Llf IfJ1
|g VOL. I. PERIODICAL LIBRARY. NO. IV.
AN INVESTIGATION OF VARIOUS SUBJECTS t£
mu>
INVOLVED IN THE EXERCISE Of
po
BY A MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL
W
PENFIELD, GA.
PRINTED AT THE 'INDEX' OFFICE.
1847.
INTRODUCTION.
After a long and unexpected delay, induced by causes
which the publisher could not control, the fourth and last
number of the first volume of this work is laid before our
readers. We had contemplated re-publishing in this number
an interesting little work, published originally in the land of
the Waldenses, but when the printer called for it, it was not
to be found. In our emergency, we have concluded to lay be¬
fore our readers a series of Essays, on various subjects con¬
nected with practical Church Discipline. Some of these
have been in print before, and have been extensively copied
into Baptist papers, and, indeed, one or two of them have also
appeared in papers that do not support our denominational
views. This fact, together with the frequency with which
the queries discussed have been propounded to us and others,
encourage the hope, that they will not only prove acceptable
to our readers, but will assist them, either directly or indi¬
rectly, in forming correct views of the subjects investigated
—subjects involving the best interests of individuals, and the
peace and purity of our churches.
Some of the Essays in this number are prepared expressly
for the occasion, others have been amplified and amended,
and all have been revised with more or less care. We sub¬
mit them to the public with a deep sense of our solemn re¬
sponsibility to the great Head of the Church, for the views
which we aid in propagating, and with an earnest desire and
humble prayer, that they may be made to subserve the cause
of truth and righteousness.
We tender our most grateful acknowledgments to our sub¬
scribers for their patronage, and for their kind indulgence
and patient forbearance, amid the provoking delays which
INTRODUCTION.
have occurred in the publication of our last two number?
The work will not be continued unless we can insure regu¬
larity in future emissions. We have on hand a valuable ar¬
ticle. prepared expressly for the Periodical Library, by one
who wields the pen of a " ready writer." We would have
substituted it for the present number, but for its length ; it
would probably fill 120 pages. Negotiations now pending,
will decide, in the course of a few weeks, the question, Shall
Hie Periodical Library be continued ? We feel but little per¬
sonal interest in its decision. Its publication, so far, lias sub¬
jected us to a small pecuniary loss. We leave the decision
of the question, " to be, or not to be,:' with Him whose it is
to order ail events for the advancement of his own glory.
THE PUBLISHES*.
QUERIES CONSIDERED ;
OR
AN INVESTIGATION OF VARIOUS SUBJECTS INVOLVED
IN THE EXERCISE OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
PERSONAL DIFFERENCES.
Query I. What course should one member of a church
pursue toward another, by whom lie has been aggrieved ?
This query is very explicitly answered by the Sa¬
viour, in Matthew xviii., 15—17:
" Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee,
:|o and tell him his fault between thee and him alone :
if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
" But if he will not hear tkee, then 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 unto the
church : but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be
unto thee as a heathen man and a publican."
Were it not that our moral affections have been per¬
verted, and our understandings beclouded by sin, a word
of comment on the above passage would be wholly su-
peifluous ; but such are the imperfections of our frail
natures, that we often misapprehend truth—even when
it is expressed in the most lucid manner—and have need
to have it exhibited in a multitude of forms, and accompa¬
nied with various elucidations, before we can fully com¬
prehend it. Clear as are the instructions given by the
Saviour, relative to the course we should pursue in a case
254
PERSONAL DIFFERENCES.
of trespass, events are almost daily occurring, which
plainly indicate that 'hey are not progeny understood,
by many of those who profess to have been taught' by
his Spirit This i onsideration seems to us to justify
our commenting, somewhat in detail, on the passage
which contains an answer to the query at the head of
this article.
" 1Jthy brother shall trespass against thee."—The
supposed case, in this instance, is one of an actual tres¬
pass, committed by one brother on the rights of another.
Observe that these words limit the application of the
rule given to cases o(personal differences, between in¬
dividual members of the body of Christ ; but, at the
same lime, extend it to every kind of trespass, that one
may commit against another. The wrong done may
have been committed wilfully, or may have been com¬
mitted inadvertently ; it may have been of a very fla¬
grant character, or it may have been attended with
many palliating circumstances. If it be sufficient to
abate the ardor of otir affection for the brother, or in the
slightest degree to impair our confidence in him, we
ought, by observing the rule prescribed, to place it in his
power to restore himself to that place in our affections
and confidence, which he occupied before the commis¬
sion of the offence. On the other hand, no aggravation
of the offence, on the part of the offender, can exoner¬
ate us from our obligation to obey the express instruc¬
tions of our Saviour. It is frequently the case, in seri¬
ous difficulties between brethren, that the aggrieved in¬
dividual, when reminded of this rule, and urged to ob¬
serve it; inquires," what is the use?" or responds,
" it will do no good. He knew that he was doing
wrong—I know the character of the man, and know
PERSONAL DIFFERENCES.
255
that lie will refuse to make reparation," It is an old
adage, that two wrongs cannot make one wrong right.
His having sinned against you, is no sufficient reason
why you should sin against your Saviour, by refusing
obedience to his injunctions. Do your duty, and leave
the result in the hand of God. lie often corrects the
most incoirigible. If the offender prove obstinate, his
very obstinacy may lead him to reflect upon the impro¬
priety of his conduct, and be the means of his convic¬
tion. If he fail to repair the injury he has done, God
will not fail to make you amends. Whether he repents
or not, you will be rewarded with the smiles of an ap¬
proving God, and the possession of what will be worth
more to you thai, all the world—a quiet conscience.
But there is another view of the subject which you
should take. If the offender has offered you a wanton
injury, he has, through you, inflicted a wound upon the
Church : for if " one member suffer, all the membeis
suffer with it." 1 Cor. 12. 26. And if he possess the
incorrigible character ascribed to him, the sooner he is
out of the church the better will it be for the cause of
Christ, and the cause of humanity. As long as he con¬
tinues in it, he will prove but a '■ root of bitterness,"
and a cause of reproach ; a hindrance, instead of a help
to her advancement. You therefore owe it to your God,
to the church, and the world that is yet to be evangelized,
to adopt those measures, which are necessary to pre¬
cede the introduction of the case, in a pioper way, be¬
fore the church. If you bring it into the church before
you have pursued the course directed in the rule before
us, you give the offender an advantage over you, of
•which, if he be an evil-minded man, he will not fail to
avail himself; for you do, by that act, manifest a con-
25G i-eiisonal differences.
tempt of divine authority, and place \ ourselt by Lis siJe,
in the seat of the criminal. When one, in manifest
violation of this law of Christ, complains to you of the
injuries done him by another, beware of him, and be¬
lieve but little of what he lells you of his adversary ;
for he who scruples not to act falsely toward his Saviour,
will rarely scruple falsely to accuse his brother, if he
may thereby justify himself in the eyes of others, or
palliate his own offences. We are always more or less
suspicious of one who is disposed to vent in our ear,
long and doleful accounts of the injuries he has received
from others. In a large majority of instances, those
will be found to complain most frequently of trespasses
who are.. most frequently guilty of trespassing on the
rights and feelings of others. Such manifest far mure
reverence for the demands of self-interest, than for those
of truth, justice or mercy. Self is the god whom they
adore, and at whose shrine they hesitate not to sacrifice
all whose will or interest succumbs not to their own.
They d emand of others what they are unwilling to
grant, and expect to be treated as they are unwilling to
treat others.
" If lis shall hear thee, thou hast gained ihtj broth*
tr—Our attention is here directed to the end which
we should have in view. That end is the recovery of
a brother from the error of his wajs, and not the grati¬
fication of a spirit of revenge, or the ministering to our
pride, by triumphing over the infirmities of another.
Let this end be kept in view, and the means of effecting
it, will rarely be wanting. We will feel the importance
of avoiding every thing that savours of a disposition to
upbraid or censure. Let it be remembered, thatas in
water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man."
PERSONAL DIFFERENCES.
257
Frov. 27. 19. Whatever, therefore, in another, would
prove repulsive to us, will, in lie, prove repulsive to
others ; and, on the contrary, whatever would be most
likely to conciliate our affections, will be most likely to
conciliate I lie affections of others. We should manifest,
by our actions, words, and even by the expressions of
our countenance, that we are more grieved that our
brother should do wrong, than that we should sitjjer
wrong-. A look or a tear has often (.fleeted that which
all the terrors of the law, backed by the eloquent decla¬
mations of the orator, could net effect. It was a look
that touched the heart of Peter and wrought repentance
in his soul'. To gain a brother, by the manifestation of
a meek, gentle and condescending spirit, would be a far
greater triumph than to extort from him, by the force of
Jaw, a reluctant reparation for the wrongs he has done
lis.
" Jf he ivill not hear fhee"— What then ? Abandon
the case as hopeless? No. Arraign him before the
church? No; but make another effort. Go lo him
again, and, now "take with thee ane or t>vo more"
But be judicious in your selection. Select such as are
discreet, pie-eminent for their piety, and least likely to
be suspected as partisans in the a flair.—Proceed, as be¬
fore, to lay the matter before him coolly, rerpcctfully
and affectionately. Manifest every disposition to settle
lie difference amicably.
The object of taking ''one or two more," is twofold.
First, that they may exeit their influence in endeavors
to adjust the difficulty. That this is one of the reasons
for the rule, is obvious from the next verse—" if he
refuse to hear them, &c. They must ppcak before
they can be heard. They are therefore, to counsel^
258
personal differences.
advise and admonish. It is often the case, that ati
offender will listen to an admonition coming from a dis¬
interested party, which would be rejected if offered by
the individual aggrieved. But a second reason for this
direction is, that if the offender continue incorrigible
they may serve as witnesses in the case, when brought
before the church. This leads to the consideration of
the Law of Evidence.
" That in the mouth-of two or three witnesses, every
word may be established." Note ; the Saviour here
establishes, as a rule necessary for the administration of
justice, under the new or christian dispensation, a rule
which had been observed under the old or Jewish dis¬
pensation. By this, no individual was to be condemn¬
ed upon the simple testimony of another. For the
word of one man is to be considered as good as that of
another, until one or the other of the parties is proved
unworthy of confidence. The testimony of one man,
however, added to the testimony of the accuser, is re¬
cognised as sufficient for the conviction of the offender.
This is evident, from its being left to the aggrieved to
decide whether he will take with hirn one or tioo others.*
* A case has been reported to us, in which a brother objected to the
course pursued by another, because lie took with him three brethren,
instead of one or two, when he went the second time to attempt the set¬
tlement of a personal difficulty; and this article, the substance of
•which had been but recently published, was adduced as evidence
that the views of the author accorded with his own. It may not,
therefore, be improper to add, that we do not suppose it was the de¬
sign of the Saviour to fix definitely the number that we should take
with us to aid in settling a personal difference with a brother. The
phrase " one or two" is itself indefinite. It is used, not (infrequently,
a3 equivalent to " a fewand, in our opinion, is so used by the Sa¬
viour. The aggrieved was to take with him a few brethren; that
is, a sufficient number to ' establish every word,' but not enough to
embarrass the settlement of the difficulty, or to give to it undue pub¬
licity. We can very readily conceive of cases in which it|may be de¬
sirable to have as many as three brethren present. If there should be
any diversity of opinion between the first two, the presence of a tliird
person might greatly aid in adjusting the affair, s
Personal differences.
259
It has been objected to this rule, that if we adhere to
it rigidly, it will often be difficult to exclude delinquent
members. In reply to this, we have three remarks to
Uiake ; 1st. It is always safe to adhere closely to the
rules which infinite wisdom has prescribed, and always
dangerous, inasmuch as it is sinful, to substitute the de¬
ductions of human reason, for the teachings of the Holy
Spirit. 2d. It is better that ten should escape merited
punishment, than that one should suffer unjustly, This
is a principle which God himself sanctioned, in the case
of Lot and the idolatrous cities of the plains—(See Gen.
19.) 3d; The rule does not interdict the passing judg¬
ment against an individual, where the testimony of one
man is sustained by circumstantial evidence, or the in¬
direct testimony of others. Suppose, for instance, a
member is charged, by one who sustains an irreproach¬
able character, with the commission of a criminal act.
In the investigation of the case, it is ascertained, upon
the testimony of others, that his general conduct has not
comported with the gospel of Christ, but has rather
accorded, in character, with the act with which he stands
charged, and circumstances are developed'which clear¬
ly indicate, in the accused, a disposition to commit the
act with which he is charged. We would not hes¬
itate to say, that the laws of Christ's kingdom afford no
protection to such. They require that he should so
walk as to maintain a good report without, and that
upon the testimony of two or more witnesses, every
word should be established. In the supposed case, the
direct testimony of the accuser, is sustained by the in¬
direct testimony of the many. The law therefore
not violated, but fulfilled.
" And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unt»
260 rensonal, dii-fehences.
the church—This is the last scriptural resort. Do no-
mistake it. Wc arc not instructed to report Ins case
for a decision to the priest, or the deacons, or tnc luling
elders, or tl;e select men, or the class, or the vestry, or
to any judicial committee; but to " to tell it unto the
church." The object should still be, not to punish, but
to reclaim him. Should the church find it necessary to
withdraw her fellowship from him, she should do it in
such a manner as to evince, that she claimed no right to
punish, but simply exercised the right vested in her of
protecting herself, and the cause of Christ from reproach.
When therefore the painful necessity is laid upon her,
of excluding a member, it is always better that the mo¬
tion should be made to withdraw fellowship from him,
than that it should be made to expel or excommunicate
him. The former expression seems to intimate, lhat
we are influenced, not by ar.y ill feeling towards the
offender, but by a view of the sinfulness oF his conduct*
a respect for divine authority", and a regard for the puri¬
ty of the church j whde the latter expression, will inev¬
itably convey the idea of an abhorrence, not only of the
person's sins, but of Hie person himself.
Closing Remarks. 1. The query answered involves
both a case of conscience and a case of church discipline.
