1. Not a bad moral, plus a bad moral element,

MIXED OFFEJfSES EXAMINED.

59

(in case the Church has acted right.) Here again we are greeted with an impossibility.
2. Forming the second "mixture," we have: Not a bad moral element, plus a good moral element, (in case the Church acts wrong, and the member makes proper resistance.) This, every one can readily see, is a possible " mixture." The elements are not antagonistic.
It is to be hoped that the professor will come hack, and prepare such elements as will, if a "mixture" we must have, "mix." Moral, and even theological druggists, will never be likely, after proper examination, to receive the potion which he has prepared.
But the professor, after all, does not seem to attach much importance to " mixed ofienses" as a separate class. For the sake of convenience, however, they will be termed here "-mixed offenses." The phrase, I must confess, is, to me at least, a new one; and, so far as " convenience " is concerned, it would, it appears to me, be much better to leave it off wholly.
To sum up. The professor's definition of "a private offense" not being a crime essentially against religion or morality, is not, properly, a

60

MIXED OFFEXSES EXAMINED.

crime at all; and, consequently, ought nevei to create any uneasiness in the Church; ought nevei to be presented to the Church, if known to be private; and, it may be added, ought never to " offend " a brother. Indeed, he acts the part of a very silly person, vrho becomes offended at the act of a brother, when the act itself is not essen tially a crime against religion or morality. The first part of the definition of "public offensas" is the only part of Professor Mell's definitions that can stand at all. As a definition of a "pub lic offense," it is very imperfect, since not every act against religion or morality is a public offense. The clause, " or against the Church in its organized capacity," I hope he will expunge.
" Mixed offenses," (except in the last compound noticed above, in which the elements are not a bad moral element, plus a good moral element?) are, as defined by the professor, impossibilities. There is not the least necessity, if private and public oSenses wero rightly defined, of having this nezoclass.
It has been shown that a private offense is no offense any further than it is a violation of moral or religious law. If the professor intends to

MIXED OFFEXSES EXAMINED.

61

teach the doctrine that a private offense may, in any case, violate the lairs of morality or religion, he should have informed us to what extent. Bat it is to be presumed that- no such design was en tertained, for then his private and public offenscs would not be distinct, but one and the same. Moreover, unless the characteristic distinction between these offenses is that one does not vio late religion or morality, while the other does, there would be no possibility of forming his third class -- mixed offenses. Accordingly, it seems that he is in a dilemma. Should he say that a private ofiense may violate some moral or relig ious law, there is no difference between a private and a public offense; and, furthermore, there could be no mixed offense. But, if he does make a difference between private and public offenses, he destroys his private offenses, since that is no offense which is not a violation either of moral or religious law ; and the destruction sweeps away his mixed offenses, inasmuch as no act can be in different, (not bad,) and, at the same time good. Which will he take ?
Will he allow such definitions to underlie a whole theological treatise? Only think! your Jlrst class c6omprises such offenses as violate neither

62

MIXED OFFEXSES EXAMINED.

religion nor morality. Marvelous offense, indeed!! Your second class comprises such offenses as violate religion and morality, or sucli as are committed against the Church in its organized capacity.
This latter clause, "or against the Church in its 'organized capacity," is strangely absurd, as already shown. The former part, such offenses ns violate "religion and morality," does not dis tinguish, as we have already seen, personal from general offenses; and, as a definition, it amounts to merely nothing.
Your third class must be composed of the ele ments of the first and second classes; the result of which mixture is given above. Now, in all candor, I ask if such definitions can be made the basis of a respectable treatise ? "Will the candid reader be willing to adopt such a division of of fenses ? I ask again, do not Scripture and reason proclaim aloud against such groundless classifica tion of gffenses as Professor Mell has made? My work, at this point, might stop, because that on which the treatise of Corrective Church Dis cipline rests has been removed; but I will pur sue the matter to the end, and give credit where credit is due, and reproof where reproof is de served.

PB1VATB OFFEXSES EXPOSED.

63

TREATMENT OP PRIVATE OFFEXSES.
IT should be recollected that private offenses, as defined by Professor Mell, diiFer from public ones in this, that " the specific character (of the former) is that the act is not a crime against religion and morality, and (that) the object of the act is a broth er." It should be further remembered that, un less this "specific character" of private offenses is strictly observed, there can be no characteristic difference between private and public offenses. Annihilate this distinction, and they become one and the same.
Ho\v, then, does Professor Mell recommend that private offenses (i. e., those acts, the " specific character" of Trhich is that they are not crimes against religion and morality) should be treated? " In the treatment of private offenses," says he, " the Savior, in Matt, xviii, gives the course to be pursued--commonly called ' Gospel Steps.' "* I remark:
^Observe that these " Gospel Steps " should be taken, not by (he Church, but by the offended member. TTence all this
treatment " should not be connected \vith Church discipline.

64

PRIVATE OFFENSES EXPOSED.

1. That if the "specific character" of the ad has not been determined, then the advice above given is proper; but if it has, and the " offended " brother decides that the act is what Professor Mell would term a private offense, (i. e., an act against neither morality nor religion,) he ought not to " go and tell" his brother anything about it, un less he (the offended) has shown himself to be of fended; in this case, he should apologize to his brother for having become needlessly offended, and pray to God to give him more magnanimity, and a less suspicious disposition.
2. I deny that Matt, xviii was designed ex clusively or chiefly, as the formula for setting Professor Mell's private offenses. If one is in doubt as to the " specific character of the act" but is strongly inclined to believe that it is violative of some moral or religious law, he should then " go and tell" his brother, not his " fault," (for he does not yet know that it is such,) but of the act itself; requesting his brother to explain what he meant by it. If the act turns out to be a " private of fense," then, perhaps, a mutual apology will not be amiss.
" Tell him his fault," is the direction next given.

PRIVATE OFFEXSES EXPOSED.

65

Is it possible that you have ascertained that your brother has committed a "fault!" If so, what is the "specific cJiaraeter" of his fault? Certainly it is not an act -which violates moral ity or religion; for then, according to the defini tion, it is no longer a private offense, and it is this class of oflfenses we are now considering.
At this point it is proper to state that thero is no word in the Greek Testament correspond ing to " fault," which occurs in Matt, xviii: 15. The literal would read thus: " And if thy brother sin against thee, go and tell him between thee and him alone." " Tell him " what ? Not merely his " fault," but his " sin "--his laluaprla, (which is the word to be supplied, if, indeed, it is neces sary to supply any.) With this word supplied, the text runs thus: " And if thy brother sin against thee, go and tell him his sin between thee and him alone." It may be' that the imperfection of the common translation has given rise to an erro neous interpretation of the text, quite prevalent of late. Every one can see that the Savior gave directions for the oflended brother to deal with a brother who had sinned against him. The direc tions were, 0d*oubtless, designed to embrace not

68

PRIVATE OFFEXSE3 EXPOSED.

merely imaginary hut real sins; not only such acts as the offended believes to be sins, but such as he knows (o be such. The Savior does not say what shall be the " specific character " of the act, only that it is a sin against a brother: " If thy brother sin against thee, go and tell him (his sin) between thce and him alone.". Some may say, "This is a'hard saying." "Who can hear it'i" But, it may be replied, " These are the words of Christ, the only Lawgiver." Let his followers, therefore, hear them, and be silent.
In the next place, it must be apparent to every thoughtful reader, that Professor Mell is incon sistent with himself.
He says: " You may have misconceived him through misapprehension or misrepresentation. Your brother may be able to disavoio, or, if he acknowledges, to explain, and thus remove all complaint." " Acknowledge " what ? That he has committed an act, the "specific character" of which is, that it is not a crime against morality or religion ? A strange acknowledgment this, truly!
Again: " You may thus be able to reclaim him." " Reclaim him " from what ? From the slate in which he has involved himself by an act whose

PRIVATE OFFEXSES EXPOSED.

67

"specific character" is, that it is not a crime against morality or religion?
Next sentence: " He may repent and make reparation."
" Repent" of what ? Repent of an act which violates no moral or religious lair? A new specie of repentance, indeed!
Finally: " When your brother trespasses against you, he trespasses against God also, and against his own soul."
And yd the act is one whose " specific charac ter" is that it is not a crime against morality or religion!!
" A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." We have now' seen, in part, how Professor Mell would have his "private offenses" treated; we have furthermore seen that he prescribed treo.tment, not for what he defines to be "private of fenses," but for his "public" ones. As when a physician pronounces a disease to be consumption, and then treats it as if it were typhoid fever! But, that the reader may see this for himself, I quote his definition, and one of his concessions made in his first article on the treatment of " pri vate offenses." " A private offense is one in which

68

PRIVATE OFFEN'SES EXPOSED.

the act is not essentially a crime (note this) against religion and morality, and the object of it a broth er." Again, in the same article: "The specific character (of a private offense; i. e., the thing which distinguishes it from other offenses) is, that the act is not a crime (store up this") against religion and morality, and the object of the act a brother."
Then, after he has advanced some distance in his treatment of " private offenses," as if forget ting what he had said before, we find this remark able language:
"When (i. e., as often as) your brother trespasses (sins) against you, he trespasses (sins) against God also." (!) According to Professor Hell's way of defining, " the specific character" of a trespass (sin) against God, is, that it is not a crime against relig ion and morality! What is religion ? and what i$ morality? Can there be any sin against God which is not a sin against religion ? Will Professor Mell answer? Thcx-e is but one possible way for him to escape a direct collision, and that is by throwing one, at least, of his trains off the track. In either case, the loss will be great. He must lose his "private" and "mixed" trains, or his "-public" one. As passengers throng to the "public"

PRIVATE OFFEXSES EXPOSED.

69

train, he certainly will prefer to lose both of the other trains, rather than hazard the lives of so many!
In writing for Baptists, especially on so ex citing a subject as the one under discussion, it is important:
1. That the positions of the writer agree with the truth.
2. That the writer be consistent with himself. Both of these objections may be urged against the articles on " Corrective Church Discipline."
"What Professor Mell says about "private offenses " is, for the most part, true, when applied to " personal" offenses, such as are spoken of in Matt, xviii. But it is to be hoped that he will throw aside his unscriptural, absurd definition of private offenses, and not make all this ado about an offense, (?) the " specific character" of which being this, viz.: that it is not a crime against either religion or morality! Sensible people will never follow his prescriptions in the treatment of wh'at he calls a private offense, at least when they view it in the light of his definition; but, should they yiew it in the light of his concession-- " When your brother trespasses (sins) against you,

70

PRIVATE OFFEXSES EXPOSED.

he trespasses (sins) against God also"--much of the advice is good. Let us call diseases by their proper names, and then apply the proper medicine.
The reasons which Professor Mell assigns why " private offenses" should be settled privately, are, in the main, very good, if his " private of fenses " were such as the oSenses provided for in Matt, xviii. The substance of the reasons is as follows:
1. Such offenses can not be so amicably settled in any other way, as by the parties themselves. This reason commends itself to the good sense of every sensible man.
2. " He (the Savior) would save his cause from the reproach of brethren publicly worrying and devouring one another." This reason is a good one.
3. " He would save his Churches from the adju dication of personal difficulties between their members, so that they may never be the arena for personal strife," etc. This, too, is admitted. But how totally unnecessary are all these grave reasons, when it is remembered that the difficulty to be settled has grown out of an act, " the spe cific character of which is," that it is not a crime

PRIVATE OFFEXSES EXPOSED.

71

against religion or morality!! Everything that can be said, in the way of advice, for the settle ment of such ofFenses, must appear ridiculous.
There is one objectionable phrase in the " fourth" consideration, where the offender appears incor rigible. Speaking of the advantage rising to the offended from the testimony of "the one or two," he says : " By their testimony, the ' one or two' disinterested brethren may afford protection to the innocent, and light to the Church, so that it may act with unanimity and unerring certainty." The words "unerring certainty" are those to which I object. When the offended brother, the " one or two" disinterested brethren, and lastly, the Church, have all acted, free from prejudice, and with the desire to save the offending brother, the probability is that they will act right; but " unerring certainty " belongs to God alone, or, at least, to those who are "unerringly" guided by the Divine will.
The idea of taking "one or two disinterested brethren " to see the offending brother, is a good one, when a real offcnse has been committed.
There is a thought in the " fifth :' specification, which I heartily approve, viz.: flint the prominent

72

PRIVATE OFFEXSES EXPOSED.

idea with all concerned, is to reclaim the offend ing brother. If he has trespassed (sinned) against a brother, it is proper to try to reclaim him.
There is another point in direct connection -with that just noticed, which must not be omitted. He says : " If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be to her as a heathen man and a publican." Is this the teaching of the inspired word? The Savior says: "If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a pub lican." It is not said that the Church is yet to abandon him. There is now only one other thing in this number of his article, to be considered. " It is," says Professor Mell, " imperath 3 upon the Church, when a question of mere personal variance, invoicing no immorality, is brought before t, to attempt, in the first instance, to reclaim the lender." (ily italics.) But suppose the " va riance " does not involve " morality;" what then ? Shall the Church make no effort to reclaim him ? Professor ilell would, I suppose, say "No." But suppose the " variance " should involve religion, what treatment ought the offending brother to receive ? Shall the Chu-rch make an effort to reclaim him? An answer to this question is re-

PUBLIC AXD JUXED OFFEfSES.

73

spectfully solicited. Is a sin against morality more offensive than a sin against God ? Again: If a sin against a brother should violate some principle of morality, how did Professor Mell ascertain that such an offense ought not to be treated according to Matt, xviii? The texts "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them;" and, " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," are very compre hensive. Can there be a sin against a brother, which does not violate one or both of these texts ? Every " personal" offense necessarily violates some law of God, and, therefore, is a sin against religion; and, being a sin against religion, it can not be comprehended under Professor Mell's " pri vate offenses." It is not at all astonishing that, with such an erroneous definition " to start with," Professor Mell should " cross his own path," and nullify in one place what he has said in another.

TREATMENT?'OF PUBLIC AXD MISED OFFEXSES.
THE article now to be considered commences: thus: " How should public offenses be treated ?'

74

PUBLIC AND MIXED OFFENSES.

When one has been guilty of open immorality, shall Gospel steps he taken? Is it demanded that a thief or a drunkard or a debaucher should he approached first in private, and then in compa ny with one or two others, before he is arraigned in presence of the Church ? Certainly not; for no private reparation can atone for, or counteract the effects of immoralities?' (Italics mine.) It is needless to multiply words unnecessarily. What does Professor Mell mean by "immorality?" There is a great necessity for an accurate and pointed definition of this term. Webster says, immorality is " an act or practice which contra venes the Divine command, or the social duties."
If this definition is accepted, I must enter my objection to Professor Mell's doctrine, by showing that some immoralities may he atoned for in a different way to the one he suggests. Every personal- oflense--sin against a brother--" con travenes "the Divine command, "Whatever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them;" and, in the language of Profess or Mell, "When your brother trespasses (sins) against you, he sins against God also." But "where there is no law, there is no transgres-

PUBLIC ASD MIXED OFFEUSE3.

75

sion." No one can sin against God without "contravening the command" or law of God. According to Webster, any harsh or abusive words spoken by A against his brother B, would be an immoral act. Should the act be regarded aa an "immorality," then, Professor Mell being judge, " no private reparation can atone for" it. The Savior seems to teach a different doctrine. He says: " If thy brother sin against thee, go and tell him (his sin) between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." The great object is now attained--your brother is gained. Do n't trouble the Church, or any one by talking of it. " But suppose some of the mem bers of the Church are cognizant of the difficulty; ought they to report the matter to the Church ?" I answer, No. " But suppose all the Church know it, what then?" It would be, even in that case, as well for all to learn, from the parties them selves, or from their friends, that the difficulty has been amicably settled, and keep the matter out of the Church entirely; but when the Church, if as a Church she inquires into the matter, learns that the troubles have all been settled, she cer tainly ought not to pursue the matter any further.

T6

PUBLIC AND MIXED OFFENSES.

I conclude, therefore, that, if Professor Mell ac cepts Webster's definition, some "immoralities" ought to be settled without being brought into the Church.
But it may be that this definition will be dis carded. Another definition of morality is here appended: " Religion," says Dr. Dagg, (page 103, Moral Science^ " implies love to God, and the at tendant affections found in the sanctified heart. It has an external form, consisting of duties pos itive and moral. Positive duties are those for which no other reason can be given than the will of God, made known by express precept of reve lation. Moral duties are those for which reasons may be assigned, derived from other manifesta tions of the Divine will. The chief concern of moral philosophy is with the latter class. To those, the name morality especially applies."
The same distinguished writer says, in the same connection: " We may as well seek for a universe without a God, as for a system of morality with out religion." Again, he says: " As true moral ity begins with God, so it ends with God; and morality, in its relation to God, is nothing differ ent from religion."

PUBLIC AJfD MIXED DEFENSES.

77

It is easy to deduce, from the above extract, what the amiable, learned Dr. Dagg would call an immoral act. As a moral duty is one " for which reasons may be assigned, derived from other mani festations of the Divine will," an act which vio lates a moral duty is an immoral act, or an im morality.
According to this doctrine, if A becomes angry with B, speaks unkindly to him, and abuses him, A is guilty of an immoral act, or an immorality.
If this act is an immorality, would Professor Mell be willing for such an offense (sin) to be set tled privately ? Does not Matt, xviii: 15, clearly provide for such cases ?
If he will accept either of the definitions quoted, will he be so kind as to define for himself what he means by " morality ?"
The truth is, if I am able to comprehend his use of the terms, he has used morality as quite distinct from religion, and has made morality stand even higher than religion. In proof of this, I refer to the fact that, in his view, if an act violates God's law merely, it may, according to one admission of his, be settled between the par ties privately; but, from the latter part of the
7*

78

PUBLIC ASD MIXED OFFENSES.

quotation in the first part of the article, it ap pears that if the act may he denominated an immorality, it can not be atoned for hy private reparation.
Religion contains morality, as a whole contains its parts. " We may as well seek for a universe without a God, as for a system of morality with out religion."
Professor Mell shows considerable ingenuity, (if he will pardon me for kindly saying so,) in mentioning " the thief," " the drunkard," and the " debaucher," as the representatives of " immoralists." Why did he not use some other terms less criminal than these? May not many other acts be termed " immoralities " as well as these ? But let this pass.
He says, again: " If the offender is proved to be guilty of a gross offense against religion and morality, he should be at once and without delay expelled." Here there seems to be some relaxa tion of the rigid rule. What is a "gross offense?" A great offense, or a palpable offense, it is to be presumed. Would he call all offenses against re ligion and morality, " gross offenses? " If not, then what treatment would he prescribe for such

PUBLIC AND MIXED OFFENSES.

79

as are not " gross 2" He answers this question himself: " In public offenses, not involving gross immorality, a milder course may be pursued; and corrective discipline may be successful and com plete, short of excommunication." This, I think, is sound doctrine, quite a modification, however, of that in the first extract. By gradual conces sions, Professor Mell seems to be approaching the truth.
Throwing aside a large number of cases which would be included in his definition of a "public offense," a considerable part of what he says about their treatment may be readily admitted.
1. Not ever!/ act against religion or morality is a public offense. A very large number of such offenses are personal offenses, and should be settled privately.
2. Not every " act against the Church in its or ganized capacity," (a part of his definition of pub lic offenses,) is a public offense. Some such acts are public offenses; others are even praiseworthy. The former should be treated as public offenses; the latter should receive praise. Many of this latter class have occurred in the history of the Churches.

80

PUBLIC AND MIXED DEFENSES.

I disagree with Professor Mell on another point. He says, " No one should be condemned "without a hearing." The murderer, the man well known to be living in incest, and many such like cases, form exceptions. What is the use of citing a murderer, whose black crime is known to the whole community, to appear before the Church ? Would his acknowledgment prevent his exclusion ? When a Church-member's guilt has been estab lished beyond doubt, in the mind of the Church, and the crime is such as can not be atoned for, his presence before the Church is not at all neces sary. The Church should exclude him without any formal trial.
MIXED OFFENSES.--It has already been shown that "mixed offenses" are absurdities; of course any treatment for such offenses is itself absurd. To think of suggesting treatment for an offense which does not violate religion and morality, and which, at the same time, DOES violate religion and morality, is, to my mind, superlatively ridiculous and absurd! It would be simply to begin with an absurdity, and end with an absurdity intensi fied. What Professor Mell has said on this sub ject deserves no further notice.

QUESTIONS SUGGESTED.

81

QUESTIONS SUGGESTED BY THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.
THE article which deserves our attention nest, commences with the question: " Suppose the ag grieved attempt to bring strictly private offenses into the Church without taking ' Gospel steps,' what should be done ?" Answer: " It is the duty of the pastor or other moderator to inquire whether the Savior's directions have been followed, and if he finds that they have not been, he should rule, as out of order, the introduction of the case. If the pastor should fail to discharge this duty, then it will be competent for any one to raise the point of order, and to appeal from the decision of the chair, if it be in violation of the Savior's rule. This is said of offenses exclusively that are purely personal--when the act is not a crime against religion and morality, and the object affected by it a brother."
An end that must be established, if established at all, by such violent interpretation of God's word, such unwarrantable infringements upon

82

QUESTIONS SUGGESTED

logic and common sense, and by attaching such folly to any Church-member, pastor, or Church, as is implied in the entertainment of such an offense as is not a crime against religion or mo rality, deserves to be .abandoned at once and forever! I but repeat what I have previously affirmed and proved, viz.: That Professor Hell's "private offenses" based upon Matt, xviii: 15, can not be sustained without cruelly torturing the words of Christ; that if Matt, xviii: 15 does not imply a violation of religion or morality, there is no word in the Greek language of the New Tes tament that does. As to "morality," the reader will recollect that it is nothing distinct from relig ion--that a sin against morality is necessarily a sin against religion.
In the above extract the same absurdity, so often heretofore noticed, of a brother's becoming offended with another for an act which does not violate religion or morality, greets us again. The writer is heartily tired of using the terms " relig ion," " morality," etc.; but the excuse which is offered for doing so is to be found in the fact that the chief error in Professor Hell's series is connected with the use of these terms. His error

BY THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.

83

runs through every article thus far noticed, and, of course, deserves to be pointed out.
As advice seems to be cheap, I -will venture to offer a little myself. Then,
1. To the Church-member of so little discrim ination as to prefer a charge against a brother for an act which violates neither religion nor morality, or simply religion, I -would give the fol lowing advice: " Beware, sir, lest you lay your self justly liable to the charge of being a slan derer or a lunatic.'"
2. To the Church having such a member, I would say: "Watch that weak brother. Nurse him carefully, or he may become an inmate of the lunatic asylum."
3. To the pastor who would entertain such a charge, I would say: " Go study your Bible, and pray God to give you powers of discrimination to enable you to understand what a trespass (sin) against a brother is. Then, if you are still unable to make the discrimination, leave the sacred work of the ministry, and direct your attention to some simpler occupation suited to your capacity."
4. "What shall be said to the Church that would entertain such a charge ? Do they not deserve

84

QUESTIONS SUGGESTED

the pity of all who know them ? Their condition, if not hopeless, is certainly very lamentable ! Yet, perhaps, their condition is not so bad after all; for only of those to whom much has been given much shall be required. So little has been intrusted to them, their responsibility must be very slight.
Professor Mell very ingeniously introduces his " mixed offenses " at this point. He says: " In 'mixed offenses,' where the act complained of is a gross immorality--as theft, slander, seduction, fraud, personal violence, and libel--it will not be out of order for the Church to entertain the charge, though no Gospel steps have been taken; since, as has been shown, these and like gross offenses against religion and morality, are 'pub lic offenses,' though they may have been commit ted against a Church-member."
If "these and like gross offenses" are the only ones that violate religion and morality, then is there much less sin in the world than I had supposed. Every sin against a brother, is a sin against God--against religion. As to " mixed offenses," I will merely say, the name ought never to be mentioned again.

BY THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.

85

Now, the "ingenuity" to which I allude con sists in this: Professor Mell argues, in the main, according to his definitions of the different classes of offenses; then, lest his positions should appear absurd to even the common reader, he weaves in the terms "gross offenses," "gross immorality." This is unfair. If he wishes to defend his posi tion by confining himself to merely " gross of fenses," or "gross immoralities," let him confine his argument to the legitimate scope of such of fenses. But if he desires his argument to be coextensive with his definitions, let him do so. His " private offenses " he defines to be such as do not violate religion and morality; while his " public " ones do. The position he has assumed makes it obligatory on him to construct his argu ments to suit his definitions--to treat not merely "gross offenses," but all offenses which violate morality and religion. It is improper to bol ster a position by taking none but extreme cases. Again, in answer to the question: " May not the arraigned himself raise the point of order?" he replies: " Most assuredly." Then, again, to the question: " And if raised by him, (the arraigned,) how is it to be decided?" he replies: "By the

86

QUESTIONS SUGGESTED

ruling of the moderator first, and if this be ap pealed from, by the vote of the Church; and the decision of the Church is final."
Let us not forget that the arraigned is brought before the Church for a " private offense," i. e., for an act, the specific character of which is, that it is not a crime against religion and morality! Arraignment, and even exclusion from a Church that would entertain such a charge, I should not consider a very great hardship. The conscious ness of having done no wrong, and an equivalent admission on the part of the Church, would amply sustain me. I should not feel moved to rage, but to pity. Membership with them would not be desirable, nor would a letter of dismission from them be appreciated.
As to the "finality" of Church action, I have but little to say now, since but little need be said. The action we are now considering is admitted to be wrong, inasmuch as it ought to have been " ruled as out of order." If every wrong decision of a Church is final, and must be submitted to, then Church-members, in those matters at least in which the Church takes action, are responsible not to Christ, but to the Church. When a Church

BT THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.

87

makes a willful departure from the authority of Christ, (and the departure must, it seems to me, be willful when the Church mistakes for a public what is only a personal offense,) there is no law, human or Divine, that requires the accused to submit to, or acquiesce in, such departure. Any Church has a right to discipline her members for real (not imaginary) sins, but her right to do even this--moral right, I mean--is restricted to the manner expressed, or implied, in God's word. No Church has the right to try a member in a manner different from the Divine direction. 'Where the charge has been entertained by the Church con trary to the teachings of Christ, especially (as is sometimes the case) where "the verdict of guilty" has been made out before the trial, and members have been drilled to vote, in such a case the ar raigned, whether guilty or not, is under no obli gation to submit to the trial. To submit to the trial would imply the right, on the part of the Church, to try him contrary to God's law; but the Church has no right to act, except in accord ance with God's law; therefore, it would be wrong --sinful--to submit and become a party to any such trial. Where the end is to save and not to

88

QUESTIONS SUGGESTED

destroy the accused, and the Church is ignorant, and not intelligent, the crime of improperly enter taining a charge would be much less. The range of possibility in such cases is very wide. A per sonal offense, such as is provided for in Matt, xviii: 15, may he forced into the Church without the offended's having taken " Gospel steps;" the Church may entertain the charge on the plea that it is public, knowing that if " Gospel steps " should be taken, the member would, probably, be saved; the Church may have pre-determined the overthrow of the member; she may have prejudiced the minds of the ignorant, young, and inexperienced mem bers against him; she may have sent copies of the charges to others at a distance, with the view of crushing the member and of prejudicing the pub lic mind against him, before furnishing the doomed man with a copy of the charges--in .such a case, would not a refusal to submit to trial by such a Church be allowable ? Would it not be his duty to withdraw from the Church, and take no part in the proceedings ? So I think.
" Strictly private ofienses, however, should be ruled out of order when attempted to be brought into the Church without previous ' Gospel steps

BY THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.

89

having been resorted to ineffectually. * * * If he (the complainant) acts thus with willful dis regard of his obligation, he should be reproved and compelled to follow the Savior's rule."
I heartily indorse this sentiment. It is wrong to treat a personal offense as a public one. And should the majority of a Church act thus with will ful disregard of their obligations, they should be reproved, and should have the disapprobation of all acquainted with their act.
There are a few other points in the article which might be noticed, but they have been virtually discussed in previous numbers, and some of them will be called up again.
The offended acts the part of folly, to think of accusing his brother for Professor Mell's "private ofiense." The Church entertaining the charge^ deserves pity, if ignorant; strong reproof, if in telligent. If they willfully violate the Savior's direction, in order to crush the member, the lat ter is under obligation to take no part in the wicked action.
What law, human or Divine, demands that a man should assist in killing himself? What rea son or Scrip8t*ure can be adduced to show that a

90

THE CHURCH.

worthy man should not resist, in a proper way, that power which is illegal or unscriptural, and aims to destroy wrongfully?

THE CHURCH.
A LOCAL Church is defined by Professor Mell to be "A local society, composed of those, and those only, who profess regeneration and faith in Christ, and who have been immersed on a pro fession of that faith; who are able to meet to gether in one place, and who observe the ordi nances and maintain the worship of God. This is the only external organization which the New Testament designates by the term Church." A little further on, it is said that baptism is an indispensable pre-requisite to membership in the Church. (Italics mine.)
I am glad to see that Professor Mell is becom ing so nearly Saptislic in his definition of the Church. The above certainly teaches that all those sects, be they many or few, that have not been immersed, are not Churches in the New

THE CHURCH.

91

Testament sense of the term. But on page 175 (Mell on Baptism) he seems to teach a slightly dif ferent doctrine. He says: " The organized body ' at Antioch' (a Baptist Church) is a Church, and so is the organized body at Center a Church, though my Methodist brethren deny it, and main tain that it is a society in the Methodist Epis copal Church, South."
The reader will perceive that these views are not " identically the same," yet the change is all for the better; every such change should be wel comed.
The definition, as I conceive, lacks one thing. In speaking of persons being immersed on a pro fession of their faith, he should have have added the phrase, " by a properly qualified administra tor." This is especially important in the case of Professor Mell, since he elsewhere teaches that a Methodist may baptize, when the Church can not find an administrator better qualified! In answer to the question, Would it be valid baptism if a Methodist minister (the one in " charge at Center") should immerse a believer, he says : " Yes, if he

and the Church meant to express the belief that the immersion of a believer is alone baptism, and

92

THE CHURCH.

the administrator had himself been baptized; or if not, and the Church and the subject could not find an administrator who comes up more fully to the Scriptural requirement" (My italics.) It is to be hoped that the above suggestion will not be rejected. Let us not, as Baptists, holding the truth of God, make any concessions \vhich con flict with the word of God, or bring into disrepute the teachings of our blessed Savior. Let us count it an honor if we are censured for following strictly the doctrines of our only Lawgiver.
Let us now take a glance at his next article: " The feelings and actions appropriate to a pious man who has been unjustly accused."
This article contains neai-ly a column of intro ductory matter, designing to show that "-inno cence" and "piety" do not always screen a Church-member from slanderous and bitter perse cutions at the hands of his brethren; also that "jealousy and envy " may lead them to the same unholy--yea, wicked work. "Where such a lot as this befalls a pious man, what will be his feel ings and deportment?" The answers to this ques tion deserve a brief notice.
"1. He submits himself to the Divine will, and

THE CHURCH.

