Chapter V
PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH UNION
IN the January number of this journal, we published an article from the pen of a respected contributor, advocating the confederation of the various Presbyterian bodies in this country, of which there are at least eight or ten distinct organizations. That article presented in a clear light the serious evils which flow from this multiplicity of Presbyterian bodies. Not only the evils of sectarian jealousy and rivalry, but the enormous waste which it incurs of men, labour, and money. It did not propose an amalgamation of all these independent organizations, but suggested that while each should retain its own separate being, its order, discipline, and usages, the possession and control of its own property and institutions, all should be subject to one general synod, for the decision of matters of dispute, and the conduct of missionary and other benevolent operations, in which all Calvinistic Presbyterians can, without the sacrifice of principle, combine. The advantages of this plan are obvious, in the promotion of efficiency, in the consolidation of efforts, in the economy of men and means, and in the prevention of unseemly rivalry and interference. But we must take men and Churches as they are. Those who are liberal, and, shall we say, enlightened enough, thus to coöperate, may be persuaded into such an union. But if some Presbyterians believe that it is sinful to sing Watts's hymns, and that they would be false to their "testimony" and principles even to commune with those who use such hymns in the worship of God; what can be done? We cannot force them to think otherwise, and while they retain their peculiar views they are doomed to isolation.
All Protestants agree that the Church in heaven and on earth is one. There is one fold, one kingdom, one family, one body. They all agree that Christ is the centre of this unity. Believers are one body in Christ Jesus; that is, in virtue of their union with him. The bond of this union between Christ and his people, apart from the eternal federal union constituted before the foundation of the world, is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. By one Spirit we are baptized into or constituted one body. That Spirit working faith in us, does thereby unite us to Christ in our effectual calling.
It follows from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit being the principle of unity, or the the bond which unites all believers to each other, and all to Christ, that all the legitimate manifestations of this unity must be referable to the Spirit's presence. That is, they must be his fruits, produced by his influence on the hearts of his people. As the Holy Spirit is a teacher—as he dwells in believers as an unction from the Holy One, which, as the apostle says, (1 John 2:27,) teaches them all things, so that they need not that any man teach them, it follows that all true Christians agree in faith. They have one faith, as they have one Lord and one baptism. If they were perfect, that is, if they perfectly submitted to the guidance of the Spirit by his word and by his inward influence, this agreement in matters of faith would be perfect. But as this is not the case, as imperfection attaches to everything human in this life, the unity of faith among believers is also imperfect. Nevertheless it is real. It is far greater than would be inferred from the contentions of theologians, and it includes everything essential to Christianity. That there is one God; that the Godhead subsists in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that the Eternal Son of God assumed our nature, was born of a woman, and suffered and died for our salvation; that He is the only Saviour of men; that it is through his merit and grace men are delivered from the condemnation and power of sin; that all men
being sinners, need this salvation; that it is only through the power of the Holy Ghost sinners are made partakers of the redemption of Christ; that those who experience this renewing of the Holy Ghost and are united to Christ, and they only, are made partakers of eternal life—these are doctrines which enter into the faith of all Christian Churches, and of all true believers. As it is not for us to say what is the lowest degree of knowledge necessary to salvation, so it is not for us to determine, with precision and confidence, what degree of aberration from the common faith of Christians forfeits the communion of saints. We know indeed that those who deny the Son, deny the Father also, and that if any man believe that Jesus is the Son of God, he is born of God.
2. The Holy Spirit is not only a teacher but a sanctifier. All those in whom he dwells are more or less renewed after the image of God, and consequently they all agree in their religious experience. The Spirit convinces all of sin, i.e., of guilt, moral pollution, and helplessness. He reveals to all the righteousness of Christ; i.e., the righteousness of his claims to be received, loved, worshipped, and obeyed, as the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. He excites in all in whom he dwells the same holy affections, in greater or less degrees of strength and constancy. True Christians, therefore, of all ages and in all parts of the world, are one in their inward spiritual life, in its principles and its characteristic exercises. The prayers, the hymns, the confessions and thanksgivings, which express the yearning desires and outgoings of soul of one, suits all others. This is a bond of fellowship which unites in mystic union the hearts of all people of God, and makes them one family or household.