The rule upon which we have commented is designed
for the regulation of the conduct of individuals, and is a
rule by which the church should require her members
to walk. If any fail to observe it, their conduct should
not be suffered to escape the notice of the church.
2d. It is a manifest perversion of the rule to apply it
to cases of public offences ; that is, to offences commit¬
ted against the common cause ef Christ. To extend a
rule beyond the limits assigned it in the word of God»
PERSONAL DIFFERENCES*
261
ia to establish a dangerous precedent, and to recognize
as correct, principles upon which Poedobaptism and
Popery have reared their fabric.
3d. The rule is given for the direction of the person
aggrieved or injured. The neglect of it cannot there¬
fore be justified upon the common plea, *'1 have not
injured him—he has injured me, and therefore it is his
place to come to me," The rule for the offender is
distinct from that here given for the offended. In a sub¬
sequent part of this volume, we shall notice what is
taught of offenders, and the course to be pursued in cas¬
es of public offences,
4th. It will be difficult for one, whose heart has not
been properly subdued by divine grace, to submit to
this rule ; but to one full of '.he Spirit of Christ sub¬
mission will prove easy. Such will ever realize the
uuth of the Saviour's declaration: "For my yoke is
easy, and my burden is light." Matt. 11. 30. Hence
if we feel a disposition to refuse obedience to this, or
any other rule of Christ's kingdom, we have sufficient
reason to conclude that our hearts are not right before
God.
B
262
INFRACTIONS OF THE RULE
INFRACTIONS OP THE RULE PRESCRIBED BY THB
SAVIOUR.
Infractions of the rule, upon which we have com¬
mented, frequently occur. There is one error in
reference lo these, prevalent in many of our church¬
es, which should be corrected. We allude to the
opinion, that a violation of the rule by the aggrieved,
in bringing an offender before die church before he has
pursued the course presetibed by the Saviour, relieves
the church from the obligation to deal with the individ¬
ual thus arraigned before them.
Were the effects of personal difficulties confined (o
the parties more immediately implicated, such an opin¬
ion might be maintained with some degree of plausibili¬
ty ; but it should be lemembeied, that every offence
committed by one individual against another, is an of¬
fence committed against the whole body, and against
the cause, for the furtherance of which that body was
incorporated. While, therefore, the irregularit)* in the
course pursued by the peison aggrieved might subject
him to censure and preclude from him the light to com¬
plain of the church, should she neglect to act upon the
case, it is certain, that such neglect could not fail to af¬
ford just cause of complaint to others.
On this subject we lay down two distinct proposi¬
tions, and request our readers to test their correctness
by the touchstone of God's word. If they be found
correct, let them be carried out in the acts of their r«-
PRESCRIBED BY THE SAVIOUR.
263
spectivc churches, to the honor of God, and to tha
good of his cause.
I. A church is bound to take cognizance of eve¬
ry manifest violation by ils members, of any of the
laws of Christ's kingdom, with which it becomes ac¬
quainted, whether the information of such violation is
communicated in a regular order or not.
The reasons for this rule are obvious. The church
is required to set the seal of her disapprobation on
every transgression of the law of God. Her obligation
to do this is not made to depend, in the slightest de¬
gree, upon the means by which she arrives at a know¬
ledge of the transgression ; for the character of an of¬
fence is not affected, in the least, by the manner in
which it is made known. The magistrate is as muck
bound to have a band of robbers arrested, when infor¬
mation of their acts of robbery is communicated by one
of their own number, who has turned a traitor, as when
it is communicated by an honest and orderly citizen.
And so is the church as much bound to notice offences
committed, when she receives her intelligence through
•one who is himself an offender, as when she receives it
through the most harmless and exemplary'of her mem¬
bers. So long as she is ignorant of the offences com¬
mitted by her members, she is not chargeable with
them; but the moment she is made acquainted with
them, if she fails to adopt measures for calling the of¬
fenders to account, and for preventing the recurrence of
ihe like offences in future, she viitually sanctions those
pffiences, bids the offenders God speed, becomes a par¬
taker of thpir evil deeds, and renders herself amenable
both to God a«(J m^n. [Spe Ps. 1., 18—1 Tim. v., 22
John xi.J
264 infractions of the kule
' II. While an act, which is subsequent to anoth¬
er, may be affected by that which is anterior to it,
that which is anterior cannot be affected by that which
is subsequent.
Were the plain, obvious truth contained in this pro¬
position borne in remembrance, it might save our chur¬
ches from many errors and from much merited reproach.
But further to illustrate our views and point out the
couise to be pursued under certain contingencies, we
will suppose a case, and offer some comments upon it.
A. charges B. wiih trespasses committed against
himself, before he pursues the course prescribed by the
Saviour. B., in return, charges A. with a violation of
the rule to which we have referred, and pleads, per¬
haps, that the church has no right to deal wiih him, as
the case was informally brought before it. Such a
plea is evidently invalid. The truth is, they are both
offenders, am! the church is bound to investigate and act
on the cases of both. But as she cannot act on be>th
simultaneously, the question may arise, which case
should be first taken up? We answer, unhesitatingly,
the case of B., and that for two reasons : 1st. Because
the offence of B. was committed prior to that of A., and
was first brought to the notice of the church ; 2d. Be¬
cause A's offence grew out of that of B. Properly,
therefore, to adjudicate the case of A., we must acquaint
ourselves with those circumstances in the conduct of B.
which tended to aggravate or palliate the offence of the
farmer. But to do this, it would be necessary to enter
fully into the investigation*of the conduct of B. The
case is as clear as the sun in a cloudless sky at noonday.
We have frequently known churches to dismiss case*
indefinitely, because there was some irregularity in
PRESCRIBED BY THE SAVIOUR. 265
manner in which they were brought before them. In
other instances, the cases are dismissed until the accuser
brings his accusation in the prescribed form. These
generally prove, too, final dismissions. If we are right
in the views expressed in the preceding part of this ar¬
ticle, that church is wrong which pursues either of these
courses. "He that knoweth to do good and doeth it
not, to him it is sin." By a parity of reasoning, that
church which knows of the existence of an evil in it
and neglects to correct it promptly, must be viewed as
guilty before God.
When an individual is charged with criminal conduct,
if instead of replying to the charges brought against
him, lie endeavors to criminate others, he affoids strong
presumptive evidence of his own guilt. He acts upon
the same principle with the thief, who, when the officer
of justice and the mob are at his heels, raises the cry,
and cries loudest of all, " Stop thief! stop thief"?" Ilis
principle is to evade justice by diverting attention from
himself to some other individual. To prevent your
plucking the beam out of his own eye, he would set you
to picking at the mote in his brother's eye.
266
FUBLIC OFFENCES.
PUBLIC OFFENCES.
Query. II. Is it invariably our duty to admonish a public
offender privately, before we report his case to the church *
"We think it is not. We know that the opinion is
very prevalent, in our southern Churches, that even
public offenders should not be arraigned before the
church, until we have labored with them in private and
found all our efforts to produce a reformation fruitless.
This opinion appears to be founded, in part, upon a mis¬
understanding and a consequent misapplication of the
lulo in Matthew xviii, 15—17, upon which we made
some annotations in our reply to the preceding query ;
and, in part, upon a contracted view of the end ot church
discipline. We have already stated, that the rule in
Matthew is limited to cases of personal differences, and
cannot therefore be extended to eases of public offence?,
without sanctioning a principle most manifestly errone¬
ous and highly pernicious in its tendency. The ques¬
tion then occurs, is there any other foundation in the
word of God for the opinion to which we have alluded t
We answer, No more than there is for pedobaptism and
popery. There is neither precept nor example in the
word of God to justify the belief, that it is our duty, or¬
dinarily, to admonish a public offender privately, before
he is called to an account publicly for his conduct.
To satisfy the reader of ttie correctness of this asser¬
tion, we would direct his attention to the numerous in¬
junctions given in the sacred writings in reference to
public offences. The following are some of the many
.to which we refer:
PUBLIC OFFENCES.
267
Romans xvi, r17—"Now I beseech you, brethren,
mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary
to the doctrine which ye lave learned ; and avoid
them."
1 Cor. v., 4, 5.—" In the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, when ye are ""gathered together, and my spirit,
with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver
tueh a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Je¬
sus." (The Apostle, iti this passage, piescribes the
course to be pursued in the case of a certain fornicator
who had married his father's wife.)
Verse 11—" But now I have written unto you, not to
keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a
fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a
drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no, not
to eat."
Verse 23—"Therefore put away from among your¬
selves that wicked person"—(the fornicator, to whom
he had previously referred.)
2 Thess. iii, 6.—"Now we command you, brethren,
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdiaw
yourselves from every brother that walkeih disorderly,
and not alter the tradition which lie received of us."
Verse 14.—" And if any man obey not our word by
this epistle, note that man, and have no company with
him, that he may be ashamed."
1 Tim. v, 20,—"Them that sin, rebuke before all,
that others also may fear." See also Prov. xx., 10—
Gal. i.,7,9—2 John v., 10, &c.]
On these passages of Scripture we have but two re¬
marks to offer : 1st* They are addressed, with but one
tzeeption, to the people of God, or the Church ; and,
208 public offences.
in the passage excepted, the Aposlle gives to tl.e high¬
est officer in the church a rule, which is evident.y de¬
signed not so much for the regulation of lus own con¬
duct, as for the government of the church over which he
presides. This is apparent from the instructions which
precede it, relative to widows, unmarried women, eld¬
ers, &c. 2d. In these passages there is not the most
distant allusion to any preliminary steps, required to be
taken, as in the case of personafdifFerences,—no direc¬
tion to go to the offender and " tell him his fault between
thee and him alone," and " if he will not hear thee, take
with thee one or two more," &c.
As it respects the examples of Christ and his Apos¬
tles, they are adverse to the opinion which we aie com¬
bating. Christ publicly charged the scribes and phari-
eees, and even his own disciples, with their derelictions
of duty. But as some may question the propriety of
making the acts of an Omniscient and sinless Saviour a
precedent for short-sighted and erring mortals, in 'mat¬
ters of this kind, we will refer to the acts of his disci¬
ples, after the administration of the affairs of the church
was delivered up into their hands.
At an early period, while yet the disciples held their
possessions in common, Ananias and Sapphira were
guilty of a novel species of fraud, and of a barefaced
falsehood. Peter received intelligence of the fact. It
is not stated whether he received it by a direct commu¬
nication from the Searcher of hearts, 01 through indi¬
viduals who weie acquainted with the circumstances of
the case; for it was a matter of no consequence to us to
know by what means he obtained his information. But
as it was of importance that we should be acquainted
with tho course of conduct which, under such circum-
PUBLIC OFFENCES.
269
stances, Infinite Wisdom would approve, the particulars
of the proceedings in the case are given in full. Anani¬
as and Sapphira appeared successively before the Apos¬
tles and those who were assembled with them. Peter
did not take them aside and expostulate with them on
the evil nature of their sin, and urge them to an acknow¬
ledgement of their guilt and a profession of penitence,
but interrogated themvrespectively, relative to the trans¬
action in which they had offended, and publicly charged
them with the guilt of lying unto the Holy Ghost.
God set the seal of his approbation upon the course pur¬
sued by Peter, by visiting them with a most awful and
speedy judgment. It should be borne in remembrance,
that the infliction of the punishment, in this case, was
not the act of the Apostle, butthe immediate act of God.
—See Acts v., 1—11.
On a subsequent occasion, Peter himself, it appears,
was guilty of pursuing a course which did not well com¬
port with his Christian vocation. For this the Apostle
Paul passed his censures upon him, not in a private in¬
terview, but in the presence of an assembly of the dis¬
ciples,—" before (hem all."—Gal. ii., 11, 14. More¬
over, the proceedings in this case were recorded, sent
abroad and read to the churches. While empires have
risen and fallen, that record has been preserved by the
kind providence of God, and is still read to the churches
for their edification. We do not learn tha^ Peter, after
the manner of modern offenders, objected tcx the course
pursued by Paul, in order to screen himself from ceo-<
sure. Nor does it appear that he manifested, at the
tjnfle, or subsequently, any hostile feelings towards h\m
tfho had thus publicly accused him of conduct inconsis*
with h|s Christian character. Sq far this.
270 PUBLIC OFFENCES.
when he had occasion to mention Taul, in one of hit
epistles, lie speaks of him as " cur beloved brother
Pani:,—2 Peter iii, 15.
Enough lias been said, we conceive, to evince, that
the precepts oftlie gospel and the examples of the apos-
i!es so far from teaching that it is our duty invariably
to admonish a public offender privately, before we ar¬
raign hirn publicly, sanction a course of conduct direct¬
ly the opposite of this.
But we have heard it objected, that the apostles acted
tinder the immediate and epecial influences of the Holy
Spirit, and therefore theii examples are not safe prece¬
dents for us. In reply to this objection we have several
things to say : 1st. Satan and his subjects are ever fruit¬
ful in inventions. An offender, therefore, will seldom
want for a plausible objection to every rule of discipline
that is applicable to his case, even though such be ex¬
pressly given in Scrip'ure. 2d. If we admit what is
objected to the examples of the Apostles, it will by 110
means follow, lhat an opposite course of conduct to
theirs would be correct. 3d. If the simple fact that
the apostles acted under extraordinary influences of the
Spirit, renders it improper to follow their examples in
one instance, in which it is possible to imitate them, we
see not why it should not render it equally improper to
follow them in any other of their public acts. 4th. We
cannot believe that the Holy Spirit would dictate a
course which was repugnant to the principles of moral
rectitude or natural equity. As these principles are 3s
eternal and unchangeable in their nature as the being
of God, we cannot conceive that what was morally
light in the days of Peter and Paul, can be ipoiailj
rPw* 5th. The example of the apostles ajyJ
PUBLIC OFFENCES.