93

patiently accepts the position assigned ^him. He acknowledges the providence of God in all things," etc. It is true that the child of God ought to submit himself to the Divine will, even in sore per secution; but he ought, at the same time, to dis tinguish the human from the Divine will. Acqui escence in, and submission to, the Divine will, does not imply a tame submission to the malicious j>urposes of those who seek to destroy the innocent and pious.
" 2. He will, in all proper ways, defend himself against the charges alleged against him," etc. Cer tainly he will defend himself in " all proper ways."
" 3. He will be careful to refrain from an in dulgence of the spirit of his persecutors, and from a resort to the means employed by them."
The pious man thus wantonly assailed ought to refrain from the malicious spirit of his persecu tors. It is exceedingly difficult, however, to do this--it is human to err.
In the same paragraph it is significantly asked, "Shall he (the accused) make an appeal to the public through the1 newspapers, or by advertise ment set up in conspicuous places, or by letters missive to all the neighboring Churches, to be

94

THE CHURCH.

read in open conference? Shall he, in advance, assail the motives of these men, wicked though they be ?"
To these questions it may be answered: These persecutors, by the supposition, are evi dently under the influence of Satan; else they would not strive to destroy an innocent, pious man. If, in connection with this fact, the persecuted member and other pious brethren in and out of the Church of which he is a member, should know, certainly, that these wicked persecutors have a ruling influence over the majority of the members--with the knowledge of all these facts, who is prepared to affirm that an early disclosure of tJieir wicked plans is wrong? I can conceive of circumstances which would justify a disclosure even through the newspapers ! Such a disclosure might be one of the " proper ways " of defending himself. The character of the accused and that of the accusers, together with the facts and cir cumstances connected with both parties, should be taken into the account, and'should decide, in a great measure, Jioiv and when the defense should be made. Who will contend that the wicked ds-

THE CHURCH.

95

signs of those who are under the guidance of Satan ought not to be frustrated and exposed? Whenever it becomes apparent that the evil spirit has taken possession of a majority of a Church, the plans, counsels, and actions of this majority do not deserve to be respected as if performed by those who are ruled by the Spirit of God. It by no means follows as an inevitable consequence, that the "innocent" and "pious" man who, under the above circumstances, exposes and thwarts the destructive designs of such wicked men, " has no defense to make for " himself.
" 4. An innocent man arraigned is anxious that God's cause and Christ's Church should suffer as little as possible, preferring to be immolated him self rather than principles dear to his own heart should be subverted. He values his reputation as dearer than life, but he is not willing that this should be vindicated at the sacrifice of the prin ciples and the forms that Christ has prescribed to be operative in such cases." This (if Professor Mell will pardon me) is strange theology! It is assumed here that '* God's cause " is one and the same with that of these wicked men! Suppose the nefarious plans of such wicked conspirators

96

THE CHURCH.

should be frustrated, disconcerted, and wholly dis appointed, would " God's cause " suffer ? "Would truth and justice receive any detriment? The prosperity of "God's cause" is not promoted " when the wicked prosper." Nor does the fact that these wicked men have a controlling power in the Church, maize it a sin to resist their wellstudied plans for his destruction. The Church of Christ suffers no disgrace when such wicked pur poses are exposed and thwarted. Who will say that it does ? The absurdity of this doctrine will be more fully exhibited hereafter. Let it suffice, for the present, to say Christ has not submitted the interests of Ids cause to any but those who are willing to be governed by it; wicked conspi rators act neither with the authority nor with the approbation of Christ. He may permit, but never approves such wickedness.

A PASTOB'S DUTY.

97

THE RELATION THE PASTOR SUSTAINS TO CORRECTIVE DISCIPLINE.
COMPARATIVELY little objection would be urged against this article of Professor Mell, did not that same radical error, growing out of his improper classification of offenses, make its appearance again. By throwing aside his "private (imagin ary) offenses," and substituting "personal" (real) ones, most that is said may be admitted. But it should be observed that the above correction will reverse the order of procedure in a large num ber of cases, since thousands of cases which Pro fessor Mell would call "public/' are "personal offenses," and should be settled according to Matt, xviii.
I agree with Professor Mell that when the pas tor haa been trespassed (sinned) against, he has the same means of redress as a private member. This is true, when the pastor's membership is in the same Church with the " offending."
It is well, too, as Professor Mell contends, for the pastor not to " take sides," unless the inno cent man is likely to suffer, or the guilty to tri-
9

98

A PASTOR'S DDTY

umph. In this case, if the Church will not ad minister justice, the pastor should, in the proper way, strive to have justice done all parties. This would be his duty as a member, but not as pas tor of the Church. Such occasions test the nerve of his soul; but he must not remain silent when he sees justice trampled in the dust.
That the pastor has " entire control of the principles that are operative in the case," is not the happiest phraseology. In what sense is the above true ? The pastor has access to the prin ciples of discipline as taught in the New Testa ment, and he has access to the Church; but the Church, and not the pastor, must " control," " un der Christ," " the principles that are operative in the case."
Again: "He (the pastor) has nothing to do with the facts, or with the guilt or innocence of the parties; and he should keep profoundly silent on these--giving no occasion to infer what his opin ions are." This is all good advice so long as the Church is inclined to do right, and has all the necessary evidence before her. But when the Church is about to de.cide a case of discipline contrary to " the fact?," the pastor should, not in

IN CASES OF DISCIPLDTE.

99

his official character, but as a private member, ex press his " opinions," either publicly or privately, as circumstances and " the facts " in the case re quire. If the Church is not inclined to act as " the facts " justify, the pastor, as a member of the Church, should strive, in the proper way, to influence it to do what is right.
Once more: "In serious difficulties he (the pastor) should direct his attention to the accom plishment of two objects: First, to prevent the formation of two parties in the Church, etc.; and second, to make the combatants themselves ashamed and tired of their relations."
The former suggestion is a good one. The lat ter is a good one in some instances, viz.: where both the offended and the offending are wrong. But " serious difficulties " sometimes arise when but one is in the wrong; in this case, the one in the right has no occasion to feel" ashamed," nor is it the pastor's duty to try to make him feel so. With these strictures the present article may be allowed to pass.
"We now come to matters of more vital im portance. "Deductions from previous principles. CJiurch sovereignty and independence"

100

CHURCH SOVEREIGNTY.

Since " Church sovereignty " and " independ ence " have, of late, been discussed by older and wiser pens, and has been, as I suppose, settled in the mind of the denomination, very little need be said on these subjects. Let this explain my brevity.
As the article now claiming our attention is quite lengthy, the points will be discussed briefly.
1. " Local Churches have exclusive jurisdiction over their members." Again : " Under Christ, every local Church has supreme jurisdiction over its members." This latter proposition is prefer able, since it marks the origin and extent of the "jurisdiction" a Church has over its members. The Church at A can not try the Church-member at B as to his standing in his own Church. I suppose this is what is meant by " exclusive juris diction." There is a sense, however, in which the Church at A may try a member of the Church at B, viz.: where the privilege which tJie member at B claims is to be obtained from the Church at A. Suppose Mr. Smith, a member of the Church at B, is guilty of some misdemeanor, or is engaged in some business for which the Church at A would exclude one of her own members ; the Church at

CHURCH SOVEREKWTY.

101

B must refuse to admit to Tier communion Mr.

Smith; and, in doing this, she virtually decides

that he, in her opinion, ought to be excluded from

his own Church. This decision, be it remem

bered, can have no direct influence on his stand

ing in his own Church.

No Church ought to allow a minister to preach

in her house, when this minister is guilty of con

duct for which she would exclude one of her own

members. " Under Christ"--i. e., under the laws

of Christ, and no farther--each Church has juris

diction over her own members.

Church " comity " or " courtesy," should never

be so much respected as to receive to the com

munion table, or to any other Church privilege, a

member of a "sister Church" who is thought to

be unworthy. This is as true of ministers as of

private members. Yet the right to exercise "ju

risdiction" is confined to the Church of which

one is a member; but "jurisdiction," as exercised

by one's Church, is by no means arbitrary. "No

Church can exercise jurisdiction even over her

own members, unless she exercises it just as

Christ has commanded. Let the readerj4553r"vEEi-.- ,

.--.: >-' """"-'/. j*

in mind.

/ '" ___ *"

'

-

102

CHURCH SOVEREIGNTY.

2. " Church sovereignty marks the relation the Church bears * * * * to its own members; and signifies Tier power to govern them under the laws of Christ."
So far as the theology of this quotation is con cerned, there is little objection. If " sovereignty " is the proper word to use, to denote that each Church has the power to govern her own members under the law of Christ, there can be no objection to the term. But is this the proper term to use? Can sovereignty be applied to any body which is wholly devoid of legislative power ? Again: Can that be a sovereign body which receives all its laws from another ? Once more: Can that be a sovereign body which is bound to execute, in a certain way, the laws given by another ? If sover eignty is applicable to such a body, it is not the common word sovereignty, which signifies, " Su preme in power; possessing supreme dominion; superior to all others."-- Webster. It would cer tainly be better not to use a term, unless that term conveys a definite idea; and, surely, a term ought not to be used when it conveys an idea opposed to that designed to be conveyed!
Moreover, will Professor Mell inform his readers

CHURCH SOVEREIGNTY.

103

what difference he designs to make between the terms "jurisdiction" and "sovereignly?" He says: "Under Chris*, every local Church has supreme jurisdiction over its members." Again: "Church sovereignty marks the relation the Church bears * * * * to its own members; and signifies her power to govern them under the laws of Christ." Now, what is the difference be tween these two propositions? Jurisdiction sig nifies " The legal power or authority of doing jttsiice in eases of complaint; the power of executing the laws and distributing justice."--Webster. I contend that" sovereignty," as quoted above from Professor Mell, contains nothing more nor less than what is denoted by jurisdiction. If it does not convey a different idea, why multiply terms to no profit.'
The truth is, jurisdiction, as above defined, and not sovereignty, is the word which should be used in the above connection.
Sovereignty is the proper term for the Church of Rome and some other organizations to use; but it has no connection, proper, Tith the Baptist Church. Christ is the sovereign of the Baptist Church, and the Church is his executive on earth.

104

CHURCH SOVEREIGXTT.

3. " The sovereignty of a Church is subverted when her members successfully rebel against her authority ; as -when a member under charges re fuses to be tried, and successfully tears himself free from her jurisdiction."
Of course, if the term sovereignty is inappli cable to a Church, it is improper to speak of her sovereignly as "subverted." It is impossible to subvert that which does not exist.
If he had said the jurisdiction of a Church is subverted when a member successfully rebels against her authority, the thought would have been more in unison with the fact in the case. But has a member the power to " successfully rebel against the authority" of his Church? Suppose a member under charges should refuse to answer to those charges, would that prevent the Church from exercising all her authority in the premises? Surely not. The Church is not deprived of the slightest jurisdiction even if he should refuse to appear and answer to the charges. She can exclude him anyhow, i. e., whether he attends or not, if she wishes to do so. When she has done this, she has done all that her jurisdic tion allows her to do. She could not do more if

CHURCH EfDEPEUDESCE--WHAT.

105

he were to attend and answer to the charges; there is no power to force her to do less, should he treat her authority with contempt. This is " the long and short" of the whole matter.
It should be remembered, however, that the jurisdiction which a Church has over her mem bers is just that which her Sovereign has made if. She has no right--moral right, I mean--to exer cise her jurisdiction contrary to the prescribed law. When she does this, all her acts are nuU and void; just as the proceedings of a county or district court, are illegal, nutt, and void, when the court transcends the bounds of her authority-- the state laws.
Accordingly, all this ado about the ". subver sion " of " Church sovereignty," is nothing more than an empty parade of words. Sovereignty, a Church does not possess, and, therefore, it can not be " subverted;" her jurisdiction she possesses in such a ivay as that, in a free country like ours, it can never be " subverted" by the rebellion of any of her members.
4. " Church independence marks the relation that the Church sustains to other Churches, and signifies her freedom from their control."
5*

106

CHURCH INDEPENDENCE--WHAT.

I urge no objection to this definition of "Church independence." The definition, though short, is quite comprehensive. Church independence sig nifies the freedom of one Church from the control of another. Very well. A Church, then, is free to do, among other things, the following:
1. To receive into her fellowship, every appli cant who applies to her. When an individual pre sents himself to a Church for membership, other Churches have no right to forbid her receiving him. Any Church, therefore, may rightfully re ceive into her membership, any applicant whom she may deem worthy. If other Churches have the right to disappoint and thwart her wish to re ceive aq applicant in any one case, then, accord ing to Professor Mell's definition of independence, the Church thus disappointed and thwarted in her purpose, is not independent, but subject, in part at least, to the will of other Churches. No one is so blind as not to see this.
2. Each Church has the right, so far as all other Churches are concerned, to expel any one of her members whom she may wish to expel.
The Church at A has no right forcibly to pre vent the Church at B from expelling one or any

CHtrSCH rXEPE>T>EXCE--\VHAT.

107

number of her members. If the Church at A has this right, then the Church at B is not inde pendent.
But in this, as in the preceding case, each Church, while independent of all other Churches, is not independent of Christ. The Church at A may receive into her fellowship an individual whom the Church at B regards as wholly un worthy of membership; and the latter dare not force her to reject him. So, too, if the Church at A should arraign a worthy member contrary to the law of Christ, with the view of excluding and disgracing him, the Church at B can not forcibly prevent it. The one is just as broad as the other. But let it be remembered that, while both these things are true, the real right to receive or expel a member has a DEFINITE LIMIT, viz.:
1. To receive such, and only svch, as present att (he Scriptural qualifications for membership ;
And, 2. To exclude such, and only such, as, ac cording to the word of God, ought to be excluded.
This doctrine all the learning and talent of earth can never refute. Each Church is account able to Christ for her action both in the reception and exclusion of members. But there is another

108

CHURCH INDEPENDENCE--WHAT.

important matter implied in the idea of inde pendence.
3. Each Church is free, so far as all other Churches are concerned, to think for herself; to interpret the word of God for herself; to judge of the worthiness of every one applying to her for membership; to form her own opinion respecting the merit or demerit of every act performed by any other Church, and decide whether, in her opinion, the act is right or wrong, valid or invalid.
The Church that is deprived of any one of these privileges, is not and can not be independent. If she .dare not form an opinion relative to the "faith and practice" of other Churches around her, then is she deprived of " liberty of thought," that inestimable blessing of which we so much boast. And since "freedom of conscience" is inseparable from "freedom of thought," that Church which is restricted in any of the above particulars, can not enjoy full "freedom of con science." Furthermore, as " freedom of action " is indissolubly connected with " freedom of thought," that Church which is deprived of the latter, is de prived of the former also. And since by univer sal agreement, one Church is as independent ag

CHURCH INT>EPEyDENCE VIOLATED. 109
another, it follows, if the above supposition be true, that, after all that has been said, there is no such thing as Church independence ! But all are agreed that Churches are independent, not of Christ, but of each other; therefore, each Church must have the right to form her own opinions of every act of every other Church that in any -way concerns her.
Now, by a similar process, if each Church has the right to think for herself, she must have the right to ACT for herself. Each Church is amena ble to Christ for her "manner of thinking," as well as for what she does. But if the action of one Church is to be examined into by other Churches, then are the Churches accountable, in some things, not to Christ, but to some other Church or Churches, or else, in some things, they are not accountable at all. It is needless to pur sue this argument further. Elaboration can not make it plainer.
Let these necessary elements of Church inde pendence be carefully stored away; for we will need them again in this discussion.
5. " The independence of a Church is infringed upon when other Churches, associations, or coun-
10

110 CHURCH INDEPENDENCE VIOLATED.
oils, either voluntarily or at the instigation of her recusant member, interfere -with the discipline, or otherwise attempt forcibly to control her."
It may be inquired : What is it for one Church to interfere with the discipline of another?
This will be noticed in a future article, as Pro fessor Mell brings up the subject again. Suffice it for the present to say, that the independence of a Church is never taken from her, so long as she is unrestrained in her action. The reception of an excluded member into one Church, does not destroy the independence of the excluding Church. The latter may pass a thousand votes of excom munication on the same member even after the former has received the excluded; or she may pass resolutions censuring the Church that re ceived the excluded member. Her independence remains unimpaired so long as she has the liberty of voting. True, a Church may, and sometimes is disappointed as to the results of her (so-called) discipline. She may, from jealousy or envy, de sire to crush a member by unscriptural means; and, to effect this, exclude him from the Church. Other Churches, seeing her tyranny, may offer the persecuted man a place with them. This would

CHURCH BTDEPBXDEXCE VIOLATED. Ill
be an interception of the design of the discipline, but no interference with the discipline itself. But more of this anon.
The following propositions are fairly contained in the same article:
I. A member can not innocently refuse to be tried by his Church.
I suppose that this proposition will embrace an individual member, or any number acting with him in the minority.
Is it true that a member can not, under any circumstances, innocently refuse to be tried by his Church ? No ; otherwise it becomes a sin for Mm not to participate in sin! The Church may wish to try a member for murder, when she knows that he is not guilty of the charge; she may have made out the verdict of guilty before the citation to attend Conference; shall the member dignify the meeting by his presence; or the Church, by conceding it the right to try him under such a charge ? As shown in a previous article, submis sion to trial implies the right to try; but it is sinful to concede a right, as coming from Christ, which he has never given, and which does not exist. Besides, submission to trial seems to me to imply submis-

112 CHURCH INDEPENDENCE .VIOLATED.
sion to the consequences of trial. But shall an in nocent man acquiesce in his own condemnation! The idea is absurd!
Professor Hell's analogical reasoning falls very far short .of proving his doctrine. The case of a man's refusing to be tried by the laws of his country, is not, as he states it, precisely analo gous in the essential points, to that of a member's refusing to be tried by his Church.
1. There is a power to force a man to the trial by the laws of his country ; but in the Church it is wholly voluntary on the part of the accused. If the trial is designed for the overthrow of the slandered accused, he acts the part of folly to co-operate with his enemies for his own destruc tion. This destitution is fatal to his analogy.
2. The case supposes that the accused is, in fact, a proper character to be accused, and that the executive power is proceeding in the case within the bounds of the laws of the state; but the Church-member ms>y be known to be innocent, and the Church maj proceed contrary to the laws of Christ. Is not the analogy radically wanting here?
Let us suppose that a number of citizens meet

CHURCH INDEPENDENCE VIOLATED. 113
together, and agree to destroy the reputation of a neighbor, (whose stand in the community they envy,) usurp the forms of law--summon the doomed man to trial with certain indefinite charges, against him; ought the accused to heed the cita tion ? Should he dignify them by even attending ? Neither ought the Church-member to submit to trial by his Church, when the object is to destroy him, contrary to justice and the laws of Christ. I conclude, therefore, that there may be instances in which a Church-member may innocently refuse to be tried by his Church. Professor Mell's doc trine can be true only on the supposition of Church infallibility.
The case involving " minorities " will, if neces sary, be discussed in a future number.
IT. The Church must decide as to the nature of the offense and the law to be applied in the case,
Certainly, let the majority decide in what way they will proceed; but does this deprive one of the right to interpret for himself? There can, it seems to me, be but one opinion as to the law to be applied, where all parties are willing to do JKSiice. Does not a man know when he has " sinned against a brother ?" Does not the offended brother
10*

114 CHURCH INDEPENDENCE VIOLATED.
know that he has been offended ? Can not every body of the least discrimination determine when an offense is personal, and when it is not ? The New Testament is remarkably explicit on these points ; so much so as to leave us " in no doubt as to the remedy to be applied in every case." When ever a Church mistakes for a public, what is merely a "personal" offense, it leads all unbiased minds to conclude:
1. That the Church is one of astonishing igno rance, or,
2. That it has some wrong end to accomplish, which can be more certainly attained by reversing the laws of Jesus Christ.
We come next to the doctrine from which some of Professor Hell's deductions are made, viz.:
III. That "No error in the application of the law in Matt, xviii, or in any other way, can anni hilate the Church."
If there is no such thing as Church annihilation, then the Church of Rome is the true Church. If that be the true Church, then all other denomina tions, the Baptist not excepted, are false Churches. But Professor Mell does not believe that the Church of Rome is the Church of Christ. Some

CHTJBCH EfDEPESFDENCE VIOLATED. 115
act or acts, proceeding from a corrupt faith, or disobedience to Christ, must hare caused the Church of Rome to cease to be the true Church. It is not necessary here to argue the exact na ture of that faith or practice, which annihilates a Church. It is enough to say that that act of a Church performed in direct violation of Christ's authority, deserves the censure of every loyal subject of the Lawgiver, and is not binding on any other Church, or Church-member.
From the foregoing, I conclude: 1. That every Church has a right "under Christ," to discipline real offenders in the way laid down in the New Testament; but that the juris diction of a Church over her members ceases when she uses it for the purpose of destroying, or willfully departs from the Divine directions in the exercise of jurisdiction. Hence a Church justly forfeits her jurisdiction, when she follows her own in preference to the laws of Christ. 2. The independence of a Church Is never de stroyed so long as the Church is-permitted to vote as she pleases. The interception of the design of wicked discipline does not destroy the independ ence of a Church.

116 CHUKCH INDEPENDENCE VIOLATED.
3. There are circumstances which justify a refusal on the part of a member, to he tried by his Church.
4. There are some decisions of a Church which a member is bound not to respect.
Professor Mell, it will be observed, makes no provision for the Churches rejecting Christ's law. What would he say a member ought to do, when the Church is planning his ruin, when she knows that the member has done nothing worthy of ex clusion ; when she casts aside the laws of Christ, and makes laws to suit herself, that she may crush him; ascertains the strength of the Church; learns about how many can be induced to vote against him ; has trained the minors in the Church to vote with promptness against him? Add to this the fact that the programme has been made out by bitter enemies of the accused, and that for months before the trial the dread voice, " We will expel him;" " Will soon place him where he belongs ;" "He shall be disgraced in the eyes of all Baptists," has been heard; suppose such a trial should be inaugurated, what would Professor Mell say the accused should do? From all that I can infer from his writings, he would say:

CHARGE PREFERRED IRREGULARLY. 117
1. " He must go into trial." 2. " He must meekly submit to the degradation his enemies (for they can not be his friends) have planned for him." 3. "He can seek no redress except from his enemies." 4. "No other Church ought to receive the per secuted man into her fellowship." Some of these points will be discussed hereafter.
"DEDUCTIONS PROM PREVIOUS PRINCIPLESCHURCH SOVEREIGNTY AVD INDEPEND ENCE."
THE points in the article now to be noticed are as follows:
1. That " there are cases in which a minority may pronounce the majority no longer a Church." As " when a Church, not only in fact, but ostensi bly and by profession, departs from the faith and order that Christ has given; * * * * if it denies that the immersion of a professed believer is alone baptism, and avows and practices infant sprinkling; * * * * if it should, by resolu-

118 CHARGE PREFERRED IRREGULARLY.
tion, deny Church sovereignty." These are a few of the " cases " in which Professor Mell concedes that a minority would be justifiable in. pronounc ing " the majority no longer a Church."
2. That " a Church has the right, if it think best, to take into consideration the conduct of her offending member, even though the case may have been irregularly, and, if you please, wick edly brought before her."
3. That there is no escape from expulsion, even though the charge be " wickedly " preferred.
4. No error in discipline can justify a minor ity in pronouncing the " majority no longer a Church."
Some other positions will be noticed incidental ly. Let us examine the above fairly and dispas sionately.
The first proposition--that a minority may, in some cases, pronounce the majority no longer a Church--is readily admitted.
The second--that a Church has the right to entertain a charge irregularly and wickedly pre ferred against a member--is what may, it seems to me, be justly styled a THEOLOGICAL EXORMITY !
1. The accuser acts " irregularly"--i. e., brings

CHARGE PREFERRED IRREGULARLY. 119
into the Church a matter which ought not to be introduced- The Church sees the irregularity, and makes it her own by entertaining it. Yet she lias the RIGHT to do this!
2. The accuser " wickedly" prefers a charge against a member. The Church sees the wicked ness, and makes it her own by entertaining the Tricked charge! The inquiry here arises, whence does a Church derive this right ? From the Scrip tures? In what chapter and verse? Please be specific. There is no such record in God's word. A license to propagate wickedness comes alone from Satan and his emissaries. If the doctrine is recorded it can be pointed out. Let those who teach such doctrine, find the Scripture that con tains it. If they can not do this, let them conde scend to give a reason to support it. To receive such theology without Scripture, or even reason, to sustain it, is too great a tax on credulity!
In opposition to this doctrine, I affirm that for a Church to entertain a change " irregularly " and " wickedly " preferred, is sinful.
1. Because it is contrary to the spirit of the New Testament. " Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh

120

CHARGE PREFERRED IRREGULARLY.

the wrath of God upon the children of disobe dience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them."--Eph. v: 6, 7. "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins."--1 Tim. v: 22. " If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Gt)d speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."--2 John: 10, 11. Now, whatever else these passages teach, no one will deny that they teach that it is sinful for a Christian or for a Church, to become a partaker in other men's sins; which must be the case whenever a Church entertains a charge against a member, " irregu larly " and " wickedly " preferred.
2. Because it is contrary to common sense. Suppose a citizen should "irregularly" and " wickedly" accuse his neighbor before the bar of his country, and the Court should, with a full knowledge of the facts, entertain the charge, would not the Court become a party to the wickedness ? Would it not sanction the wickedness, indorse the guilt, and be justly chargeable with the whole ? Such are the teachings of common sense. Anal ogy, taken from all correct human governments,

CHABQK PREFERRED IRREGULARLY. 121
sustains this view; and not only so, but teaches us that the man wishing to plant a suit " irregu larly " (z. e., contrary to law) and " wickedly," would be " non-suited "--the charge would not be entertained.
A Church, therefore, has no right, religious or moral, to entertain a charge "irregularly" and " wickedly " preferred.
Professor Mell, it appears, does not wish openly to sanction this monstrous doctrine; yet it will be seen, from a careful examination, that his conclu sion can not follow without admitting it. After stating that some writers believe the doctrine, he says, " In all this these writers may be mistaken." He then speaks of the matter (of entertaining the " irregularly " and " wickedly " preferred charge) as merely an "error" of the Church! He then says it has been shown that an "error unin tentionally committed, does not annihilate a Church; nor does it afford ground sufficient for a minority to unchurch the majority." If we are to take assertion for proof, Professor ilell has " shown " this; if not, not. But let us pre sent his argument in few words: " Some writers contend that a Church has a right to entertain a
11

122 CHARGE PREFERRED IRREGULARLY.
charge 'irregularly' and 'wickedly' preferred; but in all this these -writers may be mistaken; if they are, the decision of the Church--to entertain such a charge--would be but an error, which could not annihilate it; (therefore,) so it will be seen, that a member under, dealing can not escape ex pulsion by retiring with the minority of the Church; and that such minority, so far from shielding him by their rebellion, subject them selves to the same penalties he endures."
If sophistry knew any blush, her cheek would crimson now! What connection has this conclu sion with the premise ? Ifone, necessarily.
This conclusion can follow, with logical cer tainty, 1. Only when it has been established, aa a rule without exception, that a Church has the right to entertain a charge " irregularly" and " wickedly " preferred. But this, we have already seen, can never be the case. Professor Mell him self admits that, " in all this these writers may be mistaken."
Or, 2. When it shall have been established, as an invariable law, that a majority are incapable of committing a fatal " error " in discipline. In his intermediate steps, before reaching his con-

AN INTENTIONAL ERROR IN DISCIPLINE. 123
elusion, he says, "an UNINTENTIONAL error" can not annihilate a Church; but in his conclusion hear what he says: " So it -will be seen, that a member under dealing can not escape expulsion by retiring with the minority of the Church; and that such minority * * * * subject them selves to the same penalty he endures!!" Can you, sir, be in earnest ? Would you take advant age of the ignorance of your readers? Tour argument, fairly stated, now runs thus: " No un~ intentional error in discipline can afford sufficient ground to justify the accused and the minority in retiring from the majority. A has retired with the minority of the Church at B: therefore they ought not to have retired, and deserve exclu sion for so doing!!!" I commend this syllogism to the consideration of all logicians. If your "major premise" had read thus: "No error in discipline, whether intentional or unintentional, can justify the accused and the minority in retir ing," etc., your logic would have been correct, however bad your theology might have been; but your " major premise " says, " No UN'-intentional error" Now, please tell us what conclusion ought to be drawn, if we make the " major pre-

124 AH INTENTIONAL ERROR IX DISCIPLINE.
mise " ran thus : " Every intentional error," etc. ? Would you affirm that no intentional error in dis cipline can justify the minority in retiring, with the accused, from the majority ? What say you ? If you say Yes, you declare that the Church is infallible ; but this you, in so many words, deny. If you answer No, you must give up your conclu sion above. Your conclusion, when properly modified, reads thus: " So it will be seen, [it follows,] that a member under dealing can not [justly] escape expulsion by retiring with the minority of the Church, provided the Church, in arraigning the accused, has committed only an unintentional, unimportant error; otherwise it may be the duty (and sometimes it is) of the ac cused to retire with the minority," etc. Your error above consists in drawing your conclusion from your major premise, as if it were universal, embracing both intentional and unintentional er rors, when it is particular, (including only uninten tional errors.) An unintentional departure from the law of Christ may be denominated an error; but when the departure is intentional, treason or rebellion much more properly designates the act. A full discussion of the subject before us involves

AS IXTEIfTIO.5f.AI, ERROR Df DISCIPLINE. 125
the use of the terms error, treason, rebellion, etc. Then we may frame as many independent ques tions.
1. Should the accused and the minority submit to the -will of the majority, when the latter com mit merely an " unintentional error ?"
Ansiver. If the error involves the misapplication of the law in accordance with which the particular case ought to be treated, the minority ought not to submit. Why? Because it would be sinful for them to intentionally misapply the law of Christ. In this case, they would be far more criminal than the majority. The error must be unimportant before they can acquiesce in it with impunity.
2. Ought a minority to submit to the will of the majority, when the course of the latter, in trying a member, places them in the attitude of traitors or rebels against Christ ?
Ans. No; unless they "ought" to become trai tors or rebels themselves. It is hardly supposable that any one who believes in Christ will, in so many words, say that it is any Christian's duty to become a traitor or rebel against Christ!
But perhaps the clause, "If it (the Church) think best," (i. e., to entertain a charge " irregu-
11*

126 AN INTENTIONAL ERHOR IN DISCIPLINE.
larly " and " wickedly " preferred,) was designed to modify the general proposition! Yet how can a Church, in her proper mind, think it best to be a rebel against Christ? If the majority should so think, would her thinking it so make it so 1 Would her pJircnsy constitute a reason why the minority or the accused should participate in her madness? Sensible men would say No, if they were reasoning on anything besides Church disci pline ; and they would not be so reckless even on this subject, but for the emergencies of the times.
Perhaps it is the vote and record upon which depends the dire consequence of annihilation!
Professor Mell says that should a Church, by vote and record, resolve " that it would disregard * * * Matt, xviii, * * * it would resolve itself into an infidel fraternity."
But suppose a Church should, without vote and record, resolve to disregard Matt, xviii, still pro fessing to be acting in strict accordance with it, what then ? Is the " vote and record," in reality, the offensive thing ? Which is the worse, a fixed determination to disregard the Divine record, at tended with the avowal that they are strictly act ing out this same record; or, the determination to

AN INTENTIOHAL EUROB IN DISCIPLINE. 127
disregard it, accompanied by a formal vote and record, showing that they do reject it? Who will decide ? But if the vote and record are indispen sable to this fatal result, what would Professor Mell say of a Church that practices sprinkling, or pouring, instead of immersion, denies Church sovereignty and "the f.iith once delivered to the saints," yet without any vote and record on the subject? Would the vote and record, in such cases, be necessary to their condemnation ? Sure ly not. Then why are the vote and record so important in the case we are considering ? " But there is a difference," some one says, "between one, act of departure, and a scries of acts--or rather, an established practice." Grant it; but suppose a Church should only once sprinkle, instead of im merse, would a vote and record be necessary to her condemnation? Would not the Churches everywhere denounce the invasion as soon as the rumor reached them ? Why should they be re quired to act with so much more leniency when a Church violates, knowingly and willfully, Matt, xviii ? Why should we demand a vote and record, if the act itself is known to be violative of this Scripture? Is it because there is room for an

128 A3! rSTEXTIOJTAL ERROR I3T DISCIPLINE.
honest difference of opinion with regard to the meaning and applicability of the law in Matt, xviii, or as to the propriety of a Church's entertaining a charge " irregularly " and " wickedly " preferred ? It may be answered: Matt, xviii ia as easily un derstood, and the cases of discipline to be treated under this law are as specifically defined, as the meaning of baptizo, and the persons to be bap tised ; at least, so it seems to me. An argument, based upon the plea of obscurity in God's word in those cases where great perspicuity is needed, is an argument which I should fear to use. Pro fessor Moll does not use precisely this argument, but he does affirm that " Ou a question whether a Church can entertain a private offense, prema turely and irregularly introduced, 'honest differ ences of opinion may be tolerated.'" If such a difference may be tolerated on this subject, I see not why they may not be on any other. There is as much ground to justify an honest difference of opinion on baptism, or any other part of God's word, as on this. Arguments must be scarce when they have to be based on the doubtful (?) supposition that it may be right for a Church to do wrong!!