3. The Holy Spirit is a Spirit of love, and love is one of the fruits of his presence. The command of Christ to his disciples, so often repeated by him and his apostles, is written on the heart by the Spirit, and
becomes a controlling law in all his people. This is not mere benevolence, nor philanthropy, nor friendship, nor any form of natural affection. It is a love of the brethren because they are brethren. It is a love founded on their character and on their relation to Christ. It extends therefore to all Christians without distinction of nation, or culture, or ecclesiastical association. It leads not only to acts of kindness, but to religious fellowship. It expresses itself in the open and cordial recognition of every Christian as a Christian, and treating him accordingly. We confess Christ when we confess his followers to be our brethren; and it is one form of denying Christ to refuse to acknowledge his disciples as such. Inasmuch as ye did it unto them, ye did it unto me, are very comprehensive, as well as very solemn words.
It is thus that all believers as individuals are one spiritual body. But the union of believers extends much farther than this. Man is a social being, and the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the people of God is an organizing principle. As men, in virtue of their natural constitution, form themselves into families, tribes, and nations, united not only by community of nature and of interests, but by external organic laws and institutions; so believers in Christ, in virtue of their spiritual nature, or under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as the principle of spiritual life, form themselves into societies for the propagation and culture of their spiritual nature.
This leads 1, to their uniting for the purposes of Christian worship, and the celebration of the Christian ordinances. 2. To the institution of church government, in order to carry out the injunctions of the word of God, and the exercise of mutual watch and care, or for the exercise of discipline. It arises out of the nature of Christianity, in other words, it arises out of the state of mind produced in believers by the indwelling of the Spirit, that they should, under the guidance
of the written word, adopt means of deciding on the admission of members to the Church, and upon the exclusion of the unworthy, as well as for the selection or appointment of the officers necessary for their edification. Thus individual or separate congregations are formed. The natural principle of association of such individual Churches is proximity. Those believers who reside sufficiently near each to make it possible or convenient for them to meet from Sabbath to Sabbath, would naturally unite for the purposes above indicated.
3d. The unity of the Church, however, continues. These separate congregations constitute one Church. First, because they have the same faith, and the same Lord. Secondly, because they are associated on the same terms; so that a member admitted to one, becomes a member of the Church universal; and a member excluded from one congregation is thereby excluded from the fellowship of all. It would indeed be an anomaly, if the man whom Paul required the Corinthians to excommunicate, could by removing to Philippi be restored to the communion of the saints. Thirdly, because every single congregation is subject to the body of other Churches. Believers are required by the word, and impelled by the indwelling of the Spirit, to be subject to their brethren in the Lord. The ground of this subjection is not the fact that they are neighbours, and therefore is not confined to those with whom they are united in daily or weekly acts of worship. Nor does it rest on any contract or mutual covenant, so as to be limited to those to whom we may agree to obey. It is founded on the fact that they are brethren; that the Spirit of God dwells in them, and therefore extends to all the brethren. The doctrine that a Church is formed by mutual covenant, and that its authority is limited to those who agree together for mutual watch and care, is as inconsistent with the nature of Christianity and the word of God, as that parental authority is founded on a covenant
between the parent and the children. Children are required to obey their parents, because they are parents, and not because they have covenanted to obey them. In like manner we are required to obey our brethren, because they are brethren; just as we are bound to obey the wise and good, because they are what they are; or as we are bound to obey reason and conscience, because they are reason and conscience; or God, because he is God. Mutual covenants as the ground and limitation of church authority, and the "social compact" as the ground of civil government, are alike anti-scriptural. The Church therefore remains one body, not only spiritually, but outwardly. Each individual congregation is a member of an organic whole, as the several members of the human body are united not only by the inward principle of life common to them all, but in external relation and mutual dependence. The eye cannot say to the ear, nor the hand to the foot, "thou art not of the body."
It follows from what has been said, that the Church in any one town or city would be subject to those in its immediate vicinity, and those again to the Churches in a larger circle, and these to the Church universal. Thus by an inward law, provincial and national Churches, or ecclesiastical organizations, would be formed, all inwardly and outwardly connected, and all subject to the Church as a whole. The representative principle which pervades the Bible, and which has its foundation in the nature of man, is also founded in the nature of the Church, and is necessarily involved in her organization. As it is physically impossible that all the people should assemble for the administration of government and discipline, it is a matter of necessity that the power of the Church should be exercised through its properly appointed representatives—so that this organic outward union of the Church, as the expression of its inward spiritual unity, becomes feasible, and has to a large extent been actual.