271
primitive disciples, we are expressly taught in Scrip¬
ture lo follow. (See 1 Cor. iii., 1—Phil, iii,, 17—1
Tliess, i., 7—2 Thess. iii., 9—&c.) This of itself
should be sufficient to obviate every objection.
As we have answered an objection to the views which
We entertain, we will now proceed to state an objection
of two to the rule of those who differ from us in opin¬
ion.
1st. Their rule must necessarily prove invalid. It
can bind no one ; for what is every man's duty is evi¬
dently the duty of no one in particular, When an in¬
dividual is guilty of a public offence, the knowledge of
his guilt becomes, as it were, public property, and eve¬
ry member of the church suffers equally from his defec¬
tion. The duty to go to him, therefore, cannot devolve
upon any one in particular. Moreover, if you require
the public offender to be admonished privately, before
his conduct is submitted tothe church for investigation,
you do virtually extend over him the aegis of your pro¬
tection, and insure impunity in sin to the grossest of¬
fenders. The greater the offence, too, the greater
would be the security of the offender : for who would
ever report to the church the case of the confirmed
drunkard, the notorious gambler, or the abandoned
prostitute, if ho were required first to admonish such in
private ?
2d. We further object to the rule in question, that if
it be observed, it cannot secure the ends which we
should have in view. The rule is based upon the mis¬
taken notion, that the reformation of the individual is
the principal thing that renders action necessary. Bui
interests have been affectedinfinitely superioi to the in¬
dividual interests of the offender. His misconduct has
brought reproach upon the causetof Christ, and served
272 PUBLIC OFFENCES.
to fortify the ungodly in their unbelief, and confirm
them in all their hard speeches and ungodly deeds. He
has fixed a stain upon the Christian name, which all hii
tears of penitence can never wash away ; and he haa
rolled a stone against the sinner's heart, which no sub¬
sequent exertion of his power can ever remove. If
there is not an action of the church on his case, her
neglect will fix, indelibly, a stain on her own character.
So long as she holds in fellowship the offender* she
must and will be considered as holding fellowship with
his deeds of darkness. The prominent objects which
should be kept in view in dealing with public offenders,
should be the preserving untarnished the honor of the
cause of Christ and the good name of the church. But
these objects could not be advanced by requiring the of¬
fender to be admonished privately, before he is brought
to the bar of the church. Should he repent and make
acknowledgments in private, this could not sypercede
the necessity of an action of the church ; as nothing but
an action of the church could evince to the world, that
6he had no fellowship for his unchristian acts. The ar¬
gument cui bono must be allowed, therefore, to have its
full force here.
We close the present aiticle with a few general de¬
ductions drawn from the preceding remarks :
1. There is no authority in Scripture for requiring
public offenders to be admonished privately before their
cases are submitted to the action of the church.
2. Both Scripture and reason teach the impropriety
of incorporating such a rule in the constitution of any
church.
3. The individual who is guilty of committing a pub¬
lic offence, has no right to complain, if he receives hi«
first admonition in the presence^ the whole church.
PUBLIC OFFENDERS.
273
*>t7BLIC OFFENDERS.
Query III. Under what circumstances is it our duty to
go to a public offender and admonish him in private ?
While we affirm that there is no law of Christ's
kingdom which imposes upon us the obligation to ad¬
monish an offender privately, before we introduce his
case to the notice of the church, we would not be un¬
derstood as pronouncing it unlawful in any case to pur¬
sue such a course. Circumstances may render it not
only lawful, but manifestly our duty to labor with an in¬
dividual in private, before we act^ upon his case in
public.
Thejre is a wide and material difference between a
positive obligation and a moral duty. The one rests
upon a positive precept or express example; the other
upon general principles directly or indirectly recogniz¬
ed in the word of God. Thus we may speak, with
propriety, of a positive obligation to perform a moral
duty; for there are positive precepts to do the whole
will of God, and the will of God is revealed, in
part, in the general principles to which allusion has been
made. It may, therefore, be our duty to do what it
would be-very unlawful in the church, by an express
rule, to require us to do. The church has no right to
pass any law for which it has no express warrant in the
word of God; but we are morally bound, as individu¬
als, to do many things for "Which there is no express
precept. Were an express precept necessary to'impose
a duty, what an endless natftber of volumes must have
o
2 74 PUBLIC OFFENDERS.
been written to teach us " the whole duty of man.
The long life of a Methuselah would have proved insuf¬
ficient to enable one to acquaint himself with the thou¬
sandth part of those precepts, which it would have been
necessary to give 5 and, consequently, insufficient to
teach liirn the thousandth part of his duty !
The question at the head of this article then occurs
—Under what circumstances is it our duty to go to a
public offender and admonish him in private ? Before
attempting to answer this query, we would premise,
that the Scriptures certainly justify us in making a dis¬
tinction between offenders. Jude, in his Epistle, speak¬
ing of certain false teachers, and those who were led
astray through their artifices, says, " And of some have
compassion, making a difference; And others save
with fear, pulling them out of the fire ; hating even the
garment spotted by the flesh,"—V. 22, 23.
The sum and substance of the instructions on this
subject appear to be this : That gross, wilful and obsti¬
nate offenders are to be promptly excluded from the
church, while such as have been misled by them, and
have sinned inadvertently,—not through a settled uur-
pose to do evil, or any perverse disposition of the heart,
but through the weakness of their frail natures, and the
infatuation of the moment,—should be treated with
greater lenity. If they are tractable, can be made sen¬
sible of their errors, are ingenuous enough to confess their
faults, and honest enough, not only to reform their con¬
duct, but to seek to make some adequate reparation for
the wrongs they have done, they should be retained in
communion. But even in such cases, it is necessary
that the church proceed in such a manner as to evince,
very clearly, that while she retained the offender in fel¬
lowship, she held his sins in utter abhorrence.
PUBLIC OFFENDERS.
275
Churches, in the present day, are ready enough to
make distinctions in the treatment of offenders; but the
distinctions which they makeare loo often founded upon
the influence which individuals possess in the world,—
upon an influence which is produced, not by a holy life,
but by the adventitious circumstances of place, proper¬
ty or worldly reputation. If one animadverts upon the
improper conduct of a member who is thus favored, the
reply is, u 0, he is an officer of government, lie is c*
man of wealth, or he is a man of talents, a man of grea'c
erudition—we must bear with him." It is thus, in the
church, as it is in the state : wealth, office, and worldly
reputation, cover more sins by far than the robe of char¬
ity. Christians, as well as men of the world, but too
frequently verify the truth of Shakspeare's remark :
" Through tattered clothes small vices do appear ;
Robes and furred gowns, hide all. Plate sin with gold,
Afld the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks :
Arm it in rags, a pigmy's straw doth pierce it."
It is scarcely necessary to add, that the only distinctions
which are warranted by the word of God, are those
founded on differences in moral character.
These remarks, we trust, have prepared the reader,'
in some degree, to give a due consideration to the views
which we shall express in answer to the query we are
considering. In reply to that query, we would observe
in general terms, that when three things occur in the
case of the offender, we may safely conclude that it is
our duty to reason with him in private, before we ar¬
raign him publicly. 1st. iVhen the offence committed
is evidently ascribable more to aici error of the head than
of the heart, and savors more of what the world would
call an impropriety, thaaofanjmmoralityj 3d. "When
276
FtTBLrC OFFENDERS.
it is in the power of the individual, by his own act, ef¬
fectually to secure the ehurch from all unjust imputa¬
tions on his account; and, Sd, When the general char¬
acter of the individual is sueh a3 to justify the belief of
his willingness, when convinced of his error, to make
any reparation in his power, for the wrongs committed.
Jf any of these things be wanting in the case of the of¬
fender, the duty to admonish him privately will be, at
least, very questionable. If all are wanting, it certaiiv
ly cannot be proved the duty of any one to do it.
If the offence consist in some grossly immoral act,
such as tho'sin of drunkenness, the commission of as¬
sault and battery, fornication, &c., no acknowledgments,
210 professions of penitence on the part of the offender,
can shield the church from reproach: It will, therefore;
be absolutely necessary that the church should act upon
his case. She should act promptly* act with decision*
and aet effectually. Our churches, almost uniformly,
are guilty of two flagrant errors in reference to such ca¬
ses. The first is, that of delaying action unnecessarily -r
and the second, that of receiving an [acknowledgment,
perhaps reluctantly made, as a sufficient satisfaction for
the injuries done to the cause of Christ,
1. The delay of action.—The^church of Rome, in
the heighth of her arrogar.ce and in the supremacy of
her power, issued her decretals, that the ordinance of
baptism should be administered only on specified days,
at Easter and Whitsuntide. * "We, while loud in con¬
demning this usurpation of power, scrapie not to imitate
her example, by adopting a rule which requires that
offenders shall be uied only on certain appointed days ;
PUBLIC OFFENDERS.
277
and the number of these days amount only to twelve,—
on only twelve days out of the 365 is it lawful, accord¬
ing to the usage of very many of our churches, to in¬
vestigate and act upon the moral delinquencies of our
members ! Where is the Scripture to justify such a re¬
striction ? The truth is, there is no more sanction giv¬
en in Scripture to the restriction which we adopt, than
there is to that adopted by the church of Rome. When¬
ever the disciples assemble in the name of the Lord,
ihey are as fully authorized to investigate and act upon
cases of church discipline, as they are to unite in the
worship of God. " When ye are gathered together,
and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
to deliver such a one unto Satan," &c. (1 Cor. v.,
4,5,) was the direction given by an inspired apostle.
According to the rule which custom has established
among us, if a man on our church meeting day gets
drunk, murders his neighbor, or commits highway rob¬
bery, we can do nothing with him, until the next church,
meeting. His case is then perhaps introduced ; but the
offender is generally absent, consequently nothing final
can be done. A committee is appointed to cite him
to appear before our next church meeting. An¬
other month rolls round—his case is taken up—some
one notifies the church, that it was out of his power to
attend that day—*he had a friend to meet, a neighbor to
visit, a debt to pay, or something of the . kind to do, and
requests that the case be deferred. It is deferred, ac¬
cordingly, another month ; and sometimes it is put off
from month to month, for ihr months or more. We
knew an instance, in whicfe a member committed mur¬
der, was tri©4, Vy a civil ©ml,: condemned, and came
near being hung before the eharch could act upon his
278
PUBLIC OFFENDERS.
case! And why was this? Bfcause she'hadbounl
up her hands, not with the rales of God's word, but
with the rales of her own invention, We are sticklers
for the rules which God has prescribed for the adminis¬
tration of gospel ordinances. It is well; but, brethren,
let us be equally tenacious of the rules which he has
prescribed for the regulation of our own conduct, and
the government of our^churches.
Perhaps some may respond, you condemn the course
which custom has established amongst us ; what course
would you have us pursue? We answer, the first time
the disciples are " gathered together" after the offence
becomes known to the members of the church, let the
case be taken up. If the offender be absent, let per¬
sons be appointed to apprize him of the charges alleged
•against him, and cite him to appear at yonr next meet¬
ing. Let your meeting be appointed at an early day.
If you should not be able to dispose of the case at your
next meeting, adjourn from day to day, and be sure to
jnake a final disposition of the case as soon as practica¬
ble. Remember, that every day the offender continues
in the church, the wound he has inflicted upon her hon¬
or is kept open, and her spiritual strength is wasting.
Moreover, promptitude in acting upon the case of of¬
fenders, will have a tendency greatly to restrain others
from the commission of evil. * *
If it be deemed too much for an individual to assume
the responsibility of laboring to produce a reformation
in this matter, could not something ta done in our Min¬
isters' meetings, or at our Assweiaiaons, which would
have a tendency to direct ths atfMttion of our churches
to this subject and lead to the cdttection of the existing
evil?
PUBLIC OFFENDERS.
279
2. The receiving acknowledgments as a satisfaction
for public offences. This practice, which is also very-
prevalent, seems to us to savor of the Romish practice
of forgiving sin, granting indulgences, &c. If there be
a difference, we know not but that it is in favor of the
Romanist; for he receives an actual 'compensation,
something substantial for the injuries done his church ,•
but we receive nothing but a wordy acknowledgment,
—and what are words but empty air 1 A member get3
drunk—we arraign him before the church—he makes
his confession—sheds, perhaps, a few whiskey tears,
and—is freely pardoned! In two 'or three months be
is drunk again. The same scene is acted over :—he is
arraigned and pardoned as freely as ever. We doubt
not that there are members in some of our churches,
(we trust not in many,) who have been drunk half a
dozen times since they have been united with us, and
have been as often pardoned! These are blemishes
which are noted by our adversaries and pointed at.
Exaggerated accounts of them are dealt out with an un¬
sparing hand, both from the pulpit and the piess. We
have recently seen some ot these accounts in a public
print. While we deplore the existence of such a state
of things in any church, we cannot but pity the man
whose depraved taste leads him to feed on such unsa¬
vory food; to noiitish his pride and arrogance with the
offals of the church. But #e-leave such to their loath¬
some diet, while we proceed to recommend a remedy
for the prevailing'evil.
We would have it establislted 'as a general principle
in our churches, that every member guilty of a scanda¬
lous public qffiMce shouldbtt meci&ied and kept out of
the church, untU he had svfficknt time to mime the sin-
280
PUBLIC OFFENDERS.
eerily of [his professions of penitence and restore him¬
self, in some degree at least, to the confidence of the com¬
munity. Amongst the many reasons which we havefor
favoring the adoption of such a rule, we will specify the
following:
First. The Scriptures expressly teach us to withdraw
our fellowship from such, without making any excep¬
tions in favor of those who are willing to compromise
the matter with an acknowledgment.