A^ EfTESTIOSAL ERROR Ef DISCIPLIXE. 129
But it may he that a license to violate Christ's law in regard to discipline (for this is the proper English) arises from the fact, as some suppose, that discipline is much less important than faith, it being all important that a Church's faith be correct, but a matter of comparative indifference as to her order or discipline! Did not the same God give both ? Ought not his people to receive both as of Divine origin ? Should not that part of revelation pertaining to discipline, receive as warm a place in our faith as any other part? Who would insult Jehovah, by disparaging any part of his revelation ? Or who would regard as unimportant that part of revelation which was designed to guard the purity and independence of the Churches of Christ ? This plea is certainly one of the last that ought ever to he used. Pro fessor Mell does not use it directly.
It should never he forgotten that, in an act of discipline, as well as in every other important act of a Church, the number voting for or against a measure makes the act itself neither right nor wrong. Conformity to the law of Christ makes' the act right, whether one or a thousand vote for it; while, on the other hand, if the'act be viola-

130

OTHER ERRORS EXPOSED.

tive--either in purpose or manner--of Christ's law, the unanimous vote of a Church, or of all Christendom, can not make it right. There is no inherent right in the circumstance of a majority's voting for a measure. Right depends, not upon the caprice of human beings, hut upon the laws of the Eternal.
Professor Hell's logic in the present article, reminds me of a definition of " prudence " I read a short time since. Said the writer: " Prudence consists in acting differently under different cir cumstances." Your logic, sir, leads you to differ ent conclusions, owing to what you wish to prove. It acts finely in one case; but only let your cir cumstances be changed, without at all affecting the premises, and it has such pliability as to act in precisely the opposite direction! It has been well said that your reasoning in this article has more to do with fallacies than any other part of logic.
We come now to the third point : 3. There is no escape from expulsion, even though the charges be "wickedly" preferred. We hare already seen, in a previous article, that a member thus "irregularly" and "wickedly" charged, ought not to submit to trial , since, in so

OTHER ERRORS EXPOSED.

131

doing, he would concede jurisdiction to the Church which Christ never gave her, and which she does not possess. Yet I am inclined to the opinion that there is no escape from expulsion when a Church thus "irregularly" and "wickedly" as sumes the reins of discipline! Such Churches rarely stop short of expulsion. But what of such expulsion? It is, like the charge upon which it was based, a wicked expulsion. No pious member should feel ashamed, however much he may regret the occurrence of such expulsion.
Let us now consider the fourth proposition: 4. That no error in discipline can justify a minority in pronouncing the majority no longer a Church. We have seen that both Scripture and reason alike condemn the wicked principle. Mi norities are not only bound not to take part in such wickedness, but they should oppose it, even though they should be compelled to pronounce the majorities no longer Churches. This the former should do whenever they perceive that the latter usurp discipline (so called) for the purpose of destroying a member, or when majorities know-, ingly disregard the laws of Christ. But if, as Professor Mell contends, a minority should take

132

OTHER ERROB3 KXPOSED.

sides with a member " irregularly" and " wick edly" arraigned, they should all be excluded, then they ought to be excluded because they re fuse to acquiesce in and become a party to the wicked trial! Their connection with the Church in this case is made to depend upon their par ticipation in sin! But membership iu the true Church of Christ depends upon no such absurd condition. Will Professor Hell, or any one else, prove that it does ?
Professor Mell, to cap the climax, says: " There is not a Church in Christendom, true to the Mas ter and to herself, that would not, in these cir cumstances, expel her recusants." How absurd is it to speak of being " true to the Master and to herself," when, by the supposition, she repudi ates the authority of her Master! I Upon such absurdities depends most of his remarkable sci ence of " Church Discipline.'.'
Again, in the next sentence he says: " And if the revolters should afterward, with or without organization, call themselves the Church, what ever else they may be, they are not a Baptist Church, which we consider to be synonymous with a Gospel Church."

OTHER ERRORS EXPOSED.

133

Now, according to this doctrine, a minority that faithfully contends for the authority of Christ in discipline -- that dares to oppose their brethren, rather than Christ--that, in fact, follows the law of Christ strictly, deserves to be styled " revolters!!" Yes, they must be called " revolters," though they have never revolted from Christ! Let them bear the odious title, though, instead of revolting from Christ, they, out of deference to him, have separated from those who HAVE revolted from him!
Does Professor Mell mean to teach that the minority that separates from the majority, because the latter stubbornly rejects Christ's law, should be called revolters from Christ 9 If such persons are " revolters " from him, how did you ascertain the fact ? You did not get it from his word; for that explicitly commands his followers to obey him in all things whatsoever he has commanded them. Have you received a new revelation from God? Then, give us the unmistakable evidence by per forming some miracle, and then you can lay some claim to our credence. But until you do this, do n't imagine that anybody will believe you, when you affirm that a minority that follows
12

134

EERORS EXPOSED.

Christ, are "revolters," if you mean to attach any odium to the term! But if you mean to say that they are "revolters" from rebels--from those who renounce the authority of the only Lawgiver, then I urge no objection to the use made of the term. If such a minority deserves the offensive title--" revolters "--then is it an evil thing to obey God, and those who disobey deserve praise! I
Once more: " Whatever may he their preten sions or their claims, they are excommunicated Baptists, and should be so regarded and treated by all who reverence the authority of the King in Zion." This, doubtless, is the thing which " Cor rective Church Discipline " was and is designed to establish. But the proposition must be assumed, for it can never be proved. For such characters to speak of " reverencing the authority of the King in Zion" is downright mockery; since they have excluded the minority because of their refusal to join them in disregarding the authority of Zion's King! The loyal subjects of the King should frown upon and discountenance the majority who would presume to discipline a member "irregu larly" and "wickedly" arraigned. This article will be closed with the following requests:

TRIALS OP MEJISTEBS.

135

1. Will Professor Mell, or any one else, inform us why it is that one voluntary, premeditated act of rebellion against Christ's authority annihilates a Church, while another act, equally subversive of his authority, does not have the same effect ?
2. Will he tell us why it is %that one act of pal pable departure from Christ's law deserves the righteous indignation of all his loyal subjects, while another, equally palpable and flagitious, deserves the indorsement, respect, and hearty ap proval of his followers ?
When he answers these questions satisfactorily, he will be at liberty to draw such conclusions aa some of those already drawn.

"TRIALS OP MINISTERS."
" CAN a minister be tried and expelled without the intervention of a Presbytery or Council ?"
I agree with Professor Mell in giving an affirm ative answer to this question. The proposition, however, is susceptible of clearer, stronger proof than that adduced by the professor to sustain it.

136

TRIALS OF MINISTERS.

As it has been my determination to admit as many of his positions as truth, logic, or Scripture might require, it is not at all necessary to notice his method of proof. He grants that a Church, in trying a minister, has the right " to call in the aid of a Council;" and that " in many instances, it would be highly judicious to do so." In this, too, we are agreed. The propriety of " calling in the aid of a Council," should, it seems to me, be decided by reference, mainly, to two facts :
I. The nature of the offense; and, II. Tlie char acter and standing of the minister accused.
1. The nature of the offense.--If the minister is known to have committed murder, theft, or such like offenses, there can be no necessity of a Pres bytery or Council. But if the crime be such as those ordinarily preferred against ministers, it would certainly be well to " call in the aid of a Council." Such, I think, has been "Baptist usage."
2. The character and standing of the minister accused should have some influence in inducing a Church to call upon sister Churches to aid in settling so serious a difficulty. If the minister has "little or no influence in the denomination, the

TRIALS OP MINISTERS.

137

necessity for assistance will not be so urgent as if he were a man of much influence. Admitting that the Church is equally competent to decide the merits of the case in both instances, it requires little sagacity to see that the expulsion of the lat ter would create a much deeper sensation in the mind of the denomination than that of the former. When a common lieutenant falls, a few mourn; but when the general falls, a nation weeps. It is readily conceded that the reputation of the most obscure minister should be dealt with tenderly; but the minister whose reputation is national, can not be so easily deposed as an obscure one. The denomination, generally, may have a sort of claim to one of the former class, and when he is charged with a doubtful offense, the people will not be con tent to see him deposed unless it should he done in accordance with " usage." If the minister of wide-spread reputation is charged with unsoundness in some article of faith, or with some ordi nary offense, it would be very judicious " to call in the aid of a Council" before excluding him. In the trial of such a minister, the Church that re fuses to call in the aid of a judicious Council-- especially if those who might compose the Council are

1-38

TRIALS OF MINISTERS.-"

09 well acquainted with the facts in the indictment as the Church itself--justly lays itself liable to the charge of unfair dealing. If her design was to deal fairly, why riot pursue the ordinary steps ? Why not invite a Council to assist her? The masses will suspect that this unusual procedure was resorted to for the purpose of destroying, rather than saving the minister. They will have little respect for the motives of a Church that would not heed the advice of members of other Churches, cognizant of all the facts in connection with the accusation. And since the Church in trying such a minister without the aid of others, shows no respect to their advice, monitions, etc., she ought not to complain, seriously, if they are not inclined to respect her act of expulsion--es pecially if they believe it was instigated by jeal ousy, or any kindred cause.
There will always be a disposition to take sides with a popular minister, when his brethren out of his own Church think that he has done nothing worthy of death or of bonds. Hence the great propriety of " calling in the aid of a Council."
It could not be expected, however, that a Church, after determining to degrade her minis-.

TRIALS OF MINISTERS.

139

ter, should desire the assistance of a conscien tious Council. If she could know that a Council would co-operate with her in her work of destruc tion, it would certainly be called; but when it is be lieved that the Council would sustain the accused, of course she would prefer acting alone. The fact of a Church not calling in a Council to assist in trying a minister of high standing, is strong, very strong, evidence that she has determined to ruin him. Her act will be regarded with suspicion.
Should a number of leading members in a Church avow their purpose to exclude a minister belonging to her membership; should they admit that they would turn him oat, whether they could prove anything against him or not; should the brethren in the vicinity make repeated efforts to dissuade them from their purpose; should the members be admonished, after it is seen that the Church must arraign him, then to call in a Coun cil to aid them--if, in all these circumstances, the Church refuses to accept the aid and counsel of her brethren, and madly rushes to the deed of destruction, her motives will be impugned, her honesty questioned, and her act of expulsion will be regarded as wicked usurpation of power, since

140

TRIALS OF JICsISTERS.

all discipline is wicked which is designed to de stroy a member. In a case like this no one can question the propriety of calling a Council to assist. I mean, of course, if the minister accused is guilty of some common-place crime; but if he is innocent, and known to be so, the Church has no right to try him, either alone or assisted by a Council. When a minister has been guilty of some ordinary crime for which he ought to be tried, his Church, if it desires to do him justice, will certainly call in wise and judicious brethren to assist them by their counsel, prayers, etc. On the other hand, if the minister accused is innocent of any crime, and the Church desires to crush his influence, whatever else she may do, she will not call such a Council. Why? Because her meas ure would probably be defeated--her victim might escape--a circumstance which she would greatly deplore.
When such means are resorted to, to destroy a minister's influence, the expulsion will be regarded by those who think properly, as a mere farce, and they will treat him as if he had never been ex cluded.
In any particular instance of such expulsion,

,, TRIALS OF MINISTERS.

141

we must, therefore, in order to ascertain the mer its of the exclusion, inquire--
1. With what has the minister heen charged? If he has been guilty of murder, theft, or the like, the Church need not call in the aid of a Council. But if the charge pertains to some doctrine or faith, or to some difficulty of a per sonal nature, a Council of judicious brethren should he called, consisting, if possible, of those best acquainted with all the facts in the case. 2. "What is the character and standing of the minister ? If he is a man of great popularity, and the charges preferred against him are common-place, a Council should, by all means, be invited to assist in the trial. Where a Church refuses, in such a case, to in vite a Council, the strong presumption is-- 1. That she -wishes to destroy rather than save him. 2. That she fears the result, if a Council of judicious brethren should be called to assist her. This is a tacit admission of the weakness and injnstice of her cause. " Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil."

142

CHPRCH DECISION FDTAL.

"DEDUCTIONS"--"CHURCH INDEPENDENCE."
THE present number of Professor Mell's series is quite lengthy, and contains several points which deserve a careful examination. But as all these important positions are made to depend upon one, and must fall, if it falls, our present task can be quickly dispatched. The great foundation princi ple of his article is this :
" The decision of the Church is final." To substantiate this proposition, it is claimed that the Scriptures sustain it. 1. "By positive precept." 2. "Inspired example." And, 3. " By general principles laid down in the Scriptures." Another proposition, which must stand or fall with the above, reads as follows : " The reception of an individual into the membership of a Church, and his expulsion from that same fellowship, arc not ' correlative' or ' commensurate' ideas." I remark: That if " the decision of the Church is final," in the sense in which Professor Mell claims, then I readily confess that most of my

CHURCH DECISION FINAL.

143

criticisms must fall; that the Baptist mind, with a few rare exceptions, must have been mistaken in regard to one of the most vitally-important doc trines connected with the existence of Christ's Church; and that fountains of deepest gratitude should, henceforth, arise from every Baptist heart to Professor Mell, in view of the great service he has done the cause of truth. " Honor to whom honor is due," is my motto. If, therefore, it turns out that the author of Corrective Church Discipline has established the finality of every act of expulsion from a Church, he the meed of honor henceforth his. He has done a work which none other has ever done!!
But what does he mean by the "finality" of a Church's decision?
1. "That one Church can not receive to mem bership the excluded members of another;" and,
2. "That such excluded members can be re stored to fellowship only by the action of the Church expelling them."
There is no need of dodging the point. If this doctrine is true, Churches are, and must be, IN FALLIBLE, so far at least as discipline is con cerned! I understand Professor Moll to teach

144

CHPECH DECISION TIJStAl.

that every act of expulsion, right or wrong, done in accordance with the Divine law, or in direct violation of it, for the purpose of honoring Christ and his cause, or with the malicious design to de stroy, it may be, one of his most obedient, pious servants--however, or with whatever design the expulsion may be done, it matters not--the act is final!!! Such is the tJteology of Professor Mell! If he does not intend to teach such monstrous doctrine, let him answer this simple question: Can a Church rightfully receive into her mem bership a member excluded from another Church when it is known that he has done nothing worthy of exclusion, and when it is known, too, .that his Church excluded him "wickedly" and with the design to-destroy him? Please answer this ques tion by " Yes," or " No." Avow or disavow it. If you answer " Yes" you should not grum ble at taking the consequences along with the doctrine itself; many of which are momentous indeed!
1. This doctrine can not be true, unless the Church is infallible in her discipline. If the Church is infallible in discipline, why not in everything 'else? Will you please inform us.

CHURCH DECISION FETAL.

145

But you say the Church is fallible. It devolves on you, therefore, to show that the discipline of a Church is not essential to her existence, or you must modify the above concession, and say, " The Church is infallible in her discipline." Choose between them.
2. If you persevere in the advocacy of this doc trine, you must not expect your Baptist brethren to sustain you. You must find your sympathiz ers among the Popea and communicants of the Church of Rome. Elder Dawson and the strenu ous advocates of the "finality " of a Church's de cision, disavow, if I understand them, the above Romish dogma; yet it appears that Elder Dawson indorses, in all important particulars, the entire series on " Corrective Church Discipline." This dogma of Church infallibility is radically im portant in Church discipline; -will Elder Dawson both disclaim and commend it at the same time! It appears to me that he now stands in this un pleasant attitude before his readers. It would rejoice me for him to explain away the matter.
But to return: Professor Mell can not expect Baptists to sustain him in this. A few may do it, but the masses will not. Baptists of America-
13

146

CHURCH DECISION FINAL.

appreciate their liberty too highly, to voluntarily submit to be bound by the chains of Popery.
3. This doctrine, if true, would, if carried to its legitimate result, well-nigh extinguish the Church of Christ. Let us see. Suppose the Church in Athens, Georgia, should " wickedly " exclude one member, then another, and another, until but two members are left in the Church--suppose every Church in Georgia should wickedly pursue the same course; then as there are, I believe, but 765 Churches in Georgia, the membership, by this process, might be reduced to 1,530. Subtract this number from 67,722, (the sum total of the mem bership,) and there will be left 66,192 members in Georgia who could never enjoy the privileges of Christ's Church, except at the pleasure of their wicked exeommunicators! How preposterously absurd must that doctrine be which leads (when carried to its fullest extent) to such results! "What would become of Christ's cause on earth, should every Church adopt this wicked policy, and the excluded be compelled to submit to Professor Hell's doctrine!! Is it said, " These results will never be realized ?" I reply: There is nothing in the doctrine itself to prevent such results; and if

SCRIPTURE PRECEPTS, ETC.

147

they never should be " realized," no thanks to the principle, which would permit it.
The age is too far advanced to spend much time in discussing this exploded doctrine. Let Rome and her subjects advocate it, but let Baptists be governed by the Bible. But Professor Mell at tempts to establish this position from the Bible.
Is it true that the Bible teaches by "precept," "example" or by "general principles," that a worthy, pious member, who has been unjustly and wickedly excluded from a Church, can never become a member any more, except at the option of his wicked accusers ?
Examine the record and see. I now affirm that those texts which Professor Mell quotes as con taining "precepts," "examples," and "general principles," have not the remotest bearing upon that wing of the subject which he is discussing. The Bible says nothing by " precept," " example," or " general principles," respecting the finality of an unjust exclusion. Where is the verse? But this question can be forever settled by a very short process. You say that each Church is in dependent. Very well. What is implied in this? Among other things we have seen that independ-

148

SCRIPTURE PRECEPTS AND

ence implies THE RIGHT FOR EVERY CHURCH TO
RECEIVE INTO HER FELLOWSHIP -EVERT APPLICANT
WHOM SHE MAT DEEM WORTHT. You Can not, I
suppose, deny this? Well, then, may a Church not consider that individual who has been " wick edly " and unjustly excluded from another Church, worthy of membership ? Why not ? Suppose that the individual was once a worthy member, that he always lived as a worthy member, but his Church, without any just cause, expels him ; has the ex cluded done anything in all this, to render him unworthy ? Do the wicked acts of others make a just man unworthy ? What do you say to this ? Now, if the Church applied to is convinced that the applicant (though he may have heen expelled from another Church) is a worthy Christian, it is not, and can not be independent, unless it is at liberty to receive him. What now becomes of your boasted independence ? It is a mere dream--an empty, sounding word! You must abandon the idea of " Church independence," or this monstrous dogma one. Which will you do ?
In conclusion on this point, let no one slander Baptists, stultify common seme, or misrepresent the word of God, so far as to imagine that the

EXAMPLES MISQUOTED.

149

absurd dogma--"that a wrong action of one Church can be binding on any other"--receives, from any one of these sources, the slightest sanction.
But if Professor Mell should ansvre'r this sim ple question by a " No," what must follow ? Simply this: That one of the main pillars in his "Discipline" must fall. This pillar, erected in his definition of " Public Offenses," has sustained a large portion of his fabric, and its fall must be attended by the destructive crash of all that rests upon it.
Let us notice the second proposition--that " the reception of an individual into the membership of a Church, and his expulsion from that same fellowship, are not ' correlative' or ' commensu rate ' ideas."
When a certain writer advocated, a few months ago, the doctrine that the reception of a member into, and his expulsion from a Church, are " cor relative " and " commensurate " ideas, Elder Dawson replied: " What the doctor says about * cor relative terms,' 'correlative ideas,' 'co-extensive ideas/ throws no light upon the subject; as Smith says, they are 'truisms.' clothed in great swell-

150

DOCTORS SOMETIMES DISAGREE.

ing words."--South-Western Baptist, December 8, 1859.
Here we see again that these two leaders in Israel are disagreed. One says the doctrine is noi true ; the other affirms that it is a " truism." It is a little remarkable that two learned men, on the same side of the question, should differ so widely. But still more remarkable is it that Eld er Dawson should regard the point we are now considering as a TRUISM, and, at the same time, should indorse Professor Mell's "Discipline," which regards this same doctrine as an TJN-TRU-' ISM! He says, in a recent issue of the South western Baptist: " We have examined every posi tion (of Professor Mell's series) with care, and analyzed every argument diligently; and, without claiming for the articles absolute perfection, they present the most faultless view of the question we have seen." I leave Elder Dawson to reconcile these positions. For my part, I must say that the " reception" into, and " expulsion " of a member from a Church, seem to me to be " co extensive " or " commensurate" ideas, and sus ceptible of as clear illustration as any " truism."
If these " ideas " are not " commensurate " or

DOCTORS SOJIETDIES DISAGREE.

151

" co-extensive," why not ? It must be because one of them is greater or less than the other. It must be because the reception of a member into a Church contains a broader or more contracted meaning than his exclusion from the Church. No one contends, I believe, that reception implies more than expulsion. Does it imply less? Let us see. Reception can confer such 'privileges, and only such, as the receiving body possesses. It can confer no more. Does one Church possess the right to give privileges in any other Church ? If so, then Church independence is a farce! No one can fail to see this.
There is another argument -which demonstrates the same position. If a worthy member has been wickedly and unjustly excluded, and if said excluded member is rightfully shut out of all other Churches, then it follows that the wickedness of some debars others who may be entirely worthy from entering Christ's Church; that the wicked may exclude the just and pious, and that their wicked act shuts out the righteous from the kingdom of Christ; in other words, that Satan, the father of wickedness and lies, has the right to keep some of the saints out of the Redeemer's Idngdom ! ! I

152

RECEPTION AND EXPULSION:

Who does not see that such a position argues great deficiency in the laws that govern the king dom of Christ? Who can fail to see that, if this position, he true, Christ is not independent of Satan, but that his kingdom is subject, in a greater or less degree, to the will and dictation of the great adversary of souls? Is there a man who pro fesses to love Christ, that can believe such doc trine !
But to return. Unless membership in one Church amounts to membership in all other Churches, exclusion from one Church is not ex clusion from all others. This is self-evident. And if a member in one Church ordinarily enjoys some privileges in other Churches, it is not be cause the Church which holds his membership gave him those privileges, but it is purely of courte sy. Such privileges can not be demanded by the members of one Church of other Churches.
"But," says one, "when a worthy member has been unjustly and wickedly excluded, are not all the privileges which he formerly enjoyed in other Churches withdrawn from him ? Does it not, then, amount to the same thing as if membership in one Church were the passport to privileges in other

COMMENSURATE IDEAS.

153

Churches f This argument, if it deserves the name, has already been answered above. Courte sy, and not right, concedes those privileges. True, while the excluded individual is out of the Church, those acts of courtesy are withheld from him; but this is done, not because of any unworthine&s on his part, but because he is not formally connected with any Church. But he is worthy to be received into any Church, and should be received on ap plication. When thns received, he as much de serves those acts of courtesy as any other member. He need not, therefore, of necessity, be deprived of Church privileges one week; and certainly not longer than it is necessary for the Church to which he applies for membership, to ascertain that he was unjustly and wickedly excluded. So we see that this objection falls to the ground.
Professor Mell says: " The excluded man 13 still (i. ., after his expulsion) the subject, in a sense, of the Church expelling him." But he does not inform us clearly in what "sense." True, he says, "the excluded man sustains the relation (to the Church) of one who is the subject of its reformatory discipline!" The weakest plea (if he will pardon me) I have ever read!

154

OTHER FALLACIES EXPOSED. .

If the excluded man is a subject of the Churck at all, it must arise from the fact that his expul sion was only partial; in which case he is partly in and partly out of the Church, or else the Church may have a subject who is not within it, and, therefore, the Church has jurisdiction outside of itself!
This has more resemblance to infant membershij) than anything else I can now think of. This partial membership and partial exclusion are sub jects unknown to Baptist polity! It must be made plainer, else they will never adopt it I
Professor Mell tries to strengthen this position by the circumstance, as he says, that the excluded man is not "received again (into the Church) in the same way as he was from the world at first. Then he was admitted by experience and bap tism ; now, he must not be admitted but restored." The man was received " at first" by the " vote" of the Church; if expelled, he must be expelled by the "vote" of the Church; and if restored to the same Church, he must be restored by the "vote" of the Church. This quibbling about terms avails you nothing.
But he is still the subject of the Church's "re-

OTHER FALLACIES EXPOSED.

155

formatory discipline!" But -what, my dear sir, will you say when the excluded " is still the sub ject," not of her reformatory, but of her destruct ive discipline ? You say " Every Church is hound to ohey the commands of the Savior." So say I. But has the Church obeyed? This is the ques tion. If she has, all right; but if not, do not try to make it appear that other Churches ought to sustain her in her wickedness. Let the advocates of the Homish Church have such honor!
You say again: "The design of Corrective Dis cipline, even in its highest censures, is not to in jure, but to reform," (my italics.) Then, I sup pose, you would not call that "discipline" at all, which is designed to " injure." If you would not, then we are not so far disagreed on this point after all.
But suppose a Church should arraign, try, and exclude a worthy member with the view of "injur ing" and destroying him, what, sir, would you call this? Please answer.
You contend that the reception of an excluded member into the fellowship of another, without the consent of the Church excluding him, is an " interference with its discipline; * * * *

156

DISCIPLINE AXD ITS DESIGN

since it is designed to prevent the intended effeci of that discipline."
It is strange that a man of Professor Mell's position, should not distinguish between discipline and the intended " effect " of discipline! To for cibly prevent a Church from excluding a member whom she wishes to exclude, or to force her to ex clude a member whom she does not wish to exclude, would be an interference with her discipline; but so long as a Church is left free to exclude, or retain her members, it can not be said. with any degree of reason, that her discipline is " interfered with." Should a Church exclude a member justly, and should another Church receive the excluded, even in this case there is no interference with the dis cipline of the former Church. Still, it is not claimed that a member who has been justly ex cluded, should be received into any Church, until he has rendered reasonable satisfaction for the wrong done. Every just act of one Church should be respected by every Church acquainted with the fact. Every such act should be regarded as valid by all who respect the authority of Christ.
But suppose a worthy, pious member should be unjustly and wickedly excluded, would it not be

DJTFEREST THEIGS.

157

right to paralyze, if possible, the wicked "intended effect " of such discipline ? You surely do not intend to teach that other Churches ai-e bound to sanction the wicked act, and co-operate in the "intended" wicked "effect!!" Is this the mo rality you teach? I now affirm that that Church to which an unjustly excluded member applies for membership, indorses the wickedness of the Clmrck unjustly excluding Jiim, and becomes virtually guilty of the same crime, if she rejects him, believing him to have been unjustly excluded. Each Church is the executive of Christ's laws, as well in the re ception of members, as in other particulars; and that Church that refuses membership to. an ap plicant whom she deems worthy, acts treasonably toward her Master if she n/uses him. When such an applicant presents himself to a Church, the Church has no choice left her; she must, if she would obey the will of Christ, receive him.
But you say further that the reception of an excluded member into another Church would de stroy Christian union. Admit it. But suppose the man has been unjustly and wickedly ex cluded, is "union" with sucJt a Church desirable? " Union " on truth and justice should be sought at

158

'WROSQ TO ESDORSE WICKEDNESS.

all times; but " union" in 'or on error, never. Let "Christian union" never be mentioned when it must be purchased at the sacrifice of truth; let it cease to have a name, if it can be obtained only by participating in wickedness !
Would you, sir, desire " union " with a Church that renounces the authority of Christ? Baptists, I am sure, will be slow to court or perpetuate " unior^ " at such an enormous price!
Professor Mell'a three " pleas " or objections to the doctrine of the finality of Church action, he does not and can not answer. They must fall, when it has been once established, that a wicked act of one Church it not binding on all others. The absurd ity of this dogma has already been exposed.
His third "plea," however, will be further con sidered, since it involves some side issues.
There is one other matter to which allusion will be made. I am informed that under Professor Mell's pastorate an excluded member was once received into his Church. The man, if my in formation is correct, had been excluded from an antimissionary Church for his opposition (I be lieve) to " Beebeeism." The excluded man pre sented himself to the Church of which Professor

PRACTICE AXD THEORY.

