Chapter XII (continued, part 2)
American is a member of the state, and subject to its laws, without any personal and voluntary profession of allegiance. We see not how this principle can be denied, in its application to the Church, without giving up our whole doctrine, and abandoning the ground to the Independents and Anabaptists. If, as we all hold, the children of believing parents are, by the ordinance of God, to be regarded and treated as members of the Church, this of necessity involves their right to its privileges and their subjection to its laws. Dr. Thornwell objects that, according to this principle, all baptized persons must be admitted to the Lord's table, and that we should have our Churches filled with hypocrites. This, however, is a non-sequitur. A person being a citizen of England, or America, subject to the laws of the state, does not give him the right of suffrage. That right is limited by the laws of the state. In England, and in some of the states of this Union, it depends on the possession of a given amount of property; in other states, on the attainment of the age of twenty-one; as to females, they never acquire the privilege. In every case the right is limited by what the state deems the possession of the requisite qualifications. So in the Church, admission to the Lord's table, or to Church offices, is limited by the possession of the qualifications which the word of God prescribes. It by no means therefore follows, that because baptized persons are subject to discipline, they are entitled to admission to the Lord's Supper.
The Doctor further objects, that as the object of discipline is not the vindication of justice, but to produce repentance, it is utterly absurd in regard to "a man who has never heard the voice of the Lord in his soul." This is surely a strange idea. Cannot the means of repentance be used in reference to the unconverted? Dr. Thornwell himself says, that baptized persons who do not act in accordance with their obligations, should be "followed with exhortation, remonstrance, and prayers." But are not exhortation and remonstrance means of
repentance? Do they not as much suppose a recognition of the claims of God as the subjection to discipline? They are indeed forms of discipline; and we cannot help thinking that it is a contradiction in terms, to say that a man is a member of the Church and not subject to its discipline. Whether he shall be subject to that particular form of discipline implied in "judicial process," might be a question. But as his amenability to such process is denied on grounds which, as it seems to us, involve the denial of his true relation to the Church, we are decidedly in favour of the paragraph as it stands in our present Book.
4. Terms of Communion
a. The Lord's Table for the Lord's People
[Directory for Worship, chap. viii., sec. iv. Digest of 1873, pp. 669,
44, 307, 487, 495.]
Several of the answers proposed by the Committee of Bills and Overtures to the questions submitted to them, contain important principles. Of these answers the following are of the most consequence:
1. An inquiry on the lawfulness of admitting to the Lord's Supper persons not holding the doctrines, or submitting to the discipline of the Presbyterian Church. The Committee reported a resolution, stating in substance, that as to the knowledge and deportment of persons applying, the session must judge, save in the case of persons invited to sit from other churches. After some inquiries and explanations the report was adopted.
The principles of Church communion are so clearly laid down in Scripture, and so distinctly stated in our Standards, that whenever we see such inquiries as the above presented, we take it for granted they come from Congregationalists, who think, in many cases, each particular parish Church may establish its own terms of communion, or from some other source, foreign to our own Church. Knowledge to discern the Lord's body, faith to feed upon him, repentance, love, and new obedience, are the only conditions of Christian communion which any Church on earth has a right to impose. The Lord's table is for the Lord's people—and we commit a great sin, if we presume to debar any man, giving credible evidence of being a child of God, from our Christian fellowship. All imposition of other terms, whether relating to unessential doctrines, to slavery, temperance, hymnology, or anything else, is setting up ourselves above God in his own house; and that is the vital germ of antichrist.
b. Credible Evidence of Conversion alone required [†]
[Directory for Worship, chap. ix., sec. iii.—Comp. Digest of 1873, pp.
306, 475, 495, 674–677.]
The ecclesiastical principles of this discourse ["a Discourse delivered in Dec. 1839, by J. C. Coit," of Cheraw, S. C.] we regard as in direct conflict with the standards of the Presbyterian Church. It is the leading doctrine of this sermon that no man is to be regarded and treated as a Christian who does not adopt the standards of the Presbyterian Church, or some formula of doctrine of like import. The exclusive principle of Christianity, the writer teaches, is faith in the doctrine of Christ according to our standards; all who do not adopt that doctrine as thus set forth, we are bound to denounce, and to have no communion with them as Christians. He censures the Church for having "intermingled in religious correspondence with
Arminians, Methodists, and Pelagians." He sneers repeatedly at the expression "Sister Churches." He exclaims, "We turn the New School Presbyterians out of our house, because we say they deny our faith, our gospel; and avowed Arminians are invited into it, welcomed and embraced as Christian brethren." This idea pervades the whole discourse, and unless we are prepared to maintain this exclusive principle, all talk of reform, he calls, mere vapouring.
Now we confidently affirm, that this is not the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, but, on the contrary, is in direct opposition to her spirit and principles. The first proof of the correctness of this declaration, though negative, is conclusive. The fact that our Church no where enjoins the adoption of the Confession of Faith as a term of Christian communion, is proof positive that she does not consider it necessary. She wisely demands the adoption of that Confession of all who are admitted to the office of bishop, or ruling elder, or deacon, but she has never required it of the private members of the Church. Many of our New School brethren went to the extreme of asserting that our Church required of her ministers nothing but what was essential to the Christian character; and now it seems that some are for going to the opposite extreme, and teach that the Confession of Faith is the test not only of ministerial, but of Christian communion. These extremes are equally dangerous and equally opposed to our standards.