Second. They require, that members of the church
should maintain a fair character in the world. The of-
iender, in the supposed case, has broken his fellowship
with the saints by his own acts, and justly forfeited all
claims upon the church. The question, therefore, vir¬
tually involved in his trial, is not, Shall we keep him in
fellowship? but, shall we renew our fellowship with
him ? If there exist causes which would justify us in
rejecting his fellowship, when proffered for the first
time, we see not why the same causes should not justify
us in rejecting his fellowship, when proffered a second
time. But ill report in the world, would, probably, be
considered as a sufficient cause why we should not re¬
ceive him into the church, were he presenting himself
before us for the first time; and, if so, it should be con¬
sidered an equally valid cause why we should not re¬
ceive him, a second time, to our communion. Allow
him time to vegetate anew and " bring forth fruits meet
for repentanee."
Third. The Scriptures, moreover, require us to labor
to preserve the church pure and promote its prosperity.
The injunction to do this, of coarse, involves the duty to
use the means necessary for the accomplishment of these
ends, But no church can be pifeserred pure and mos.
PUBLIC OFFENDERS.
281
perous, that will receive an acknowledgment of error as
a sufficient satisfaction for a scandalous offence; or a
promise of amendment as a sufficient security for the
future good conduct of a gross offender.
jFourth. Such a rule as that we propose, would exert
a restraining influence on the members of our churches.
It would inculcate circumspection more effectually than
all the labored arguments of their ministers. An indi¬
vidual would be much less likely to yield to temptation
when he knew that, if he yielded, the inevitable conse-
quence would be exclusion from the church and a con¬
sequent loss of character.
Fifth. The rule would be galling only to the evil-do¬
er. To the true Christian it could never prove oppres¬
sive. An enlightened Christian, if in an unguarded
moment he were hurried into the commission of any
gross sin, would be the first to insist on enforcing th@
rule in his own case: for however much he loved him¬
self, he would love his Saviour more ; and however re¬
luctant he might be to sustain an injury in his own char¬
acter, he would be still more reluctant to be instrumen¬
tal in fixing a stain upon the character of the church.
Amid his greatest aberrations from the path of moral
rectitude, the cause of Christ would still be dear to his
heart, and rather than suited the best of . causes to
unmerited reproach on his account, he would prefer to
suffer anything in his own person. A temporary exclu¬
sion from the church could do such an one no injury.
It might assist in humbling kwp he fore God, and in his
own estimation* and thus pf^ppe^imfQr subsequent ex¬
altation- It waujd afford bigj ^opportunity of giving
the most satigfeofory evjri<n%|% &•
world, of
sincerity of his penitence.
2 S2
PUBLIC OFFENDERS.
With the view of illustrating, confirming and enforc¬
ing what we have written on thia point, we will report a
case with which we became acquainted in Virginia :
An aged and prominent member of a church was
overcome by drink. At the first conference meeting
that was convened after his mifottune, he reported him¬
self to the church, deplored his sin, expressed his peni¬
tence with a flood of tears, but called upon the church
to do her duty, and shield herself from [the reproach
which his misconduct was calculated to bring upon her.
The deep distress of this hoary-heatled sire excited com¬
miseration in every bosom—the whole church was in
teais. As soon as their feelings would allow it, a pro¬
position was made to passover the offence and dismiss
the case. Many were the voices immediately lifted in
its favor. One tremulous voice alone was heard to op¬
pose it—it was the voice of the offender himself. At
length the pastor, who was a man of intelligence as well
as of approved piety, arose. Every eye was fixed upon
him with intense anxiety. He expressed his regret for
the misfortunes of the brother,—the same regrets were
felt by all ;—his sympathy for him in his present- state
of mental suffering,—this was in perfect unison with
the feelings evinced by the audience but he conclud¬
ed with adding, that he concurred with the brother in
thinking that the honor of the church required that she
should express, in the most decided manner, her disap¬
probation of theactof which he had unfortunately been
guilty, and that the offender sjpnld be excluded- Dis¬
appointment of a most painful# character was depicted
on every countenance. The daurch, however, yielded
reluctantly, to4he ^concurre®&piews of the pastor and
the ©Shade* hioaff^ The excluded, but a(V
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
283
ler a month or two was restored. He has never since,
within our knowledge, done anything to dishonor the
cause of his Saviour.
In the case above reported, the honor of the church
was preserved untarnished, whilffnoreal injury was
done to the individual by enforcing the rules of the gos¬
pel. The course which he wisely pursued, gave the
church and the community greater confidence in him,
if possible, than they had prior to his fall. While no
one thought worse of the offender, every one thought
better of the church for tbe course which she pursued.
To offenders, and to churches, we would say, Go ye,
and do likewise.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
Uctection. I. By your rule you would exclude many a
a-ue christian from the Church.
Answer. The character of the offence, and not that
of the offender, should influence all our decisions, in
ecclesiastical as well as in civil tribunals. When a
member is arraigned before a church, it is no part of our
business to enter into a general investigation of his
claims to be considered a christian 1 The question to
be decided is not, Is he a christian ? but, Is he guilty 1
It therefore devolves on us, in the first place, to endea¬
vor to ascertain whether he is actually guilty of the
charges preferred against him. If the charges be sus¬
tained by satisfactory evidence, it is our duty, in the
next place, to recur to the ' law and the testimony,' to
learn what course they direct us to pursue, towards one
guilty of the offences supposed to be proved on the ac-
234
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED*
cased—whether they would justify us in conniving ftl
his sin, by retaining him in fellowship. Now the word
of God teaches us, expressly, to withdraw from such
as depart from the faith, or walk disorderly amongst
lis. There are no exceptions made in favor of those
whom we may hope to be christians. Considerations
t>f personal character are to influence us, only in cases
such as that to which we refer oa a preceding page,—
p. 274, &c.
By complying with the Gospel rule to which we re¬
fer above, we do not declare a belief that the accused is
not a christian, but merely decide that the acts charged
upon him are infringements of the law of Gud, and such
infringements as lequire us to set upon them the seal of
our disapprobation ;—that they are derogatory to the
character of a christian, reproachful to the .cause of
Christ, and hurtful to souls. If there be a stain on the
character of the church, we must seek to wipe it off, no
matter by whom it has been affixed. We should give
no more countenance to sin in one individual than in
another;—we should be, at leant as careful not to san s-
tion it in the christian, as in the unconverted. The fact
that a sin has been committed by a christian, does not
lessen its evil, in any respectit rather iucieascs it. A
ginful act committed by one who has hitherto sustained
p fair character, is calculated to exeit sfwider and more
baneful influence than the samo act committed by a
loose professor or an avowed unbeliever. It is with
rays of moral daikness as with rays of solar light;—
the more elevated the object that reflects them, the more
extensively is thci? influence spread abroad and felt.
Shall we, then, plead in extenuation of sin, that which
increases its power to harm ? God forbid.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
285
That the simpie act of withdrawing fellowship from
sn individual does not amount to a declaration of a be¬
lief that he is no chiistian;—in other words, that the
general character which one sustains as a christian,
should not shield him from the consequences of his
guilt, in any particular instance, those who raise the
objection we are endeavoring to answer,tnot unfrequent-
Iy admit by their practice. They withdraw fellowship
from a certain class of offenders, of whose christian
character they entertain no doubt, as is evident from
their uniting with them, subsequently, in acts of reli¬
gious worship which clearly indicate christian fellow¬
ship. "We allude to the course they pursue, in common
with us, towards those who are guilty of over-leaping
the barriers, which separate us as a church from other
denominations of christians. We never pretend, that
we separate ourselves from those who have adopted the
creed and practice of another denomination, because we
believe them to be deceivers or false professors; but
base our justification solely on the ground, that our
views of duty will not allow us to sanction, in any one,
what we believe to be violations of the word of God.
"Here is firm footing ; here is solid rock;
This can support us; all is sea besides,
Sinks under us ; bestorms, and then devours
Involves us in counter currents of inconsistency, and
in a maelstrom of strife and confusion.
We trust that what we have written on this subject,
will be sufficient to satisfy the reader of the correctness
of the principle laid down in the first sentence of this
article ; and, if so, that he will ever, hereafter, in his
church conferences, regulate his course in accordance
with it.
p
286
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
Objection II. The apostle Paul teaches, in Gal. vi. 1,
that if a brother be overtaken in a fault, we are to restore
him, not exclude him as you direct.
Answer. The passage referred to in the above ob¬
jection, like that in Matt, xviii, 15—17, is but too fre¬
quently misunderstood and misapplied. From few
things have our churches suffered more injury, than
fiom the perversion and misapplication of the disciplina¬
ry rules laid down in the sacred Scriptures.
Can any one read attentively the writings of Paul,
and notice the utter abhorrence which he expresses for
the immoral practices which prevailed in his day, as
well as in ours, the urgency with which he enjoins on
the church to withdraw from those who indulge in them,
the heavy censures lie passes on some for retaining
such in fellowship, and then suppose, lor one moment,
that he had reference to open immoralities in the passage
to which we are referred? Who would charge the
apostle with such inconsistency ? Certainly no one;—
but note,
1. The apostle speaks of "faults," not of vices/
of errors that originate in the head, or in the infirmities
of the flesh, and not of those that originate in a corrupt
heart, and are associated with a perverse will. This is
evident from the reason he assigns why they should re¬
store such an one in the spirit of meekness, " consider¬
ing thyself lest thou also be tempted." Can it be possi¬
ble that the apostle, who contended so strenuously that
the people of God were predestined to good works, and
that they would be preserved in a state of holiness, by the
power of God, through faith, unto salvation," intended
to intimate, that they were themselves pre-disposed to
be guilty of drunkenness, fornication, adultery, theft,
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
287
murder, &c., and therefore should deal gently with such
as were guilty of these offences, that they might not be
treated with severity when guilty of the same ? We
cannot believe it. If the apostle had, designed to inti¬
mate that they were predisposed to commit such acts,
we cannot believe that he would have sought to influ¬
ence their present conduct, by holding out a hope of im¬
punity in the future indulgence of their sinful propensi¬
ties.
2. But, let it be observed further, that the apostle
supposes the case of one who is seeking to evade—who
is running away from his faults, but is unfortunately
overtaken by them. Now, there is a wide difference
between such an one, and one who seeks evil, runs into
temptation, and plunges into vice. The latter overtakes
his faults, the former is overtaken by them. It would
be exceedingly pernicious, as well as absurd, to apply,
in the one case, a rule given to direct our conduct in the
other. The apostle evidently speaks of one who errs
involuntarily. We have spoken of those who volunta¬
rily, and in a flagrant manner, transgress the laws of
God. The direction of the apostle, therefore, cannot
be properly applied to cases like those of which we are
treating.
3. But again—" Ye that are spiritual, restore such a
one"—restore such a one to what 1 To the fellowship
of the church? No ; we have no reason to believe that
the apostle has any allusion to an excluded member.
And if he does allude to such, the passage is inapplica¬
ble when we aie discussing, not whether an individual
shall be restored to the church, but whether he shall be
retained in fellowship, after being guilty of an open im¬
morality, provided he is willing to make an acknow*
288 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
ledgment and profess penitence. It is in the latter cas6
that the passage is generally objected to us. As to the
propriety of restoring excluded members, first to a godly
life, and then to the fellowship of the church, there ex¬
ists no diversity of sentiment amongst us. But the
apostle is not speaking of retaining a member in fel¬
lowship ; he is speaking of restoring one to some¬
thing. We have seen, that it cannot be to church fel¬
lowship, as the individual is not supposed, eyen bv our
objectors, to have been an excluded member. The
question then again occurs, to what are such to be re¬
stored? We answer, first, to our affections, if in an
"unguarded moment they have done any thing to alien¬
ate them ; secondly, to their right reason, if through the
infirmities of the flesh, they have suffered their tempes¬
tuous passions, or the cares and vexations of the world,
to distract and disturb their minds; and, thirdly, to the
consolations of the gospel, if through the weakness of
their frames they have been drawn away from these,
and are now mourning the absence of their former joys.
Whatever may be the meaning of this passage, one
thing is certain, it can have no possible allusion to the
course to be pursued, when dealing with individuals who
are charged with gross immoralities.
RUMORED OFFENCES.
2S9
RUMORED OFFENCES.
Query IV. How are we to proceed when a member of
the church is charged, by common rumor, with criminal con¬
duct ?
This is an important inquiry. It presents before us
a subject on which it is much more common to err than
to act correctly, and one which involves interests in no
respect inferior to those involved in our preceding arti¬
cles on private and public offences. In our answer we
shall speak, first, in reference to the action of individu¬
als, and, secondly, in reference to the action of the
church.
The action of individuals.—1st. It is not our duty
to notice every evil report that we hear of a biother ;
for evil reports, of some kind or other, will ever be cir¬
culated about those who are active in the cause of Christ,
The wotd of God declares, that if any man will live
godly, he shall suffer persecution ; and where persecu¬
tors are prohibited the use of fire and faggot, and the
sword, by the civil law, they will never fail to resort to
the "scourge of the tongue." He that will busy him¬
self with every evil report which he hears of a brother,
will find but little time to attend to any thing else, and
will seldom hear any good of himself or of others. As
a general rule, therefore, we would say, give no heed to
reports of a vague, indefinite, unauthenticated and im
probable character. But, on the other hand, beware of
turning a deaf ear to every evil report. If we were to
adopt the iule, never to give ear to an evil report, it is
evident that offenders could never be arraigned or con.
290
RUMORED OFFENCES.
victed of guilt. If report charges a brother with a crim¬
inal acl, of a specific character, we are bound to notice
it. Our dutj to the accused, as well as to the church,
requires that we should notice it, and trace it, it possi¬
ble, to its source.
2d. We should carefully avoid giving currency to an
evil report, however confident we may be of the truth
of that report. Many violate this rule, unintentionally.
They profess, perhaps, great regret that such a report
should be circulated, and a strong desire that it should
be suppressed. At the same time, they roll the ball a3
it were forward, give it a new impetus, and a new direc¬
tion. It is sent into their: neighbor's family circle, and
thence into many others. They thus act, effectually, as
agents for the transmission of the evil which they pro¬
fess to deplore. Another repeats the evil rumor, and
excuses himself by saying, it is no secret; h6 supposes
there is no harm in repealing what is in every man's
mouth. We would remind such, that we are cautioned
in Scrip!ure against following the multitude to do evil,
and that sin is not the less sinful because it is committed
by the many.