159

Mell was, and now is pastor, and was received into the fellowship of the Church without any consultation with the Church that excluded him. Now it is supposable--
1. That the Church believed that the man had belonged to a Church. If not, he could not have been received without baptism.
2. That Professor Mell and his Chnrch believed the man to have been unjustly excluded; else they did wrong in receiving him.
Now, if the body excluding him was a Church, (and it seems that they must have thought so,) and if Professor Mell's Church did receive the excluded member, it appears that Professor Mell once sanctioned a deed which he now sorely con demns ! How is this ? If there is anything in correct in the above, the writer will gladly receive the correction. The facts are available.
"While on this point, another statement will not be out of place. It has been, so far as I know, the custom of Missionary Baptist Churches to receive into their fellowship members excluded from antimissionary Churches, for attaching them selves to the Masonic fraternity, temperance socie ties, and the like; it has also been customary, I

160

PROFESSOR MELL'S PRACTICE

believe, for missionaries to receive into their fel lowship those presenting letters from antimissionary Churches. If these two things have been customary, it has been customary, according to Professor Mell's doctrine, for missionary Baptists to "interfere with the discipline" of antimissionary Churches. Yet I have never heard of the antimissionaries complaining that their "in dependence has been destroyed."
Is it possible that their independence has, for so long a time, been disregarded, and even " de stroyed" and yet they have not had sense enough to see it ? Or have they been so much oppressed as not to venture to raise the complaint? Tour position reflects great discredit upon those antimissionary bodies. I do not say that you de signed it.

'THIRD PLEA."
. THE " plea" reads thus: " Suppose a Church expels a member for joining the Masons or Odd Fellows, or another should expel its members for favoring the missionary cause, or, if he is a min-

OPPOSED TO HIS THEOET.

161

ister, for maintaining that the Gospel is to be preached to sinners; will it be lawful in these cases or in either of them, for a neighboring Church to receive the excluded? Now, if you answer in the affirmative, you, in effect, give the principle up; for you acknowledge that, for a sufficient cause,- one Church may receive the ex pelled of another." He then says: ' To answer this question, it must be analyzed and the parts classified under different heads."
The result of his analysis is the resolution of the above into two classes--
1. Those who have been excluded for joining the Masons or Odd Fellows.
2. "The other Church expels its member for practicing that which he and we believe to be taught in the Scriptures."
This last " part," though its terms are general, is made to include such as have been expelled for those things in which antimissionaries oppose missionaries. Hence be it observed that the above two classes do not exhaust the cases that may occur. Many other cases of expulsion might arise for different causes, equally as violative of the Scriptures as the exclusion of a member for
14*

162

PROFESSOR MELL'S PRACTICE

" favoring the missionary cause." A careful reasoner can see nothing more offensive in excluding a member for the above cause, than for the advo cacy of other Scripture doctrines. It is by no means self-evident that an expulsion for things about which missionaries and aniimissionaries dif fer, are the only things that will justify the recep tion of the excluded. More of this anon.
Professor Mell takes the position that those who have been excluded for "joining the Ma sons or Odd Fellows," ought not to be received into other Churches. The discussion of this sub ject is not at all material to the point in hand; yet I ask, why does Professor Mell advise this course, seeing that those -who have been excluded for this reason do not belong to true Churches? The antimissionary Church is, (if I understand him,) in his view, not a Church. Now, why, I ask--
1. Does he recommend the reception of those who have been excluded for "favoring the mis sionary cause," when, according to his teachings, those excluded for joining the Masons or Odd Fellows, ought not to be received into our Churches ? Is it because these bodies are not Churches, when

OPPOSED TO HIS THEORY.

163

they exclude members for " favoring the missiona ry cause," and yet remain Churches if they excludt them for joining the Masons, etc. ? This doctrine, besides being strange in itself, is quite fatal to a position formerly assumed by the professor. In what ? Simply in this: it proves that a Church may cease to be a Church of Christ, by an improper usurpation and exercise of discipline. I wish the reader to note this especially.
1st. That none but antimissionary Churches exclude members for joining the Masons or Odd Fellows.
2d. That members excluded, by these bodies, for joining the Masonic or Odd Fellows' frater nity, ought not to be received into missionary Churches.
3d. This ought not to be done, because it de stroys " Church union."
4th. That members excluded for " favoring the missionary cause," ought to be received into mis sionary Churches.
5th. Because the bodies expelling them " cease to be Baptist Churches " when they expel a mem ber for this cause.
Now, every one can see that his argument pro-

164

SPECIOUS FALLACY EXPOSED.

ceeds on the supposition that these bodies are Baptist Churches until they exclude a member for "favoring the missionary cause," or for some thing pertaining to the differences between the antimissionaries and missionaries. It follows, therefore, that the exclusion of a member for this cause makes a Church no longer a Baptist Church. It is difficult for error to keep out of its own way.
But to return, I ask-- 2. If these antimissionary bodies are not Churches, why are those bearing letters from them received without baptism into missionary Churches? All such, if these bodies are not Churches, should be baptized and received into the Church as though they had never belonged to any Church at all. Why was it that Professor Mell allowed his Church to receive a member, excluded from the antimissionaries "without bap tism, if he did not regard the body excluding him as having been a Church before passing the act of exclusion ? It is to be hoped that he will ex plain this. Let us notice the second proposition. " 2. The other Church expels its member for

SPECIOUS FALLACY EXPOSED.

165

practicing that which he and we believe to he taught in the Scriptures."
If this class had teen made more comprehen sive in his application, there would he much less objection to it. But it will he seen that it is made to contain only those who have been ex cluded "for favoring the missionary cause." Why did not Professor Mell show why it is (if indeed it is so) that those expelled for the above cflwse, (or for their opposition to Heeoeeism,) are the only expelled members who ought to be received into our Churches ? Why did he not tell us why it is that we are not at liberty to receive into our Churches wcA as have been excluded for "prac ticing " something else (besides " favoring the mis sionary cause") which he and we believe to be taught in the Scriptures?
But let us notice the grounds on which such as have been expelled "for favoring the missionary cause, or for preaching the Gospel to sinners," should be received into our Churches. He says: " When a Church expels a member for this rea son, it is clearly of a different denomination from us, or has so departed from the faith, as to au thorize us to withdraw fellowship from it. Ta

166

SPECIOUS FALLACY EXPOSED.

that case, Church sovereignty* is not violated if we receive those who are martyrs to the same truth we conscientiously hold ourselves. The principle here ia that which I avowed in a previ ous article, that -when a Church ceases to be a Baptist Church, we may withdraw fellowship from jt< * * * * rpke Church must not only ap pear to us to act in opposition to what we consider the law of Christ, but it must avow that to be its intention, before we can be authorized to withdraw fellowship from it, and afford a refuge to its ex cluded members" (My italics.)
Ohserve with reference to this extract-- 1. That a Church, professedly Baptist, that ex cludes a member for the above cause, does not be long to the Baptist denomination. 2. That the reception of their excluded into our Churches does not violate the independence of their Churches. 3. That we can not receive the excluded of other Churches unless they avow it to be their pur pose to act in opposition to the law of Christ.

* Independence is the proper word to use--hence it will be substituted instead of " sovereignty." The change does not af fect the argument.

SPECIOUS FA11ACY EXPOSED.

167

With regard to the first I remark, that such Churches are either true Churches of Christ, or they are not. If they are true Churches, they have independence as 'well as any other true Churches; if they are not true Churches, Professor Mell ought not to refuse to receive those who have been excluded from them for joining the Masons --not, however, on the ground that the excluded ever were members of the Church, but just as other members are received from the world; nor ought he to receive those who have been excluded from them " for favoring the missionary cause," without first hearing their " experience of grace " and baptizing them. Why? Because nobody but a true Church can administer valid baptism. It seems, therefore, that Professor Mell's theory and practice both oppose his " Corrective Church Dis cipline."
Let us look into the next: 2. That the reception of their excluded does not violate their independence as Churches. If the reception of the excluded of one Church into the fellowship of another, does, in any in stance, violate the independence of the former, then does the reception of such as have been excluded

168

SPECIOUS FALLACY EXPOSED.

"for favoring the missionary cause," violate the independence of the Churches excluding them, pro vided these bodies have any independence. They must have independence if they are Churches. Therefore, the reception of such excluded per sons does not violate the independence of the Churches excluding them; because these bodies are not true Churches. But if they are not true Churches, why should Professor Mell receive their excluded without baptism ? I ask this question on the strength of the fact stated in my last. If Pro fessor Mell's Church baptized the individual re ferred to, before admitting him into the fellowship of the Church, then is this question out of placa; hut if his baptism was omJtted, the question has peculiar force. But whether the Church received the individual with or without baptism, Professor Mell is in a strait. The refusal to receive into our Churches those who have been excluded for joining the Masons, on the grounds that such re ception would destroy " Church union" is an ad mission that the Churches excluding them are true Churches. Now, if antimissionary bodies are true Churches, with all their avmoed opposi tion to the " missionary cause," and continue to

SPECIOUS FALLACY EXPOSED.

169

be Churches, whose " union" (with us) ought not to be severed for expelling a member because he joins the Masons or Odd Fellows, but cease to be Baptist Churches when they expel a member for " favoring the missionary cause," there is no es cape from the conclusion that the act of expulsion, for the above cause, uncliwrcttes them. But this is, as we have already seen, a- death-blow to one of the leading principles of Corrective Church Discipline, viz.: that no error in discipline can annihilate a Church. But if these bodies are not true Churches, then it follows :
1. That those who have been excluded from them, for any cause whatever, ought to be re quired to tell the Church their Christian expe rience and be baptized just as if these things had never been done. And--
2. Those excluded for joining the Masons ought not to be denied a place in the Church, for the sake of preserving " Church union;" since there can lie no true Church union where there is no true Church. Of course, missionary Churches do not wish to perpetuate Church union with the antimissionaries, unless the latter are true
15

170

MORE FALLACIES EXPOSED.

Churches! We see, therefore, that Professor Mell is in a dilemma.
The last proposition-- 8. That a Church excluding a member wickedly, must " avow " it to be her intention to act in op position to Christ's law, before another Church can receive the excluded of the former. It astonishes me that a man of Professor Mell's intelligence should plant himself upon such an ab surd position. If his doctrine be true, then it fol lows that we ought not to receive into our fellow-, ship those who have been excluded " for favoring the missionary cause," for preaching the Gospel to sinners, for believing that the immersion of a believer, by the proper authority, is baptism--it matters not for what cause--unless the Church excluding the member or members, "avows " it to be her intention to act in opposition to the law of Christ!!! But what Church, or what body pro fessing to be a Church, ever avowed it to be her intention to act thus? An instance of such avowal would, I suppose, be very difficult to find!! But if it is meant that the Church, body, or assembly, that expels a member " wickedly," does not avowedly act in opposition to the law of Christ,

MORE TAXJ.ACDS8 EXPOSED.

171

but avotn it to be its intention to act as it does act; if that act, in our opinion doe* violate the law of Christ, must we receive their excluded? If our interpretation of the law of Christ is not to be made the basis of our action in such cases, then it is- evi dent that missionary Churches have always done wrong whenever they have received the excluded of antimissionary Churches, whatever may have been the cause of the exclusion. This part of Corrective Church Discipline Professor Mell ought, for the sake of consistency, to expunge.
Moreover, if we are not to take our own inter pretation of God's word as the basis of our action in regard to the reception of those who we believe have been " wickedly " excluded, then why should we make our interpretation of God's word the basis of our action in anything else ? Will Pro fessor Mell tell us why f If a man who we be lieve has been unscripturally baptized, i. e^ has been immersed by a wicked man, (who, however, does not avow himself to be such,) should apply to the Church in Athens for membership, and should inform that Church that he had not " avowedly " submitted to be baptized by one who he thinks is unqualified, but affirms that he believes his bap-

172

BRIEF SUMMARY.

tism to be valid--would the Church in Athens receive him without baptism ? (!!) The absurdi ties of this position are too numerous to be even numbered.
I am prepared to conclude that Professor Mell's analysis does not help his cause in the slightest. I will close this review by giving a summary of the important points discussed, so that the reader may have a condensed view of the discussion.
I. The basis of Corrective Church Discipline is radically wrong, being made to rest, as it does, upon an erroneous classification of offenses.
1. Professor Mell's definition of the sin in Matt, xviii: 15-, is intensely wrong, since he makes it an offense which does not violate morality or religion. His interpretation of this part of the sacred word contains the seeds of universal skepticism, since, if Matt, xviii: 15 does not imply a violation of God's law--hence of religion or morality--we have no evidence that the Bible takes any note of sin. If it takes no note of sin, it is a work of supererogation, and does not even deserve the respect of immortal beings.
2. His definition of "public offcp.ses," is, in reality, no definition at all; since a " private"

BRIEF SUMMARY.

173

ofiense violates " religion or morality " as well as a " public " oflense. Moreover, the latter part of the definition, " or against the Church in its or ganized capacity," is wrong.
1st. Philosophically, it incorporates into the defi nition what may or may not be an example under the definition.
2d. Logically, it assumes the thing to be proved. The error is called "petitio principii,"--"a beg ging of the question"
3d. Theologically, being based as it is upon the absurd Romish dogma of Church infaUibHty.
3. His " mixed offenses " are great absurdities? since the same act can not, in a moral point of view, be indifferent and bad at the same time.
These classes of offenses are made the basis of the treatise, and since the basis is rotten, the whole fabric must fall.
II. The second generic error in the treatise congists in the great absurdity of prescribing serious treatment for "private offenses" etc., etc.
1. It is the hight of idleness, not to say of folly, to prescribe any treatment for an offense which does not violate any religion.
15*

174

BRIEF SUMMARY.

2. Professor Mell destroys his own position by calling the act (a " private offense ") a "fault"-- speaks of " reclaiming " the offender--and espe cially when he affirms that "when your brother trespasses (sins) against you, he trespasses (sins) against God also." As if there could be any "fault" which does not violate religion! or any "reclaiming" of an offender, when the offender has done nothing that violates religion or moral ity !! or as if there could be a sin against God which 13 not a sin against religion!!!
3. He holds that " private offenses" may be treated as "public" ones. This position effectu ally nullifies, so far as it is followed, the com mands of Christ in Matt, xviii. The objection to this view is as strong as the obligations to obey Christ. I can conceive of none stronger.
4. His conclusion forces upon him to adopt the following monstrous doctrine, " That a charge ir regularly and wickedly preferred against a member, may bs entertained by the Church--which,, indeed, is about this, that the Church ha a right to perpe trate wickedness I
5. Professor Mell holds that the decision of a Church, right or wrong, is final. That a member

BRIEF SUMMARY.

175

wickedly excluded, ought to be restored to no Church but the one excluding him!
ILL The third general error relates to Church independence. This error contains several partic ulars.
1. He has an incorrect notion relative to the universal law of receiving members into the Church. An individual personally worthy of membership, should not, according to his view, be received by any Church, if he has been excluded from another Church, however wickedly. This cir cumscribes the right of a Church to receive mem bers--narrows" the scope of Church independence.
2. ffe has incorrect ideas about the laws of ex cluding members. He extends the law of Christ by giving to the Church the right to exclude worthy members, provided they have been " irreg ularly and wickedly" accused. I say "the right," because, if the Church has no right to try a mem ber thus accused, the member is under no obliga tion to be tried, nor are other Churches under obligation to respect the wicked expulsion; but Professor Mell says that the member thus accused ought to submit to trial, and that other Churches are under obligation to respect his expulsion, (if

176

BRIEF SUMMABT.

he ia expelled.) It follows, therefore, if Profess or Mell is correct in this, that a Church has the right to try and expel a member "irregularly"' and " wickedly " accused.
3. Professor Mell contends that it is a violation of Church independence for one Church to receive the excluded of another. "We have clearly seen that this can not he.
4. He holds, by necessary inference, that it is not an infringement of a Church's independence, when she is denied the privilege of receiving all whom she think worthy and desire to receive to her fel lowship.

These are the prominent points of difference between Professor Mell and myself. If I have not reviewed his positions fairly, it has not been because I have not desired to do so. Further more, if any " harsh language " has been used, it has been directed at the principles, and not at the author of Corrective Church Discipline.

APPENDIX.
To WKITB a treatise on Church Discipline was least of my expectation, until since my review of Professor MelTs series was completed. What I originally undertook to do was to expose what appeared to me to be hurtful fallacies in Professor Mell's treatise. But since some are disposed to complain that I have attempted "to destroy" and have made no effort "to built up," I have thought it not amiss to give, in a brief way, what seems to me to be the teachings of the New Test ament on this all-important subject. In doing this, I shall have to repeat some things already written in my review. This I shall do with as little incumbrance as possible, giving only a brief outline of the most important reasons for my positions. - One of the radical errors in Professor Mell'a treatise consists, as the reader will remem-
(170)

180

APPENDIX.

ber, in his improper classification of offenses. The effect of"his definition of "private offenses " is to render null and void Matt, xviii: 15--17. Any treatise which dispenses with the Divine record must, to that extent, be seriously objectionable. But to the work before me.
OFFEXSES may be divided into two general classes. This division is by no means arbitrary, but is clearly marked in the volume of Inspiration. From a careful study of this volume, we find that there are offenses (sins) spoken of, which are connected directly with two or more members of a Church, and that otliers are not directly personal to any member, but affect the came of religion generally, and concern one member of a Church as much as another.
While this classification exhausts the subject, it must be remembered that the particular nature of these offenses is not otherwise defined. Both imply a violation of some one or more of the commands or injunctions. The moral quality of the act is not specified.
We have one class referred to in Matt, xviii: 15. The passage reads thus: " Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee," etc. The

PERSONAL OFFEXSES.

181

Greek, literally translated, would appear thus: " And if the (thy) brother sin against thee." This translation is very important to a clear un derstanding of the text. In common language, we ordinarily attach a much less offensive mean ing to " trespass " than to " SIM." Hence, it is natural that those who can not read the Greek, should conclude that Matt, xviii: 15 does not refer to any bnt very slight offenses; while, in reality, it may refer to crimes of almost any grade of wickedness.
Observe the reading of the text once more: " And if thy brother sin against thee." May not " thy brother sin against thee" by refusing to love you? "Love one another," says Christ. May he not " sin against thee " by speaking evil of thee, by treating thee unkindly, by abusing thee, by cheating thee, by beating thee, by steal ing from thee, or by attempting to murder thee ? It -would be a difficult task, indeed, to mention all the ways in which one member may sin against another. Note, also, that thy brother may sinagainst you privately, so that none but your brother and yourself may know it; or he may sin against thee in the presence of any number-
10

182

APPENDIX.

"What tenn, now, should be used to designate this class of offenses or sins ? We certainly ought to use " private." Because the offense may be pub lic--a thousand may witness it. Then, too, the text itself seems to suggest the term to be used. " And if thy brother sin against thee." Here the sin is committed against "thee" personally; hence, personal is the term appropriate. A personal offense, then, is an offense committed by one member against another.
The manner of treating such offenses is pre scribed definitely by the Savior himself in the same connection--verses 15-17, Matt, xviii. This we will notice in its proper place.
An example of the second class of offenses is to be found in 1 Cor. v: 1-7. The sin here spoken of is that of incest. "We must not conclude, how ever, that this is the only sin belonging to this class. Unsoundness in "the faith," profanity, drunkenness, debauchery, and a large number of such offenses--indeed, any act which violates the teachings of Christ, and brings reproach upon Christianity; any act or practice which palpably violates the spirit of religion--belongs to this class of offenses, provided tlie act itself is not per-

GENERAL OFFENSES.

183

zonal to some member. If it is personal to any member, it belongs to the preceding class, "per sonal offenses." We can now see the precise dif ference between the two classes, viz.: The former is a sin committed against a member, while the latter is a sin committed, not against any particular mem ber, but against the whole Church, and is such as to affect the cause of religion generally.
An offense of the second class, therefore, is a sin committed, not against any particular member, but against the cause of religion in general, and affects especially the Church in which it is committed. The incestuous member was a reproach to the Church of which he was a member, and to Christianity in general. What is the appropriate name for such offenses ? "Public," is the name usually applied; but this is objectionable,
1st. Because some personal offenses are " pnblic."
2d. Because some offenses of the second class may be comparatively " private."
The term "public," therefore, does not dis tinguish one class from the other. The term general, as. opposed to particular, individual, or personal, is the most appropriate of any I can

184

APPENDIX.

call to mind. If any one will suggest a better, it will be gladly received. The terms personal and general, at once suggest to which class any particular sin belongs; and these are the terms that we need.
Before proceeding to notice the treatment for offenses, it is proper to look a little further into personal offenses. The New Testament abounds in exhortations to the effect that Christians should be obedient to the " powers that be;" that mag istrates are to be respected, and everywhere in culcates the idea that Christians should be good citizens. Indeed, there can be no antagonism be tween the Church of Christ and a virtuous gov ernment administered by just and virtuous laws. Principles of right and justice, wherever or by whomsoever observed, can never clash. This being the case, some personal offenses may be such as to violate the just laws of one's country, in such a manner as to injuriously affect CORRECT public morals. Such offenses are not merely personal, but have also a general element, that injuriously affect, when known, the cause of religion and cor rect public morals. "Most of such offenses can not be atoned for by any private reparation. In such

TWO CLASSES OF PERSONAL OFFEX8ES. 185
offenses, the offending brother can not, in the full est sense of the term, " hear" tkee. The clause, " If he shall hear thee," signifies, as I suppose, not only a disposition to listen to the offended brother's complaint, but an acknowledgment of the wrong done, and full restoration and satisfaction rendered. But personal offenses may arise, as before stated, for which satisfaction can not be rendered, though the offended might be induced to forgive the wrong. This he may do so far as the act affects him, but he can not pardon for the State.
Hence, personal offenses may be divided into two classes:
1. Those that violate some principle of the Bible, but are such as may be atoned for by repentance, etc.; and,
2. Those that violate some principle of the Bible, and some just law* of the land, in such a manner as to affect correct public morals.
* Such offenses are restricted to the violation of just lams, be cause there may be unjust laws--such, for instance, as regulate the forms of religious worship, by prescribing when, where, and haw citizens are to worship. All such laws are unjust, because they interfere with individual liberty of conscience, and thus come in between individual dutytmd. God. Such laws should never be respected, though the Christian's life should have to pay tha
J6*

186

APPEJTDIX.

It should be further remembered, that the first class of personal offenses is not subject to the disci pline of the Church, until the law for reconciling such offenses has been ineffectually applied. Matt, xviii, strictly speaking, is not a law of CHURCH dis cipline, but tJte law in accordance with which indi vidual members should adjust their personal difficul ties. Read the 15th, 16th, and 17th verses, and see if this is not strictly so: " Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass (sin) against thee, go and tell him 7iis fault (shi) between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three wit nesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." No one can fail to see that this is a command directed to each member who has been offended by his "brother," and is to become the law to him for settling personal wrongs. No command or law is here given to the Church. Hence, this portion of

forfeit. Obedience to Jaws that are just, and laws indifferent, ij all that can be expected of Christians.

HOW TO SETTLE PERSONAL OFFENSES. 187
Scripture contains no law of Church discipline, as before said. The personal difficulty concerns the Church only after the directions of the Savior, to the offended members, have been followed ineffect ually. But after this has been done, it is not even intimated how the Church should proceed with it as a matter of discipline. The record closes by say ing : '' Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican."
Accordingly, in the " treatment" of the first class of personal offenses, we must notice the law to be observed, not by the Church, but by the of fended member.
HOW THE OFFENDED SHOULD PROCEED IN THE SET TLEMENT OF SUCH DIFFICULTIES.
First step.--" Go and tell him (his sin) between thee and him alone." This command is so simple that the commonest mind can easily comprehend it. Do n't let others know anything about it, un less they know it already. Keep the whole matter a profound secret. Go tell your brother his sin, and do this in the spirit of brotherly kindness and Christian forbearance. But the text is sufficiently plain, and comment is wholly unnecessary.

188

. APPENDIX.

"If lie shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." The prevailing desire, on the part of the offended, is to " gain " his brother. " If he shall hear thee"--i. e., if he listens to you in the proper spirit, confesses his sins, shows signs of prop er penitence, and repairs the wrong--" thou hast gained thy brother." Thou' hast reclaimed him from his sin, and restored him to thy Christian affection and fellowship. And at this point the difficulty ends. The Church, as such, should not be informed of the existence of the offense; and if any members were cognizant of the offense, it will be all-sufficient for them to be informed that the difficulty has been amicably settled. By this means the Church is kept free from those personal broils which too often sever it into factions, and bring shame upon the cause of Christ.
" But if he will not hear thee," then comes-- The second step.--" Take with thee one or two more" The " one or two" should not be parti sans, but those who are competent to look into the merits of the case fairly and dispassionately; who will be most likely to cause the erring mem ber to see his wrong and make reparation. The design of the offended, in taking the "one'or

HOW TO SETTLE PERSONAL OFFEXSES. 189
two," should be to gain his brother; and the de sign of the "one or two" should be the same. This is the primary design, the earnest prayer, on the part of the offended in taking " one or two more " with himself, that they may reason the case further with him, and establish his wrong in his own mind. The secondary design may be that, in case "he will not hear them," he may have the benefit of their testimony, " that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be estab lished."
But should he hear the " one or two," the dif ficulty is ended, the offending member is saved, and the two members, formerly at variance, are now restored to brotherly love. The difficulty, thus settled, should be kept from the knowledge of the Church as such.
"And if he shall neglect to hear them," (the " one or fwo,")--
Third step--" Tell it to the Church;" tell it yourself. Do n't employ some one else to do it for you; tell it yourself. Relate the whole affair to the Church, as a Church, and not privately, as individuals.

190

APPENDIX.

Should he "hear the Church," the offending is still saved. His hearing the Church would, of course, consist in his confessing his wrong done to his brother, in rendering full satisfaction for that wrong, and, in doing this, he would certainly feel the necessity of rendering a general apology to his " one or two " brethren and to the Church, for his persistence in his sin and the trouble he had caused the Church.
Not until you " tell it to the Church " does it become a matter to be considered by the Church; indeed, the Church, as such, is supposed to be wholly ignorant of it until now.
" But if he neglect to hear the Church "--i. e.y when the Church can not prevail on him to see and repair his wrong, tlien, as a consequence of all these unsuccessful efforts to "gain" your brother-- " Let him be unto THEE as a heathen man and a publican." Do n't have "any further familiar or Christian intercourse with him. This is said, perhaps, in allusion to the Jevrish custom of hav ing little to do with the heathen and publicans. It was regarded by some as a disgrace for Christ to eat with publicans and sinners.

HOW TO SETTLE PERSONAL OFFEXSES. 191
But if, at any time, you should see in him a disposition to relax his stubbornness, you should rejoice at the prospect of yet reclaiming him.
The record stops at this point without telling the Church, in this connection, what to do. But as the Church is vested with authority to disci pline offenders, it is clearly implied that she must exclude the offending, unless he repairs the wrong.
The clause, " Whatever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven," refers, I suppose, to the exclusion of such offenders as the one just described. But so long as there is a reasonable hope of saving the member, he ought to be re tained.
The course for the Church to pursue, in such case, is not materially different from that to be pursued in other cases of discipline. When such cases are reported to the Church, she should al ways inquire, whether the offended has obeyed the directions of Christ. If he has obeyed, then the difficulty is thrown into the hands of the Church for settlement; but if he has not obeyed Christ's commands, he should be required to do so, and the case should not be entertained. If the of fended should refuse to obey the Divine command,

192

APPENDIX.

he himself becomes a violator, subjects himself to the discipline of the Church, and, if he persists, to exclusion.
A charge, thus irregularly preferred, should never be entertained by the Church, because, in doing so, the Church would indorse the violation, or, at least, would give her sanction to the act, and encourage its violation by others.

COURSE TO BE PURSUED IN. THE SECOND CLASS OF PERSONAL OFFENSES.
While offenses of this class are comparatively few, they may be very diversified and complicated.
The following considerations seem to me to dictate, in most cases, the course to be pursued by the offended:
1. The nature of the offense. 2. The character of the offender. And, 3. Tlie circumstances of proof. That these three considerations should mainly dictate the course to be pursued by the offended, can he made readily to appear, 1. The nature of the offense. Let us suppose that your brother A- goes into your orchard, and takes your fruit without per

SECOND CLASS OP PERSONAL DEFENSES. 193
mission. This may be called stealing. Does it not violate the law of God, which says, "Thou shalt not steal ?" as also the law of our land, which punishes theft by imprisonment, fine, or, in some instances, with death?
Suppose, again, that your brother B. comes, breaks into your house, and steals all your money. Here, again, the law of God and the law of the land are both violated. But do you not regard these two offenses in a very different light? Is not the latter a much more aggravated crime than the former? Take any extreme cases of acknowledged theft, and you can not fail to see that the nature of the offense should have some thing to do in determining what should be done. Or take any other extreme cases which violate the law of God and the law of the land, and you will see the same thing.
2. The character of the offender should have some influence in determining what the offender should do.
Let us suppose that one character has always sustained a good reputation, and that his sin was committed under circumstances calculated to pal liate, in some degree, his crime. We have strong
17

194

APPENDIX.

reasons for believing that he never committed such a crime before, and believe that, if proper steps should be taken, he might never do so any more.
On the other hand, let us suppose tiiat another member, who commits a much worse crime of the same general class, has long been suspected of dis honesty and meanness in general, but has never before been detected. You have every circumstan tial proof that he is a confirmed scoundrel. Add to all this, the circumstances that the former is a youth of tender years, while the latter is now growing gray with age; and that the former committed his ci'ime through excitement, but the latter after long deliberation: now decide whether the character of ilie offender has not an important bearing in prescribing the line of duty.
3. The circumstances of proof, have, perhaps, a still greater influence.
Where no one witnessed the ofFense but the offended, what could he prove, should he try? But where other competent witnesses saw it, the guilt of the offender could be established, and the criminal could be brought to justice.
When such an offense has been committed, the question arises, What ought the offended to do $

SECOND CLASS OF PERSONAL OFFEXSE3. 195
I. When no one witnessed the offense but the offending and the offended, shall he go and tell his brother his. sin? In some cases he should; in others, I think, he should not. Where he has reason to believe that the guilty would confess his wrong, and that he might be benefited by his visit, it would be well for him to go and tell him, plead with, and admonish Mm. Of course, much would depend, in this case, upon the character of the offender. But if you are sure that he would not confess his wrong, but would deny it and charge you with slander, it would be, perhaps, better to say nothing to him of the offense. You could not prove it, if you charge it upon him, and since evil rather than good would be effected by telling him his wrong, it would be better for you to wait until some circumstance may disclose his guilt.
Sut if you should think best to go and tell him his sin, and he should penitently confess it, knowing that you could not prove it, and should render all the satisfaction in Ids power, ought you to disclose the matter ?
1. Remember that you can not prove his guilt before a jury.

196

APPENDIX.