It is not, however, by merely abstaining from requiring the adoption of the Confession of Faith by private members, that our Church teaches that such adoption is not necessary to Christian communion, but by expressly teaching the contrary doctrine. Our standards from beginning to end teach that we are bound to regard and treat as Christians, and to receive to our communion as such, all who give credible evidence of being true Christians; and she no where
prescribes, as part of that evidence, the adoption of the whole system of doctrine contained in our Confession of Faith. "The Catholic Church," our Confession teaches, "hath been sometimes more, and sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."* In describing those who ought not to be admitted to Christian communion, the Confession says: "All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table."† It is here plainly taught that those who are fit for communion with the Lord should be admitted to his table. And what a monstrous doctrine is the opposite assumption! Who are we, that we should refuse communion with those with whom Christ and the Holy Ghost commune? We devoutly thank God that no such anti-Christian doctrine is countenanced by our Church. In the Larger Catechism, in answer to the question, [‡] May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord's supper? it is said, "One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord's supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not assured thereof, and in God's account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity, in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed for the relief of even weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labour to have his doubts resolved; and so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord's supper, that he may be further strengthened." And in the immediately-following answer we are taught that it is only "the ignorant and scandalous" whom we are authorized to debar from
communion. The qualifications for the Lord's supper, as laid down in the Shorter Catechism, are knowledge to discern the Lord's body, faith to feed upon him, repentance, love, and new obedience. In the Directory, chapter 8, we are told that "the ignorant and scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's supper." And in the following chapter, in reference to the young, it is said, "When they come to years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and steady, and have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord's body, they ought to be informed, it is their duty and privilege to come to the Lord's supper." And on the same page it is said, "Those who are to be admitted to sealing ordinances, shall be examined as to their knowledge and piety."
Nothing, therefore, can be plainer than that our Church requires nothing more than credible evidence of Christian character as the condition of Christian communion. Of that evidence the Church officers are to judge. Not one word is said of the adoption of the Confession of Faith, or of any thing but the evidences of piety. Any man, therefore, who gives evidence of being a Christian, we are bound by the rules of our Church to admit to our communion. And so far from there being the slightest intimation that the adoption of the whole system of our doctrine contained in our standards is necessary to a man's being a Christian, there is the strongest evidence to the contrary. This evidence is to be found in the omission of any mention of the standards in those passages which speak of the communion of saints; in the mention of other terms than those of subscription to a formula of doctrine, and in the admission that true Churches may be impure both as to doctrine and practice, that is, may reject what we hold to be truth without forfeiting their Christian character.
The doctrine here contended for has been repeatedly recognized by the General Assembly. So recently as May, 1839, in their letter to the churches, the Assembly said: "We have ever admitted to our communion all those who, in the judgment of charity, were sincere disciples of Jesus Christ." They add, however, that "this has no reference to the admission of men to offices in the house of God." With regard to all office-bearers, they say: "The founders of our Church, and all who have entered it with enlightened views and honest intentions, have declared to the world and to all other Christian Churches that the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, is that sound doctrine, which we are to require of all those who seek the office of a bishop." "Such are the principles," add the General Assembly, "on which our Church was founded, and on which, for more than a century, it was faithfully administered. It is believed that during all this period no one was ever debarred from the communion of saints, who was regarded as a sincere disciple of Christ, and that no one was admitted to any office in the Church, or, if admitted, was allowed to retain his standing, who dissented in any material point from the system of doctrine contained in our standards." [*]
There is one monstrous assertion relating to this subject involved in one of the passages quoted above from Mr. Coit's sermon, which we cannot pass unnoticed. He virtually asserts that the New School party were cut off as unfit for Christian communion. This assertion is in the very face of the solemn declaration of the Assembly, that they had no intention of affecting either the ministerial standing, or the Church relations of any one in the four synods. They declared that it is because of their irregular organization, that the act of dissolution was passed, and that any who chose might organize themselves agreeably to the constitution, and thus their connection with the Church be preserved. This is the very view of the case which Mr. Coit
gives, in the body of his sermon, of the acts of the Assembly of 1837. "As to the clamour," he says, "which has been made about 'cutting off five hundred ministers and sixty thousand communicants' by the Assembly's edict of 1837, the truth is, not one person was cut off, unless he exscinded himself upon the voluntary principle as every one will see who can read and will look at the enactment. The effect of the act was to abolish an anomalous ecclesiastical connection of four synods with the General Assembly; a connection which had grown up out of a temporary missionary arrangement, (made when the country covered by these synods was mostly a wilderness,) operating most perniciously upon the 'truth, peace, and purity of the churches,' and all the reasons for which had long ceased to exist." This representation is undoubtedly correct. The acts of 1837 deposed no minister and excommunicated no Church member. They declared no man and no set of men unworthy of Christian communion. It would indeed have been a monstrous iniquity for the Assembly to excommunicate thousands of Christians of whom they knew nothing, and who had been neither accused nor convicted of any offence. The imputation of any such purpose to the General Assembly is a gross calumny against that venerable body.
The doctrine so plainly taught in our standards, that Christian fellowship should be extended to all who exhibit the Christian character, is no less plainly taught in the word of God. We are there commanded to receive all those whom God has received. In the fourteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, it is in various forms enjoined on Christians not to reject any who live on Christian principles. True religion consists in "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he who in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men." And surely those who are acceptable to God may well be acceptable to his Church.
There is no duty more frequently or pointedly enjoined in the New Testament, than love of the brethren. It is made the badge of discipleship. "Hereby" says Christ "shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. This duty involves of course the recognition as brethren of all those who are really such, and the exercise of cordial affection and confidence towards them. It matters not by what name they may be called, whether they follow with us or not; if they bear the image of Christ, those who fail to recognize and honor it, fail to love the brethren; they reject and despise those whom Christ has received, and have reason to consider seriously lest Christ should say unto them, In as much as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not unto me. It would avail as little in such a case to say, We did not regard him as a brother; for this is the very heart of the offence. If a man is a brother and gives the scriptural evidence of the fact, not to see and recognize that evidence is an indication of that very state of mind which is so offensive to our Divine Master. Will it avail us in that day, to say, We did not think any man could be a Christian who sang Watts' Psalms, or who did not wear plain clothes, or who refused to give a pledge of total abstinence, or who declined to join an abolition society, or who denied the authority of the Pope or of prelates, or who did not adopt the same standards of doctrine as we did? The question will be, Did you refuse to recognize those as Christians who were really such, and who gave scriptural evidence of their being the disciples of Christ? What that evidence is, is recorded in the word of God, and every man and every Church must apply it upon their own responsibility. One thing, however, is plain, viz.: that we are bound to receive all those whom God has received; and are forbidden to require more for communion with us, than he requires for communion with him.
There is a prevalent misconception on this subject, which ought to be corrected. It is said that by communing with any Church we recognize or sanction their errors. This is not so. We recognize them as Christians, and nothing more. If a Presbyterian commune in a Congregational or Episcopal church, no man regards him as sanctioning their distinctive views of Church government. It is simply in their character of fellow Christians that he sits with them at the table of the Lord, to which they have a common right. And great is the guilt of those who refuse that right to any to whom it properly belongs.