It can hardly be denied that such is the normal or ideal state of the Church. This is the form which it would in fact have assumed, if it had not been for disturbing influences. A tree planted under favourable circumstances of soil and climate, and with free scope on every side, assumes its normal shape and proportions, and stands forth the realization of its idea. But if the soil or climate be uncongenial, or if the tree be hedged in, it grows indeed, but in a distorted shape, and with cramped and crooked limbs. This has been the actual history of the Church. The full and free development of its inward life has been so hindered by the imperfection of that life itself, and by adverse external influences, that instead of filling the earth with its branches, or standing one and symmetrical, as a cedar of Lebanon, or an oak of Bashan, it is rent and divided, and her members twisted out of their natural shape and proportions.
These adverse influences, although partly external, (geographical and political,) have been principally from within. As external union is the product and expression of spiritual unity; if the latter be defective, the former must be imperfect. Christians have not been so united in their views of Christian doctrine and order as to render it possible for them all to be joined in one organized external body. Romanists (especially of the genuine ultramontane school) assume that Christ constituted his Church in the form of an absolute monarchy, and appointed the bishop of Rome its head, and invested him with absolute power to decide all questions of doctrine and morals, and with universal authority to exercise discipline; making him, in short, his vicar, with plenary power upon earth; and that the Church can exist under no other form, so that to deny the authority of the Pope is to secede from the Church. As no man can be a member of the Russian empire and enjoy its privileges, who does not acknowledge the authority of the Czar, so no one can be a member of the Romish Church who does not acknowledge the authority of the
Pope. This theory of the nature and organization of the Church, and of the condition of membership therein, of necessity separates those who adopt it from all other Christians. If they are right, all who protest and refuse to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as their sovereign lord, are schismatics. If they are wrong, then the crime of schism rests on them. In either case, however, the Church is divided.
Prelatists, on the other hand, hold to the perpetuity of the apostleship, and assume that bishops are the official successors of the apostles, and ought to be accepted and obeyed as such. The class of those who adopt this theory teach that the being of the Church depends on this principle. As in the early Church those only were recognized as members who received the doctrines and submitted to the authority of the apostles, so now those only are in the Church who yield like subjection to the prelates Having apostolic succession. Another class, while they do not go to this extreme, still hold that it is the duty of all Christians to adopt and submit to the episcopal organization of the Church, and to render canonical obedience to its prelates.
Presbyterians are fully persuaded, from their interpretation of the Scriptures, that the office of the apostles was temporary; that they have no official successors, and that presbyters are the highest permanent officers of the Church, according to its original design and institution. They therefore cannot conscientiously submit to the claims of either papal or prelatical authority, and are necessitated to organize an external Church for themselves; or rather, as they believe, to maintain and perpetuate the original and divinely appointed mode of organization.
Independents believe that a Church is a company of believers united by mutual covenant for the purposes of Christian worship and
discipline, and is complete in itself, subject to no ecclesiastical authority but that of its own members. Holding these views they cannot submit to pope, prelates, or presbyteries. Thus we have the external Church of necessity divided into three independent, antagonistic bodies. The evil, however, has not stopped here.
Baptists assume that immersion is essential to baptism; that baptism is necessary to membership in the visible Church; and that adult believers are the only proper subjects of that Christian ordinance. Hence they cannot recognize any persons as members of the Church who were either baptized in infancy, or to whom the rite was administered otherwise than by immersion. They are thus separated (at least externally) from the great body of Christians. Less diversities of opinion than any of the above have led to the multiplication of sects. Some Presbyterians, believing that the civil magistrate is clothed with the power to maintain the purity of the Church, will not recognize the authority of any magistrate who has not bound himself by covenant to exercise his power to sustain the Church according to their views of gospel doctrine and order. These Covenanters, therefore, separate from other Presbyterians who do not agree with them in this fundamental principle. Otherwise they would be unfaithful, as they believe, to the testimony for the truth which they are bound to bear.
Others again believe that the Book of Psalms was divinely appointed to be used in public worship, and that the use of hymns written by uninspired men in the service of God is a violation of his commands. With such a belief they cannot unite in worship or communion with those who differ from them in this matter. Thus the evil has gone on increasing until the Church is split into sects and independent communions almost without number. Nevertheless, the existence of such divisions is the less of two evils. When men differ, it is better to
avow their diversity of opinion or faith, than to pretend to agree, or to force discordant elements in a formal uncongenial union.