2. That the public, not knowing anything of his guilt, can not be seriously injured by it. And,
3. That the offended has made all the restitution in. his power, and, by a voluntary confession of his guilt, has demonstrated deep penitence.
Since, by the supposition, the public know noth ing of the offense, yon ought to act with reference to the good of the offender. You should, I think, keep it a profound secret. In doing this, you do not violate either the spirit or the letter of the law, either of God or of man. If you are the only one offended, and your brother convinces you of his penitence, and says, "I repent," you should forgive him. The highest end of human law, in its most perfect state, looks to the highest good of each individual subject of the law. Now, the question arises, Is the offending brother more likely to be benefited by keeping his crime from the public or by disclosing it ? There can be but one opinion on this subject, I think, and that is, that the crime should be kept secret. This may be given as a gen eral rule.
H. But where others witnessed the crime besides tJie offended, what should be done ?
He may, if circumstances will allow it, go and

SECOND CLASS OP PERSONAL OFFEXSES. 197
tell him his sin, and strive to make as good an impression on his mind as possible. " But sup pose the act is such as can not be repaired, can the matter be settled privately ?" Of course not. Though he may satisfy the offended, yet the per sonally offended can not receive satisfaction for others who were offended by the same act, i. e., by seeing a just law of the country violated. In this case, the public good requires that the crim inal should be punished. The general rule, in cases where the offense violates the law of God and a just law of the land, and witnesses can oe pro duced to establish the guilt, the crime should at once be disclosed, and the Church should exclude such members with as little delay as practicable.
There may be some exceptions, though very rare, to this rule. Where the offense is not of the worst character, the offender one who would very probably be reclaimed, and the witnesses few, the latter might, viewing all the circum stances, and especially looking to the good of the offending, agree among themselves never to speak of the matter. In this case, public morals would not be affected by secreting the offense. A few such cases have been reported to the writer; but
17*

198

APPENDIX.

such cases are very few. When any such case is known to the Church, she should, without excep tion, exclude the offender. It is better for one guilty person, however hopeful his prospects of recovery, to suffer the penalty of the law, than that the Church should be branded with the charge of concealing crime.
Thus have been considered some of the more difficult cases of such personal offenses, and the general principles for settling them.

TREATMENT OP GENERAL OFFENSES.
GENERAL OFFENSES, as we have already seen, are such sins as are not committed against an indi vidual member, but affect the whole Church and the cause of Christ generally. We have also seen that some personal offenses, viz.: such as publicly violate some just law of the land, are offenses which subject the offender to the discipline of the Church. These and general offenses come under the notice of the Church directly. Personal offenses, when the law of Christ in Matt, xviii has been complied

TREATMENT OF GENERAL OFFEXSES. 199
with to no effect, subject the offender to the disci pline of the Church. Church discipline now prop erly comes in.
The question now arises, Is there any uniform rule prescribing the precise manner in which the Church is to proceed in every case of discipline ?
I answer, No. Some cases require more time than others. The Church should cut off some of fenders at her first meeting, and with but little ceremony; with others she should labor for a longer time. There are two considerations which should mainly decide the manner in which the Church should proceed.
1. The nature of the offense. And 2. The character of the offender. 1. The nature of the offense. That the nature of the offense has much to do in deciding the course to be pursued by the Church, every one can readily see. Let us suppose that one member has, in the pres ence of a large number of his brethren, killed a fellow-citizen without any just provocation ; sup pose the fact to be weU-known by the Church and community. Suppose, again, that another member, when much provoked by a wicked and lawless

200

APPENDIX.

man, used improper language, and manifested an improper spirit. Is it not apparent that the Church should pursue a different course with these offenders? Again, suppose that one mem ber has publicly declared that "believer's bap tism " (immersion) is no better than " infant sprinkling;" that the Church of Christ is no better than the Church of any other man, has " denied the faith " generally; on the other hand, here is a member who has much of this world's goods, but will not contribute anything to the cause of Christ; to support the Gospel, to " relieve the necessities " of the poor saints, etc. Should the Church pursue the same course in both these cases? Should she not exclude the former at her earliest convenience, and labor to reclaim the latter?
2. The character of the offender should have some iiiftuence, in some cases, in deciding the course to be pursued. If the offender has rarely exhibited any of the spirit of Christ in his life; has con formed, in general, to the spirit of the world; has committed various other offenses; the Church should deal with him more promptly--i. e., should not labor so long to reclaim him--than with one

TREATMENT OF GENERAL OFFEXSES. 201
who has been a uniform and consistent Christian, whose light has been conspicuous to the view of all, but who, in peculiar circumstances, has committed one offense similar to that of the former.
Another consideration to be taken into the ac count, and which, perhaps, should have some in fluence in determining the action of the Church, is the circumstances under which the offense was committed.
A. willful, deliberate offense is, certainly, of a much worse "moral hue" than a hasty, unpremed itated and provoked offense.
I repeat: There is no uniform rule laid down in the New Testament, for the treatment of all offenses; but the general rule "which, it seems to me, should be pursued, is this :
The Church should look to the nature of the of fense, the character of the offender, and in some cases, the circumstances under which the offense was committed; and then pursue that course which, in her judgment, will contribute most to the glory of the cause of Christ, and the good of the offender.
It will be perceived that this rule supposes the Church to have some intelligence, and that she is

202

APPENDIX.

to use all the lights afforded, in order that she may so dispose of offenders as to promote the glory of the Savior, and the good of his erring subjects.
Are there any specific rules for specific offenses? " If a member has committed an offense for which any acknowledgment could not atone, should he be summoned before the Church ?"
Before answering the question, it is necessary for us to inquire, What kind of an offense is that for which no acknowledgment can atone? It is an offense whicJi publicly violates a just law of the land. "When such an offense is committed, one of two things happens. 1. Either the offender elopes, or, 2. He is seized by some civil officer. In the former, it would be impossible to summon him to appear before the Church; in the latter, if he were confined in prison, he could not well appear before the Church. But, as a rule to be observed with GREAT CAUTION, the following seems to me to be the proper one in such cases.
When the offense is such, and is well-known by the CJiurcJi to be such, as can not be atoned for by repentance on the part of the offender, the Church should exclude Mm at once without his presence.

TREATMENT OF GENERAL OFFEXSES. 203
The only exception to this rule is where the offender can appear before the Church, if he will. In this case, though the Church might not be able, as a Church, to forgive the ofiense, she might give the offender some valuable instruction, and thus promote his spiritual good.
The above rule is founded on the principles: 1. That the CJiurch must act for the glory of the Redeemer's cause; and, 2. That she must have in view the highest good of the offender. Where the offense is such as can not be repaired by peni tence, the individual must be excluded; and where there is no reasonable prospect of benefiting the offender, his presence before the Church is not needed. Besides, if he is at liberty to attend the Church, and is in a state of mind favorable to the reception of good impressions, he 'will be very likely to attend without any summons.
I remark again, that great caution should be exercised in the practice of the above rule. The Church, according to the supposition, is supposed to know that the offense has been perpetrated. She must not take merely circumstantial evidence, or indefinite rumor; but there must be no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the member.

204

APPENDIX.

HOW TO PROCEED IS CASE THE OFFENSE MAY BE ATONED FOR BY PENITENCE AND CONFESSION.
Here, again, reference must be had to the general rule previously given. The nature of the offense, and the character of the offender should not he overlooked. The general rule is this :
The offender should be cited to attend and an swer to the charge.
Sow should the summons be served ? The least objectionable way is, for the Church to appoint a committee of faithful brethren to visit the offender, tell him what lias been laid to his charge, ascertain, as nearly as possible, his state of mind, and cite him, by authority of the Church to appear before her. Should he appear, of course, he will have an opportunity for showing the fallacy of the charge, if it be false; or of stating to the Church his feelings, if the charge be true. Should he establish the falsity of the charge, the Church must acquit him; should he "plead guilty," and render full satisfaction* by the exhi-
* It may, in some cases, be impossible for the offender to " render full satisfaction " to the Church; ns where he has been

OP GEXERAL OFFEXSES.

205

bition of true penitence, etc., he should be forgiven and retained in the Church.
But in case he should own the charge, but con fess his inability to see its criminality, the Church, looking to the nature of the charge and the char acter of the accused, might, with propriety, spend some time in laboring to convince him of his er ror. If all her efforts to convince him are fruit less, she should, if the offense is radical*--i. e., such as to sever Church fellowship--exclude him.

guilty of repeated drunkenness or profanity, or has persisted in any course of conduct which brings reproach upon the Church. Where the proof against a member who has been guilty of such repeated immorality is perfectly satisfactory to the Church, th offender need not be dignified with a summons to attend Church. The Church should not suffer by any unnecessary lapse of time.
* At this point the writer's mind is directed to the circumstance that there is a great diversity in the standards of discipline, as erected by different Churches. For instance, one Church will not allow her members to attend circuses, theaters, tails, sell
spirituous liquors, etc., while another tolerates all these. Again, some think that individual members may be permitted to commune with other denominations, and not thereby rightfully subject themselves to the discipline of their Churches; while others think that all such, if they persist in the practice, should be excluded. Some few, moreover, think that "pulpit commun ion " (between Baptists and others) is quite as offensive as com munion at the Lord's table, and that, if one affects the vital
18

206

APPENDIX.

Thus have I hinted at some of the general principles which, as it seems to me, should govern a Church, in the exercise of discipline. The writer may have erred in some points; if so, will some one be so kind as to point out the error ?

elements of Church fellowship, the other does too. Further more, somo Churches, in their " abstract of faith," hold the doctrine of " eternal and unconditional election;" while others not only do not have such crccd-i, but do not believe the doctrine itself. Some think that the greatest latitude should be allowed each member in his interpretations of the doctrines, precepts, and principles of the Gospel; while others are much less " lib eral " in their views. JiTow, the question arises, What has given rise to so many different standards ? But the question of great est importance is, Where must the true standard be erected? What, " infaith and practice," are thosepoints vital to Churchfel lowship t What OUGHT the Church of God to reguire of her mem bers t and where OUGHT her requirements to stop f
Should the Church take note of all the ofienses enumerated in the New Testament, and make them subject-matter of discipline, perhaps not more than one in ten of those who belong to tha Baptist Church would be retained in her fellowship. And if, on the other hand, somo ofienses should be " winked at," who will tell us where to stop "winking" and commence the work of punishment?
Here is a subject profound enough for the profoundest, and one, too, upon which much might be said to profit. The writer has not time at present, nor does he boast of the ability to solve these questions. Who will do it? The opinion of the writer is, that a careful stady of the New Testament would throw mora

OTHER DIPOBTAST QUESTIONS.

207

There is one remark which, though it has noth ing to do directly with Church discipline, deserves to be made. It is this: "When any member has committed a general ofiense, it is the privilege of any other member of the Church to go and see the offender privately, and labor with him to the best possible advantage. Tell him his grievance in the spirit of Christ, and often he may be the means of reclaiming him " from the error of his way." Nor would this remark be out of place in reference to some personal offenses.
There is a number of questions very closely connected with the one we have been considering, which, in a treatise on Church discipline, ought not to be omitted. These involve--

light on this subject than anything else. What the Sew Testa ment does not, in spirit, condemn, can never be made--proper ly, I mean--a subject of discipline by the Church. One other thing would, perhaps, drive away much mist from the mind of the Chnrch, viz.: the abolition of all creeds except the Sem Testa ment. The appeal should be made directly to the will of the only Lawgiver, in every case of discipline. Pastors and mem bers should be so familiar with the Divine code, that, when a case is presented, they may known-tether it is such as is recog nized in that code or not; and then they vcould not be likely to be so much confused, or commit such blunders as are sometimes tommitted.

208

APPENDIX.

1. The right or duty of the Church to exercise discipline. Each Church has the right to exer cise discipline. This right is conceded to her, not directly, as it seems to me, by Christ, but by his apostles. Matt, xviii is not, as already stated, addressed to the Church, but to the members that compose it, and it is taught only by implication, that, in this connection, the Church is to exercise discipline. But numerous passages, such as 1 Cor. v: 1-7, the instructions to the seven Churches in Asia, show that it was, and is the will of Christ, that his Church should exercise this right. But since Christ has intrusted discipline to the Church,it becomes her duty to exercise it. Nor is this duty to be omitted. Read the objections urged against and threats made to the seven Churches. When a Church knows that one of her members is guilty of any offense which disgraces the cause of Christ, she becomes "guilty of, and indorses the sin, unless she takes proper steps to bring the of fender to see his wrong and render satisfaction, or puts him away from her.
2. The responsibility of each member in the exer cise of Church discipline.
The question here arises, Have female members

WOMEST NOT TO VOTE d CHURCH. 209
and irresponsible minors the right to vote ? The former question has been discussed at different times, and to some length. Of the latter, com paratively little has been said. In regard to the former question, plausible arguments may be ad duced on both sides.
It may be urged-- 1. That if they have not the right to vote, they are not responsible for the purity of the Church; that as they have no voice against crime, they can not be blamed for the existence of crime in the Church. 2. That as women have no right to vote, a num ber of believing women, however many or pious, could not, of themselves, constitute a Church; for each Church must have the right to exercise dis cipline, and, by the supposition, woman can not exercise it. 3. That the withholding from women the right to vote, on the plea of their incompctency, de stroys the great principle of equality, of which Baptists so much boast, and tends directly to Presbyterianism. On the other hand, it may be contended: 1. That it ISis*, as a general lav), repugnant to

210

APPEXDIS.

woman's feelings to vote in the Church; that the circumstance that she must often be urged before she, as a general rule, will vote, and that many of them can not be induced to vote even then, proves that they ought not to vote.
2. That women, as a general rule, are constitu tionally unfit to vote; that being more easily led away by their feelings, prejudices for, or against, they would not be likely, as a general thing, to cast their votes intelligently; in other words, that they would vote as others would dictate.
3. That, owing to the above defect, the Church would be much more likely to commit blunders, than it would, if none but men should vote. Hence that the purity of the cause of Christ is better preserved, when they are not allowed a vote.
4. That it subjects man to the government of woman, the opposite of what was designed by their Maker; that where the Church has a major ity of women as members, they could rule every thing at pleasure, and man, who is the head of the woman, would be subjected to her sway.
5. That if woman is competent to vote in " Church," she is none the less competent to

\VOMES XOT TO VOTE IN CHURCH.

211

vote in " State," and that if her right to vote should be established in the Church, efforts should be made to establish her right to vote in " State:" hence, a change in the Constitution of the United States ought to be made, in order to secure her this right. And that as every intelligent voter is eligible to any office in the government, she should have the liberty of filling any office to which she may be elected!
6. That since man is, by nature, every way better qualified to vote, and could not have any motive presented for voting so as to injure " the weaker vessel," even her own good requires that she should not vote.
Without stopping, at present, to inquire into the merits of these arguments, let us at this point in quire : What does the Bible teach ? All arguments amount to merely nothing, when our Lawgiver and King speaks.
What says the word ? " Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman, to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."--1 Tim. ii: 11, 12. " Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands." "For after this manner in the old

. 212

APPENDIX.

time the holy women also, who trusted ID God1, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands."--1 Pet. iii: 1, 5, Again, Epb. v: 22, 24 : " Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the hus band is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church, and1 he is the Savior of the body. Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own hus bands in everything." Once more : " Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.* And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."-- 1 Cor. xiv: 34, 35.
These passages among other things teach: 1. That women are subject to men; which could not be the case, if women may rule and govern men by voting in the churches. 2. That women ought not to speak in the church es. If they ought not to speak in the churches-,

* Head the references to the law, Gen. iii: 16; also Numbers xxx-. 3-15.

WOMEN NOT TO VOTE IX CHURCH. 213
they certainly ought not to vote by speaking. As a vote, by rising or by raising the hand, is virtu ally and only another way of speaking--speaking, too, with the most potent voice icith which it is pos sible for any one to speak--their voting, in any way, must violate the spirit of the text. Besides, were woman entitled to vote, she must be per mitted to speak in the church, in order to gain (he necessary information to enable her to vote in telligently ; in other words, she must have the right, if she choose, to enter the arena of discussion, and contend on an equality with man; all which is contrary to her nature and sphere. Moreover, if women be entitled to vote, there could be no ne cessity for them to learn of their husbands at home, as Paul directs. Once more : It was always, and is now the custom of the Jews, as also of'the Greeks, that women should take no part in gov ernmental affairs. Now, as this was the custom of the Jews in all their religious meetings at the time Christ's Church was established, we would, even if Inspiration said .nothing against it, natu rally expect some Divine teaching to abrogate this long-established custom.
As to the arguments, based upon those passages

214

APPENDIX.

of Scripture which represent the Church, or th whole Church as acting, I have this to say:
1. It is a figure of speech so commonly used as to create no obscurity. The whole is used for the part, i. e., the voting part of the Church voted, and all concurred, in feeling, writh the vote.
2. The same form of expression is common among us now. I know of but few Churches where it is customary for any considerable num ber of females to vote, perhaps in the majority of our Churches they do not vote at all; yet we say "The Church did this^orthat^' "The Church unan imously called Brother A. to the pastorate," etc. Thus the difficulty at once vanishes. History, so far as I have examined it, goes to prove that theChurches have not, to any great extent, departed from the teachings of Paul. In all this, "wo man's rights" are not invaded; for it never was her right to vote. Of course, her rights are not infringed upon, when she moves within her own legitimate sphere.
As to the " tendency " of this prohibition " to Presbyterianism" it may be replied: Whatever the " tendency " may be, it never leads to this re sult.

WOMES SOT TO VOTE ES CHURCH.

215

As to the objection, that, on this ground, " wo men could not, of themselves, be constituted into a Church," it is enough to say in reply, that where there are women there are men, as a gen eral thing; also, that where there are not as many as " two or three" converted men in a community, it is evidence that the (time has not yet come to establish a Church in that commu nity, and that the practical observance of the Divine order can never retard the cause of truth.
That " women are not responsible," if not al lowed to vote, "for the purity of the Church," must be taken in a very limited sense. " The purity of a Church" is not preserved alone ly voting. A pious walk and godly conversation-- the letting of their lights shine, (which must be the duty of every female member,) have as great an influence, perhaps, as anything else in preserv ing the " purity of the Church." But the results of voting or of refusing to i'ote, should not be at tributed to women, unless they, in their prii'ate (home) capacity, have withheld from the men such information as they alone may have had. While women may not vote in the Church, they may fur nish such information as will make it obligatory

216

APPENDIX.

on the men to vote. The influence of woman, in preserving the purity of the Church, is, therefore, by no means insignificant. It would be improper, in such a work as this, to discuss this subject ful ly; yet enough, it would seem, has been said to show that it is not woman's sphere to vote. But the word oJ^God settles this question beyond all reasonable doubt.
I. Ought irresponsible minors to be allowed a vote? The previous discussion excludes minor females from voting; the question, therefore, re spects minors of the male sex. The question, too, does not respect minors merely, but irresponsible minors. By an irresponsible minor is meant one who is not responsible in law for what he says or does. His father or mother must answer for what he does. Ought such to vote ? is the question. I can now call up no Scripture directly for or against this question; but, from the following considera tions, I must espouse the negative.
1. The age of such persons renders it almost cer tain that, in nearly every instance, they would vote just as their parents, or others who have the rule over them, or, in other cases, as others might suggest.
2. That they would vote, not because they un-

MINORS NOT TO VOTE IS CHCROH.

217

derstood the facts in the case, or perceived what justice required, but because their parents, or some one else, voted a certain way, and of course it ^could not be either natural or expected that they would vote differently. Now, the moral force of such a vote amounts to nothing--it is purely numerical. It amounts to about the same as if the Church should vote the horses of her members--they would help to swell the number, and that is all the others do.
Should it he said that " there are many men who do not think for themselves, and that they, too, ought not to vote," it may be replied:
1. That though there are some who will not think, yet if the capacity to think and decide what is right, is peculiar to any class, it is to those who have age--wisdom is to be looked for in age rather than in tender youth.
2. That while, so far as each adult male is con cerned, it is true that those who will not think suffi ciently to know what they ought to do, have no moral right to vote, yet the general rule, I suppose, is, that this class do think enough, in most cases, to act intelligently, and if they blunder it is an evil for which they are responsible to God. There must be
19

218

APPENDIX.

somebody to aet in the Church, and as it -would be impossible, without a continued revelation, to des ignate these characters by name, they are designated by class, viz.: male members whose age renders them responsible for what they say and do.
At this point I reaffirm that it is sinful for any adult male to vote in the Church, unless he has a sufficient reason for doing what he does. He who casts an important vote without sufficient examination into the merits of the question, acts unreasonably and sinfully. Nor is it enough that one should know how Deacon A or Dedcon B will vote; he must think for himself, or he sins if he votes. If one has not mind enough to grasp the merits of a question, he should decline voting; if he has suf ficient mind, he sins if he does not use it (in im portant matters, I mean) in ascertaining his duty. Let Baptists ponder this well.
II. Irresponsible minors ought not to vote, be cause it is in violation of all correct notions of gov ernment. That those who rule should be responsible individuals, is, in all free countries, a governmental axiom. No one should have the right to depose others, when he himself is not subject to law.
"But is not the 'minor' subject to the Church?"

MINORS NOT TO VOTE IN CHURCH. 219
Yes; but is it not also true that Churches may do things which violate even some just law of the land ? In this case, minors would not be amenable to that law. And should there be a majority of such minors in the Church, the Church might be driv en, by her rash youths, against the strong arm of the civil authorities, then who would come to res cue? The gray-headed fathers in the Church might protest, but all in vain! If minors are com petent to vote in " Church" why not in " State ?"
It was never designed that children should rule the Church any more than women. Let them spend their minor days (at least until their testi mony would be received in a court of justice*) in studying the laws of Christ; then when they become old enough, there will be reason in their ruling; but a minor incapacitated by age to think, and irresponsible for what he does, ought not to be allowed to vote in a Baptist Church.
The same may be said of servants, unless they form a separate congregation among themselves. Of this, I believe, there is no question in the South, and I will not, therefore, discuss it.
* This time varies, I believe, from fourteen to sixteen vears.

220

APPENDIX.

Wo aro now prepared to discuss tho original question, What is tha relation sustained by each member to the liisripliite of the Church?
1. If anv julult fomalo member knows that a *
member is living in palpable violation of tho laws of God--is performing anything calculated to dis grace tho cause--sho should report it to some male member. This is a general rule, subject to some modifications.
2. Irresponsible minors will rarely know of any wicked act or practice which will not bo known to some older members. Their testimony should never bo received, except as circumstantial testi mony. Such oflenses as they might observe, might bo mentioned to a parent, or some prudent elderly member.
3. Those who are entitled to vote, arc individu ally responsible for the general sins (some excep tions already noticed in some rare cases) which they allow to pass unnoticed. The high position of the offender, or the influence of the family to which he belongs, should never screen him from the discipline of the Church; and, it may be added, he who winks at his wickedness, is guilty of indors ing the crime. Each member should feel his own

EXTENT OP CHURCH JCRISUICTION. 221
responsibility in thin important matter, and net in view of his obligations to Christ, lie should never report a caso out of muliee, or with the view to injure the offender. Nor should he ever bo looking to see if ho can detect any ineonsistcncy, or wrong in others, that ho may present their cases to the Church; caeli one has enough to do to look into his own heart, and c'x:nnine his own actions; but ofFcnscs will force them.selves upon his observation. When this is the case, and ho sees the cause of Christ suffering, he should not remain silent.
III. Over what offenders may a Church exercise discipline ?
Over her own. She has no right to discipline any offenders, however vile they may be, unless they belong to her own membership. It may, and sometimes does happen, that one Church denies certain Church privileges to individual members of other Churches, where said members are known to have done things for which the former would exclude her own members. This is more likely to arise at the communion than at any other time. It is " customary " for a Church to invite the 1m9*embers of all other Churches, " of

222

APPENDIX.

like faith and order," " who know themselves to be in good standing in their respective Churches," to commune. But as different Churches have, in some respects, a different discipline, it is not at all astonishing that a member " who is in good standing in his own Church," might be regarded as worthy of exclusion by a sister Church. In such a ca'se, the Church should debar the un worthy member of her sister Church from her communion. The principle can not be denied as a correct one: that a Church should never admit, to Tier communion, a member of another Church, who is guilty of anything for which she would ex clude her own members." No Church can pre serve the purity of the ordinance without doing this. This, however, does not at all affect the standing of members in their own Churches, but is equivalent to saying that the Church that debars them from the communion on this plea, would discipline them if she had the right to do so. But each Church is independent of every other Church, and can not be disturbed in her own private mat ters. If one Church wishes to keep even a robber in her fellowship, no other Church can forcibly prevent it. A Church, then, has the right, nay,

EXTENT OP CHURCH JURISDICTION. 223
it is her duty, to exercise discipline over offender* within her own number.
" But," says one, " are women and minors sub ject to the discipline of the Church, seeing that they have no right to vote ? Is it not unreason able that one should be subject to law, when he has no voice in the execution of law ?" I an swer: They are subject to the discipline of the Church, and yet have no vote in the execution of that discipline. JSTor is this any more strange than another fact, complained of only by a fevr fanatics, that this is precisely what women are subject to in the government of the United States. They are subject to law, and yet have no voice either in making, or executing it. As to the minors of whom we speak, they are not subject to the law.
If it is " strange" that this should be so, that God has placed woman in this sphere--It is by no means the only " strange" thing. The world abounds in mysteries!
Woman, though she occupies this " strange" position, has, I suppose, rarely fared the worse for it. There could be nothing gained by doing her injustice either in " Church " or " State," but, on the contrary, much to lose. She will rarely

224

APPENDIX.

suffer any wrong in the Church of Christ, whHe she moves in the sphere which God has assigned her.
IV. From whom does a Church derive the right to exercise discipline ?
From Christ, the head of the Church, her only Lawgiver. No convention of members, preach ers, bishops, popes, or kings, has any right to de termine what discipline a Church shall adopt, or make any laws respecting discipline. To assume any such authority, is to set themselves up in the stead of Christ. The New Testament is the book of discipline.
V. With what design should a Church disci pline one of her members ?
With the design, if possible, to save her erring members. When a member does anything, cal culated to disturb his standing in his Church, the Church should feel deeply sorrowful. As the whole body is pained when "one of the mem bers" is injured, so should the Church be grieved when one of her members suffers injury. It is no more unnatural for a man to rejoice be cause one of his limbs must be amputated, than it is for a Cfiureh to rejoice at the exclusion of one of her members.

THE DESIGN OP DISCIPLINE.

225

VI. Has a Church the right to discipline members contrary to ike law of Christ? This is the same thing as to ask, whether a Church has the right to sin. If Christ has given a law, or laws, in accordance with which Churches should exercise discipline, it is equally as sinful to disregard these laws as it is to disregard any other laws pertaining to the existence of his Church. If the laws for excluding may be violated with impunity, why may not the laws for receiving members be violated with as slight pun ishment ? Why may not a Church receive mem bers without any profession of faith ? Or without baptism? Why will not sprinkling, or pouring answer as well? Why not be as scrupulous to observe the laws of exclusion from the Church, as the laws of admitting members into the Church ? Is it because the former are less important than the latter ? Who will dare to assert this ? Who will bring into disrepute the authority of Jehovah!! Zeal for Christ's cause, and love for the membership will preserve his laws, and vindicate his glory.
A Church to be obedient to Christ, must strictly observe his laws; not the least impxffitaflFo-f which are his laws for excluding offenders. She can not expect the approbation of Christ, or of his loyal sub jects, unless she follows his laws in this particular.

226

APPENDIX.

VII. When a Church excludes a member in ac cordance with the law of Christ, how is the excluded to be reffarded by other Churches?
When a member has been justly excluded, he should be regarded by other Churches acquainted with the facts in the case* as an excluded man. The law of Christ, properly executed by one Church, deserves the sanction of all other Churches concerned in the matter. When Christ's law has been observed in the exclusion of a member, the act of exclusion deserves as much respect as the act which receives a member into a Church ac cording to Christ's law. As it would be sinful for one Church to disregard the immersion, by the proper authority, of a believer, so to disre gard a righteous act of exclusion would not be less sinful. An act of a Church, performed ac cording to the Scriptures, is valid, and should be so regarded by all who respect the authority of Christ.
VIII. If a Church should, contrary to the law of Christ, exclude a worthy member, how should the Church excluding him, and the excluded, be re garded ?
1. Hoio should the Church be regarded ? A correct answer to this can not be given with-

HOW TO REGARD A REBELLIOUS CHURCH. 227
out taking into the account all the important facts in the case. If the Church is a very ignorant one, and exhibits a desire to be governed by the law of Christ, her act should be regarded with much more leniency than if she is:
1st. Very intelligent. 2d. If she violates the spirit of the law--usurps authority for the purpose of destroying a member. 3d. If she violates the plain letter of the law. When a Church is merely ignorant of her duty, and desires to do it when known, it will be but a short time, in most cases, before she will rescind Jicr illegal action, and seek to be re stored to the affection and fellowship of her sister Churches. But in the latter case, there is much less hope. Her intelligence implies that she knows what the law of Christ is; and the course pursued implies that she has determined to disregard that law, that she may crush one of her members. Such a course clearly evinces the fact, that her hatred to one wliom she ought to love, though an erring brother, is so strong as to overbalance her love for, and re spect to, Christ's authority. Such a Church stands in the attitude of rebellion against Christ, and

228

APPENDIX.

ought to be so regarded by all other Churches acquainted with the fact. Should other Churches knowingly uphold her in her rebellion, they would become rebels themselves. When a Church thus rejects the authority of Christ, other Churches should have nothing to do with her, as a Church, until she rescinds her wicked acts, and again ac knowledges the authority of Christ. The argu ment offered above is equally conclusive here : As it would be sinful for Churches to respect that body which admits an applicant into the Church without a profession of faith, or without baptism, so it would be sinful in them to respect that act of a Church which excludes a worthy member con trary to the law of Christ.
2. How should a worthy man, improperly ex cluded, be regarded?
I answer: He should be regarded as a persecuted man, and not at all disgraced by the wicked act of exclusion. Does Christ regard such a man as disgraced? Surely not. Neither should those who love Christ's authority. Do justice and truth regard him as disgraced? No. Then neither should those who love justice and truth consider him disgraced.

HOW RESTORED.

229

IX. What relation does an excluded member sustain to the Church excluding him ?
Precisely the same that he sustained before he attached himself to this Church. Before he be came a member, he had no rights in the Church. When he became a member, the Church conferred upon him all the rights of membership in her body. On his exclusion, she takes away that which she had conferred--no more, no less. A Church can not possibly bestow that which she does not possess; she does not possess the right to bestow privileges in other Churches, but the right is limited to her own body. Therefore, when she excludes a member, she does not deprive him of rights out of her own body. Hence, exclusion from one Church is not exclusion from all other Churches. After exclusion, the Church excluding a member has just the same jurisdiction over the excluded that she has over any one else who is not a member; and this amounts to nothing at all.
X. Sow is one who has been justly excluded, to be restored, if he is restored at all ?
The answer to this question, also, depends, in some measure, upon circumstances.
20

230

APPENDIX.

1. If the excluded resides in the vicinity of the Church that excluded him, it would be better for him, and certainly less trouble to all concerned, to make the proper acknowledgments to the Church that excluded him, and make application to it for restoration. This is a general rule with few exceptions.
2. If he has left the vicinity of the Church which excluded him, and feels that he is willing to make amends for his wrong, and desires member ship in a Church of Christ, it would be well for him to inform the Church of which he was once a member, of his feelings, desires, etc. This Church can then either restore Mm to fellowship in her own body, or else she can inform him and the Church of which he wishes to become a member, that the unfavorable record against him has been blotted out, and commend him to the Church lo which he has made application for membership.
Little difficulty will be likely to arise in the res toration of applicants who have been justly exclud ed. At this point are introduced two articles entire, from the pen of Professor T. F. CUB.TIS. These articles will doubtless be read with profit by all interested on this subject:

RESTORATION OF THE EXCLUDED.