Our standards tell us that particular Churches "may err in making the terms of communion too lax or too narrow." No one, it is presumed, can accuse our Church of going to either extreme, in requiring, as the condition of Christian communion, nothing more and nothing less than Christian character. And no individual congregation or presbytery in our connection has a right to alter those terms. In applying the rule the responsibility rests upon the officers of each particular church, and no doubt errors in this matter are often committed. The Bible contains a perfect rule of faith and practice; and we are bound to believe all the Bible teaches, and to do all that it commands. But perfect faith is no more necessary to true discipleship, than perfect conduct. There are some things which, if a man does, would afford decisive evidence that he is not a Christian; and there are some truths the rejection of which affords no less decisive evidence of the same fact. But as there are infirmities of temper and behaviour, so are there errors in doctrine, which are consistent with true religion, and we have no more right to exact a strict conformity to our own belief of the true import of the rule of faith, than we have to demand perfect conformity to the rule of duty. "Those who are to be admitted to sealing ordinances," says our
Directory, "shall be examined as to their knowledge and piety." Beyond this no Church session has a right to go.
We have ever regarded the erroneous views and practice of the Churches in relation to Christian communion as one of the greatest evils of the Christian world. It is not the existence of sects, for that perhaps is unavoidable, but it is the refusal to recognise as brethren those who really love and serve Christ, that is to be condemned and deplored, It is this that has turned the ancient eulogium: See how these Christians love one another, into the condemning testimony: See how these Christians hate one another. It is our presumptuously declaring that to be common, which God has cleansed, which has arrayed the different parts of the Church against each other. There is such a thing as a faithful adherence to the truth, without anathematizing all who differ from us. We may guard our ministry and admit none to the office of teacher in our churches, who do not hold that system of doctrine which we believe God has revealed, and which cannot be rejected in any of its parts without evil to the souls of men; but we may still recognise as Christian brethren all who hold the essential doctrines of the gospel, and who love the Lord Jesus Christ.
c. Temperance Question
[Book of Discipline, chap, ii., sec. 3.—Comp. Digest of 1873, pp. 483–
492.]
This subject came up on the review of the Minutes of the Synod of Pittsburgh. It appears that the question, "Should a retailer of intoxicating drinks, knowing that they are used for the common purposes of beverage, be continued in the full privileges of the Church, and certified as a member in good standing," was referred by that Synod to a committee, who made a report, which was adopted,
and is to the effect that no member of the Church should be excluded from its privileges, except for some "offence;" that an offence "is anything in the principles or practice of a church-member which is contrary to the Word of God, or which, if it be not, in its own nature, sinful, may tempt others to sin, or mar their spiritual edification;" that the practice of retailing intoxicating drinks need not be pronounced in its own nature sinful, but that it certainly tempts others to sin, and therefore is an "offence" within the meaning of the Book. But is it such an offence as ought to exclude those who commit it from the privileges of the Church? In answer to this question, the report states that anything which would be a proper ground for debarring an applicant admission to the Church ought to be considered a sufficient ground of excommunication or exclusion; that anything which essentially impairs or destroys the evidence of Christian character is a bar to admission, and ought to be considered a ground for exclusion. In proof that the practice in question does destroy the credibility of a Christian profession, it is argued that "the man who, at the present time, is ignorant of the effect of the practice referred to, in tempting others to sin and marring their spiritual edification, must be criminally regardless of what is going on around him. And he, who, knowing this, perseveres in the practice, evinces a state of heart directly the reverse of that which is produced by the grace of God that bringeth salvation."
That this is not establishing a new term of communion in the Church, the report argues, because the old and acknowledged condition of communion is, credible evidence of Christian character, and as the practice of retailing intoxicating drinks has been shown to vitiate that evidence and to work a forfeiture of the privileges of Christian communion, we do but enforce the old condition. This report was "adopted by the Synod, and recommended to be read in all the congregations within its bounds." When the committee of the
General Assembly reviewed the Minutes of that body, they recommended that they should be approved, with the exception of the above report, because it virtually made "the retailing of intoxicating drinks a test of piety and a term of membership in the Presbyterian Church."
This recommendation gave rise to a protracted discussion. Dr. Lord proposed as a substitute for the report of the committee, "That the records be approved except so far as they seem to establish a general rule in regard to the use and sale of ardent spirits as a beverage, which use and sale are generally to be decidedly disapproved; but each case must be decided in view of all the attendant circumstances that go to modify and give character to the same." Mr. Breckinridge moved the following as a substitute for Dr. Lord's proposition, or rather for the exception in the report of the committee: "But whereas the question has been made before this General Assembly whether the sale of intoxicating drinks, in all cases, shall be a bar to communion in the Presbyterian Church, therefore, Resolved, That while the Assembly rejoice in the success of the temperance reformation, and will make use of all lawful means to promote it, they cannot sanction any new terms of communion." This resolution was rejected, and that offered by Dr. Lord was finally adopted.