3d. It is our duly, in but very few instances, if indeed
in any, to give information of ihe report to the individu¬
al principally affected by it; for if the report be of a
comparatively trivial or of an indefinite character, it is
worse than useless to apprize him of it. On the other
hand, if the report contains specific charges of a crimi¬
nal character, to acquaint him with it, without taking
previous steps to ascertain the truth or falsity of those
charges, cannot fail to be productive of evil, whether he
be innocent or guilty. If innocent, it will greatly har-
rass his mind, damp the energies of his soul, embarrass
his actions, weaken his efforts, and, consequently, dimin*
RUMORED OFFENCES.
291
ish his usefulness. If he be guilty, it will serve to
place hiiti on his guard against the consequences ofhis
guilt, and afford him an opportunity of seeking to con¬
ceal his sin and evade justice. It would be like notify¬
ing a thief before hand, of our intention to search for
the goods which we suspect him of having stolen. A
man, it should be remembered, who is bbse enough to
commit a grossly criminal act, will seldom be found hon¬
est enough to confess ii. These remarks may serve to
prepare the way for the rule which we would lecom-
mend to be pursued, in every instance in which a broth¬
er is charged, by common report, with some criminal
act.
Our rule is simply this, endeavor to trace the report
to its origin, with as little delay us possible. Demand
of him who repeats the report in your hearing, his au¬
thor. Go lo his .Miiihoriiy and proceed, in like manner,
from individual to individual, until you are well assured
thai the report is lsl-e, or until you have obtained evi¬
dence sufFi' icnl to prove it true. In either event, you
will be rewarded with (lie consciousness of having dis¬
charged your duty. Yours will be the satisfaction lo
reflect, that you have been instrumental in vindicating
the innocent, or detecting the guilty, and unmasking the
hypocrite. Were this couise generally pursued, it
would tend, evidently, to restrain the circulation of evil
reports. Individuals would be led to reflect well before
they gave currency to a report.
4th. Having obtained evidence of the truth of an evil
rumor, it is your duty, in the next place, to bring it, or
cause it to be brought, before the church; not in the
form of a report, but in the form of a charge against the
member implicated. When the case is brought up for
292
HUMORED OFFENCES.
trial, it will be your duty, farther, to adduce the evidence
upon whieh the charge was based.
The action of the church.—In reference to the ques¬
tion, as it affects the church, we have but two remarks
to make. 1st. An evil report should never be brought
before a church, unless brought in the way above di¬
rected, or by the individual chiefly implicated in the re¬
port. 2d. Should information, however, of a report af¬
fecting injuriously the character of a membei, be lodged
with the church, it will be her duty, whether the case was
formally or informally brought before her, to adopt such
measures as maybe necessary to a thorough investiga¬
tion of it. She should use every lawful means in her
power to obtain sufficient evidence, either to exculpate
or convict the reported offender. In all such cases,
however, it should be remembered, that every man is to
be presumed innocent, until he is proved guilty. By
this rule we expect others to regulate their conduct to¬
wards us ; by the same rule we should regulate our con¬
duct towards others—"Let us walk by the same rule, let
us mind the same thing." Phil, iii, 16, and Matt, vii, 12.
" Blessed Redeemer! how divine,
How righteous is this rule of thine,
Never to deal with others worse
Than we would have them deal with us!"
eights op offenders.
293
RIGHTS OF OFFENDERS.
Query V. Is it right to exclude a public offender withoufc
giving him a hearing-, and affording him an opportunity to
defend himself ?
We answer, certainly not in ordinary cases. The
grossest offenders have rights, and it becomes the chris-
tian and the church of Chiist to respect the rights of
evety individual. We are required, in the Scriptures,
not only to love mercy and walk humbly, but to deal
justly, Mic. vi, 8. To render " unto Coosar the things
which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are
God's Matt, xxii, 21. Caesar, it is certain, was not a
friend of God ; for it was by Cassar's laws that the Sort
of God was immolated upon the cross: yet even Cae¬
sar was to receive his due.
Is our civil government the guardian of our civil
rights ? So should the church be of our spiritual priv¬
ileges. Is it necessary, in the one, that before a person
can be disfranchised, he should be fairly tried and con¬
demned, upon the testimony of credible witnesses ? So
should it be in the other. But instead of this, we have
known a charge brought against an offender, and, in
several instances, the motion made and carried to ex¬
clude him, although the charge was sustained only by
the testimony of the accuser—the whole process occu¬
pying, perhaps, not more than five or ten minutes ; and
all this occurring—where ? Not in the confessional of
a son of apostate Rome ; not in the class-room or clos¬
et of a tyrannical itinerant; not in the sessions conven-
ed by a haughty and aristocratic presbytery ; but in the
294
RIGHTS OF OFFENDERS.
conference of a church lhat has ever gloried in being the
champion of equal rights and of apostolical practices !
Brethren, we write these things not to shame you, but
to profit you ; not to blazon forth your failures in duty,
but to point out errors for your correction, " that ye may
stand perfect and complete in all the will of God."
View us not as an enemy, who glories in your shame,
because we speak the truth ; but as one whose interests
are identified with yours; who is honored when you are
honored, and who bleeds when you are wounded.
A procedure, like that we have noticed, has not the
least semblance of justice in it. It is in direct opposi¬
tion to the teachings of God's word, tends to the estab¬
lishment of a dangerous precedent, and frustrates the
ends which should be had in view in the exercise of
church discipline.
I. It is at variance with the rules of God's word, for,
1st. The word of God teaches, that an individual is
not to be condemned except upon the testimony of "two
or three witnessesSee Dent. xvii. 6 and xix. 15, for
the original law on this subject. In the latter passage,
it is said, uQne witness shall not rise up against a man
for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any tin that he sinn-
eth ; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of
three witnesses, shall the matter be established." For
evidence of the incorporation of this law in the chris->
tian code, see Matt, xviii, 16—2 Cor. xiii, I—1st Tim,
v, 19. We would refer the reader also to our remarks
oji this subject in our preceding articles.
2d. From the word of God, it further appears, that
witnesses were required to give in their testimony in the
presence of the accused. This is evident from all the
reports of trials recorded in Sacred Writ, Jn that most
RIGHTS OP OtfFEffDERg.
205
iniquitous trial, the most unparallel for injustice of any
recorded in the annals of criminal jurisprudence—in the
trial of the Prince of Peace—the right to confront hia
witnesses was not withheld. That the witnesses gave
in their testimony in his presence, is apparent from the
whole narrative, as well as from the interrogatory of Pi¬
late; Matt, xxvii, 13. "Hearest thou not how many
things they witness against thee?"
Reason and observation concur in teaching the impor¬
tance of respecting this rule of right; for there are
many persons, who are sufficiently malicious to accuse
one behind his back, but are not sufficiently bold to sus¬
tain their accusation before liis face. The conscious¬
ness that the accused knows the accusation to be false,
has often confounded a false witness : and this it will
generally do, where the accuser is not hardened in ini¬
quity. Thus this rule is calculated to afford protection
to the innocent, against at least a dastardly enemy. We
have not unfrequently been pained and disgusted at the
course pursued by accusers, and truly mortified, when
the accuser has happened to be a brother in the church.
That which had been affirmed as a matter of fact, be¬
hind one's back, turns out to be, before his face, but a
matter of opinion, or an unwarrantable inference; and
the charge which was thought to be based upon person¬
al observation, is found to be based upon nothing more
substantial than a very questionable ' hearsay.'
3d. The same authority teaches us, that the accused
should be allowed to answer for himself. This privilege
was conceded to the Saviour, by the high priest, when
the false witnesses gave in their testimony, " And the
high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thon
nothing 1 what is it which these witness against thee V'
<^96 HIGHT3 OF OtffJSttDEftS.
Matt. xxvi. 52. The same right was conceded to the
apostle Paul, on the occasion on which he delivered his
eloquent and ever memorable address before Agrippa.
♦' Then Agrippa said unto Paul, thou arc permitted to
speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand
and answered for himself," &c. Acts xxvi. 1, &c. When
the Pharisees, on one occasion, manifested a disposition
to condemn the Saviour, unheard, Nicodemus appealed
to them, John vii. 51. «' Doth our law judge any man
before it hear him, and know what he doeth!" He ev¬
idently considered their conduct, in this instance, as of
a most unjustifiable character ; abhorrent alike to tne
principles of natural equity, and the spirit and letter of
their judicial code,
Testimony may be given that appears direct, that is
strong and true, as far as it goes : it may appear so con¬
clusive as to leave no doubt on our minds relative to the
guiit of the accused, and yet, when circumstances are
explained, and important omissions in the testimony
aie supplied, the case may present a very different
aspect from that which was at first presented. A case
which occurred under our own observation will serve
for an illustration. A very excellent brother brought a
charge of intoxication against another. He stated, that
he passed from one town to another with the accused;
was in his company some ten or fifteen minutes—the
time occupied in the passage—that the accused was
veiy talkative, but was so much intoxicated, that he
could not speak distinctly. As it was known that the
accused had once been in the habit of taking an occa¬
sional glass of liquor, and as the witness was one in
whose veiacity all had confidence, the impression made
on every mind was, that the accused was guilty. Sub-
StGHT.3 OP OFFENDERS.
sequently, the case was taken up. The accused being
allowed to answer for himself, stated, what was known
to every one, that he labored under an impediment of
speech, and that certain variations in the atmosphere^
or any mental excitement, tended greatly to increase
that impediment. He added, what had not been
known, that his mind had become somewhat excited-,
by his anxiety to reach the neighboring town in lime to
secure a passage to some place which he was about to
visit. He ascribed his inarticulate address to the com¬
bined influence of his mental excitement and the cold
and damp atmosphere to which he was exposed on hi?;
passage, and affirmed,, that on the day 011 which he was
said to have been intoxicated, he had not touched a drop
of spirituous liquors, nor, indeed, had he tasted any for
many months previously. The church was satisfied
with the defence, and the accuser apologized with, " I
thought he had been drinking, and thought that it was
:he influence of liquor^ that caused him to speak so in¬
distinctly."
In this case, it will be ^observed, that the facts stated
by the accuser, as proof of the charge of intoxication,
weie admitted to be true by the accused; but when the
circumstances were explained, they were not deemed
. sufficient to justify the inference deduced from them.
II. To try and condemn an individual, either in the
church or out of it, without giving him a hearing, and
allowing him to face his accusers, is to establish a pre¬
cedent that is dangerous in the extreme. If this thing
may be done with impunity, the character of no one can
be secure; for there is no man who has not his enemies,
and no man who has not failings, which n>ay serve as
the ground work for the basest of charges. How often
3
298
RIGHTS OF OFFENDERS.
have those, who have been engaged in tracing reports to
their origin, been astonished to find how great a fire a
little matter is capable of kindling, and to how odious a
iale a little imprudence may give rise. We will not
hazard the assertion that it is never lawful to exclude a
member from the church, without affording him an op¬
portunity- to confront the witnesses and defend himself-
but we will say, that if such a course is ever lawful, it
is only in extreme cases, which but rarely occur, and
which should not be allowed to serve as precedents for
other cases. To justify even this departure from the
usual routine, three things must hold true. 1st. The
offence committed must be of a highly criminal charac¬
ter. 2d. The proof must be such as to admit of no
possibility of a refutation. 3d. The circumstances of
the case must also be such, that the character of the
church would suffer by the delay which would be necessa¬
ry for a formal trial. It should ever be remembered, that
it is much easier to inflict a wound than to heal ons.
The injuries committed in an hour of excitement, a
whole life time may be insufficient to repair. If, there¬
fore, we err, it is ever best to en on mercy's side.
III. To withhold from an offender any of his just
rights, is to preclude the likelihood of effecting the ends
for which we resort to the exercise of church discipline^
To inflict a wanton injuiy upon an individual, is certain¬
ly not the most effectual way of bringing him to ac¬
knowledge the injuries he has done, either tolhe church
or to the cause of Christ. Theslightest deviation from
the rule of right, on the part.t>f the church, will tend
rather to confirm the offender in %is offences. It will
excite prejudice.against us, close the doors of his head
and heart against our appeals and remonstrances ; and,
bights of offenders.
2S9
like a coat of mail, render him invulnerable to the most
pointed reproofs. Such a course of conduct, moreover,
instead of shielding the church from reproach, will ex¬
pose her but the more. While she is attempting to
stop up the breach which the offender has made in her
walls, she pulls clown a whole broadside.
Learn, then,to respect the rights of offenders, if you
would have them brought back to the exercise of a godly
sorrow for their sins, and would shield yourselves, and
the cause of Christ, from icpvoach. These, as we have
stated in our former articles, are the gteat ends, for the
accomplishment of which, the exercise of church disci¬
pline has been enjoined, Much wisdom and discretion
is needed, to preserve us from an undue laxity on the
one hand, and an unjustifiable severity on the other.
In seeking to be lenient, we may be over-indulgent:
and in seeking- to be just, we may be tyrannical and op¬
pressive. I\Iay He who is the light of the world and
the head of the church, enable his people to steer clear of
each extreme. But to do this, beloved brethren, we must
cultivate a spirit of prayer, and diligently study the
word of God*
OMISSIONS OF VVTT,
OMISSIONS OF DUTY.
Query VI. Is it right for a church to exclude a member,
against whom there is no charge of immorality, for simply
neglecting some christian duty; such, for instance, as the
duly to unite in celebrating the Lord's Supper,^to contri¬
bute according to his ability to the support of the Gospel,—
to keep up family worship, &c. ?
"We feel but little hesitation in answering the above
query in the affirmative, and are very confident that we
shall be able to make it apparent, that our views on this
subject are sustained, both by the Sacred Scriptures and
the usage of the more intelligent and efficient portion of
our churches.