231

RESTORATION OF THE EXCLUDED.
NO. I.
THE Michigan Christian Herald has called attention to some three or four cases in -which it supposes Baptist Churches in the neighborhood of New York have deviated from their former usages, and received members who have been excluded by other Baptist Churches without their being first restored by the body that excluded them. Into the details of particular cases it is unnecessary to enter. But an article or two on the principles involved may be useful
The custom, as we have always understood it, has been as follows: Where a person is excluded from one Church he should not be received into any other except by the advice of some Council, (unless, perhaps, where a mutual Coun cil having undertaken it should have failed to give any advice within a reasonable time--a case we need not here discuss.) If the individual thinks himself unjustly excluded, he may ask for a mutual Council. This the Church, it is supposed, will usually grant if there is reason to supposa the case admits of any doubt. They may, however, refuse, if they see fit. But in that case the in dividual is not without this remedy: he may seek the advice of an ex parte Council. Such a Council may consider that he has been unnecessarily or unjustly ex cluded. But then the Council can only advise; it has no power to restore the person to the Church of which he was a member. It can, however, give him a certificate recommending him to the fellowship of any other Church, which, if it sees fit, may receive him on this, as if regu larly dismissed. In such case, the independence and discipline of no Church has been violated. None have

232

APPENDIX.

a right to feel aggrieved. Such is the well-established usage of the Congregational Churches, whose form of gov ernment is precisely the same as oar own.
If this usage has been, in any instance, deviated from, it is clearly a breach of the understanding upon which our Churches associate, and in consideration of which the members of each Church receive many privileges in other Churches, which might but for it be abridged or withheld. All parties are bound to abide by these arrangements for the general welfare which they have impliedly entered into. Either the arrangements must be set aside, or they withdraw from the association, before they are free.
While, however, this seems clear on the one hand, it must also be remembered that this is only a matter of custom and tacit agreement, not a rule enjoined in Scrip ture--not a Divine authority. It is a custom derived from very ancient usage, one often of much practical value, yet sometimes attended with great inconveniences, and the origin of which is really very questionable. A breach of it would, therefore, be the breach of terms of voluntary association, but it would be a mistake to sup pose that it involved any defiance or despite of the authority with which each Church is endowed by Jesus Christ; that it was a subversion of principles necessary to the existence of a Church, or calculated to destroy its discipline.
Certainly no Church can produce any Divine warrant to excommunicate a person from all other Churches be sides its own; as, in consequence of their independence, the individual is a member but of the one visible body. Strictly speaking, then, a Church excludes from no other body but itselE But when this is done, of course all the special privileges which the excluded individual had derived from his membership as to communion in

BJBSTOBATION OP THE EXCLUDED.

233

other Churches fall to the ground, and he stands out in the world where he stood before he made a profession of religion. But so far as the Xew Testament goes, this is all The Bible recognizes no tie as now subsisting be tween them. He is to them "as a heathen man and as a publican." And, like any other heathen man, if he should afterward see his sinfulness and repent, any other Church where he might be would, on proof of this .latter, have a right to receive him into its fellowship. Everything which restricts a Church from this, and in duces them rather to send him back to the body which excluded him, may be a matter of expedience and com ity, but certainly cannot claim Divine authority. We are not aware that more than two passages of Scripture have ever been appealed to as bearing on this point, an'd it is almost idle to allude to them as proof-texts. The first of these is 2 Cor. ii: 7, 8, where the apostle Paul charges the same Church which excluded the incestu ous man to restore him. This case, however, only proves what all admit, thai the Church which excluded has a right to restore a penitent on due application- But it does not prove that any other Church besides would not have had the same right as well as that from which he fell, had he been so circumstanced as to apply elsewhere. The other passage is Matt xvii: IS: "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." From this it seems to have been urged that "the same body that is here said to bind is also said to loose." To us it seems that this passage might more plausibly be quoted as conferring on every Christian Church authority to bind, and on every Church the authority to loose; that is, to give each Church the abstract right to restore all offenders. But. it is urged further, that here "the
20*

234

APPENDIX.

Church is supposed to exercise the highest authority without having its proceedings subject to any review upon earth." But this would not annul the rights or the action of any Church, which can, as we have seen, ex clude simply from ite own membership. No other Church can restore a person to membership in that body of which he was a member, and therefore does not annul its act Certainly none will suppose our Savior here to declare, that, in every case where a person is excluded from some one visible Church below, he is, at the same moment, cut off from all fellowship with the Church above, or on being loosed from such sentence, is restored in all cases to citizenship in the invisible Church. The authority of each Church is Divinely ratified within its own limits, but no further.
Let it not, then, be pleaded that this interferes with the right and duty of each Church to administer the laws of Christ in the discipline and excommunication of her own members. About this there can be no question. But the real point is, whether there is any Divine rule-- any reason, in fact, beyond expediency, custom, and mu tual agreement, why a person excluded by one Church might not, upon making proper acknowledgments, be received by any other Church to which he should apply, as well as by that alone from which he was expelled. Or, in other words, if one Church has terminated all con nection between itself and an individual, and put him out again in the world, are not the abstract and Scriptural rights, not to say duties, of all other Churches to reclaim him from the world, and then receive him into its fellow ship, the same as in regard to other persons who have never been Church-members ? Where is the Divine law for placing him under this additional ban; for putting him further off, sometimes, and in some respects, than the

RESTORATION OF THE EXCLUDED.

235

heathen man and the publican, so that but one Church in the whole world can receive him, while any Church can receive the others? There is no Scripture for it It is .1 custom of our Churches, having, as I believe, reasons of sound utility in its favor, and adopted so generally as to be in fact an agreement, and binding as all other agree ments are among honest and honorable peeple, but no further. The objects of it are obvious. It effectually pre vents persons from being restored without the original ground of their exclusion being sufficiently examined, and it prevents one Church from putting any slight upon the discipline of another by receiving its excluded members without all proper acknowledgments; a thing which, once suspected, would greatly impair, if not destroy, the heart-fellowship of Churches. Whether any other means could be adopted by which these ends could be better at tained, we will not here discuss. But until some better plan of clear and safe actions securing these ends is set forth, and the change generally agreed to, we should all mildly, and in a reasonable, Christian, and forbearing spirit, aid in carrying out the customs of the Churches. (1 Cor. si: 16.) It may, however, be well to bear in mind that a very small proportion of our excluded mem bers ever are restored according to our present mode of discipline, as a reason for some caution and distrust as to the perfection of any one system of expediency to meet all cases. In another number I will examine the history of this custom.

WE will now examine a little into the history of that custom by which the excluded must be restored by the same Church which expelled them, and by no other. This was indeed never a rule without many exceptions in an cient times. The whole action of the Church might ba

236

APPENDIX.

revised by a Synod, and a person excluded in one Church, but suddenly, in dying circumstances, in a distant place, might be received back by any minister usually, and re ceive the last tokens of peace.
From the most primitive times, of course, an expelled person would necessarily have lost all privileges in every Church, until regularly brought back into fellowship with some one. And where Churches were, as at first, bound together by the ties cf a very close mutual fellowship, no Church would ordinarily receive a person excluded from another body, without manifestations of penitence, and, if practicable, such previous satisfaction rendered to the offended body as would be sufficient to satisfy its members. But there is no proof, that I remember, of positive law or established custom, that he must be restored by the Church excluding him before about the middle of the third cen tury. Perhaps the earliest attempt to make it a universal law was the thirteenth apostolic canon. The custom probably originated in Rome. Bingham intimates that one object and effect of it was. to make all the Churches ns it were one Church; in a word, to destroy independ ence. It was, he tells us, " to preserve the unity of the Church in its well-being." And says that "he who was legally excommunicated in one Church, was by the laws of Catholic unity, and rules of right discipline, held excommunicate in all Churches, and no Church could or would receive him into communion before he had given satisfaction to the Church whereof he was a member," . . . "except it were by the authority of a legal Synod, to which there lay a just appeal, which was allowed to judge in the case."-- Christian Antiq., xvi: 11, and ii: 10.
The same author quotes Optatus, A. D. 370, or about one hundred years later, to the effect that, " the whole Chris tian world was united together in one common society, or

RESTORATION OF THE EXCLUDED. 237
society of communion, by the mutual commerce of thosa canonical or communicatory letters." These letters, he says, gave "a title to communicate in any other Church," and if a man was legally excommunicated for his crimes by his own Church, no other Church would receive him until restored by the Church that excluded him. "Such a perfect understanding and harmony was there among all parts of the Church catholic."
It must, however, be borne in mind, that in no age has it ever been esteemed right that any one individual Church should have the power to excommunicate its members from all other Churches as well as from its own body, without having its proceedings subject to some review or appeal This would obviously have subjected, not only all individuals, but all Churches, at times, with out redress, to the tyranny of each one. Just in propor tion, therefore, as we find the letters and discipline of each Church acquired the power to bind the action of every other, Synods, Councils, Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and Popes assumed, as a natural consequence, an appel late jurisdiction, one above another. Thus were the ancient liberties of the Churches lost, and thus was Popery established. The fifth canon of the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, will well illustrate the first stage of this usurpation over the rights of the Churches: " Concerning those, whether of the clergy or laity, who have been excom municated by the bishops in the different provinces, let the sentence of the canon prevail, which pronounces that those persons who have thus been cast out by one bishop aro not to be received again into communion by any others. Inquiry should, however, be made, whether they have been excommunicated through the peevishness or contentious ness, or other such like bitterness of the bishop. And in order that this inquiry may be conveniently made, it is decreed to be proper that Synods should be assembled

238

APPENDIX.

twice every year in every province, . . . that so those who have confessedly offended against the bishop, may appear to be with reason excommunicated by all the bishops, until it shall seem fit to their General Assembly to pronounce a more lenient sentence."
About twenty years after this, a higher appeal from the Synod developed itself in this form. In A. D. 347, the Council of Sardica, canon 4, declares, " A bishop deposed by the Synod of the province, who desires a new decision, must not be expelled his see until the bishop of Rome has determined whether the cause ought to be examined anew." This is said to be " for the honor of the memory
of St. Peter." It is easy now to trace the process by which liberty
was overrun. 1. The discipline and letters of each Church having
become absolutely binding upon all, individuality was lost, and all the Churches uniting became in fact but one
Church. 2. The obvious injustice of allowing one body to ex
communicate from all others without redress, naturally led to the formation of Synods, to which appeal could be made. These Synods undertook to control and bind tho action of the individual Churches, confirming, nullifying,
or modifying their sentence at pleasure. 3. The Synod being not always impartial, the bishop
of Rome became ultimately a universal umpire. Among us at the present day, letters communicatory or
dimissory do not give " a title " to communion or recep tion elsewhere, except by mutual consent. Each Church is at full liberty, in every such case, to receive or reject without cause of complaint Thus far the spirit of Church independence has with us, properly modified a very ancient usage, so as to prevent us from all being again swallowed up in one visible Church universal Practically, we thus

BESTORATIOS OF THE EXCLUDED.

239

obtain all the benefits of intercommunion, without taking
this part of the first step to Popery. But it now becomes us to inquire how far it is safe and
wise for us to retain the custom of allowing one Church to exercise the power of excommunicating in such a way as to debar from all other Churches. Unquestionably each Church has a Divine and inalienable right to exclude from its own body. But all beyond this is a matter of custom and expediency; a power that always has been, and must be subject to some appeal and restriction, if
admitted at all It has been suggested, and as such I state the proposi
tion, without, however, coinciding in it myself, whether it is not altogether an artificial and erroneous arrangement by which, after a person has been entirely set aside from a Church, it should be supposed to have still some sort of proprietorship over him. The most simple, natural, and Scriptural idea upon which to act, it is urged, would be to regard excommunication as severing all relations between the body and the individual, so that he is to them and to others literally " a heathen man, and a pub lican," and as such to be reclaimed to penitence and Christian communion by any Church that can effect it upon proper principles in their own judgment; a judg ment which should be trusted in this case as much as any other. The idea of a latent thread of connection still subsisting, of no force to restrain while impenitent, but which often does hamper all parties, and prevent the excluded from being reclaimed, should, it is urged, be altogether set aside. An excluded member from Illinois may wander to California; but there, if, after a penitent life of years, amid surrounding impiety, he seeks restora tion, instead of seeking it where his penitence and life are best known, he has to satisfy a body three thousand miles off, that has had no means of judging of his walk foi

240

APPENDIX.

ten or twenty years. They may not be convinced by the only proofs he can offer--letters; while they would be if they only saw his life. And they weary him out of heart with delays and denials. Or they may be easily imposed on, and not feel sufficient interest to be careful in action. If restored, it is understood to be a mere form to get a letter and join some Church near him. How much better to let the Church most interested in his future course, judge of his fitness to be restored in all cases. It may be said we should have persons excluded from one Church at once applying to others. Suppose it thus: if strict in discipline, those applied to would natu rally write to inquire and insist on full acknowledgments and reparation for all wrongs done. Or, if lax, the Church that received him back, not that which excluded, would suffer by the admission of an unruly member. And, in any- case, the person restored, coming under suspicious circumstances, would be more closely watched than where, restored by his former Church, he had come with a clean and regular letter. If it bad the effect of mak ing our Churches trust more to personal observation, and the manifestations of character, and less to letters, or if the degree of credit attached to letters depended more on the character of the Church issuing them, all this would do no harm, but good. It would ultimately save councils, contentions, and heart-burnings.
Unquestionably such a course as this would be in finitely better than that of allowing one Church to have the power of debarring from all others, without any ap peal And it would bo worse still for councils to have such an appellate jurisdiction as should have power to reverse the action of a Church without its consent, so fax 0.3 its own jurisdiction is confined.

RESTORATION OP UNJUSTLY EXCLUDED. 241
XI. How is an individual to be restored, who has been unjustly and unscripturaUy excluded ?
In such a case as this, there is but one condi tion on which he can, with justice to himself, be restored to the fellowship of the Church that excluded him; and that is, that the Church shall repent of her ad, rescind it, and make full amends for the wrong done. Until this shall have been done, the excluded can not reasonably apply for restoration to the excluding Church. The cir cumstance of his restoration to the same body without a retraction of the wrong on her part, would imply his indorsement of his own condem nation ; which, according to the supposition of the Church's guilt in his exclusion, it would be sinful for him to do. Restoration in this case should be sought by the Church; for she alone needs it.
XII. Can another Church rightfully receive a member thus excluded?
It can not be denied, with the appendage of anything like a reason, that each Church has the right to receive into her fellowship, every appli cant that presents the Scripture qualifications. If, therefore, an excluded member presents him self to any pa21rticular Church, that Church is at

242

APPENDIX.

liberty to receive him, provided she thinks him worthy. Of course, she would think him worthy, if she knew him to have been unworthily excluded. To know this, it will be necessary for her, on some occasions, to investigate the grounds on which applicants have been excluded. Where there is a suspicion that the member has been " irreg ularly " and " wickedly " excluded, the Church applied to, can not, in justice to her King, refuse to investigate the matter. Should she find that the applicant ought not to have been excluded, she has no choice left her; she is bound by Iier allegiance to her sovereign to receive him. Each Church, as the executive of Christ's kingdom, is bound to receive into his kingdom every one wTio presents all the necessary qualifications for member ship. She sins, if she fails to do this. There is no exception to this rule, whether the applicant be an excluded person, or any other character for the first time applying to the Church.
XIII. Sow is such an excluded person to be re ceived ?
Must he be received " by experience and bap tism ?" No. If the Church to which he applies for membership believes that he was wickedly

BECEPTIOS BY ANOTHER CHURCH. 243
excluded, she believes that he was once a member. But he could not have been a member " without a profession of faith and baptism." One such profession of faith, (if one's life has corresponded to the profession,) and one baptism, are all that can be required. Hence, she is at liberty to receive him by simply extending to him the right hand of fellowship, and bidding him welcome to all the privileges of the Church.
XTV. Suppose a minority of a ChureJi should protest against the wicked effort of the majority to exclude a worthy member, and should withdraw, because the majority refuse to abide by the law of Christ--which is the Church, the majority, or the minority ?
I answer, the minority. Upon what is this con clusion based ? It is based upon the facts:
That the minority are right, and the majority are wrong. The former are anxious to obey Christ, the latter reject his authority. The ques tion arises: Can that body be a true Church that knowingly and willfully rejects one of his laws'? Again: Can that part of a Church cease to be a Church, because it follows the law of Christ fully ? Let him who would answer these questions affirm*

244

APPENDIX.

atively, tell what it takes to constitute a Church, and what is necessary to annihilate a Church.
Does he answer, " It is the majority that con stitutes the Church?" I reply, It is not right, obedience to Christ, and reverence for his authority, that constitute a Church, if this position be true; but the accidental circumstance of a majority's being on one side!!! Who that has any love for truth, or for Him that said, " I am the way, the truth, and the life," can dare to reason in this way ? Every one can see that if this monstrous doctrine be true, those who reject Christ's author ity and boldly set his commands at naught, may constitute his Church; while those who have strictly obeyed him can lay no claim to be his Church!!!
A strict adherence to the law of Christ consti tutes a minority or a majority the Church; the rejection of his law, whether by the majority or minority, destroys their claim to be his Church. The question, then, in all such cases of separa tion is simply this : " Which has followed the law of Christ ? The question of numbers has nothing whatever to do in deciding the merits of the case. The majority may consist of ten thousand, and

OBEDIEST MIXOEITY THE CHURCH. 245
yet be wrong; while the minority may consist of only one, and be right. The majority is the Church, if it has followed Christ's law; but if the majority have set aside that law, and the minority have followed it, the latter must be the Church, provided the majority consists of two or more. Why may Dot the one who is obedient to Christ constitute the Church ? He, indeed, is the only worthy element of the Church that now re mains, but as a Church must consist of more than one member, this one by himself could not be the Church. What, then, has become of that Church in which but one member is obedient to Christ? I answer, It has resolved itself into a "disorderly faction," and can not properly be recognized as a Church of Christ, until it has rescinded its " wicked" act, and manifested a willingness to obey the commands of Christ.
This position is undeniable, unless right is made to depend -upon numbers; but no one will, in so many woi'ds, affirm this.
XV. Has a minority the right to withdraw from a majority, when the latter, in order to degrade a member, entertains charges against him, "irregu larly " and " 2w1i*ckedly " preferred ?

246

APPENDIX.

This question has been virtually answered in the preceding section. If the minority, after separating from the majority, do really constitute the Church, (which, in every case, must depend upon the minority's being right,) they certainly had the right to withdraw. The existence of the Church--I mean in its orthodox form--depended upon their withdrawal. And where interests of such vital importance are at stake, who will say that they have not tJie right to preserve those interests ?
But the question of right, in such cases, does not exhaust the subject. Duty comes in and swallows up right. The question is not " What have I the right to do ?" but " What OUGHT I to do ?" " What does "DUTY REQUIRE ME to do f No question of expediency, or policy can meet the weighty obligations of such an occasion. The strength of the obligation to protest against, and tvithdraw from a majority that denies the author ity of Christ, can be measured only by the obli gations on the part of Christians to saye the Church, of which they are members, from apos tasy and ruin. The minority, therefore, must, in such circumstances, have the right, nay, more, it is their duty to withdraw.

HAD WE THE BIGHT TO DO IT?

247

At this point I insert a part of a series of articles, on this subject, from the pen of Elder A. C. DAYTOX. Let the reader ponder them well. After his introduction, he says:

HAD WE THE RIGHT TO DO IT?
xo. i.
IT is granted, then, that the charge was "irregularly and wickedly brought," and unlawfully and sinfully enter tained. Whether this was so or not, I need not now stop to inquire. Professor Mell says a Church has the rigltt to entertain a charge thus " irregularly and wickedly brought before her." And thus supposes she has the right " wick edly" to go on with the trial thus " wickedly" begun; and if she has the right " wickedly" to begin and wickedly to go on with it, she must have a right " wickedly" to en force the wicked decision, in which such a wicked begin ning is almost sure to end. I do not believe that any Church of Christ has any right to begin such wickedness, or continue such wickedness, or complete such wickedness. And I believe that the Lord has, in his system of gov ernment for his kingdom, made ample provision for the safety of his people against any such wicked, and tyran nical, and unlawful proceeding.
Let me try once more if I can make it plain. The instructions of Christ to his people to withdraw from those who cause divisions, and from those who are guilty of other offenses are given not merely to majorities, but to ministers, and even to individual Christians. It is the solemn and bounden duty of every Church-member, just as much as of all Church-members, to obey these in junctions. Each must search the Scriptures for himself,

248

APPESDIX.

and decide for himself, and act for himself as ons ac* countable to God. No one may do a wicked thing as a Church-member any more than as a man. If a majority of my neighbors turn thieves, or, like the- Mormons, be come polygamists, this does not justify me in following their example, or silently acquiescing in their wickedness. I must do right, though all the rest do wrong. If this rule holds good in the world, much more in the Church. Though every other member determines to do a wicked thing, I may not do it, on the peril of my soul. I may not be partaker of their evil deed. I must resist it If I can't make my resistance effective, I must, at least, disown it and those who engage in it This is as much my duty,. when the majority goes wrong, as it is their duty to disown me and my deed, when I go wrong. If this is not so, the majority is more than my master; it is my infallible Pope, and Christ has commanded me to submit to It my con science, and obey its dictates without inquiry. If major ities can never err--if majorities are always the true ex ponents of the will of God--then I must always quietly submit; but our argument supposes that they have pro ceeded irregularly--that is, unlawfully and wickedly--and whatever Professor Mell may teach, it is certain that the word of God has never taught that Christ's people have the right wickedly to set aside his laws.
But now, if a majority has unlawfully and wickedly de termined to go on with a charge which had been unlaw fully and wickedly brought before the ChurcH, what is the remedy ? Is there any power on earth which can prevent the commission of the wicked deed ? Let us see. Every Church of Christ is just as independent of every other Church as though it stood alone in the whole wide world. Every Church is built upon the Jerusalem model That was once the only Church: and whatever authority and immunities that Church, or the members of it, had, every

HAD WE THE EIGHT TO DO IT?

249

Church and its members have now. This is self-evident unless it can be made to appear that Christ gave to other Churches, when they should be organized, some control over that Jerusalem Church, or gave it some control over the others. If he did, no one was independent If he did not, every one is equally independent, and stands as if it were alone in regard 'to its own rights and those of its members.
It is a constitutional body, organized upon a specific plan, and only for a specific purpose. IT IS TO EXE CUTE THE'LAWS WHICH CHRIST, AS KING, HAS GIVEN* FOR THE GOVERNMENT OP HIS KING DOM. It has a right to execute Christ's laws; it has no right to violate them.
These laws relate mainly to two great objects. I. The extension of the kingdom by the preparation and reception of new members.
2. The .preservation of its unity and purity by the ex clusion of those who do not conform to the oneness of faith, or the holiness of life which those laws require.
Now let us suppose that in the Church at Jerusalem, before there was any other, a majority had decided that faith and baptism were not sufficient qualifications for membership, but that circumcision must be added. The minority protests, and falls back upon the law of Christ, and votes to receive the nncircumcised, and begs the ma jority not to make terms of membership which Christ had not made. The majority persists. The minority protests; and appealing to Christ, as King, declare non-fellowship with the majority, and say to the uncircumcised appli cants, Come to us, we will receive you. Christ's Church, was organized to execute HIS laws. We dare not make new terms of membership. Our brethren in the majority have done so, and we disown them as the executive of his laws, and claim for ourselves that we are such.

250

APPENDIX.

Or suppose that the majority had determined to dispense with baptism, and had substituted sprinkling and marking with the sign of the cross in plaee of immersion in water, which sets aside the law, for the execution of which the Church was constituted 1
One of two things is certain. Either the minority must be regarded as the Church, or it must be admitted that Christ has no Church at all. For that body which makes, new terms of membership which Christ did not ordain, or dispenses with the old ones which he did ordain, is not HIS Church; that is, the executive of HIS laws. It is the executive of its own whims, or the traducers of men. Xone of our brethren would recognize such a body as a true Church of Christ, and its members as true Church,
members, equally with themselves entitled to all the priv ileges of the kingdom of Christ And why ? Simply be cause they rejected the laws of Christ in regard to the reception of members.
It appears, therefore, that the only thing the minority could do in case any Church was the only Church in theworld, or in its part of the world, and should set aside the law of Christ in regard to the reception of members, would be to withdraw from it, disown its unlawful pro ceedings, and go on for itself as the Church to execute the law. If a minority has the right to do this when, it stands alone, it has equal right to do it when sur rounded by other Churches; or else a Church thus sur rounded is not as independent of other Churches aa though they did not exist. But we have seen that it is. thus independent.
And now, if a minority may do this, and, under certain supposable circumstances, must do this, or the Church losa its existence, when the majority violates or seta aside the law of Christ in regard to the reception of members, those which were intended for the extension of the kingdom, the

HAD WE THE RIGHT TO DO IT?

251

same rale must hold good in regard to those laws which relate to the preservation of the kingdom--or, in other words, to its discipline. The Church is the same body act ing under the same authority, and bound by the same con stitution in the one case as in tbe other.

NO. n.
IN my last I proved that each Church is as independent of every other Church as though it was the only Church in the world, or the country where it exists. And if so, that it has, and its members have, the right to do what ever they might do or must do if it stood thus alone.
Then I showed that if the majority of a Church standing thus alone should set aside the law of Christ instead of enforcing it in regard to the reception.of members, there would be no other way to preserve the existence of the Church but for the minority to obey those laws, and also those other laws which require them to withdraw them selves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not according to the teachings of God's word, and which aro just as much binding on minorities as on majorities.
But if a minority iu any supposable case must thus or may thus reject the majority, and itself go on and receive members as the executive of the laws of Christ, intended for the extension of the kingdom, or those laws which re late to the reception of members, which tell who may and who may not be received, and by what ceremony they shall come in, it is certain they must or may, with, equal pro priety, withdraw from or disown the majority when it sets aside or violates the laws designed to guard the unity and purity of the kingdom, or which dare tell what persons must be excluded, and how it must be done. There is no conceivable reason why a majority should have any more right to set aside the law in the exclusion than in the re ception of members, or why the minority holding the tr:'.3

252

APPESTDIX.

faith and order of the Gospel mast not or may not frithdraw from or disown them for doing so.
Our question is one, not as to what may be expedient, but of abstract right TVe desire to ascertain the relative rights of majorities and minorities in any Church of Christ--and for this purpose we suppose it to be the only Church in the world. It would then, of course, have oil the authority that any Church could ever have, and its majority as much as any majority could ever have under similar circumstances. If a minority is ever bound to sub mit to the majority, right or -wrong, it would be in such a case. If the illegal, and therefore unauthorized act of a majority is ever binding on all, it is in such a case. But even in such a case, I showed that if the majority should dispense with the laws of Christ and set up new rules for the reception of members into the visible kingdom, it would be not only the privilege but the duty of the mi nority to withdraw from them, disfellowship their work, and themselves go on as the true executive of Christ to receive members according to law. By any other rule' those who should substitute sprinkling for baptism, or dis pense with faith, and receive babes instead of believers, would be the true Church if they were the majority, and the minority who should insist on a strict compliance with the law of Christ, and be cast out for doing so, would be not only no Church but no Church-members, and incapable of becoming Church-members, until the majority should re pent of its wicked rejection of the laws of Christ, and do its first works. They loose their membership, not for any sin of theirs, but for the sin of the majority. This can not be. Common sense and common justice forbid it, even if the word of God were silent
But now if the minority may, and under certain cir cumstances must, either be unfaithful to the law of Christ and permit bis Church to be destroyed, or else disown and

HAD WE THE BIGHT TO DO IT?

253

withdraw from the sinful majority, it surely has the right thus to withdraw. If it has the right to withdraw when the majority violates the laws which Christ has given for the guidance of a Church in the reception of members, then it has equal right to withdraw when the majority violates the Jaw of Christ in regard to retention of members. Let me illustrate. Here is a Church standing alone. Jt is in its own region, or, if you please, in tha whole world, the sole executive of the laws of Christ
A talented, and plausible, and eloquent minister becomes unsound in the faith. He persuades them that baptism is for the actual remission of sins and that unconverted men are not to be exhorted to pray, but to reform and be bap tized unto salvation. A good and faithful old deacon com plains, and insists that this is false doctrine. A large number of brethren agree with him. They request the minister not to preach such soul-destroying heresy. He knows his strength. He has a majority. The faithful cannot exclude him. His followers would outvote them two to one. The deacon calls upon the Church to take such-order as will secure the faithful preaching of God's word. The majority refuses. It is satisfied to go on as it is going. What can the minority do ? It must do one of two things, either obey the law of the Lord requiring it to reject heretics, and those who depart from the faith, or it must, if it protests and disowns the doctrine, be itself re jected as a disturber of the peace of the Church. If the majority is the Church of Christ, then Christ's Church has gone over to the Reformers. If the Church has not gone over, then the minority is the Church of Christ, and as such not only has the right, but is bound to withdraw from and disown the majority, and do whatever else is needful and right to preserve the purity and unity of the doctrine of Christ
When this very thing substantially occurred in the city

254

APPENDIX.

of Nashville some years ago, under the pastorate of Mr Fall, there was no question among Baptists as to whether the faithful little minority, then not more, perhaps, than one to twenty, had the right to withdraw, or as to whether it was their duty to disown the majority as a true Church of Christ If the Church in Nashville had been the only Baptist Church in the world, either the little minority was the Church, or else there would have been no Chnrch. It was not only the right but the duty--the solemn and bounden duty--of the minority, as the representatives of Christ, as those to whom he had given charge to preserve the purity of the doctrine, the soundness of faith in his kingdom, to disfellowship Mr. Fall and his majority; nor did they lose their Church-membership by doing BO, nor could they lose it by any act of exclusion which Mr. Fall and his majority might have passed upon them for so do ing. Why? Because the majority had departed from the faith of the Gospel, and refused to execute the laws of Christ given for the preservation of the purity of faith and doctrine. If the majority excluded the others for retain ing the truth and attempting to secure the execution of these laws of Christ, their act was not only null and void, but it was an act of treason and rebellion against Christ, by which they vainly endeavored to cast out of his king dom his own faithful subjects, for no other oflense than for an earnest attempt to secure the purity of his Churches.
I do not think that any of our brethren will deny that the minority, in such a case, must do, or at least may do, as the faithful brethren of the old First Nashville Church are supposed above to have done.
It follows that if a majority shall go into heresy, and refuse to silence or reject those who teach it, the minor ity must withdraw and disown them, and may go on to perform the duties and enjoy the privileges of a Church, just as truly as if they had been the majority. Why?

HAD WE THE RIGHT TO DO IT?