Did we not know how liable we all are to have our minds clouded and perverted about the plainest matters, and how easily the evil resident in our nature mingles with everything we do, we should be surprised to find good men differing about such a subject as temperance, and unholy feelings influencing the discussions to which such difference of opinion gives rise. We make this latter remark without any reference to the recent debates in the General Assembly, for we rejoice to believe that throughout the long, animated and exciting discussion, there was not, as one of the audience testifies "the least
exhibition of rude deportment or unpleasant feeling." But how is it that there should be such diversity of opinion even in the Assembly on such a subject? To what does this diversity relate? Not to the sinfulness of intemperance; not to the prevalence of the evil, not to the amount of crime, degradation and misery, of which it is the fruitful source, not to the duty of all men to endeavour by precept and example to oppose its progress, not to the great good that has been effected by temperance societies, not to the desirableness of continuing and extending the influence of the reformation already so happily begun; but mainly to certain questions in morals, which are indeed of great practical importance. We believe that the dissensions among good men on such subjects as temperance, slavery, and the like, arise in a great measure from the want of due discrimination somewhere as to the elementary principles of ethics. By elementary, we do not so much mean obvious, as ultimate. Men may agree that a thing is right, but differ as to the grounds of this judgment, and such difference will of necessity produce diversity in the reasons by which they enforce the duty, the means they employ to carry out their views, and the spirit which animates their endeavours. It makes all the difference in the world, whether a thing is wrong in itself, or for reasons extraneous to its own nature. If it is wrong in itself, it is always wrong; it is always the ground of reproach or censure; and it should be opposed in a way entirely inadmissible on the supposition that it is, in its own nature, a matter of indifference. It is evident that it is the prevalent doctrine of our Temperance Societies, and of our self-called temperance men, that the use and sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage is in itself an immorality. As to this point there can be no higher authority than the National Temperance Convention held at Saratoga, July, 1841, who declared, "That the tendency of all intoxicating drinks to derange the bodily functions, to lead to drunkenness, to harden the heart, sear the conscience, destroy domestic peace, excite to the commission of crime, waste
human life, and destroy souls; and the rebukes and warnings of God in his word in relation to them, in connection with every law of selfpreservation and of love, imposed upon all men a solemn moral obligation to cease forever from their manufacture, sale and use, as a beverage, and so unitedly call upon us as men and Christians, not to pause in our work until such manufacture, sale and use, shall be universally abandoned." This declaration of the immorality of the manufacture, sale and use of all intoxicating drinks as a beverage, being founded, not on the peculiar circumstances of any time or place, but on the inherent nature and tendency of such drinks, is a declaration that their sale and use are, and always have been sinful. And as it is a fact, just as clear as any other fact contained in the Scripture, that God and Christ did not prohibit, but allowed the use of such drinks, we cannot hesitate to say that the above resolution is infidel in its spirit and tendency, however many good men may have been cajoled or driven into the sin of giving it their sanction. It has produced, therefore, its legitimate effects in vitiating the arguments, the measures, and, to a lamentable extent, the spirit of the Temperance Society. It has led to a disregard of the authority of the word of God, to a shameful perversion of its meaning, to shocking irreverence in the manner of speaking of our blessed Redeemer. It has in all these and other ways tended to undermine the foundations of religion, and has given, in many places, an infidel character to the whole temperance movement. It has just as necessarily led to coercive measures in the promotion of the object aimed at, invoking the aid of Church courts and Church censures. It has produced a spirit of denunciation and censoriousness. Good men are represented as bad men, for no other reason than a denial of the false principle above stated, and for their opposition to the arguments by which it is sustained. We refer, as a single example, to the case of Dr. Maclean, one of the most disinterested of men, a man who has more moral worth than would serve for an outfit for a whole generation of
such men as ignorantly traduce him; a man, who not only practices upon the principles of total abstinence, but has over and again signed pledges to that effect, who is yet constantly more or less defamed, because he refuses to submit his judgment and conscience to this new and self-created tribunal of moral principle and conduct. Just so long and so far as the false doctrine above stated, is maintained by our Temperance Societies, will it be the duty of the friends of religion and of temperance itself, at whatever cost to themselves, to bear their testimony against it, and resist all measures designed to establish and enforce it.
The New York Observer says, in reference to the discussions in the Assembly, that "through the whole progress of the debate not a single expression was heard that could be distorted by the most fastidious ear into a support of that dogma of modern ultraism, which has so often jeoparded the temperance reform; that 'it is a sin per se to use or sell intoxicating drinks.' All appeared satisfied, and many expressly declared their willingness to rest the cause on the broad ground of expediency so clearly set forth by St. Paul, in regard to both 'meat and wine, which they considered as a firm and ample foundation for the glorious superstructure." Our brethren of the Synod of Pittsburgh also, state that they do not affirm the practice of retailing intoxicating drinks, to be in its own nature sinful. We fear, however, there is often a great mistake made as to the proper place of expediency, as it is called, in questions of duty. The principle which the apostle lays down, Rom. 14 ch. and 1 Cor. 8 ch., is, that it is wrong for us to make such use of our liberty, in things indifferent, as to lead our brethren into sin. This is the general principle, but it is subject to the important limitation that this compliance with either the scruples or weakness of others, must be "for their good to edification. If it would sanction any false doctrine, or tend to establish any false principle of duty, the compliance would itself be
wrong; because it is far more important, and far more useful for others, that the truth should be kept pure than that those who are weak or ignorant should not be offended. Paul's precept and example, as well as the very nature of the case, impose this limitation on the principle in question. To avoid giving offence, and to save the Jews from the sin of rejecting the gospel, without a hearing, he circumcised Timothy; but when there was danger that compliance would sanction the doctrine of justification by works, he refused to circumcise Titus. Christ would not comply with the conscientious scruples of the men of his generation, but consented to be called a Sabbath-breaker and a wine-bibber, because he saw their good and the cause of truth required it. It was in the same spirit of enlightened Christian ethics that Luther urged his followers to observe certain religious days, adding, however, if any man says you must do it, then go to your ordinary work as hard as you can.
It follows, therefore, that any rule of duty founded on expediency must be variable. If I am bound to abstain from certain things only because the use of them would do my brethren harm, the obligation exists only when his real good would be promoted by my abstinence. If the obligation arises from circumstances, it must vary with circumstances. If it was Paul's duty at Jerusalem to have his head shaved and keep the law, it was his duty at Antioch to disregard the law and to eat with the Gentiles. If it was his duty under one set of circumstances to circumcise Timothy, it was his duty under another to refuse to circumcise Titus. If it was his duty in Corinth to abstain from eating meat, it was his duty among the Essenes, who made religion to consist in such matters, to eat it. Thus we doubt not, in our day, it is a duty in many parts of the country to practice on the principles of total abstinence; in others, no such obligation may exist; and we suspect in others it is an imperative duty openly to refuse to do it. If in any place such abstinence would countenance
false doctrines, or false principles of morals, or sanction infidel sentiments, or add weight to infidel measures, we ought not to give place by subjection, no not for an hour. Let real love to our brethren, guided by the word of God, direct our conduct, and though we may not all act in the same way, we shall all act right.