It is clear from the history of the Church, that diversity as to forms of Church government, or matters connected with worship and discipline, more than differences about doctrine, has been the cause of existing divisions of the Church. Many Romanists, Episcopalians, and all Presbyterians (with few exceptions) have been, and are, Augustinian in doctrine. In the Romish Church, during all the middle ages, Augustinians, Pelagians, and Semi-Pelagians were included in her communion. The same diversity notoriously exists in the Church of England, and in the Episcopal Churches of this country at the present day. These Churches are one, not in doctrine, but in virtue of their external organization, and subjection to one and the same governing body. In the Romish Church the principle or centre of union is the Pope; in the Church of England the king in council; in the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, the General Convention. The Presbyterians of Scotland, subject to the same General Assembly, constitute one Church; those subject to another Assembly constitute another. And so it is in the United States. Churches therefore may agree in their standards of doctrine, in their form of government, and mode of worship, and yet be separate, independent bodies,
The existence of denominational Churches being unavoidable in the present imperfect state of inward spiritual unity among Christians, it becomes important to determine their relative duties. In the first place, it is their duty to combine or unite in one body (so far as geographical and political considerations will permit), wherever and whenever the grounds of their separation are inadequate and unscriptural. They are not bound to unite when the differences between them are such as to prevent harmonious action; but where
the points in which they differ are either such as the Scriptures do not determine, or which are of minor importance, it is obviously wrong that all the evils arising from the multiplication of sects should for the sake of these subordinate matters be continued. It is clearly impossible that Romanists and Protestants should be united in the same ecclesiastical organization. It is no less impossible that anything more than a federal union, such as may exist between independent nations, can be formed between Prelatists and Presbyterians, between Baptists and Pœdobaptists, between Congregationalists and any other denomination recognizing the authority of Church courts. The principles conscientiously adopted by these different bodies are not only different, but antagonistic and incompatible. Those who hold them can no more form one Church than despotism and democracy can be united in the constitution of the same state. If by divine right all authority vests in the king, it cannot vest in the people. The advocates of these opposite theories therefore cannot unite in one form of government. It is no less obvious that if ecclesiastical power vests in one man—the bishop—it cannot vest in a presbytery. Episcopalians and Presbyterians therefore cannot unite. The latter deny the right of the bishop to the prerogatives which he claims; and the former deny the authority of the presbytery which it assumes. The same thing is equally plain of Presbyterians and Congregationalists. The former regard themselves as bound by the decisions of sessions and presbyteries; the latter refuse to recognize the right of Church courts to exercise discipline or government. So long, therefore, as such differences exist among Christians, it is plain that Romanists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists, must form separate and independent bodies.
Differences as to doctrine do not form such insuperable barriers to Church union as diversity of opinion respecting ecclesiastical government. The creed of a Church may be so general, embracing
only the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, such as can be professed with a good conscience by all true Christians, and thus ministers and members who differ widely within those limits may unite in one ecclesiastical organization. It is notorious that great differences of doctrine prevail in all large Churches, as in the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland, and in this country in the Episcopal Church, and in a less degree, perhaps, among Presbyterians. Much as to this point depends on the standards of the Church. Those standards may be so strict and so extended as to exclude all but Calvinists, or all but Arminians, as is the case with the Wesleyans. It is a question of delicacy and difficulty how minute a confession of faith for an extended organization should be made. It may be too concise and latitudinarian, or it may be too minute and extended, requiring a degree of unanimity greater than is necessary, and greater than is attainable. Fidelity and harmony, however, both demand that the requirements of the standards, whatever they may be, should be sincerely adopted and enforced so far as every thing essential to their integrity is concerned.
But secondly, when union between different denominations is impracticable or undesirable, they have very important duties resting upon them in relation to each other. 1. The first and most comprehensive of these duties is mutual recognition. By this is meant the acknowledgment of their members as Christian brethren, and of the denominations or bodies themselves as Christian Churches. It is a great offence against Christian charity, and a direct violation of the command of Christ, to refuse to receive as our brethren those whom Christ receives as his disciples. It will not avail as an excuse for such repudiation of brotherhood, to say that others do not walk with us; that they do not adopt the same form of government, are not subject to the same bishops or Church courts; or that they do not unite with us in the same testimony as to non-
essential matters; or do not agree with us in the same mode of worship. We might as well refuse to recognize a man as a fellowcreature because he was a monarchist and not a republican, a European and not an American, or an African and not a Caucasian. This is no small matter. Those who refuse to recognize Christians as Christians, sin against Christ and commit an offence which is severely denounced in the word of God. The same principle applies to Churches. To refuse to recognize as a Church of Christ any body of associated believers united for the purposes of worship and discipline, can be justified only on the ground that some particular form of organization has by Divine authority been made essential to the existence of the Church. And if essential to the existence of the Church, it must be essential to the existence of piety and to the presence and operations of the Holy Spirit. Ubi Spiritus Sanctus ibi Ecclesia is a principle founded upon the Scriptures, and held sacred by evangelical Christians in all ages. It was the legend on the banner which they raised in all their conflicts with Papists and High Churchmen from the beginning. A body of Christians, therefore, professing the true faith, and united for the purpose of worship and discipline, no matter how externally organized, is a Church which other Christians are bound to recognize as such, unless it can be proved that a particular mode of organization is in fact, and by Divine command, essential to the existence of the Church.