255

Because the majority departed from the law of Christ by retaining heretics.
It seems, therefore, that if a majority shall depart plainly and persistently from the law of Christ, either in the re ception of members, or in the retention of members, it is not only the privilege but the duty of the minority to dis own and withdraw from them, unless it can induce them to repent and. do their first works. Xor is a minority out of the Church of Christ when it has so withdrawn. It does'not lose its Church-membership by the withdrawal, nor can it be deprived of it by any subsequent act of ex clusion by the majority. If it were otherwise, then those who forsake Christ, and dishonor his word, and reject his truth, may rightfully exclude from his Churches, and de prive of all the privileges of Church-membership, those whose only crime was opposition to their wickedness, and having excluded all the true people of Christ, would still be the Church, while those who held the truth-were given over to Satan and made as heathen men and publicans.
But now, if a majority may be, and in some supposable cases must be, rejected and disfellowshiped by the minor ity, because it sets aside the law of Christ in regard to the reception and the retention of members, is there any reason why it should not, or why it must not be so, when it sets aside the law of Christ in regard to the exclusion of mem bers. Has the majority any more right to exclude a man in open violation of the law of Christ, than it has to re ceive one without baptism, or retain a heretic? If so, where does it obtain the right? In all its official acts the Church acts only as the executive of the laws of Christ It has no right to make a new law, or dispense with an old one. It must do just what Christ says, and only what Christ says. If it may not receive babes or seekers when Christ says believers, no more may it exclude those who are not condemned by the law. If it may not dispense

256

APPENDIX.

with the law in the mode of receiving them, no more may it dispense with the law in the mode of trial and exclusion. If a majority does, or determines to do so, the minority has the same duty to perform as in the other cases, where it officially ceases to be the executive of the laws of Christ and becomes the instrument of men.
But how can this be reconciled with the fact that Christ has given to every Church the right not o^nly to execute the laws, but to interpret them, and made it the duty of the Church to enforce them, not as strangers or outsiders, but as it may understand them ? We will see in a future number.
XO. HI.
Ix my former numbers I have shown that every official act of a Church must be done as the executive of the laws of Christ. And that if a majority of it should dis pense with or violate those laws in the reception of mem bers, the minority would be bound to withdraw from and disown it So if the majority, even of twenty to one, should determine to retain members unsound in faith, or guilty of open and notorious wickedness, it is manifest the mi nority must be partakers of its evil deed, or else withdraw and disfellowship the majority. Xor would the mem bers, thus withdrawing, loose their Church-membership by doing so, nor could they be deprived of it by a subse quent act excluding them for withdrawing or opposing the wicked acts or doctrines of the majority before they withdrew.
So far as the reception and retention of members is con cerned, I do not think my positions have ever been seri ously contested among Baptists. I have never heard of a Baptist Church that would contend, or even admit, that where the majority should determine to set aside the law and receive non-professing or unbaptized persons to mem-

HAD ATE THE RIGHT TO DO IT ?

257

bership, seekers or infants, and the minority should abide by the law and withdraw and disfellowship the others, declaring that they, aa observers of the law, were the Church. I say, I have never heard of any Baptist Church in any age or any country of the whole world that would contend or admit that the majority was the Church, simply because it was the majority, and the minority the fac tion, simply because it was the minority. There is, to say the least, the very strongest historical probability that our Baptist Churches have been propagated only or mainly through such minorities, which either withdrew or were excluded, or who first withdrew and then were not only excluded, but anathematized by the majorities. If the motion had been made to receive a little infant by bap tism into the First Baptist Church, and a majority had voted for it, and a minority however small, had protested and entreated them not to do this great wickedness and sin against God, by setting aside the requirement of his law in regard to the reception of members; and when the majority would not yield, had declared it would have no fellowship with the deed nor with those who engaged in it, and had withdrawn and claimed to be the Church which had been the First Baptist Church of Nashville, there would have been no question as to the propriety of its course. Yet it could be justified only on one ground, and that is, that the majority had determined to violate the law of Christ in regard to the character of persons to be receiced into his kingdom.
AVell, suppose the motion had been to receive a person by sprinkling, instead of immersion. Xo question would have been raised as to the right or duly of the minority. Every Baptist in all the world will say they were bound to disfellowship the majority and continue the Baptist Church in Xashville. Xo one would have dreamed of imag ining that thev lost their Church-membership by their

258

APPENDIX.

declaration of non-fellowship, or by any act of esclusio that the sprinkling majority might pass. 80 that they must either be restored by the sprinklers, or go and obtain membership in some other Baptist Church. Yet there would have been no ground on which to justify the minority or regard them as Church-members still, only this one, viz.: that the majority had determined to set aside the law of Christ in regard to the manner of receiving a person into his kingdom and Church.
I say, therefore, that it is an established and indisputa ble fact that no Baptist would deny, that it was not only the right, but the DUTY of the minority to claim to bo the Church and act as the Church, and expect to be rec ognized as the very Baptist Church of which it had for merly been a part, if the majority should violate the laws of Christ in regard to the extension of the kingdom by the unlawful reception of members.
And just so in regard to the retention of members. Suppose a Baptist minister preaches infant baptism, or that sprinkling is valid baptism. A motion is made to bring him to trial He has in the Church a large num ber of relatives and personal friends, and is a popular and influential preacher. A majority vote to permit him to go on unrebuked, and thus give the sanction of the Church to his errors. The minority withdraw, and claim to be the Church. Is there a Baptist in all the land, who would call in question either their right or their duty to- do it? Yet they could have no other plea but that the majority had refused to execute the lam of Christ by retaining one that should have been excluded. Suppose the preacher had stolen a horse, and had been convicted of the crime, the majority determined not to exclude him. Such a thing might be. \Vould such a majority be the Church of Christ and the minority who contended for the exclusion of the law, and disowned them, would they, by doing so, lose their

HAD WE THE RIGHT TO DO IT?

259

membership--or could it be taken away by any act of the sin-approving majority ? Xo Baptist would raise a ques tion about it. We would all agree that if the majority will not execute the law of Christ in regard to the recep1 tion or the retention of members, the minority not only may, but must, disown the majority, and continue the Church in its purity.
Well, if this is so in regard to the reception and retaining of members, I ask again, why is it not so in regard to the exclusion or expulsion of a member? Is not the Church in this as much as the other the simple executire of the law of Christ? Is she not bound in regard to the person to be cast out, and the mode of doing it, to observe the law just as much as in regard to the person to be taken in ? Who has found the chapter and verse which authorizes a departure from the rule in one cause more than the other? By what rule of logic or common sense can we discover the difference ? Let any man show it I have tried hard to discover it. But I cannot even imagine any conceivable reason why a majority may set aside or override, dispense, with, change, or violate a law of Christ in the process of casting a member out, any more than in taking him in. I can think of some good reasons why she should be even more careful, if possible, to observe not only the very letter, but the most kindly spirit of the law. For he who is once in is her own child, and the brother of all her members, and lias rights and privileges expressly guaranteed to him by that law, and, therefore, grievous personal injury may be done in addition to the general evil of violating the law.
But now, if a Church may no more dispense with or violate the slightest provision of the law in excluding tLon she may in receiving a member, and if its violation by a majority in the reception of a member justifies and some times requires of the minority that they withdraw from and disfellowship the majority, it follows, of necessity, that

260

APPENDIX.

a similar violation of the law in excluding justifies a sim ilar course on the part of the minority.
Try this by the strictest reason. Test it by the most rigid logic. See if there be in it any fallacy, any error. I can see none.
I have proved that if a majority violates the law in the reception of members, the minority may, and sometimes must, in order to control the pure Church, cast off the majority and go on themselves to execute the law, 1 have proved the same thing in regard to the retention of mem bers.
I have proved also, that the same rule must govern the Churches in the exclusion as in the reception of members. And hence, since that the right and duty of the minority is the same when the law is violated in the exclusion as when it is violated in the reception or retention, the rela tive rights and duties of minorities in a Church of Christ are the same in regard to the reception, the retention, or the expulsion of members.
If a majority violates the plain law of Christ in the re ception or retention of members, it is the right and duty of the minority to disown it and continue the pure Church in its own body.
This is conceded, as has been the common practice of Baptists in all ages; and now it follows of necessity, that if a majority violates the plain law of Christ in regard to the trial and exclusion of a member, it is equally the privilege and duty of the minority to disown the majority as in the other cases, and to continue the Church in its own body.
The only question, therefore, which can arise in regard to those forty brethren who compose in part what is now called the Spring Street Church, and who were the mi nority in the First Baptist Church of Nashville, is, whether the majority of that First Church had determined to vio>

HAD WE THE RIGHT TO DO IT?

261

late the law of Christ? That question rests again on this, whether the offenses charged were, by Alatt xviii, personal offenses, and whether the object of the majority was to save a brother and purify the Church, or to destroy one who was the object of envy and hatred to certain persons in their number ? In one case the letter, and in the other the object and spirit of the law was set aside.
I will not pause to discuss this question. The argu ment of my brother, to which I referred in the beginning of these articles, does not require it It took for granted that the law was violated, both in the spirit and the letter, but contended that the minority had no duty but to pro test and then submit, and that by disfellowshiping the majority act and withdrawing we lost our Church-mem bership, or else we lost it by the confessedly-wicked and unlawful act of exclusion which followed.
We who knew all the facts and saw the spirit with which the evil deed was begun, felt sure that the law was to be violated in both the spirit and the letter of it. "We waited till an earnest protest had been presented and received. We then asked, in the name of Christ, that tho Church would regard the law. A majority voted that it would not It consequently became not only our privilege but our duty, our solemn and our Bible duty, which we could not set aside, and dared not neglect or refuse to perform, to declare our non-fellowship, and our intention for ourselves to see that the laics of Christ were executed as truly and faithfully in regard to the casting out of a brother, as all Baptists expect them to be in the reception of a stranger.
We may have been mistaken in regard to the require ments of the law, but there is no room for mistake in regard to what was our right and duty, if the law was really violated, as our dear brother said he firmly believed it to have been.
Was there no other course which we might have adopted?

262

APPEXDIX.

xo iv.
I HAVE shown, in previous numbers, that on the suppo sition that the majority had determined to violate the law of Christ, and could not be reclaimed, it was the right" and the duty of the minority to withdraw and disfcllowship the deed and those who should engage in it.
If this had been the only Church, they must, having done this, go on by themselves to perform the duties and claim the rights which belonged to the Church. They would have none but Christ to whom they could tell their trouble, and none but him to whom to look for counsel or support. They must, as his people, continue to execute the duties of a Church. Only then could there be con tinued upon the earth a true executive of his laws.
But the First Church in Nashville did not stand alone. There were other Churches all around us--another in the city. And some of our brethren have thought that instead of acting as though there had been no other, we should have gone to some other Church and asked for member ship there.
It has been said that this has been the custom in similar cases. Whether it has or not we need not stop to inquire. The custom has been otherwise when a ma jority has violated the laws in regard to the reception of members, and if it has been different when the laws re lating to trial and exclusion have been violated, 1 see no reason why it should. And a custom not founded in rea son nor required by Scripture may be more honored in the breach than the observance of it
It is true that every other Church was with this a co-executive of the laws of and equally with it bound to see those laws executed; and, so far as lay within its constitutional limits, bound to do all in its power to pro-

HAD WE THE RIGHT TO DO IT ?

263

rent or remedy the mischief which may have been done or attempted by the unlawful and wicked act of the majority. It is true also that as an independent body having exclusive control over its own conduct, subject only to the law of Christ, it was at perfect liberty, if it regarded us as true and faithful men worthy of membership in its body, to receive us, either with or without having consulted with other Churches. (I speak not of what is expedient, but of the abstract right of a Church.)
It is true, furthermore, that when we declared non-fellow ship with the majority, we might have said to some other Church, We have fellowship with you, and desire member ship in your body. This was proposed by some of our number. There was a time I thought it would be best But after careful study of the Scriptures in regard to this whole subject, and earnest prayer to God for guid ance, it was determined in a meeting for prayer and mutual consultation, that we should not adopt this course; and the following are some of the reasons why I now believe that we did well and wisely in acting as we did:
1. To have united with another Church for the purpose suggested by my much-loved brother, in the conversation more than once alluded to, would have been to sacrifice a great and vital principle. His suggestion was, that we should have united with some other Church to obtain Church-membership, in order that we might at occe with draw and organize a new Church.
Xow, we are reasoning upon the supposition, or rather the admission, that the action of the majority was in vio lation of the law of Christ. And I have proved that an official action of a Church to be valid must be in execu tion of the law of Christ. If it dispenses with the law, or violates the law, it is null and void. In contending for the observance of the law, we were but performing our sworn duty as Church-members. AVc could not forfeit our

264

APPENDIX.

membership by doing our duty, or by doing this duty, any more than any other. We might as well have forfeited it by partaking of the Lord's Supper, or offering a prayer in a meeting of the Church for prayer. But to have gone to another Church to be restored to membership would have been to admit that the act of a majority excluding us for doing our duty was a lawful and valid act, and that we had lost membership--or, rather, that we ourselves resigned or abandoned our membership by protesting and declaring non-fellowship with the evil deed of the majority. This we had not done. We had never lost our Churchmembership any more than if the act of the majority had been the baptism of an infant or the adoption of a Church session to govern them, or had gone over to the faith of Alexander Campbell, or by any other official act had violated the law of Christ, and we had withdrawn rather than sanction or partake of the wickedness. It is admitted that if the violation of law had been in the reception or retention of members, as before shown, we would not have lost our membership; and, as we have shown, the same rule applies to the violation 'of law in the trial and exclusion of members. We did not dare, therefore, to udmit, and thought best not even to seem to admit, that
we bad ceased to be Church-members. If we had asked for membership in another body it
would have been not as persons excluded, but as those who had never forfeited our claim to membership, because we had done only what was our bounden duty, and which we must have been unworthy of membership had we not done.
2. Another reason why we thought best to stand alone was that we did not desire to involve others in our diffi culties. We have been accused of striving to distract the denomination and disturb the peace of the Churches. Those who make the accusation must either be very igno
rant of the facts, or reckless of the truth.

HAD WE THE EIGHT TO DO IT?

265

Our great desire was to avoid such distraction; and we were unwilling that even a single Church should be directly involved with us. We knew that on the part of our oppressors there was power. We knew there was intel lect and energy, and a stern determination to crush those whom they had endeavored to ruin. If they succeeded while we stood alone, we alone would fall. If any Church were with us, it must fall with us. We were sure of the justice of our cause, and were willing to stand upon the truth, and commit our way to God.
3. We wished to occupy no doubtful position before our brethren. The law of Christ either did or did not require a certain course to be adopted by the majority. We be lieved that it did require it We insisted that it should be obeyed. This was our siii or else it was our duty. On this we must stand or fall, and we thought best to stand or fall together. If we had not continued the Church of which we had been members, some would have gone per haps to the Cherry Street Church, some to iXIill Creek, some to other places, and, it may be, some would have gone nowhere. Some Churches might have received and some rejected. We would have ceased to exist as a body, and, as a body, could oSer no forcible and effective testi mony for the law of Christ. In regard to some of us, at least, it might have been claimed that even the " irregu lar," that is unlawful and ;: icicked" act of a tyrannical majority acting under the influence of a vicious spirit, seeking to destroy and not to save, and in confessed vio lation of the law of Christ, was yet a valid act, and must be so regarded by all the Churches. If it be true that a majority, though it may not dispense with, or change, or violate the law of Christ in the reception of a stranger, may do it in the exclusion of a brother, it is time the Church and the world was acquainted with the fact. If it is true that a minority that insists upon the observance

2()l)

APPENDIX.

of tho Mtor nml tho spirit of tho law In tlio trial ntul oxelusion of members, doo.i by tlint act forfeit its Church. membership, it is tinin that nil who low thn law nhall know on \\hut condition* they mny continue members, mid ho earoftil henceforth nut to do right until they hnvo inquired whether tho majitriti/ will permit it
If if l>o true tliat tho majority, in tho language <if 1'rofessor Moll, indorsed, as 1 suppose, liy tho Southern Haplist Publication Society, " has the right to entertain charges irregularly and trickftlti/ brought iiguiiiHt a brother,"* it is thno all pooplo know it, so that before union with :i Church of Christ, oaeh ono may bo arfari1, that by doing so, ho places his eharaotor and pence, of mind tit tho disposal of tiny wiokod member who may choose to bring a wicked charge, not according to Christ's law, but without law, and against law, not for a good and holy purpose, but teifkfilly and for wicked ends.
If there was need for any to become a sacrifice for tho exhibition of that wonderful truth, tho bringing to light this great discovery in regard to authority of majorities, it was perhups as well for us ns them to bo tho victims. Our position is such as to attract, perhaps, as general attention as could have been expected of any, and tho testimony will be more, eftcctivc when we all fall together. Hut if, on the other hand, a Church has no right to enter tain charges niilaicfully and "wickedly" brought, and no right to set aside, or change, or violate the law of Christ in the trial or exclusion of a brother any more than ia the reception of a stranger, it is time the Churches knew it; and we have been, in the providence of God, culled to suffer for the exhibition and illustration of this great truth. But ia this not dangerous doctrine?
'' I quote from memory.

IS OKll KXA.MI'I.K DAMIKItor.H?

267

IH OUU KXAMI'LK DAMiKltOCH?
XO. V.
THAT samo good brother to whom wo have no often nl lulled, thought it was a tlmtycront precedent which had been set by tho minority of the First Church. JFo said, in substance, that if thin were recognized as the lawful course, wo should hnvo n split in the Church on almost every case of discipline. Tliat tho friends of tho excluded would he almost Huro to say that the law of Christ had been violated, find would therefore withdraw, and set up for themselves.
In regard to thin, I havo to say: That I am not responniblo fur consequences which flow from a recognition of any groat principle. They inayxeem to us to bo evil, and yet may be good. It has been proved by 1'edobaptists so as no Baptist can logically resist tho conclusion, that if immer sion nitty is Christian baptism, Baptist Churches arc tho only Churches of Christ, and Baptist ministers the fatly authorized ministers, and Baptist Church-members the only Church-members. They urge us to look at these fear ful cdiixcrjitcnccs, and assure us that the premise which drives to such a terrible conclusion, cannot lie true, and, therefore, immersion cannot be the only bajit'iKm. Th<:y can make and have made the same argument in regard to infant baptism. But an intelligent and thinking Baptist is not moved by these fearful consequences. lie goes to his Bible and examines again to sec what Qod says, and when he finds it to read in the original, " He that belieceth and is immersed," he leaves God to take care of the consequen ces, and sits down quietly on the word.
So in this matter. If God has given laws to his Churches they are binding, not on the soulless corporation, but on each individual member of it Each man is bound for himself to do what he can to secure the execution of those

268

APPENDIX.

laws. In any case of doubt, he must yield to better in formed and larger number among his brethren, but to say that he must always sanction the act or submit to the act of the majority, is simply to take away his duty to obey Christ, and put on him the duty to obey the majority. The law which commands us to cast out or reject a heretic, is binding on a minority as much as on a majority. The law requiring to withdraw from those guilty of certain oflenses, is as much binding on every member as on all the members, or else it follows that there is no such thing as individual conscience or individual responsibility in a Church of Christ. All personal obligation is lost in the will of the majority. But this is an absurdity into which no Baptist will run. It follows, therefore, that when the majority officially sets aside or violates the law of Christ, and thus becomes guilty of producing divisions and wrongs, the minority is bound to withdraw from it, and whatever evil may result from it is to be charged upon the law, not on those who execute it
But what is the evil feared in this case ? It is not that where the law has actually and notoriously been set aside by the majority, a division will take place, but that where the law has been really enforced, some may claim that it was violated, and so without law and against law resist the majority. If this should occur, they forfeit their member ship, and are lawfully excluded. If they claim to be the Church, their claim, is rebellious and treasonable. The true Churches of Christ who regard his law will disown them, and refuse to recognize them as a Church, or their members as Church-members. They will thus stand alone till they repent or die out. The evil is not so great after all. It simply puts out of a Church some members who would not submit to a majority enforcing the laws of Christ, and who therefore ought not to be in.
Here is the whole thing in a nutshell. A Church is the

IS OUR EXAMPLE DAXGEROUS ?

269

executive of the laws of Christ. It is to enforce or execute, not violate those laws in its official action. The part of the Church which enforces, or strives to enforce it, is the true executive of Christ, and, therefore, the Church. The part that violates, or determines to violate those laws, is re bellious, and when separated from others, is not the Church.
But is not the majority in every case to judge, both of the law and the facts, and to decide according to its own convictions of right? Has not Christ intrusted the power in the hands of the majority, and while he holds it respon sible for its exercise, left the minority or the oppressed without a remedy?
I answer, that he has no more done this in regard to the exercise of discipline, that is to say, in the exclusion of a member, than he has in the reception of a member. Xow if the majority should claim that Christ has made it sole judge of the law and the facts, and authorized it to receive whom it saw fit, yet should, in the exercise of that author ity, dispense with or violate the law, receive an infant or seeker or other known non-professor of faith, or receive him by sprinkling or by sign of the Cross, or by the laying on of hands instead of baptism, those who could not sanc tion the violation of the law must withdraw, and when they come out they bring their Church-membership and Church authority with them. If this is not so, the Churches of Christ were once Baptist Churches--but when the majority adopted infant baptism and sprinkling they became Pedobaptist, for the authority and Church-membership continued with the majority. But now, if the majority has no more authority to violate the law in excluding than in receiving, then, in case of such violation of the law, the authority rests in the minority, as in the other case. Is not this plain?
If the minority mistakes the law and the facts, it is rightly excluded. If not, the majority is the faction. All turns upon this one point
23*

270

Al'PKNIttX.

Hut who is to decide. If tlioro was but one Church in the world, tho appeal could bo to Christ alono. As thoro arc others, tho appeal in, of necessity, to each of them, and can lie nuulo only by leaving them to decide which they will recognize as the Church, us the eoexeeutivo with them selves of tho laws of Christ: in other words, tho official acts of which they will recognize as valid, and tlin member* of which thev will rccognixo ns Church-members equally with their own members. This is what wo mean, and all we mean, by an appeal to Christ and our brethren. If tho Church at Murfreesboro' should bo persuaded by Kldcr Pendloton to violate the law, as abovo stated, in the recep tion of a member without profession of fuith or baptism, Deacon Fletchcr and :v few others would bo sure to protest and withdraw, and though Elder Pendleton and his major ity should fifty times declare them excluded, and anathem atize them ns heathen men nnd publicans, they would bo just as good men, just as good Baptists, and just as truly members of tho Murfreesboro' Baptist Church as they aro now, and every Baptist Church in Tennessee would so re gard them. And.so if he should persuade them to violato the laws of Christ in excluding a member, those who saw and knew that it was done, would take tho same course with the same result
The difference is that the application of the law of trial and exclusion is not so easily and certainly understood. There may bo room for doubt, and therefore, great care must be exercised: 1st, by tho opposing minority, and then by the approving or disapproving Churches. But this need of caution does not affect the principle. The right is some where, though it may not be so easily seen, and it must be looked for, and recognized when found, just as truly as if, as in the other case, it lay upon the surface. I am now done with this argument I should not have it here and note, but for the information that some brethren held aloof from

DUTY OF AX Ol'l'RKSSEJ) MKMltKK.

271

our Sabbath-school enterprise, on tho ground that we li:i<l lost our Church-membership, and had failed to unito with another Church to get it restored. 1 might have di* cussed tho principles involved without alhmion to ourselves, but it would hnvo boon believed that they were intended to apply, and so they were, and hence 1 thought bust to make tho application as I went along.
I am not conscious of any fallacy in tho reasoning or any error in regard to the facts. I invite tho closest scru tiny of the best thinker* in tho denomination. I call tho attention especially of my good brother who suggested tho doubts. 1 to is ono of the best rcasoncra wo have, and as his previous opinions havo differed from mine, he will bo stimulated to find tho error, if it exists. If he will discuss tho m:itter publicly, we will easily agrco upon the terms, for we both seek tho truth. If he prefers to write me pri vately tho points of difficulty or doubt, 1 will try to re form my argument or change my opinions, before I prepare them for publication in a permanent form.

XVI. ITns a worthy member, who has been " ir regularly" and "wickedly" accused, for the pur pose of expelling and crushing him, the right to withdrew) without trial ?
This question has excited no little discussion and feeling, but, like all such questions, there is a right and a wrong side to it. Without elaborat ing to too great a length, I affirm that he has the right to withdraw--to refuse to be tried.
1. The principles established in the fourteenth

272

APPEXDIX.

and fifteenth sections give him this right. If it ia right for a minority to withdraw from the majority when the latter show a determination to disregard the authority of Christ, it is a right which belongs to them, NOT AS A MINORITY, BUT AS INDIVIDU ALS. The right of one to withdraw does not depend upon the desire of another to withdraw; but the right is an individual, personal, absolute right. If the minority, supposing it to consist of ten members, has the right to withdraw, if it con sisted of but nine, eight, four, or two, no one will deny them the same right to withdraw. Now, if this be so, who will doubt that one may do the same thing ? He may do it, unless right depends upon numbers! It is not only his right but his DUTY to withdraw. This follows from the princi ple that it is the duty of the minority, consisting of any number greater than one, to withdraw.
2. The falsely accused and slandered member ought to withdraw, in such circumstances, because the accusers have no right to "wickedly" arraign and try him. Christ has established his law, in accordance with which offenders are to be tried and excluded; but to suppose that he has con ferred the right on a Church to try and exclude

DUTY OF AN OPPRESSED MEMBER.

273

members " wickedly" is blasphemy ! ! If Christ has never conferred this right, it must be a right in herent in the Church, if the Church has such a right. But if the Church has any such inherent right, Christ can not be her only Sovereign and Lawgiver. He may be partly Sovereign and partly not. In some matters he might give laws; but in others the Church, from her inherent right, ex cludes his authority! But this is neither Bible nor Baptist doctrine. Let the Church of Rome and her progeny advocate it. But if a Church has no right to try and exclude a member " wick edly," then I contend--
3. Tliai it ivoitld be sinful in the accused to sub mit to trial. Why so ? Because :
1st. Submission to trial implies the right to fry. But has his Church the right to try him thus ? Tfe have seen that she has no such right. If, then, the Church has no such right, and if submission to trial implies the right to try, it follows that the member thus arraigned ought not to submit himself to trial, rxiEss HE ODGHT TO DO THAT WHICH BEARS uposr ITS VERY FACE A FALSEHOOD. If any man will contend that the member thus accused ought to act out a falsehood, such a man ought ta

274

APPENDIX.

be reasoned with (if indeed he should be reasoned with at all) on the first and simplest principles of morality.
2d. If the said accused member ought to submit to a wicked trial, Tie ought also to submit to the wicked consequences of that trial. In this case, however wicked the act of exclusion, he would have no right to complain! He conceded to the Church the right to try him thus; and if she had the right to try him thus, she had the right to exclude him thus. If, again, she had the right to exclude him thus, the exclusion itself is right, yea, a righteous act!!! Of course, no one should complain at a righteous act. It would be sinful to do so. Even if the members voting the exclusion should have " conscientious scruples" at what they have done, they dare not question the righteousness of the act!!! Who does not see that this is no more nor less than reversing the entire order of the moral universe--that it makes right wrong and wrong right ?
"But what should he do?" "Should he not answer to the charges, and show them to be false ?" I answer: He should, after he finds that the Church has determined to proceed in violation

ASSOCIATIONS AXD CHURCHES.

275

of the law of Christ, go away and let them alone. He should pay them no more attention than Christ did, when his wicked accusers falsely charged him with many grievous crimes. " And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he an swered nothing."
This little volume will close with the following article, taken from the April and June numbers of the Southern Baptist Review, 1860, from the pen of Elder A. C. DAYTON. The article is writ ten in his usually lucid, logical, and happy style, and contains an elaborate discussion of some im portant principles contended for in my Keview, and some other matters of interest besides.
Let no one fail to read it carefully, and weigh his positions well.

ASSOCIATIONS AND CHURCHES.
Jesus Christ was upon the earth, he set up a visible kingdom, of which he became sole King and Law giver.
This kingdom consists of all those who have come out from the world--made a credible profession of their faith in Christ, and taken the oath of allegiance to him in the ordinance of baptism.
To this kingdom he gave laws, the object of which was

276

APPENDIX.

to extend its bounds by the reception of new members, and to preserve the purity, and consequent unity, of the kingdom, and its subjects in faith and practice, by the exercise of discipline.
But laws are of no force, unless there is some power to carry them into execution.
The power which enforces and carries out laws made by another, is very properly called his executice.
^Vhen Christ ascended to heaven, he provided an exe cutive for his kingdom of a very peculiar character.
He intrusted the execution of his laws, not to a king or bishop, not to councils or synods, not to conferences or general assemblies. But he ordained that such of the members of the kingdom, as could conveniently meet together, should form themselves into congregations or societies, in which each member should be the equal of every other; and that they should choose their own officers, and make whatever arrangements were needful to carry outhis instructions. This society he calls his " 'EKK/SGIO." or assembly. "The assembly of Christ and God." In our version it is commonly, though improperly, called the Church.
To this assembly, Christ, as King, was pleased to dele gate the power and authority to execute his laws. He gave it to this body and none else. He alone makes laws, and these assemblies alone have the authority, in his name, to execute them.
The Church, then, is the executive of the kingdom of Christ. The Church is to extend the kingdom by tho reception of members, and to preserve its unity and purity by instructing and building them up in the faith, admon ishing and reclaiming those who err, or by casting out those who show themselves utterly unworthy.
In regard to all this, however, her authority is delegated and limited by her instructions. She must use it onlj

ASSOCIATIONS AM) CHURCHES.

277

for those objects, and only in that way which her King has appointed. She is simply his agent, and like any other agent, if she violates or departs from her posi tive and specific instructions, her act is invalid, null, and void. It can not receive the sanction either of the Kins, or of any loyal subject of the kingdom. She is supposed to be the executive of hi* laics, and -while she executes them, she has his full authority. If she departs from them, or acts in violation of them, she is not his executive, and has no authority from him. Her claims to act in his name are a -wicked mockery; and her deed must be dis owned and disregarded, not only by the King himself, but by all those -who love the la-w, and desire to see it honored.
Let us illustrate this. Among the most important of all the instructions given to the Church, are those -which relate to the extension of the kingdom by the reception of new members; over this business she has exclusive con trol. Xo power on earth can say to her, you must receive, or you must refuse to receive, this or that person. "OTiom she will she accepts, and whom she will she refuses. But though thus above all human law, she is "not without law to Christ" She must be governed strictly by her instructions. If the King has said who may be received, and who must not, she has no other dnty or right but simply to decide whether the applicant is of the desig nated character.
Her instructions require that he shall be a believer, and cot a little unconscious babe, and that he shall be received by immersion, and not by sprinkling, or marking him with the sign of the Cross.
Now what if she sets aside her Lord's instructions, and receives those who make no profession of faith--mere " seekers" of salvation, or little puling babes, is her act valid ? Are all the members of the kingdom bound to sanction it. and2r4e"gard those thus received as true mem-

278

APPENDIX.

l>crs equally with themselves ? Must every other Church in the kingdom regard and treat that " seeking" unbe liever, and that unconscious babe, as Church-members, because a Church had received them as such, and declares them to be members ?
Not at JL She violates her instructions. Tho net is invalid. They aro no more members th:m if they hnd not boon receive! She was not executing the law of Christ in that net, but she rejected and dishonored it The net was one of rebellion or sedition. It has not the sanction of the King, and must not receive the sanction of any truo subject of the King. Every other Church, and every Church-member in all the land, vrhcn the facts arc known, is bound to reg-.ird the act as null and void. Xo one of them, if fuithful to the King, will treat as members of tho kingdom, those thus admitted, any more than if they had never been received.
Suppose a Church should see fit to dispense with tho law in regard to the manner of reception, and substitute some other ceremony for baptism. Xo power on earth can compel a Church to baptize those whom she chooses to receive- She may sprinkle them, anoint them with oil, cause them to taste of salt and honey, or make over them the sign of the Cross. What if she thus receives a man, a true believer, every way worthy and well qualified for membership? JToutd he be a member . Or must she, act only in regard to the character admitted, but in the mode of admission, observe the law of her Lord ?
There can be no question about this. Wherever the facts are known, evert other Church and every Churchmember -would be bound to repudiate the unlawful act, and regard the man as no more a member than if he had never been received. He mast not only have the needful qualifications, but be lawfully initiated, or else he is not within.