A proper regard for the preservation of discipline in
our churches, imperiously require, that our church
members be exercised in the practice of all the moral and
social virtues enjoined in the word of God. The scrip-
lures not only require of us that we " cease to do evil,"
but that we " learn to do [well." The requisition to
love and serve one another, to minister to the necessi¬
ties of the needy, not to forsake the assembling of our¬
selves together, to contribute for the support of the min¬
istry, to aid in diffusing abroad the blessings of the gos¬
pel of Christ, are as express as the prohibitions of im¬
moral acts. But, unfortunately, we seem to lose sight
of this important fact, and attach more importance to
negative than to positive duties}—that is, to the duty to
abstain from evil, than to the duty to do good. We
make that primary which should be secondary, and that
secondary which should be primary. We age mote
OMISSIONS OF DUTY.
301
careful to punish an offending member, than we are to
instruct and train the unoffending; We would not hes¬
itate to exclude from our communion a servant who pos¬
itively refused, in but one or two instances, to obey his
master, while we retain in fellowship those who habitu¬
ally neglect the most peremptory commands of their
GodI We thus declare, by our acts, that we esteem it a
greater offence to neglect a duty to a fellow creature,
than to neglect our duties to God. If a member will
but abstain from open immoralities, and attend his church
conferences once in two or three, or six months, we
hold him in full fellowship, and report him to be in good
standing, though he afford no fruit, either of his [love to
God, or his interest in the prosperity of the church !
To see that our church members are employed in do¬
ing good, is one of the most effectual means of keeping
them from the commission of evil. The more they are
employed in the duties of religion, the more will they
delight in them, and the less will they relish those sin¬
ful indulgences which expose one, not only to the cen¬
sures of the church, but to the displeasure of God.
Knowing then, as we do, that the neglect of duty pre¬
pares for the commission of crime, if we connive at the
one, we cannot but be held responsible for the other.
With what justice, or with what propriety can we sit in
judgment upon an offending brother, if we witnessed
his first derelictions of duty and neglected to admonish
him ? If, when he first turned aside from the path of
duty, we said, by our silence, if in no other way, "bro¬
ther, go on; you are in the right way; God speed thee?'
There must be a reformation also in this department
of discipline, before the church can appear to the he-
bolder as a beautiful fabric, completely built of polished
302
OMISSIONS OP DU1Y.
stones. If we would have our church members to be
as a company of horses in Pharaoh's chariot, we must
put them in the harness, attach them to the chariot of
the gospel, and be as careful to make them pull forward,
as we are to keep them from running backward. The
whip and the spur must be applied when they stop and
refuse to work, as well as when they make attempts to
break loose and shake off their gear. Why was the
barren fig tree withered by the curse of the Saviour ?
We read not that it bore evil fruit; but it was barren—
it yielded no good fruit, (Matt, xxi, 19, 20. See also
the parable xxiv, 32.) ' Every tree that bringeth not
forth good fruit, is to be hewn down and cast into the
fire.' (Matt, iii, 10.) This is declared to be an ordi¬
nance of heaven, by him who was sent to prepare the
way for the building up of the church of Christ. The
Saviour confirms the decree, and declares, "Every branch
in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away." (John xv,
2.) And again, "If a man abide not in me, he is cast
forth as a branch and is withered ; and men gather them
and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (v. 6.)
This branch of church discipline merits, and should
receive, more attention than we have hitherto given to it.
It is with church members as with orators ; the main
thing to secure commendation and success in their holy
vocation, is " action." Like good soldiers and good
scholars, they must be regularly and systematically ex¬
ercised in their several duties. We should watch over
each other, therefore, not only that we may reprove
each others offences, but that we may stir up each oth¬
ers Iauguid affections, and excite to good works. We
represent the neglect of duty as a very little sin, (and
so does Satan,) but in the word of God, it is represented
OMISSIONS OF DUTY.
303
as a sin of so great a magnitude, as to justify the ex¬
cluding from heaven all such as are guilty of it: " How
shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation ?" (Heb.
ii, 3.) «Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least
of these (his disciples) ye did it not to me," is repre¬
sented as the language of the Judge of all the earth,
when sentencing to final banishment from his presence,
those who claimed to be his peculiar people. (Matt,
xxv, 45.) Observe, that they are excluded, not because
they persecuted, oppressed, impoverished, or imprison¬
ed his disciples ; but because they neglected to visit and
administer to their necessities. But if this afford just
ground of exclusion from heaven, it must—it does af¬
ford just ground of exclusion from the privileges of the
church.
The inference which we would draw, from all that
lias been said on this subject, is, that to be faithful to God,
and just and impartial in our administration of the laws
of Christ's kingdom, we must subject to the censures
of the church, not only those who do evil, but those al¬
so who neglect to do good ; for the word of God ad¬
monishes, " to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth
it nol, to him it is sin." (Jas. iv. 17.) Let this be
borne in remembrance, and let the actions of our
churches be regulated accordingly, and our church re¬
gistry will be less frequently stained with the record of
the guilt of our members; its pages will be more fre¬
quently embellished with entries of acts of benevolence,
and with the names of new recruits in the cause of
Christ.
Baptist churches have repeatedly sanctioned the prin¬
ciple for which we contend—the principle whieh leads
lis to deal with members for the neglect of duty. The
304
OMISSIONS OF DUTY.
Kehukee Association, in 1783, considered the following
query : " What shall a church do with a member who
shall absent himself from the communion of the Lord's
supper ?" They returned the answer, u That it is the
duty of the church to inquire into the reason of his ab¬
senting himself from the communion, and if he does
not render a satisfactory reason the church shall deal
with him." Hist. Keh. As. p. 68t
In the minutes of the Georgia Association, for the
year 1835, we find the following queries and answers,
in reference to the]same subject. 1. " Is it the duty of
church members to partake of the Lord's supper, when
regularly administered in the church? Answer, YesI
2. Are members excusable who take their seats in or¬
der, but refuse to partake of the elements ? Answer,
No! 3. Is it the duty of the church or not, when
members take their seats and do not commune, to in¬
quire into the reason thereof? Answer, YesI 4.
When members take their seats at communion, and fail
to partake on account of a want of fellowship with some
brother or brethren, and yet do not lay charges against
those for whose sake they refuse to commune, ought the
church to deal with them who. thus act? Answer, Yes,
after gospel steps have been taken
In the minutes of the same Association, for 1798, is
the following query. "What shall be done with those
professors who do not hold worship in their families 1"
They answer, " It is our opinion that the churches to
whom such professors belong, first admonish, exhort,
and reprove them, but if they will not be reclaimed,
then deal with them as neglecters of known duty.".
In the minutes for 1808, the following query and
answer occur: "Should a brother be continued in
OMISSIONS OF DUTY.
305
fellowship, who, though able, will not assist in support¬
ing the gospel ? Jlns.—We are of opinion where the
ability is obvious on the one hand, and the unwillingness
positive on the other, and the brother cannot be biought
to his duty by proper means, he ought to be excluded."
Hist. Ga. As. p. 130, 132, 138.
Our views on this subject are thus sustained by the
Sacred Scriptures and by the express decisions of large
and respectable portions of our denomination. Our
misfortune is not that we lack light on this subject, but
that we lack the zeal, energy and moral courage which
is requisite to the faithful discharge of our duty. Our
churches are often as neglectful of their duty as tha
most unfaithful of their roewbej-Sa
308
Off WITNESSES*
OF WITNESSES.
C,tjeuy V7I. In the trial of offenders, may we receive tes¬
timony from the world ? and, if so,<aro wo to allow it equal
weight with testimony lc-ceivjd from church members ?
In the trial of offenders, regard must ever be had, both
to the character of the witnesses, and to the circumstan¬
ces under which their testimony is given, and that, too,
whether the testimony be for or against the offender.
1st. The character of the witness.—Come church-
es, we are fully aware, adopt the rule, that the testimo¬
ny of no one, who is not a member of the church, shall
be received against one who is a member. Of this rule
we would cay a few things.
We are at a loss to know upon what foundation, it is
based. We know of no passage of Scripture, *which
restricts us, in the receiving ot testimony, to the mem¬
bers of the church. In the absence of any specific in¬
structions on the subject, we must recur to the general
principles established in the word of God. These, in
our estimation, favor the idea, that the testimony of the
world is not to be disregarded. For they teach, that
christians should be of good -report without, and live
'above reproach in the world ; but how is a professor's
standing in the world to be known, but by the testimo¬
ny of persons of the world ? Should A and B, mem¬
bers of the church, testify that C, a fellow member, sus¬
tains a very bad character in the world; that he had
been engaged in a fraudulent transaction with some of
bis neighbors, or had been seen beastly drunk on spacta
op witnessed
festival occasion ; that these facts were of great notorie*
ty, and attested by multitudes, it is ten to one, that the
church, which professes to reject the testimony of the
world, would reject C. upon such testimony, and, per¬
haps, never dream that it was rejecting him solely
upon the testimony of the world. Yet, that under such
circumstances, he would be rejected wholly upon such
testimony, is very evident. A and B, it i3 true, are
members of the church ; but thoy have no personal
knowledge of the facts in the case. They only certify
■what is the testimony of others, who are unconnected
with tho church, and upon the reported testimony of
persons of the world, C is excluded.
Aijiin, suppose a member of the church is arraigned
before a civil Uibunal, and after a fair tilal,by an impar¬
tial j'iry, io convicted of theft, murder, pe»jury, or any
grossly criminal act. Is there a church in dniitendom
that wciid retain such an inditiidmi in fellowship, be¬
cause liis guilt was not attested by nwnlcrs of tho
church? "We presume not; but if ho Is exduded, up¬
on whose testimony will it be? Vill it not be upon
the testimony of the world 1 Whatever may be the
rule in her code of discipline, the church that excludes
a member, under such circumstances, wnulJ n.oct evi¬
dently give a direct sanction to the receiving of testimo¬
ny fiorn the world.
Tho general principles of the gospel, moreover, teach
us that we are to use all lawful means to keep the
church pure. If it be neceosary to this end, to admit
the tcciirr.ony of the world, and if the ad oisuon of such
testimony be not actually prohibited in the word of God,
it is not only lawful, but an imperial duty to receha
credible testimony from the woild, when adduced: A
308
OF WITNESSES.
very little observation and reflection will be sufficient to
satisfy any one, that without the admission of such testi¬
mony, it will be impossible to keep the church pure.
The designing hypocrite will always be careful to avoid
manifest improprieties of conduct before his fellow mem¬
ber. Give him to understand, that you will not receive
against him the testimony of the world, and, when he is
out of your sight, he will not fear to throw off the mask>
act without restraint, and give a loose rein to his vicious
propensities.
To adopt such a rule, would be, moreover, to hold out
an inducement to those who had lost their character in
the world, to unite with the church, for it would afford
them a prospect of sustaining their sinking reputation.
Instances have frequently occurred, in which individuals
who were guilty of grossly criminal acts, and feared
the consequences of detection, have sought to unite—
and, indeed, have actually united with a church, with
the view of screening themselves from merited re¬
proach. What incalculable injury is done to the
cause of Christ in such instances ! Alas ! how of¬
ten is the Saviour wounded afresh in the house of his
friends ! The rule in question would most evidently
tend to make the church a shelter for the guilty and a
refuge of lies. Can the great Head of the church ap¬
probate a rule that has such a tendency ? "What church
can do it after mature reflection ? Churches that have
adopted the rule to which we have alluded, we doubt
not, have acted from the purest motives. But we are
all liable to err, and that, too, while influenced by the
best of motives. Pastors and people are alike frail and
fallible.
The rule in question has ptobably grown out of an
apprehension of the evils which would be likely to re-
OF WITNESSES.
300
suit, were we to admit testimony from the world indis¬
criminately. We are no advocates for the indiscrimi¬
nate admission of testimony. It is equally important
that we should have respect to the character of the wit¬
nesses, whether they be out of the chuich or in it. But
would we not have greater confidence in the testi¬
mony of some persons in the world, than in that of some
who are members of a church ? And why is this ? Is
it not because there are persons out of the church, who
sustain a better character than some who are unfortu¬
nately in it? Pause for a time, and when you have
settled these questions satisfactorily, ask yourselves,
will either reason or revelation sustain you in rejecting
the testimony of the njore worthy, and receiving the
testimony of those who are less entitled to confidence?
Would this be complying with the rule of God's word;
which prescribes "honor to whom honor is o'ue ?"
2d. Circumstances under which testimony is given.
To deal justly, we must not only have respect to the
character of witnesses, but to the circumstances under
which their testimony is given. If testimony be given
under the influence of prejudice or passion, or if the inter¬
ests or the character of the witness be involved in the trial,
we cannot be too cautious how we receive his testimony.
In other words, we must have respect to the motives by
which the witness may be presumed to be influenced.
The native disposition of an evil heart, ever leads its
possessor to seek to reduce others to a level with himself.
Hence the evil-minded are ever found ready to impeach
the character, torture the words, and misrepresent the
conduct of those, whose uprightness conveys a silent, but
severe censure upon their own loose deportment. Even
a holy Saviour did not escape detraction. Many were
F
310
OF WITNESSES.
the calumnious reports circulated, and false charges al¬
leged against him.
O ©
We cannot do better than to close this branch of our
subject with an extract from the charge given to the ju¬
ry, by Judge Cusiiman, a few years eince, in the trial of
a libel suit, instituted against Edward C. Delavan, by
John Taylor, one of the brewers of Albany.
After adverting to the fact, that a larger number of
witnesses had been ' sworn on the part of the plantiff
than on the part of the defendant, the Judge proceeds :
" The number of witnesses, gentlemen, is never to be
the governing consideration in such a case. You are to
look at the character of the witnesses for intelligence
and integrity ; how far they may be under the influence
of bias or interest, the relation in which they stand, and
their opportunities for observation, Hence the value of
an open examination; that the candor of a witness may
be noted, the manner in which he testifies, and his wil¬
lingness to tell the whole truth. While, theiefore, yon
are not to leave out of view the number of witnesses, you
ate to look to the circumstances mentioned, rather than
to the number, to decide upon the weight which is to
be given to the evidence adduced." A Report, &c., p
47.