It follows also, from the very nature of expediency, that every man must be allowed to decide and act for himself. He is not to subject his conscience or conduct to the judgment of others in such cases. If a thing be indifferent in its own nature, if God has neither commanded nor forbidden the use of it, then I must decide for myself whether it is right to use it or not. It is a question which no man can decide for me, and which depends on whether most good will result from using or not using the thing in question; a point often exceedingly difficult, if not impossible with any confidence, to decide. This is the very principle which Paul so strenuously asserted. While he said it was wrong to eat meat with offence (i.e., so as to cause others to sin), he said also, Let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant, to his own master he standeth or falleth? Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks, and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
It is only stating what has already been said in another form, to say that expediency never can be the ground of any general and peremptory rule of duty as to any specific thing. The general principle is plain and admitted, but the application varies with every man's circumstances, and must be left to each man's conscience. All those general declarations therefore, of the duty of total abstinence, from the use of intoxicating drinks, if they do not rest on the false doctrine, that such use is in its own nature sinful, have no foundation
at all. Expediency can only sustain the declaration that the use is wrong in certain circumstances; for if it is wrong under all circumstances, it is wrong in its own nature. Brethren evidently deceive themselves. They say they take the ground of expediency and then proceed to make declarations and lay down rules which can have no other foundation than the inherent evil nature of the thing denounced—Would Paul have laid down the general proposition, that eating meat offered to idols was "an offence," which should exclude a man from the communion of the Church? Does he not say the very reverse, and forbid our making the use or disuse of any thing indifferent in its own nature, a condition of Christian communion? Let brethren ponder the fourteenth chapter of his epistle to the Romans, and we are persuaded they will feel that all such general rules as that under discussion in the Assembly are anti-scriptural, and subversive of the true principles of morals, as well as of Christian liberty and love. No one doubts that a man may make such a use of his liberty, as to dress, as to manner of living, as to eating or drinking, as shall clearly show he has not a Christian spirit, and for such offence he may be dealt with as the case deserves; but this is a very different thing from laying down the general rule that every man who dresses or lives in a certain way, or who eats or drinks certain things, shall be excluded from the Church. How can any one believe that every man that buys and sells wine, that has a vineyard, or who turns his apples into cider is, the world over ipso facto, proved not to be a Christian? Yet this is the length to which the principle involved in the minute before the Assembly must of necessity go. A man may use wine under circumstances which prove that he is a bad man; but this does not prove that the use of wine shows him to be wicked. He may retail intoxicating drinks in a way that shows he is not a Christian, but this does not prove that the act of retailing them vitiates the evidence of his Christian character. If a thing is right or
wrong according to circumstances, it cannot be said to be in itself a bar to Christian communion.
It seems strange to us, that any one should contend that making the use or sale of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, is in itself a proof that a man is not a Christian, is not adopting "a new term of communion." If you establish a new test of piety, you certainly thereby establish a new term of communion. If the fact that a man holds slaves, or that he sings Watts' psalms, or that he uses wine, is made to prove he is not a pious man, do you not, in the common and correct sense of the terms, make those things conditions of union with the Church? And is it not plain that by so doing you violate the Scriptures, place yourself above the Master, and undertake to prescribe rules for his house on your own authority and contrary to his will?
One of the greatest evils of these extremes, is that it forces those who oppose them into a false position. Because they oppose an erroneous and injurious method of promoting temperance, they are looked upon as opposing temperance itself; they are said to take part with the drunkard, and to stand in the way of all that is good. Did Christ favour the disregard of the Sabbath, because he exposed the error of the pharisees? Did he promote intemperance, because he resisted the ascetic doctrines of some of the Jews? So his enemies said, but was it true? If evil flows from these discussions about temperance, whose fault is it? Are they to blame who oppose false principles, or they who advance them? Reproach on either side is nugatory. The simple question is, what is true and right? May we not hope that brethren who agree in thinking not only that intemperance is a great sin, but that it is a sin which calls for special watchfulness and zealous opposition; will agree as to the principles on which that opposition is to be conducted? We may be certain that if the principle on which
the temperance reformation is made to rest, is not sound, the whole effort will come to a disastrous end. Those therefore are the best friends of temperance, who contend for the truth.
d. Marriage Question
[Directory for Worship, chap. xi., sec. iii.—Comp. Digest of 1873, p.
688.]
Overtures were received from the Synods of New Jersey and Alabama, and from the Presbyteries of Troy, New York, West Lexington and from the Western District, requesting the Assembly to send down to the Presbyteries, the question, whether the Confession of Faith should be amended by striking out the last clause of the 4th section of the 24th chap., which says, "The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred, nearer in blood than of her own."
These overtures were referred to the Committee of Bills and Overtures, who reported, May 22, in favour of sending down the proposed question. Two of the committee, Dr. J. C. Lord and Rev. Hiram Chamberlain, dissented from this report, and recommended the adoption of a resolution declaring any such reference to the presbyteries inexpedient. When the resolution proposed by the committee came up, May 26, Dr. Hoge, moved to lay the whole subject on the table; on the ground that the consideration of it would lead to a long and unprofitable discussion of the merits of the case. This motion prevailed; yeas 83; nays 55. On the afternoon of May 29th, Dr. Leland, moved to take up the subject; urging that it was not proper to neglect the request of so many of the lower judicatories. He added that although he had always been opposed to such marriages, he was more opposed to refusing to apply, in such cases, to the constitutional source of power for a decision. Dr. Leland's motion
was carried by a vote of 56 to 49. The motion was then advocated by Dr. Maclean, on the ground that the request was made by whole synods and presbyteries; that there was so much diversity of opinion in the Church on the subject, that a reference to the presbyteries was the only way by which the question could be settled; that the Confession of Faith ought not to contain anything which hundreds of our ministers and thousands of our Church members, with whom the speaker fully sympathized, believed unauthorized by the word of God: that the other Churches by which we are surrounded, the laws of the land, and the general sentiment of the country were in favour of the lawfulness of marriages which our book condemns.
Dr. Hoge and Mr. Breckinridge spoke against the motion, and the former moved that the whole subject should be referred to a committee of three, to report an amended form of the section to be sent down to the presbyteries. A motion, however, was made to lay the whole subject on the table, which prevailed: yeas 68, nays 63. On the following day, Dr. Hoge moved that the subject be again taken up, with a view to appoint a committee to report on the subject to the next Assembly. He said he made this motion not because he wished any change in this article in the Confession, which he believed to be, as it now stands, in accordance with the word of God, but simply because some of the brethren think we have not treated them and the judicatories of the Church fairly in the disposition of the subject which we have made. The motion to take the subject up was carried: yeas 61, nays 54; and then without debate or division, it was voted to refer it to a committee of five to report to the next Assembly. It was at first determined to appoint this committee by ballot; but subsequently, on the nomination of Mr. Breckinridge, the following gentlemen were appointed, viz.: Messrs. Hoge, Spring, Leland, Hodge and N. L. Rice.