ASSOCIATIONS AND CHURCHES.

279

Am I not safe in saying that there is not n Baptist Church, or a Baptist Church-member, who would not repu diate nnd disown tho net of a Church which should thus get asido tho law of Christ in tho reception of members ? There is nono who would not feel bound to disown tho deed, nnd declare non-fellowship with tho Church thnt did it To regard such nets as valid, and accept such persons as members, would bo treason.
Xor would tho cnse bo any way changed if tho offending Church should plead that it was honest and sincere--that it had not erred intentionally, but had designed to carry out, and had carried out the laws of Christ as it under stood them.
It might plead that Christ has made every Church inde pendent, and constituted it tho solo judge of the require ments of his law in regard to tho reception of members. If, therefore, it thought best to receive these persons in the way they were received, and all other Churches were bound to regard tho act, and treat them as Church-mem bers, .and that to refuse to do so would be to destroy the independence of the Churches, the other Churches would reply: You stood as wo do to execute the Jaws which the King has made equally binding on us all; but instead of executing, you have set aside the law. Had your act been lawful, it would have been valid, and we must have given it our sanction, but we can not sanction treason nnd rebellion. "We may not be partakers of your evil deeds.
But who made you Rulers or Judges over us? Js not every Church sole judge of its own duties ? May we not receive whom we think best? and in that way which tee think right?
XO, you may receive those only who are by the lam of Christ to be received, and you may receive them only in that way which that law has designated.

280

APPENDIX.

But are we not sole judge of what the' law requires? Not at all. Every other Church in all the land is bound to judge of the meaning of the law as well as you. And when you, in its opinion, have departed from the law, it is hound to disown and repudiate your act It can not, indeed, come to you and say you must cast out these persons, unlawfully received, but it can say, when it shall have occasion, that this was an unlawful deed. It can say, these persons, not having been admit ted according to the laws of the kingdom, are not mem bers of the kingdom, and we will never regard or treat them as such; and it can do more than this. It can say to you: "A Church of Christ is the executive of his laws. While you continued to execute those laws, we regarded you as a Church, and your members as Church-members; but now you have become the violator and rejecter of those laws, you are no longer their executive, and we, therefore, can no longer recognize you as one of his Churches. Henceforth we disown you and your works, until you shall have repented and returned to stand upon the law." Every other Church, not only may, but must, so far as the facts are known to her, and she has any occasion to act upon them, treat the offender thus, for it is only thus that the purity and unity of the whole kingdom can be preserved. If any Church may set aside the laws which Christ has given for her official or Church action, and still claim the fellowship and co-operation of other Church es, then the official acts of every body which has once been a pure Church, must be recognized as lawful and valid to-day, no matter how far she has departed from the faith or the order of the Gospel. A Baptist Church may employ a Pedobaptist minister, receive infants or other unconverted and non-professing persons to member ship, and yet, because it was a Church, it must still be so

ASSOCIATIONS AND CHURCHES.

281

regarded, its members as Church-members, and its official

acts as valid Church acts.

We see, therefore, that when it shall please any Church

to change or set aside, or violate the plain and specific

2a\vs of Christ in regard to the reception of members, it

is not only the privilege, but the duty of all the other

Churches, first, to regard her act as null and void, those

thus received as though they had not been received, to

treat them not as Church-members, but as strangers; sec

ond, to disown and withdraw Church-fellowship from the

body which shall have thus unlawfully abused her power

as a Church.

Thus far, I suppose, there are few if any Baptists in all

the world who will disagree with me. What 1 have said

is but an expression of what has in all countries, and in

all ages, been the practice of true Baptist Churches. I am

sure, at least, those Baptist Churches must be very rare

which would continue to fellowship a sister Church, after

it had received a little babe in violation of the law which

requires believers; or administered sprinkling, in violation

of the law which commands immersion.

But why? What reason can we give? There can be

only this. She has, in her official acts, refused to be gov

erned by the law of Christ

We are now prepared to take another step in our argu

ment. If Christ has given Jaws to his Churches in regard

to the reception of members, he has given them equally in

regard to the administration of discipline, or the trial and

exclusion of members. A Church is just as much bound

to regard his laws in this as in the other case. It may

no more try and exclude a brother in violation of Christ's

law than it may receive a stranger. If, therefore, the other

Churches are bound to regard one as not a member who

has been received in violation of law, they are equally

bound

to

regard one 24*

as

not

excluded

who

has

been

cast

282

APPENDIX.

out in violation of law, and if they are bound to disfet lowship the Church that receives as members those whom the law does not permit, or in a way the law forbids, ara they not equally bound to disfellowship the Church that costs oufthose whom the law does not condemn, or by a process which the law forbids ?
If they must disfellowship the body which receives memibers in violation of Christ's instructions, must they not dis fellowship the body which excludes members in violation of those instructions?
A Church is no more independent of other Churches in the exercise of discipline, than in the reception of mem bers.
As other Churches can not compel her to cast out those whom she has unlawfully received, no more can they com pel her to take back into her bosom those she has unlaw fully cast out But as in the first case they can and must regard the unlawfully received as not received at all, so in the other case they may and must regard the unlaw fully excluded as not excluded at all. The act, in both cases, is null and void. And, as in the first case, they must disown the offending Church for its official violation of the law it was bound to enforce, so in the other they must pursue the same course for the same cause.
There is no conceivable reason why the rule should not hold in regard to the trial an.d exclusion of members, as well as in regard to their reception. In one as much as the other, the Church acts by authority delegated to her by the King, and strictly limited by his instructions, and in one as much as the other it acts simply as the co-ex ecutive with every other Church of the laws of Christ jf it has the rijrht to exclude whom it will, and all other Churches are bound to regard its acts as valid and binding, without regard to its lawfulness or justice, it ia certain it has equal right to receive whom it will, without

ASSOCIATIONS AND CHURCHES.

283

regard to the law of Christ, and all other Churches arc bound to regard the net as valid, and the person so re ceived, though he he an infant or an atheist, as a Churchmember, equally with their own. If it may dispense with the requirements of the Jaw in regard to the mode of pro ceeding in the exclusion, it may do so in the reception; and so may substitute sprinkling for baptism. And be cause it is an independent Church, and has exclusive ju risdiction over the matter of receiving members to itself, no other Church may disavow the deed, or disown the Church which did it
This is so plain as to be self-evident It needs no proof. It follows, of necessity, from the simple fact that in one case, as much as the other, the Church acts as the inde pendent executive, and yet the co-esecutive with every other Church of the laws of Christ.
There are, indeed, some reasons why the law in its letter and its spirit should be, if possible, more carefully regarded in the exclusion than the reception, and hence why the Churches should be more careful to disown and repudiate the unlawful act The subject of exclusion is a brother. He has rights which the law was given to protect He came in with the understanding that the law would be enforced. To depart from it is. therefore, not only rebel lion against Christ, but a grievous personal wrong to the accused.
If the accused is a minister, or one largely known and greatly loved, or one who has been, and. if not unlawfully dealt by, may continue to be a very useful and successful worker io the kingdom, then a wrong done to him is felt by the whole kingdom. Not the members of his Church alone, but of all the Churches where he is known, will feel, and ought to feel, a very great interest in the result. The whole kingdom may be distracted by it. Every Church, therefore, is interested in seeing that the verj

284
letter, and the whole loving spirit of the law, is most strictly regarded.
But if a Church receives a babe, or sprinkles a believer, BO injury is done to the personal feelings of the received, and the mischief is not likely to extend beyond the one Church. Surely if there is any official act in which a Church should be held strictly to the law, it is that by which it tries and excludes a brother whom it received to love and cherish, with whom it entered into a solemn covenant to keep the law, and to whom its violation may work irretrievable injury.
But what if Si Church disregards all this. What if she violates the law for the very purpose of working his ruin?
In all well regulated hitman governments there is some provision made for righting wrong, committed in violation of the laws by those who should enforce the laws.
If it were certain a Cbnrcb could never err; if, as some seem to think, it is infallible, there would be no need of any such provision in the kingdom of Christ.
But sad experience has proved, in every age, that Church-members are fallible men. Churches have some times mistaken the law. Churches have become the tools of designing and wicked men. Chnrcbes have been under the impulse of prejudice or passion. They have sometimes retained'the wicked and cast out the good. They have not only entertained charges unlawfully and wickedly brought, but they have unlawfully and wickedly consummated the wicked beginning in a more wicked ending.
They have done, and, therefore, may do, most fearful wrong. I do not say that Christ might not have left such wrong without a remedy had he so chosen, but I say hedid not chose to do so. He did not leave such tyranny and injustice, committed in his name, and professedly by his authority, without a remedy. Of all governments on earth,

ASSOCIATIONS AND CHURCHES.

285

we might expect his to be the most carefully guarded. He who would not break the bruised reed, has surely not authorized the executive of his government on earth to trample on the rights of his own dear, loving, faithful chil dren, and permitted them to be cast out of his kingdom, de prived of the privilege to observe his ordinances, or asso ciate with his people, treated as heathen men and publi cans, not for any sin, but for their very faithfulness to him and his laws, and that without any effective remedy. He may leave his dear people to suffer at the hands of the world, but does he leave them at the mercy of the evil pas sions of a Church acting in his name, and by authority from him ?
Let us admit the doctrine recently contended for so earn estly, and see where it will drive us. That doctrine is--
1. That the majority is the Church in such, a sense that the act of a majority is to be regarded as that of the Church.
2. That when one has been cast out unlawfully and wick edly, he is as truly cast out as if it had been lawfully and righteously done.
3. That all other Churches and Church-members are bound to sanction the wicked deed, and regard and treat the excluded as a heathen man and publican.
4. That no other Church has a right to receive such a one to membership, though he believes him to be every way worthy and well qualified. The apostles organized a Church at Rome. In the course of time that Church adopt ed serious errors in faith and practice. There were a few who held the faith once delivered to the saints, and obeyed the word which charged them to contend for it earnestly. This condemned the majority. They were accounted as disturbers of the peace of the Church. As they differed from the mitjority, they were accounted as heretics. The majority excluded and cursed them. The majority teas the Church. It had the authority of Christ Those cast out

286

APPENDIX.

were none but heathen men and publicans. They had DO Church-membership, no right to remember the Lord in his holy Supper, as he commanded. They had no right to or ganize anew as a Church. No other Church has a right to receive them. They stand in the ranks of Satan, and must stand there till the wicked Church of Rome repents and calls them back. But she never repents, but goes on from bad to worse. This minority being out of the Church, has no ministry or ordinances, and no authority in the kingdom
of Christ! If they receive members, they receive them not into a
Church of Christ, but into the synagogue of Satan; for to Satan the majority consigned them. The wicked body that excluded them is the Church of Christ, and those who de sire to enter Christ's kingdom must apply to it
What I have said of Rome was substantially true of a large majority o?all the Churches in the third and fourth cen turies, and if the Churches of Christ were continued at all, it was in the excluded anathematized and persecuted minor ities. But as these were as truly excommunicated as if it had been righteously and lawfully done, they were, of course, no Churches, and the Church of Rome, to-day, is the true Church of Christ She has always had a majority, and we and our fathers were truly, and in fact, excluded members, though we were excluded for obeying Christ
Their membership and right to Church privileges did not depend at all upon their purity of faith, their holiness of life, or their zeal for the truth, but on the will of tho majority. They could only retain their Church privileges by proving themselves unworthy of them; could continue in the kingdom of Christ only by turning traitors to their King, and that they did not dare to do.
There is but one way to get rid of this conclusion, and that is to admit that those who are unlawfully and wickedly cast out in violation of the law, are not cast out at all; but

ASSOCIATIONS AND CHURCHES.

287

that the act is null and void. They bring their Churchmembership out with them, and are just as truly members,
and as really entitled to all the privileges and immunities of Church-membership, as though the unlawful and wicked deed of the rebellious and sinful majority had never been
performed. There is a short, but very ancient, document on this
question. It is a brief epistle addressed by the apostle John to a man by the name of Gaius. From this we learn that there was in the Church of which Gaius was, or had been, a member, a certain person called Diotrephes, (3 John: 9, 10,) who refused to receive an epistle from the apostle John, and prevented the Church from doing it Further more, he refused to receive and entertain certain brethren who came there, and whom Gaius had received. Xot only so, but he had managed to secure a majority in the Church to aid him in his wickedness, and had actually " cast out of the Church " those who were willing to receive these
messengers. I infer that as Gaius was one who received
them, he had himself been cast out. This was a Baptist Church. The theory we are considering supposes its act was valid and binding upon all the Christian world. Gaius and his brethren who had been cast out for receiving
those who had gone forth among the Gentiles for the name of Christ were excluded Baptists. Every other Church, and every Church-member, must regard the action of the oppressors as final and decisive. To every one they must be as heathen men and publicans. They could not even have the privilege which every other heathen man possesses, of uniting with a Church as they might prefer upon giving
evidence of their worthiness. They were shut out forever from the visible kingdom of Christ, and from all Church privileges, unless it should please the proud and wicked
Diotrephes and his majority to repent of their wicked deed, and permit those whose only sin had been obedience to

288

APPENDIX.

the injunction, not to neglect to entertain strangers, to return to their company.
Did the Lord Jesus provide no remedy for such a case of wicked oppression, and perversion of his laws ? Some persons say no. What says the apostle John ?
lie addresses Gaius a letter, in which, so far from calling him a heathen man and a publican, he calls him the "icellbeloted" whom he "loves in the truth." Ho writes the letter for the express purpose of commending him for the very deed which had led to the exclusion of those members from the Church. He told him (verse 5) that in this act he bad done well and faithfully, and encouraged him (verse 6) to do the same thing again. Xot only to entertain such, but to bring them on their journey after a godly sort, or in a manner worthy of God and his cause. He told him that he had written, or, as some render it, would have written to the Church, but that Diotrephes would not receive him.
So far, then, from teaching that the wicked and unlawful exclusion was valid and binding on all the kingdom, he encourages the excluded to do again the same deed for which they had been disciplined. He takes no other notice of the act of exclusion, but to condemn it, and threaten to punish those who had been leaders in procuring it Nor was any other Church, or any other Church-member bound to take any other notice of it than what was needful to counteract its evil influence by giving countenance and encouragement to the excluded, and reproof and condemna tion to their oppressors.
Here, then, 1 find the remedy for these wrongs. It 13 the duty of every other Church to encourago and commend the right, and condemn the wrong. If the apostle had intended to teach as some modern doctors of divinity teach, he could not have called Gaius his well-beloved, and praised him for the deed, and encouraged him and the minority

ASSOCIATIONS Aln> CHUECHE3.

289

who had been excluded, to go on in defiance of Church authority, and repeat the same acts for which they had been disciplined.
If one should imitate the example of the apostle in these days, there are some Baptists who would consider that he was guilty of a grievous sin in encouraging resistance and insubordination to Church authority. And guilty he would be, but upon the supposition that a wicked and unlawful Church act has no binding force. It is utterly null and void, and is to be so regarded by all Churches and all Church-members. Let us look at the condition of poor Gains. He had joined this body as a Church of Christ It was a true Church. It had all the authority that Christ ever gave to any Church. Gaius loved the Savior, and desired to obey all his laws. By one of these laws he was commanded to entertain the strangers. His pastor would not do it He forbade the Church to do it He had a majority of the Church on his side ready to do his bidding. Poor Gaius t he now -found what a dan gerous thing it is to be a member of a Church of Christ He could not do right without loosing his membership; being separated from the people of God, denied the privi lege of obeying Christ in the ordinance of the Supper-- having his name cast out as evil--disgraced and dishon ored among Christians, and despised and rejected by the heathen. But if Diotrephes and his party could cast him out for this duty, they might for any other. A member of such a Church would not dare to do anything until he had first asked permission of the majority. He is not sure .that he is at liberty to offer a public prayer in a Church prayer-meeting, though called upon by the leader to do so. He may be told, next day," that it is very offens ive to a majority." He does not know whether he may give the money that he has earned by his own labor, to send the Gospel to the heathen. He may be told that
25

290

APPENDIX.

the majority disapprove such gifts. He is liable any day to be disgraced, dishonored, cast out of the Church, and given over to Satan, not for any crime, but for a simple act of obedience to his Savior. He dare not do right until he has humbly inquired whether it is entirely agreeable to Diotrephes and the majority. Alas for poor Giaus, and alas for those who, since his day, may have had the mis fortune to be members of a Church with another Diotre phes for a pastor, and such a majority to out carry his wicked and tyrannical behests. There may have been many such cases since the days of Gaius. There may have been some such in our generation. In his day the apostle of the Lord condemned Diotrephes and his party, and gave his countenance and praise to those who had dared to do right--to obey God rather than the majority. But now, alas, that Church or that minister who would venture to do so, would be declared unworthy of the confidence and fellowship of all true Churches. They must all encourage and sustain Diotrephes and the majority. Why ? Because they are the majority. Alas, alas, for those who fear God more than they fear majorities! 1! Alas for those who dare, in the name of Christ, to protest against a wicked deed of a majority. They are cast out of the Church as disturbers of the peace, as registers of Church authority, and no other Church may receive them, no other Church dare call them brethren, no other Church can ever admit them as it would a converted heathen to membership in its body. They stand accursed and separate forever from all God's people, until Diotrephes and his party shall see fit to undo their deed of wickedness done in the service of Satan, though in the name of Christ Alas 1 alas 1 Can it be true that as often as Satan can get into the heart of a pastor, and through him control the vote of a majority, and influence them to cast out true Christians from the Church for obeying Christ, that all Christ's Churches are

ASSOCIATIONS A3fD CHURCHES.

291

bound to unite with the devil, give their sanction to his work, confirm and perpetuate the wicked decree, and thus aid in consigning the members of Christ to the kingdom of darkness. Forbid it, justice! Forbid it, reason I For bid it, Almighty God! It may not, is not, neeer can be so. There must be some fearful mistake about this business.
The premises we have laid down in the beginning of this article show where it is. The fact is simply this: Every Church is but the coexecutive of every other Church in the administration of the laws of Christ There was no other Church in the whole of Christendom that was bound to pay any other attention to the unjust and wicked decree of Diotrephes and his majority, or, if you please, his Church, than-what was needful to counteract its influence, and show their disapprobation. Gains and his excluded brethren were still Church-members, be cause the act of exclusion, being unlawful, was null and void.
No other Church is at liberty to regard that act as valid, when it knows the facts. As it regards the place and purity of the kingdom, as it regards the law of Christ, as it regards truth and justice, it is solemnly bound to disown the evil deed, and disfellowship the Church that has been guilty of it
As, in case the unlawful deed had been in the reception of a member in plain violation of Christ's law, no Church would have regarded the person as really initiated, so now no Church can regard him as really excluded. All Church acts rest upon delegated authority, and are valid only so far as they are in strict accordance with the instructions given for its exercise.
Now we are prepared to see what relation, if any, our association sustains to this business.
And first, 1 will remark that I do not find association, as such, mentioned in the word of God. I find the author-

292

APPENDIX.

ity for the existence of the association only in the fact that the apostolic Churches were accustomed to appoint messengers to visit other Churches, and attend to such business as was intrusted to their hands. Such messen gers were appointed by the Church at Antioch to visit the Church at Jerusalem, and by the Church at Jerusalem to visit that at Antioch. Such messengers were appointed to travel with Paul, and to collect money for the poor saints. In one instance, at least, several Churches united in the appointment, for they were called the messengers, not of a Church, but of the Churches.
I infer, therefore, that there is Scriptural authority for the Churches to appoint members of their own body to go to such places as they shall send them, and attend to such business as they may intrust to them. Several Churches may thus send their messengers to one place to meet with those of other Churches, and may authorize them to estab lish schools, publish books, send out missionaries, or do any other work which, in their opinion, and, in fact, is lawful and proper for a Chnreh to do or assist in doing. These messengers thus assembled, we call an Association. But what have these messengers to do with Church dis
cipline ? May they say to any Church, You must or you must not
receive, retain, or exclude this person or that ? They can have no authority to do any such thing. No Church can say this to any other Church, and consequently she can not authorize her messengers to say it Bnt every Church can say what other bodies claiming to be Churches she will
recognize as such. Every Church is bound within certain limits to do this,
for it is only thus that the unity and purity of the king
dom can be preserved. All Baptist Churches have been accustomed to do this
from the days of the apostles. She may and must decide

ASSOCIATIONS AND CHUBCHES.

293

what other bodies she will regard as holding the same re lation to the kingdom of Christ that she does herself
As she may do this, she may instruct her messengers to do it in her name. She may and must refuse officially to associate with, or fellowship any so-called Church which she does not regard as sound in faith and orderly in prac tice, as much so as she is herself, and she may, therefore, instruct her messengers to refuse to associate officially with the messengers of such a Church.
In this way a Church may, therefore, by her messengers, refuse to recognize the wicked act of another Church, or may declare non-fellowship with that Church. And when the messengers of several Churches meet in association, and all refuse to recognize her act, or fellowship her mes sengers, we say the association has done it Yet the as sociation had no authority, except as those composing it expressed the will of the Churches they represent Let us illustrate: Here is a Church which has been called a Baptist Church, and has been so regarded by other Bap tist Churches. It goes over to the " Reformers," and sends a messenger who has been baptized for the actual remis sion of sins. Or here is another that has baptized in fants, or substituted the Pope's ordinance of sprinkling for Christ's ordinance of baptism. It sends its messengers, as usual, to meet with those of other Baptist Churches. But as those Baptist Churches may and must refuse any longer to recognize, or associate officially with those bodies as Churches, they may and must, if consistent, refuse to associate with them by their messengers.
They have not, as individual Churches, nor have their messengers as representatives of all the Churches, any authority over the heretical Church. They cannot say to her, " You must undo what you have done;" but they can andtoust disown her as one of the true Churches in the kingdom "equally with themselves, charged with the admm-
25*

294

.APPENDIX.

istration of the laws of the kingdom. They may and mut withdraw fellowship from her.
So when a Church has violated the laws given for her guidance in the trial and exclusion of members, all other Churches are bound, when the facts are known, to disfellowsbip the evil deed, and those who did it; and what they may do, as a Church, they may do by their messen gers.
So far as this wicked and unlawful deed may affect the interests of other Churches, they are bound to counteract its pernicious influence. What they know to have been done unlawfully and wickedly, they are bound to regard as null and void. They may not go to the Church, and say, "You must take the excluded back;" but they can say to the excluded, as John the apostle said to Gaius and his excluded brethren: "Well done. The very deed for which yon were cast out was ' faithfully done,' and we exhort you to go on after the same godly sort" And *o the others they can say: " You have, in our opinion, violated the law of Christ, which you were set to execute, and we can no longer recognize you as worthy to act as his executive jointly with us. Henceforth we repudiate yr/u and your official acts, until you return to the order of the Gospel of Christ" In other words, the messengers of the Churches may, in the name of the Churches, and by authority of the Churches whose messengers they are, declare with whom they can officially associate, or, in other words, re ceive as messengers of orthodox and orderly Baptist Churches like their own.
If it is competent for a Church to authorize her mes sengers to meet with others to form an association, it is competent for her to say with what sort of Churches sho will thus associate. If she says orthodox and orderly Baptist Churches, and they put this into their conftitutioo, then this constitution becomes a. permanent Church

ASSOCIATIONS AND CHURCHES.

'295

order, and the delegates are bound to see it enforced.
They can not receive and associate with those whom they regard as excluded Baptists, or with the messengers of a Church which it is known to them has. ia its official acts as a Church, openly and notoriously departed from the
law of Christ Thus indirectly, and in no further than its members
give expression to the conviction of their own Churches, can an association rightly exert any control over the dis cipline of a Church. As an association, it can only givo expression to the voice of the Churches, whose messen gers compose it Its action is binding on no one of those Churches unless it receives the sanction of that Church itself. If, therefore, the messengers in an association should vote unanimously not to receive the representatives from a certain body, on the ground that it was unsound in faith, or disorderly in practice, this decision would not prevent any Church in that association, or out of it, from continuing to associate as heretofore with that body, if it
thought best. The decision of the association has no other authority
than is given it by the moral force of such an opinion expressed under such circumstances. It only says to the Churches and the world, we, the messengers from other Churches, most nearly connected with this, best acquaint ed with its members, and having the best opportunity to become acquainted with all the facts in the cose, have decided that her act was unlawful and violative of the instructions which Christ has given for the government of his Churches. We, therefore, can no longer regard her as worthy of our confidence as an executive of the laws of Christ We can no longer recognize her official
acts as valid and binding. If other brethren and Churches see fit to disregard her
opinion, the association can not help it Everv Church 13*

296

APPENDIX.

and every Chnrch-mcmber has the same right to look into the facts after her decision as before, and is under the same obligation to repudiate the act of the Church if unlawful, or sanction and confirm it if lawful, as if the association had never heard of the case.
But,' at the same time, it is evident that it would be wise for brethren at a distance to give due consideration to the deliberately formed opinions of the Churches and brethren best acquainted with the facts.
If in the Church of which our excellent and well-be loved brother, Elder J. B. Taylor of Richmond, Va., is a member, he shonld be accused by some Diotrephes, and by such management as it is possible for a talented and determined pastor to employ, a majority'shonld be induced to set aside the law of Christ, or to pursue such a course as to cause a'large majority to believe the law was set aside, and to beg for its observance, when its observance, as they understood it, could have done no other harm but to delay his exclusion if he had been guilty; yet, their entreaty should be disregarded, and they should feel sol emnly and imperatively bound to resist the action of the majority and disfellowship the deed. But the majority is still unmoved. It goes on and excludes Elder Taylor, and then excludes the minority for contempt of authority; but he and they should contend that as the act was un lawful it was invalid, and consequently they were as truly Church-members as though it had never been performed; if the question should come np whether Brother Taylor and the minority were still Baptists, and the brethren rep resenting the Churches of his association should say, that in their opinion the law had been violated, and, therefore, they were Baptists; if the question should, in some shape, come before the General Association of Virginia, and they should decide the same way; if, in addition to this, the facts and the law had been carefully examined by a large

ASSOCIATIONS AND CHURCHES.

297

council of the best brethren from aU, or nearly all, the Churches of his association, chosen by the Churches them selves to examine and report, and they, without one excep tion, had decided that the law was violated, I should be very slow to believe that the dear brother had been fairly dealt with. I should still retain the right to examine for myself from the beginning. So would every Baptist But still the moral influence of the decision of such a coun cil, and so many brethren to whom the facts and the law must have been known, would be very great Yet it could compel no Church, no association, and no Baptist, to re gard Elder TayJor and his minority as still members. It could compel no one to disown the wicked majority, or their wicked deed. After all, each Church-member and each Church must in the exercise of its own conscientious judgment, as under law to Christ alone, receive or reject either the one party or the other.
If, in view of all the facts as they became known to her, any Church should be convinced that the proceedings were Scriptural, lawful, and right, and Elder Taylor should come to that Church as a minister, or even as corresponding secretary of the Foreign Missionary Board, she would be bound to reject him as an excluded Baptist, and just so with any member of his minority who had been cast out for humbly, yet earnestly and persistently, insisting that the law of Christ had not been observed, and declaring that they could not fellowship those who would not regard it But if any Church with the facts before her believes that the law was trampled on, that the proceedings began in a bad spirit, were conducted for an evil object, and were
unjust, unlawful, and wicked, she is not bound to give her sanction to the wicked deed, becanse it was done by a ma jority. On the contrary, it is a duty which she would owe not merely to Brother Taylor and his company as innocent and oppressed, but to Christ and his kingdom, not to give the

298

APPEKDIX.

slightest official sanction to the official wickedness which had been done by others in the name of Christ, bat with out hia authority, and only at the instigation of the devil She must, therefore, receive him as though no such unlaw ful act of exclusion had been passed.
The decision of a council or an association is nothing to her except as it may be regarded as testimony, as to whether the law of Christ had or had not been violated by the ma jority. Our Churches have been ever accustomed to re gard such testimony as conclusive when the alleged viola tion of law had reference to the reception of members or soundness in faith; so when a Church on this ground was not fellowshiped by its own association, it was disfellowshiped by all others. Why should it not be equally con clusive in a case of the violation of law in regard to dis cipline ?
But enough. Of the things which we have said this is the'sum:
1. A Church is no more independent of all other Churches in the trial and exclusion of a member, than in the reception.
2. If she violates the laws of Christ in the reception of members, either in regard to the person received or the mode of receiving, other Churches are bound to repudiate the act as null and void, and disfellowshiped her for do ing it
3. If the first position is true, they are equally bound to repudiate the act as null and void, and her for doing it, if she violates the law of Christ in the trial and exclu
sion or discipline. 4 As the Churches are bound to do this as Churches,
they are authorized to do it by their messengers, if they see fit so to instruct them.
5. Instructions given at any time not to associate with any who are not orthodox and orderly Baptist Churches,

ASSOCIATIONS AND CHURCHES.

299

will not only authorize bat require their messengers not to receive those from a Church that has violated the lav of Christ in its official acts, either in the reception, retain ing, or exclusion of members.
6. This refusal to associate with such a Church does not bind any other Church in or out of the association not to do so. Every Church is still to decide for itself whether the law of Cfcrist was violated or not.
7. But the simple fact that the Churches in the associ ation where the facts are best known have decided that the law was violated, will be strong prima facie evidence that it was really so. And this testimony will be much stronger if the Churches in that association had previously appointed their ablest men, and charged them to examine carefully the law and the facts, and they had spent days in the investigation, and reported unanimously, without one dissenting voice, that the law had been violated both in its spirit and its letter, and that the deed was oppress ive, tyrannical, and wicked.
The case must be very rare and the circumstances very peculiar, where the Churches at a distance would not be justified in acting upon this opinion, and receiving those whom their association had received, and rejecting those whom it had rejected.

THE END.