3d. The mode of admitting testimony from the
world. Those who admit the testimony of persons of
the world, frequently err in the manner in which it fs
admitted. It is admitted at second hand, or by report.
The witnesses are exonerated, by the church, from the
duty of submitting to an examination in the presence of
the accused, and the accused is deprived of the right o'
facing his accuser. These things certainly ought no9
so to be. It is paying greater deference to persons of
OF WITNESSES.
311
the world than we usually pay to members of the church.
It may be argued, that the witnesses are generally un¬
willing to come Jorward and give in their testimony at a
thurch meeting, and that we have no means of compell¬
ing their attendance. This reasoning is more plausibls
than valid ; for under no circumstances should the ac¬
cused be condemned, without affording him an opportu¬
nity of confronting the witnesses. This we have
shown, in our last number, is an established rule of
Christ's kingdom. But it may be asked, what is to be
done, if they persist in refusing to come before the
church ? We reply, if the accused denies the charge,
and wishes to face his accuser, the church should, im-
dei such circumstances, go with him to the accuser.
This she may do by the appointment of a committee as
her representative, to act for and in her name. But it
may be objected, this would be attended with great dif¬
ficulty and trouble. We admit this fact ; but is it not
better to encounter any difficulty, and endure any trou¬
ble, than infringe upon the rights which are conceded
to an individual in the institutions of heaven 1 Let
us labor to keep the law of God, as well as the ordi¬
nances of the gospel, " as they were delivered to the
saints." If we infringe on the judicial code of heaven,
with what consistency can we reprove others, for in¬
fringing on those ordinances of the gospel which are
ceremonial in their character 1 Is it less important that
we should observe those institutions which are judicial,
than it is that we should observe those which are cere-
... ~ ,heV not both emanate from the same au-
momal . D ^ not bolh conduce lo the same
thority 1 An< cement of the glory of God, in the re-
end—the advanc it an(j'lhQ acknowledgment of
cognition of his a
SI 2
OF witnesses.
liis wisdom and goodness 1 Are they not both, there¬
fore, equally binding ? Brethren, let us not make dis-
tinotions where God has made none.
We add an extract from the Biblical Recorder, giv¬
ing the views of Mr. Meredith on this subject—than
whom there is no better disciplinarian in the South.
" In all cases testimony should be sustained accord¬
ing to its true value, that is, according to the amount of
credible evidence it contains; whether the witness be in
the church or out of it. We see no good reason for re¬
jecting a person's testimony, in such cases, merely be¬
cause he is not a professor of religion.
While on this subject, we would take occasion lo ob¬
serve, that testimony against an accused ought always
to be received" with extreme caution. It would be bet¬
ter to let half a dozen guilty persons go unconvicted,
than to have one innocent brother unjustly condemned.
Besides, where there is the least exacerbation of feeling,
men are generally much more liable to overstate their
testimony than to understate it. It is surprising to see
how much some professedly good men can make out of
a very little thing, and sometimes indeed out of nothing
at all. We recollect a case in which two members of a
Baptist church, of reputed veracity, gave their testimo¬
ny before a council of ministers, in which they conjunc¬
tively charged a brother with the most scandalous be¬
havior—which testimony we knew lo be substantially
untrue from beginning to end. Indeed we knew thai
one of the witnesses was himself guilty of the very of¬
fence which he thus alledged against his brother, and
thus ostensibly proved by the testimony of a second
peison. We presume, if these witnesses had been tes¬
tifying before a court of justice, they wojjld nnhesita,t*
OP WITNESSES.
313
mgly have sworn to the truth of their statements. The
only explanation that we can give of the affair is, that
the parties were strongly exasperated against the accus¬
ed, and were interested to some extent in his conviction
and ruin. With their motives we have nothing to do :
we speak only of the facts, The circumstance made
an indelible impression on our mind, and taught us,
most forcibly, how easily a man's reputation may be
ruined when he is opposed by interested witnesses, and
happens, at the same time, to have no one, by whom to
confront them. From that day we have been doubly
cautious how we receive testimony against a person,
when the witness was in any way interested in the con¬
viction of the accused, or was even under the influence
of ill-will or prejudice against him."
From all that has been said, the following inferences
are to be drawn :
1. Testimony from the woild is not to be rejected in
the trial of church members.
2. The weight given to any testimony must de¬
pend upon the character of the witness and the circum¬
stances under which his testimony is given.
314
suspension.
SUSPENSION FROM THE CHURCH.
Query VIII. Has a church the right to suspend a mem¬
ber for a limited time ?
We think not. If an individual is convicted of un¬
christian conduct, and does not give ample satisfaction,
he ought to be excluded, and not suspended. If he
lias not been convicted of unchristian conduct, to sus¬
pend him is to do him great injustice—it is to censure
him before he is proved worthy of censure.
Many of our ablest writers on church discipline, seena
to be involved in a labarynth of difficulties, when they
engage in the discussion of this subject. Even the astute
Mr. James, seems somewhat bewildeied here. He ad¬
mits that there is no scriptural warrant for an act of sus¬
pension, yet argues, inconclusively, we think, in favor
of such an act. He asks, " What is to be done in
those cases where neither the guilt nor the innocence
of an individual Is at once apparent to the church ; but
still a strong, very strong case, bo far as prima facie ev¬
idence goes, is made out against him ; or where there
is some appearance of penitence, but yet that penitence
is equivocal? Are we to admit that individual to the
full privileges of communion? what, while his conduct
is under examination, and his character, to say the best,
suspicious ?" Church Memb. Guide, Note on p. 154.
We answer, there is no need of an act of the church
in this case. The Great Founder of the church has
met it with a rule: •' Jf thou bring thy gift to the altar,
SUSPENSION.
315
and there reuiemberest that thy brother lialh ought
against thee ; leave there thy gift before the altar, and
go thy way : first be reconciled to thy brother, and then
come and offer thy gift." Matt, v, 23, 24. This rule
interdicts the presenting a public offering to God while
a brother has aught against us, and requires us to use
all lawful means to be reconciled to our brother ; to ^re¬
store ourselves to his confidence and affections, before
we present our offering. Now to a case like that sup¬
posed by Mr. James, notonly an individual, but the whole
church are suspicious of him and disaffected towards
Iiim. " Are we to admit that individual." Mr. James
asks, "to the full privileges of communion?" The
scriptural rule quoted directs, that he should first be re¬
conciled to his brethren ; and to-do this, he must clear
himself of all just grounds of suspicion. The spirit of
the rule clearly inculcates, that no individual having a
difficulty with another, or, (a necessary inference,) with
the church, should participate in any religious acts of a
public character that is peculiar to church members.
It cannot be intended to interdict private acts of devotion;
for the same authority enjoins on us to pray for them that
despitefully use us ; and those that-maltreat us must cer¬
tainly have something against us. But what it is the
duty of an individual to do, it is the duty of a church
to see that he does. It is her duty, therefore, to see that
no one repairs to the communiontable who is lying un¬
der suspicion, or has unsettled difficulties with any por¬
tion of the church.
But is not the enforcing this rule the same, in effect, with
a-nactof suspension? Certainly not. The rule is general.
It is not made for any one individual in particular. It
does not pre-suppose either the .guilt or innocence ©1"
SUSPENSION.
the Individual upon whom it is enforced ; for the inno*
cent, as well as the guilty, are required to observe iU
But an act suspending a member, is a rule made for that
individual in particular. It presupposes some degree of
guilt, and is an act of censure. We object to such an
act, that it is unnecessary. It moreover violates the
rights of the individual, and that principle, admitted in
all legislation human and divine, which requires that
every individual be presumed innocent until he is piov-
ed guilty. The act to which we object presumes him
to be guilty, and punishes him accordingly.
The question discussed above is siot a novel one. It
lias often been considered in our church conferences, and
in our Associations] and Ministerial meetings ; and the
general sentiment and practice of our denomination, as far
as we have had an opportunity of acquainting ourselves
with it, harmonize with the views expressed above. As
early as 1783, the Kehukee Association, which met at
Meglamare's M. H., Va., recorded it as their opinion,
in answer to a special query on this subject, that " there
is no degree of chutch censure to be inflicted on an im¬
penitent member, after a public hearing in the church,
besides excommunication." Ilist. Keh. As. p. G7.
In conclusion, we would impress upon the mind of
every one who desires to be instructed in things pertain•
ing to the kingdom of Christ, the absolute necessity of
seeking wisdom of Ilim who giveth liberally and up-
braideth not. The preservation of due discipline in our
churches &nd the discriminating between different of¬
fences, and proportioning the censure to the offence,
will call for the exercise of great patience and prudence,
in the investigation of difficulties, unwearied assiduity
in ferreting out evil, and great firmness and meekness in
alteration of creeds
317
awarding justice to all. And the exercise of these,
again, will require much of the grace of God, and much
of the influence of the spirit of Christ. May the Lord,
in his mercy, conform us to his will in all tilings, and
preserve us " holy, and unblameable, and unreprovea-
hle, in his sight."
alteration of creeds and trial of ministers.
Queries IX and X. 1. Has a church the right, without
the aid of a presbytery, to alter an article of°faith, upon
which she was constituted ?
2. Has she the right, without the aid of a presbytery, to ex¬
communicate an ordained minister ?
The above queries we find in the Biblical Recorder,
of Nov. 20th, 1S47, edited by Rev. Ti-iqs. Meredith,
Raleigh, N. C. They are so well answered by the ed¬
itor that we copy his reply entire. The latter query is
intimately connected wiih subjects discussed in our pre»
ceding articles. The editor says, in his reply,
" It will be seed at once that the answers to be given to
the above queries must depend on the opinions enter¬
tained respecting the independence of our churches.
If our churches are absolutely independent, as is gen¬
erally contended, then they are competent, of them¬
selves, and in their individual capacity, to the execution
of every duty, essential to their existence or to their
prosperity. To deny this would be clearly to deny that
our churches are strictly and absolutely independent ol
each other,
our churches are absolutely independent it will foj-
818
ALTERATION OF CREEPS
low that they have the right, not only to alter an article
of faith in their Constitution, and to excommunicate a
minister, without the aid of a presbytery, but also ft)
ordain their ministers, and even to effect their own con-
s-titution, without the concurrence of any foreign or ad¬
ventitious aid. Being absolutely independent, there is
a manifest contradiction in terms in representing them
as dependent on a presbytery, or any extraneous agency
whatever, for the performance of any act of govern¬
ment, of discipline, or of legislation. Those therefore
who contend for independence in its strict and absolute
sense, to be consistent, should set aside all presbyteries,
councils, and all such things, and proceed to the work
of ordination, excommunication of ministers, and all
such acts, by virtue of the power constitutionally inhe¬
rent in themselves.
But if, on the other hand, our churches are not inde¬
pendent, in the absolute sense of the term :—Tiiat is to
say, if they aie dependent on a presbytery consisting of
ministers or members from other churches, for their or¬
dinations, and even their constitution, then it is no de¬
nial of their legitimate powers, to say that they havs
not the right, either to alter their constitution or to ex¬
clude their ministers, without the aid of a presbytery.
On the contrary, consistency would seem to require that
neither the one nor the other should be done without
etich aid. If it be true, as is generally believed, and
which we can see no cause to deny, that the same au¬
thority is required to take away an office, that is requi¬
site to confer it—to destroy or essentially modify a com¬
pact, that is requisite to constitute it—then it will clear¬
ly follow, as a consequence resulting from established
principles, that neither a minister should be ctojK>sedt
And trial, of ministers. 31q
fior a church constitution altered, without the concur¬
rence of a power fully equal to that which is accounted
necessary to create the one and execute the other. This
seems to us to be clear and conclusive reasoning, and we
can see 110 ground on which it can be fuirly contested
by those who admit the dependence of our churches on
the action of presbyteries at all.
Our own opinion is this :—That, although out chur¬
ches are independent, so far as independence can be of
any essential advantage to them, yet, as associated bo¬
dies, and also as holding membets recognized as parties
to a common fellowship, it is not practicable in the na¬
ture of things that they can be strictly independent of
each other.
For example, if a member from one church bring a
letter of dismission to another, of the same faith and or¬
der, on the faith of the letter the said member is admit¬
ted to membership, without baptism and without inqui¬
ry. Now the question to be asked is, what gives the
letter from one church such ready credit with another ?
The replv is, the latter has full confidence in the piety,
the purity, and the good order of the former. Very
good. Then the question arises—what is the ground
of this confidence 1 It is the fact that the said church
claims to be one of the same " faith an<] order"—that
is, one holding the same religious belief, and conforming
to the same form of government as the other. And on
what is this claim rested? Is it the fact that she is in¬
dependent that is, that she ordains and deposes, and
excommunicates her ministers, and forms and modifies
her constitution, at pleasure, without recourse to pres¬
byteries or ministers from other churches 1 It is not.
On the contrary, were such known to be the facts con-
320 ALTERATION *OP CREED^
nected with any one of our churches, her letters of dis¬
mission would have no more credit with us than would
letters brought from churches of another denomination.
On the other hand, the confidence of our churches in
the orthodoxy and good order of eacli other, is founded
mainly on the facts, that their constitutions and ordina¬
tions all take place under the cognizance of presbyteries
consisting of ministers from oilier churches, who are
generally known, and whose acts of concurrence are re¬
garded as guarantees that said proceedings are valid and
correct.
The same is true of any minister who passes among
our churches. He is credited as a minister on account
of the credit of the church that sends him forth. And
that credit is rested mainly on the fact, that that church
was herself constituted, and ordains her ministers, only
with the consent and concurrence of an assisting pres¬
bytery.
Again, suppose a minister long known to the churches
should be expelled by the church to which lie belongs.
To that act all the other churches are required to con¬
form, by declining further to receive his ministrations.