That this is a difficult and complicated subject, must, on all hands, be admitted. There are three very distinct questions in relation to it, which ought not to be confounded. 1. Is the doctrine now taught on this point in our Confession in accordance with the word of God? 2. If so, ought the article in question to be made a term of Christian and ministerial communion? 3. If not, is the striking out of the clause proposed to be erased, the right remedy for the difficulty?
As to the first of these points there are avowedly three opinions in the Church. The one that the Confession as it now stands is in its strictest sense in accordance with the Scriptures, and therefore that the marriages in question are in such a sense unlawful as to be invalid in the sight of God. Separation of the parties, according to this view, is in all cases an indispensable requisite for admission to the privileges of the Church. The second opinion is, that although the marriages in question are unlawful, i.e. contrary to the rule laid down in the Scriptures, they are not, in all cases (i.e. the remotest degrees of kindred forbidden in our Book,) invalid. The separation of the parties in such cases, so far from being a duty would be, according to this view, a sin. This view of the subject we believe to be far more prevalent in the Church than the other. Many brethren who are the most strenuous in their support of the Book, are disposed to leave the parties already living in such connections, unmolested in the enjoyment of their Church privileges. But this they could not do, if they believed their marriages to be invalid. This second opinion is founded on the obvious principle of religious ethics that although, in many cases, it may be wrong to enter into certain engagements, yet the engagement, when formed, is binding. That this is a sound principle cannot be doubted, and admits, were it necessary, of abundant illustration. It was against the law of God for the ancient Israelites to form any treaties with the heathen; and yet, in many cases, such treaties when formed were morally binding. It is contrary
to the divine will for any man to violate the law of the land, and yet, in a multitude of cases, the municipal law regulating marriage, may be violated without rendering the contract morally void. In England, a few years ago, the law forbade any man but a minister of the Established Church to solemnize marriage; the ceremony could be legally performed only at certain places, and during certain hours of the day. Yet no one doubts that a marriage solemnized by a Romish priest, or a Presbyterian minister, or out of canonical hours, was valid and binding in the sight of God, though in one sense contrary to the law of God, by being contrary to the law of the land. But to take a case nearer to the point, God forbids in his word believers and unbelievers to be unequally yoked together. It is laid down as a principle meant to be conservative of the peace and religious character of families, that the people of God should not intermarry with his enemies. Should a minister of the gospel marry a gay, worldly woman, he would certainly violate this principle; and still more obviously would he act contrary to the divine law, were he to marry a skeptic or a heathen. But in no one of these cases would the marriage be invalid. In like manner, God has laid down the general rule that a man should not marry his near kindred. This law cannot be violated with impunity; but it does not follow that every marriage inconsistent with it should be dissolved. About the principle there can be no doubt; whether it is applicable to the case of marriage, depends on the view taken of the general law of marriage. If that law is a moral one, in the highest sense of the term, then no engagement inconsistent with its provisions can be binding, any more than a man can bind himself to commit murder. But if it be a positive law, or only in a secondary sense moral, and therefore dispensable, then the principle is applicable, in all cases where the sacred obligation of the marriage contract is more obligatory than the positive law with which it is in conflict. If a man is in such circumstances that he cannot comply with both of two laws, it is a plain principle that the
weaker law gives way, or ceases to be binding. If the law of the Sabbath conflicts with the claims of mercy, it is in that case no longer obligatory; for God will have mercy and not sacrifice. It is not our purpose at present to argue any thing; but merely to state what are the opinions prevailing in the Church in relation to this subject. It is certainly true that while some brethren think all marriages forbidden in our Confession are not only unlawful, but invalid; a much larger number, while they believe them to be unlawful, i.e., inconsistent with the rule laid down in the Scriptures on the subject, believe them to be, in the case referred to, valid and binding.
A third opinion is that the law, as it now stands, is inconsistent with the word of God, forbidding what that word, and the laws of almost all our states, do not prohibit. How large this class of brethren is we cannot tell. In the northern portion of the Church, they probably constitute a great majority; in the southern and western portions a minority.
The second question is, Whether the law forbidding a man to marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, ought to be made a term of ministerial and Christian communion? This is a grave question. It seems plain that we are not at liberty to make every truth contained in the word of God, a term of communion. This is contrary to the express command of the apostle, and would render the unity of the Church impracticable. It is only those things which are clearly revealed, and which are of such moment that ministers cannot differ about them and be qualified for the office of preachers in the same Church, that should be included in the terms of ministerial communion; and only those about which Christians cannot safely differ, that should be embraced in the terms of Christian communion. Now it is said, we should be very sure that a thing is clearly revealed before we can make the disbelief of it, the
ground of exclusion from the Church. The fact that there is such an avowed diversity of opinion on the subject in question, is one of the arguments urged against the clause complained of being retained in our Confession of Faith.
Again, it is urged against the rule that it never was, and practically it cannot be uniformly enforced. Although in one part of the Church it has been carried into effect, in another it has been suffered to lie dormant. So that we have, and ever have had, in our Churches, and at times in our eldership and ministry, men in good standing, who have contracted marriages in violation of this rule. But even this is not the greatest difficulty. Such is the state of opinion in the Church on this subject that uniformity cannot be attained. If it would violate the conscience of a northern presbytery to discipline a brother for such a marriage, it would violate the conscience of many of our presbyteries in the south, to pass the matter in silence. Where the sentiment of the Church is against the marriage, it cannot be overlooked; where the opposite sentiment prevails it cannot be censured. We have heard of a minister who had scarcely more than twelve members of a large congregation who would consent to hear him preach, after his marriage with the sister of his deceased wife; and when he attempted to administer the Lord's Supper, all the elders declined serving. Such a man is as it were excluded from the ministry by public sentiment, before any Church censure can be brought to bear upon him. Now what is to be done? This is a practical question. Shall we agree to differ? or must we separate on this point?
This introduces the third question. Is the erasure of the clause proposed to be stricken out, the proper remedy for the difficulty?
Practically it certainly will not reach it; for as the Book will still condemn marriages within the degrees prohibited in the Word of God, all those sessions and presbyteries who think the marriage in question included in the prohibition, will feel not only authorized, but required to proceed just as if the Book were left unaltered. We shall have just the same diversity of opinion and practice without the clause that we have with it. We have heard it suggested that the best plan would be to leave the Book as it is; and allow the several sessions and presbyteries (as they have ever been allowed,) to pursue their own course in the matter, the General Assembly not interfering to coerce obedience to the rule where the lower court does not feel called upon to enforce it; and acting only when a case is made and brought up by appeal from some lower judicatory. This is substantially the very course the Church has been pursuing the last fifty years; and it is the course we doubt not, in practice, that she will have to pursue for many years to come. This course is attended with no real hardship; because it admits of the free exercise of the different opinions which exist in the Church on the subject. If a man is a member of a session or presbytery who are known to believe the Word of God condemns such marriages, he acts with his eyes open when he contracts them. He has no right to force his brethren to tolerate what they think wrong; or to insist upon being a member of a body against the judgment and conscience of all his fellow members. It may be said that it is an anomalous state for a Church to be in; one presbytery suspending from his office a minister for an act which another presbytery passes without censure. This is very true. But it is, and for fifty years or more, has been the actual state of the Church. And how can you help it? You cannot force all to think alike, and therefore you cannot make all act alike. You must either allow this diversity of opinion and practice, or you must split the Church. Believing as we do that a decided majority of the Church is in favour of the Book, substantially as it now stands, we suspect the course
which would give the most general satisfaction is the one just suggested. Leave the Book unaltered, and leave the lower courts to act under it according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Another strong objection against striking out the clause under consideration, is that it will leave the section in a state at once ambiguous and unsatisfactory. It will be ambiguous because it will then say "marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity, forbidden in the word." But there are not a few in our Church who say there is no law relating to this subject in the Bible. Others say that although the 18th chapter of Leviticus relates to marriage, it is no longer binding. Others say it is binding as far as the specified cases go, but no further. Others say it is binding not only as to the specified cases, but as to the degrees of which those cases are instances. Here are no less than four different views prevailing more or less in the Church, and the Confession, if altered in the manner proposed, decides nothing respecting them, except indeed, by implication that some degrees are prohibited in the Scriptures. If it were said, we must teach no doctrine inconsistent with what is taught in the word concerning original sin, it would be a very unfit clause for a confession of faith or bond of union among brethren.
The section would not only be ambiguous, but it would be satisfactory to no portion of the Church. It would declare that such marriages can never be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. This is the clause which after all gives most trouble, and which the proposed alteration leaves in full force, applying to each and every case prohibited in the word. As a matter of fact, there can be no doubt that a very large number of our ministers and elders do not believe that all these marriages, though unlawful, are invalid. To
them therefore, as well as to those who take more liberal ground on the whole subject, the section as it would stand, will be altogether unsatisfactory.
The mere striking out of the last section, therefore, appears to us to be the worst of all expedients. It cannot prevent the diversity of opinion and practice that now prevails; it would render the law in the highest degree ambiguous; and leave it as unsatisfactory to a large part of the Church as it is at present. Whether the committee who have it in charge to report on this subject to the next Assembly, will be able to prepare anything to meet all these conflicting views, remains to be seen. Dr. Hoge, we learn from the proceedings of the Assembly, is in favour of a modified form of the whole section, which, if we are correctly informed, differs from the present, mainly in this, that it does not pronounce all these marriages to be invalid, which is the common understanding of the Book as it now stands. A section which should affirm the continued obligation of the law of marriage, as contained in the 18th ch. of Leviticus; that should state what, in the judgment of the Church, the intent and scope of that law is; and that should leave it open to the Church courts to deal with each particular case according to its merits, might possibly be framed so as to meet the views of the great majority of our brethren.
5. Dismission of Members to other Churches
[Book of Discipline, chap. xi., sec. 1.—Digest of 1873, p. 628.]
Dr. Leland, from the Committee on Bills and Overtures, reported upon Overture No. 10, from the Presbytery of Baltimore, and submitted the following question: "Shall members of our churches,
who may wish to join churches not in correspondence with the General Assembly, receive certificates in the same form as if they wished to join another church in our communion, or in correspondence with the Assembly; or has the Church session done all that it ought to do, when in such cases the good and regular standing of the persons so applying is duly certified?"
On motion, the answer recommended by the committee was laid on the table, and the following, after amendment, was adopted, viz: "This whole subject is one that ought to be left to the sound discretion of the various Church sessions, according to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church."
The subject involved in this overture is one of the greatest practical importance. There is nothing on which our ministers and members are more sensitive, than on the question of Christian communion. There is no point on which the great body of them regard the teachings of the word of God more explicit, and therefore as to no point are they more tenacious of their Christian liberty. We may here remark that it is a great infelicity that overtures on such subjects should be so numerous. It is a common infirmity with many men to wish their opinions turned into laws. They think certain things right and expedient, and instead of being content to act on their own judgment, and allow others to act on theirs, they desire their view of the matter to be made obligatory on all their brethren. One good brother, because he thinks the use of organs in churches unauthorized and injurious, becomes very desirous that their use should be absolutely prohibited by authority. Another thinks that a regular dismission of a Church member should be given only in certain cases, and he wishes his private judgment to be turned into a public law. In an extended Church like ours, there are few evils which ought to be more sedulously avoided than excessive legislation.
Leave as much liberty to all concerned as possible, if you wish to preserve peace or union.