Here is an act of conformity demanded, which if yield¬
ed, implies that the said churches are governed in this
respect by the act of another chuteh—and if not yielded
will afford ground for complaint that the act of one
church has been set aside by that of another. In such
case the latter church will be apt to inquire whether the
minister concerned has been regularly and justly tried
and expelled—and in order to settle this question, they
will doubtless feel it important to know whether he has
Bfeen tried by a presbytery or council of ministers; or
whether his case has been deposed of by the church,
AND TRtAL OF MINISTERS. 321
ill her exclusive and independent capacity. And it is
scarcely necessary to add, that they will be much more
liable to yield their concurrence in the foimer case thun
in the latter.
These, and other similar considerations, go to show,
that, whatever may be said of churches in their individ¬
ual and isolated capacities—as members of one great
eommunit}r of churches, such as they really are in a de¬
nominational point of view, they sustain to each other
divers mutual relations, giving rise to corres/u nding
mutual obligations, which are utterly incompatible with
a state of strict and absolute independence. We might
just as well talk of the absolute independence of the sev¬
eral States of the Union—or of the absolute indepen¬
dence of the several members of a church—or of the
absolute independence of the individual citizens of any
civil community. And should it be said, that in all these
cases the parties are bound by the stipulations of a writ¬
ten compact or constitution, the reply is, that, in our
community of churches, forming the great common¬
wealth of our denomination, though there be no written
constitution, yet we have the articles of a compact as
clearly understood, and as rigidly observed, as though
they were engraved on tablets of stone or of brass.
In view of the foregoing considerations we therefore
give it as our opinion, that, whatever a church may be
said, strictly speaking, to have a right to do, as a mat¬
ter of expediency or consistency, she ought neither to
modify her articles of faith, nor expel nor depose '.her
ministers, without the presence and concurrence of a
presbytery or council. Should a church wish to stand
aloof from all others, asking neither their confidence
nor their fellowship, and asserting the claims of an ab-
G
322
alteration op creeds
solutely independent community, then she may proceed
1o depose her ministers, modify her articles of faith, and
even perform her own ordinations, by virtue of her own
sovereign and absolute power. But if she would be
considered as a party to a great religious fraternity,
sharing the confidence and fellowship of the whole, and
claiming to have her acts respected and legalized by all
other churches, then she must recollect, that she is ne¬
cessarily bound to give as much as she receives, and
must therefore conform to those usages which the nature
of such relations imperatively enjoins.
Mr. Wst. Sands, editor of the Religious Herald,
Richmond, Va., has an editorial on the exclusion of
Ministers, in his paper of the 25th November, from
which it appears that his views accord with those of
Mr. Meredith. We extract from it the following
paragraph.
"Another evil which occasionally occurs amongst our
churches, is the exclusion of ministers without calling
a council of ministers from neighboring churches. We
are aware that the churches which act thus contend that
as each one is an independent body, they have full pow¬
er to deal with all their members, not excepting their
pastor. Granting this alledged authority, we still ques¬
tion very strongly the expediency of such a course,
since the general practice based on experience has sanc¬
tioned the calling of council. A principal of law
founded in true wisdom, is the right of an offender to be
tried by a jury of his fellows. It is deemed necessary
when a brother is ordained to the work of the ministry,
to call in a presbytery or council of ministers; and
when placed on trial for an offence which may lead to
his expuhbn and exclusion from the ministry, it seems
AND TRIAL OP MINISTERS.
323
but reasonable to let his case be tried by bis fellow-la¬
borers. In nearly eve/y case in which a minister has
been excluded on insufficient grounds^ which has come
under our knowledge, the church has acted without a
council. A minister is placed in a different position
from the private members. He has or ought to have
constant intercourse with all his fellow-members. If
popular, he may have many warm friends ; if unpopu¬
lar, equally warm enemies. When charges are alledged
against him, too often parties are formed, heated discus¬
sions ensue, and the church is unfitted to act on his case,
calmly and with due impartiality. It would therefore,
in all cases, be much better to call in the aid of a Coun¬
cil."
We concur in the views expressed in the above ex¬
tracts, and deem it wholly unnecessary to follow them
with any additional remarks of our own.
324 EXCLUSION BY MINORITIES.
EXCLUSION BY MINORITIES.
Query XL Has the minority in a church the right to
demand the exclusion of an individual whom the majority
believe to be innocent ?
The Sacred Scriptures give no intimation that such a
right h as been vested in the minority of a church ; but
there are precedents to the point, recorded with great
clearness and precision.
The Scriptures teach us, that decisions of the church
were ordinarily made by the lifting up of the hands of
its members, as will appear from an examination of the
following passages of Scripture in the original. Acts
xiv, 22 ; 2d Cor. viii, 19. Now we cannot account for
this voting, by the lifting up of the hands, if it was not
to ascertain the will of the majority.
But we are not left to infer from general principles
the course pursued by the primitive church in the exclu¬
sion of members. We have the express testimony of
an inspired apostle, that, in at least one case of exclu¬
sion, the individual was excluded, not by thejfew, but
by the many. " Sufficient to such a man (one that had
been excluded) is this punishment which was inflict¬
ed of MANY." 2d Cor, ii, 6. The word here render¬
ed " many" is pleionon, which signifies the greater
part—the majority. On this subject, then, the Scrip¬
ture is explicit and conclusive—nothing can be more
so, That passage is sufficient, of itself, to show what
was the practice of the church in apostolic times.
The Scriptures teach, that we are to esteem olheis
EXCLUSION BY MINORITIES. 325
better than ourselves, Phil, ii, 3, and to submit to one an¬
other, Eph. v, 21 ; 1 Cor. xvi, 16; 1 Pet. v, 5. Now
when two or three set up their judgment against that of
a large and respectable majority, do they comply with
the precepts to which we have referred? Do they not
rather say, stand off, for we are holier than you all 7 Is,
lxv,5. We are the people (the people of God—the
church) and wisdom will die with us 1 Job xii, 2.
But note again, that it is as much the duty of the
church to protect and defend those of her members,
whom she believes to be innocent, as it is to censure or
withdraw Irom those whom sbe believes to be guilty.
Now if she neglect this duty, and an innocent member
suffer in consequence thereof, will she not have to an¬
swer for it to the great Head of the Church I Would
it be deemed satisfactory, when the blood of our brother
is required at our hand, to answer, "Lord, nine-
tenths of us believed him innocent—we were reluctant
to give him up, but A, B and C said he was guilty and
must be sacrificed?" Can we throw the responsibility
upon A, B and C ? We do not see how it can with jus¬
tice be done, unless we assume that A, B and C consti¬
tute the church—for the rules of discipline are given to
be enforced by the church and not by individual mem¬
bers.
If a member is to be excluded because two or three
insist on it, then the excision of the Saviour was not
so reprehensible as we had supposed. One of the
twelve favored his excision, and none was found to ad¬
vocate his cause. Ps.' 69, 20, and 142, 4. When we
eject a member, to gratify a small minority, it does ap¬
pear to us that we condemn the Saviour anew ; for he
identifies himself with his disciples. "But when ye
326 EXCLUSION BY MINORITIES.
sin so against the brethren, , ye sin against
Christ." 1 Cor. viii, 12. It is a maxim univeisally re¬
ceived, that in all doubtful cases, we should adopt that
interpretation of a rule which inclines to mercy.
Objection I. I have ever believed that in the reception
of a member and the restoration of one, as well in as the dis¬
mission of one by letter, unanimity was indispensible.—See
31inutes of the Georgia Association for 1829, Article 14.*
This we have always understood to accord, with a
certain restriction, with the practice of Baptist churches
generally. The restriction consists in this: That the one
objecting to the reception, restoration, or dismission of the
applicant, assign a satisfactory icason for his objection,
when so requiied by the friends of the applicant. All
the decisions of the Georgia Association, to which the
objection alludes, refer to the reception, restoration, or
dismission of members by letter. Now the practice of
our churches, in reference to this matter, is founded
upon no specific scriptural rule, but upon views of ex¬
pediency derived from the general principles of the
gospel. It is deemed inexpedient to receive or restore
one to membership in the church, while a member ur¬
ges a serious objection, because this would be to intro¬
duce a cause of dissention in a church that is presum¬
ed to be in a stale of peace and quietude. The Sacred
Scriptures require that we remove every root of bitter¬
ness that is calculated to produce trouble. Heb. xii, 15,
and it is argued, that if it be our duly to remove such a
" root of bitterness," it must be equally our duty to la¬
bor to prevent its introduction.
But the question of exclusion is a very different
* This objection we give as we find it in print, in one of our Bap¬
tist periodicals.
EXCLUSION BY MINORITIES. 327
thing. The " root" is already in the church, Who is
to decide whether it is a sweet or bilter root? The
church in ils collective capacity, or one or two individu¬
als? Suppose that a truly godly member is charged
with high crimes and misdemeanors by his enemies.
(The godly will ever have enemies, 2 Tim. iii, 12, and
they are Frequently of his own household, Matt, x, 36,—
in his own church. The worldly minded professor is
generally ready to believe any evil of the one whose
zeal and self-denial reproaches him for his worldly
mindedness and vanity,) Suppose the evidence ad¬
duced to sustain the charges against this godlv man aie
deemed, by nine-tenths of the members, insufficient to
establish the charge—shall he be excluded because one-
tenth, upon insufficient testimony, believe him to be
guilty ? Sanction that principle generally—adopt it in
out churches—and the character of no member can ie
safe in a Baptist church ; for every man — the best of
men, are liable to have enemies ; and it is too often the
case, that the more innocent a man is, the more violent
and implacable are his enemies. We would far prefer
to trust our character to a jury, composed of men of the
world, than to the members of a church, which adopted
the principle that she was bound to exclude a member,
though she believed him to be perfectly innocent, if two
or three persisted in their belief of his guilt.
Objection II. I have always understood that in civil ca¬
ses, the dissent of one individual was sufficient to nullify the
decision of the majority.
In the case of a jury, a man cannot be condemned by
a minority. The jury must all concur in his guilt,or he
is acquitted ; so that reference to our civil courts makes
not for, but against iheobjector. We certainly would nev
328 EXCLUSION BY MINORITIES.
er place our membership in a church in which one indi¬
vidual, should we be so unfortunate as to make him our
enemy, would have the power to exclude us—that is, if
aware of the fact at the time. This would be far worse
than the arbitrary policy of Peodobaptist churches, in
vesting the power of exclusion in the hands of an itine¬
rant, a vestry, or a body of select men.
As the practice of some few of our churches is
contrary to that of the church at Corinth, we will take
the liberty to add a word or two in ieference to Bap¬
tist usage."
We resicted in Virginia eight or nine years after we
became a Baptist, was extensively acquainted with some
of the oldest churches in that State, and never knew one
that did not coincide with the Georgia Association, in
reference to the receiving and restoring of members into
fellowship and dismissing by letter; but we never knew
an individual excluded, during our sojourn in that Slate,
by the vote of a minority ; nor did we ever hear, but
once, a question raised on the subject. We were also
called, in 1842, to assist in a council convened to settle
a difficulty in a large church in Western Georgia, grow¬
ing out of the fact, that a small majority had retained
in fellowship one that was charged with unchristian con¬
duct. The minority being large and respectable, and
much dissatisfied with the decision of the church, had
taken letters. During the whole of the examination no
one pleaded the right of the minority to exclude a
member. The council was composed, we think, of six
experienced ministers; and several other ministering
brethren were present, when the case was examined
and subsequently reported before the church. We nev¬
er, until very recently, knew a case of one's being ex-
EXCLUSION BY MINORITIES'.
329
eluded by a minority vote. This is the sum of all we
know about the usage of Modern Baptist churches.
We would recommend to our brethren in conclusion,
to investigate the subject for themselves, and not to pin
their faith to the sleeves of any one. We are no pope,
and therefore do not presume to claim infallibility. We
know that we are liable to err, both in judgment and in
our acts, and often have erred, but the scriptures are un¬
erring—search them.
330
PUBLISHING EXCLUSIONS.
TUCLISHING EXCLUSIONS.
Q.cert XII. Should the exclusion of offending members
be published from the pulpit ?
Some christian societies think the scriptures require
it, and act accordingly. It was the practice of the In¬
dependent Church, within whose pale we were raised,
to read out, before the congregation, the names of ex¬
communicated members, and declare them to be no
longer members of the church. But this practice has
never, within our knowledge, prevailed among Baptist
churches in our country.
The question was brought before a general conference
of the Kehukee Association, in 1782, in the following
form: " Has a church any authority from God's word,
to lay it upon their minister to get op in a congregation
and publish the excommunication of a disorderly mem¬
ber ?" The conference answered, " We think that the
offending member being dealt with in a public confer¬
ence, is sufficient without any more publication." The
question indicates that some church or churches thought
that the exclusion should be made public. The answer,
which was sanctioned by the Association at its next an*
nual meeting, evinces that the practice was not generally
approved by the churches of that day, though it evades
the question relative to the " authority of God's word."
There may exist a necessity for the publication of ex?
plusiops in those societies in which a few select ipdivid-
PUBLISHING EXCLUSIONS.
331
iials, iaet in secret session, are allowed ihe right to ex¬
communicate members ; but as in Baptist churches, mem-
bersare tried and acquitted or excluded by the whole
church, met in public conference, as they were in the days
ofChri-t and the apostles, such necessity does not exist.
33-2
conclusion.
conclusion.
To ori? Readers.—In laying before you this little
volume, friends and brethren, we do not expect your
concurrenco in every sentiment it contains. Our hope
is, that the discussion of the several subjects introduced
will lead you to investigate them for yourselves, and ex¬
cite an interest in our churches generally, on the subject
of Gospel discipline. It is but too evident, that many of
our churches have do fixed principles of discipline.
They pursue one course at one church conference, and
an opposite course, perhaps, at another. This is ruin¬
ous, both to the church and its individual members. A
multiplication of crime and laxity in discipline are the
inevitable results. To aid in correcting these evils lias
been our aim and desiie. How far we may succeed
ime will shewj