As to this question of communion, it is well known that there are two very different views arising out of different theories of the nature and design of the Church. The one view is that of the great body of the Christian world, and is the clear doctrine of our standards. It assumes that the terms of Christian communion are unalterably fixed in the word of God, and can be neither increased nor diminished by any human authority. This is one great principle. Another is, that nothing can justly be required as a term of Christian communion, which Christ has not made necessary to admission to heaven. In other words, that we are bound to receive and treat as Christian brethren all whom Christ receives as disciples. We are not to make ourselves stricter or holier than he. Our standards, therefore, lay down the evidences of piety as the only scriptural conditions of Church communion. Competent knowledge, faith, and holy living are all the Church has any right to demand, because nothing else is demanded by Christ as necessary to communion with himself. As this is the only scriptural principle, so it is the only one that can be carried out. Can the poor African be required to decide the questions between Prelatists and Presbyterians, or between Burghers and Anti-Burghers before he is admitted to the Lord's table? It is out of the question. Every Church must receive, in fact, all whom she regards as the true followers of Christ. Therefore, the lowest terms of salvation are the highest admissible terms of communion. If these principles are correct, it follows that however restrictive are the conditions a Church may see fit to establish as the terms of ministerial fellowship, it must recognize as a sister Church every body which holds and teaches the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, however erroneous it may be in other respects; and, therefore, it cannot with any consistency refuse either to receive
members from such Church, or to dismiss them to it. That is, so far as general principles are concerned. For there may be particular cases in which, for special reasons, it is proper to refuse to receive a member from another Presbyterian church, belonging to our own body. All we mean to say is, that any body which we recognize as a Christian Church, we are bound to treat as such, in receiving worthy members from them, and in dismissing to them such as desire their fellowship.
The other radically different view of Christian communion is that which is characteristic of our Scotch brethren, and especially of the secession portion of them. They regard the Church so much as a witness for the truth, that they overlook its wider aspect as a "congregation of faithful men," or "the communion of saints." They consider themselves, therefore, as joining in the testimony of any Church with which they commune; and they require all who wish to commune with them to join in their peculiar testimony, whatever it may be. Of course they cannot consistently commune themselves, nor allow their members to commune with any other than their own churches. Even some of the leaders of the Free Church of Scotland seemed, at first, in danger of falling into this false theory. They were in their zeal for cutting off all communion with the Established Church, lest, as they said, they should vitiate their testimony. Happily for them and the cause of Christ, this was a passing cloud. That Church has adhered to the scriptural doctrine, which has ever been held sacred by the great body of Protestants. Christian communion is communion of men as Christians, not as Presbyterians, Methodists, or Episcopalians. We recognize those with whom we commune, or to whom we dismiss our members, as Christians, and as nothing more. We give no sanction to their peculiarities, whatever they may be. We have so often heard the strongest feeling expressed by our pastors on this subject, that we are
persuaded that any attempt of the General Assembly to prevent their enjoying on this subject the liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free, would be followed by the most unhappy consequences. We rejoice, therefore, in the wise disposition of this matter recorded above.
6. The Right of Church Members to withdraw from the Communion of the
Church
[Form of Gov., chap. ix. sec. 6.—Comp. Digest of 1873, p. 127.]
An overture from the Presbytery of Montgomery was presented, asking whether Church sessions have the right, under the constitution, to allow members to withdraw from the communion of the Church who are not guilty of any immoral conduct, and who do not manifest an intention to connect themselves with any other Church. The committee on Bills and Overtures reported through their chairman, the Rev. Dr. Thornwell, that this question ought to be answered in the affirmative. This report was objected to, and an amendment offered that it be answered in the negative. This gave rise to an animated debate, and the previous question having been moved and seconded, the amendment was cut off, and the vote taken on the report of the committee, which recommended an affirmative answer, when said report was rejected by a decided majority. Of the debate on this subject we find the following report in the New York Observer:
"Rev. Dr. Humphrey, of Kentucky, moved to strike out the word affirmative and insert negative. He contended that there are three modes only by which a member could be separated from the Church.
1. By regular trial; 2. By dismission to another body; and 3. By death. If any other way is recognized by the constitution, he should like to have it stated by the committee. The obligation which a man takes upon himself is a vow to God, and God only can absolve him from it. It is a fundamental principle of Protestantism, that while the Church cannot be the Lord of the conscience, neither can it interfere to relieve the conscience of its responsibilities. The very nature of the relation makes it an affair with which the Church may not interfere unless immorality shall render it necessary.
"Other members followed enforcing these views, and illustrating the case by facts and examples.
"Rev. Dr. Thornwell. The point of the overture is entirely misapprehended. It is asked whether persons may withdraw from the Church who have been received unadvisedly, and are now satisfied that they are not converted persons, yet are regular in all their private and public duties. It is the custom of the Church when members absent themselves from the communion, to visit them by committee. Suppose a member gives as a reason for staying away, 'I am satisfied that I am not a member of Christ, and when the pastor charged all those to retire who had not knowledge to discern the Lord's body, I was constrained in conscience to obey the command.' What is to be done? Will you discipline him? For what? For doing the very thing which you required him to do, and which if our principles are true, he was solemnly bound to do. What is the object of a trial? Is it not to ascertain whether a man is or not a member of Christ's body? But if he confesses that he is not, it is the best evidence that can be given, and the session may declare the fact to the Church. It was the doctrine of Erastus that the Church was the channel of grace, and had no right to excommunicate members for any cause. But this is not the doctrine of any Christian Church at the present day. Now
we hold that union with Christ is the basis of union with the Church, and a credible profession simply declares the fact. Will any Church session undertake to affirm that a man is and shall be a member of the Church, when he tells them that he is not a member of Christ? Certainly not. It is now proposed that in such a case the session shall place him in the same position with the baptized children of the Church, and not make him a heathen and publican.
"Another point. The Protestant Church knows no man unless he is voluntarily subject to her authority: and the vow of subjection is binding no longer than he feels that he has a right to submit to them. The Roman Catholic view is that a man is everywhere bound by his vow to the Church, and that once a virgin, bound by vow, always a virgin, once a monk, always a monk. But with us the vow is not to the Church, but to God, and he will be the judge. We propose no innovation, but the assertion of a right that is inherent in our Church, and ought to be distinctly set forth. Thus we shall separate the chaff from the wheat, purify the Church, and publish the fact to the world.
"The Church has been spoken of as a voluntary society, but there was this obvious feature: A voluntary society prescribes its own rules, but the Church has its laws from its head: they are not to be altered or amended.
"We should judge from this report that there was no essential difference between the parties to this debate; that Dr. Thornwell would not deny that a man's relation to the Church cannot be dissolved at pleasure, and that the opponents of the report of the committee would not deny the justice of his remarks. The difference seems to lie in the use of terms. What is meant by withdrawing from the Church? If it means simply abstaining from the communion