2. It is included in the acknowledgment that a body of Christians is a Church of Christ, that we should commune with its members in public worship and in the sacraments, and allow them to commune with us. This follows from the spiritual unity of the Church; from its having the same faith and the same Lord and God, and from the conditions of Church membership being the same for all Churches. A member of the Church at Jerusalem was entitled to the privileges of the Church of Antioch. If he was a Christian in one place, he was no
less a Christian in another, and the rights of a Christian belonged to him wherever he went. It is obvious that this principle, although true in itself, is limited in its practical application. There may be something in the mode of conducting public worship or in the administration of the sacraments which hurts the consciences of other Christians, and prevents this freedom of communion in Church ordinances. If a Church requires all who partake of the Lord's Supper to receive the elements upon their knees, should any man conscientiously believe that this posture implies the worship of the consecrated bread, he cannot join in the service; or if a Church is so unfaithful as to admit to its fellowship those whom the law of Christ requires should be excluded, other Churches are not bound to receive them into fellowship. These and similar limitations do not invalidate the principle. It remains the plain duty of all Christian Churches to recognize each other as Churches, and hold intercourse one with another as such. And it is also their duty to make nothing essential either to the existence of the Church or to Church fellowship, which the word of God does not declare to be essential.
3. A third duty resting on different Churches or denominations, is to recognize the validity of each other's acts of discipline. If the Church, notwithstanding its division into sects, is still one; if the legitimate terms of membership are the same in all; and if the lawful grounds of exclusion are also the same, then it follows that a man excluded from one Church should be excluded from all other Churches. The meaning of the act of suspension or excommunication is, that the subject of censure is unworthy of Christian fellowship. If this be true in one place, it is true in every place. Civil tribunals act upon this principle. Not only do the courts of the same state respect the decisions of co-ordinate courts; but the judicial decisions of one state are held valid in other states, until just reason can be shown to the contrary. The rule is the same with regard to acts of Church
discipline. The right to exercise discipline is to be acknowledged. The propriety and justice of the particular acts of discipline are to be presumed and acted upon. If clear evidence be afforded that those acts were unauthorized by the law of Christ, or manifestly unjust, other Churches, in consistency with courtesy and Christian fellowship, may disregard them. If a Baptist Church should excommunicate a member because he had his children baptized, no pœdobaptist Church could, on that ground, refuse to receive him. Or if one Presbyterian Church should subject a member to discipline because he joined in acts of worship in which hymns written by uninspired men were sung, other Presbyterians would be free to disregard such censures.
4. The same remarks apply to cases of ordination. If we are bound to recognize a given body as a Christian Church, we are bound to admit that it has a right to all the privileges and prerogatives belonging to a Church. Among those necessary prerogatives is the right to perpetuate and extend itself, and to appoint men to all scriptural offices necessary to that purpose. The ministry is a divine institution. It is appointed for the edification of saints and for the ingathering of those who are without. It is necessary, therefore, that a Church should have ministers; and therefore it is necessary that she should have the right to ordain. If the Presbyterians, Methodists, or Congregationalists are to be recognized as Christian Churches, their right to ordain ministers cannot be legitimately denied. It is one thing, however, to admit the right and another to admit the propriety of the mode in which it is exercised. If Presbyterians believe that the presbytery is the organ by which the Church signifies her conviction that a man is called by the Spirit to the work of the ministry, they may consistently refuse to receive as ministers of their own body those who have not been presbyterially ordained. Or if one presbytery should exercise its admitted right of ordination in
contravention either of the laws of Christ, or of the rules of the Presbyterian Church, other presbyteries would not be bound to receive such minister as a member. The Bishop of Oxford ordained a man whom the Bishop of Chester refused to allow to officiate in his diocese. This was not schismatical. It was not a denial of the right of the Bishop of Oxford to ordain; it was only a denial that he had properly exercised that right in a given case. It is not necessary therefore that one denomination should concern itself how other denominational Churches exercise the right of appointing men to the ministry, provided it admit that they possess the right of appointment; and recognize those thus appointed as ministers of Christ. It can preserve the purity of its own ministry and Churches without incurring the charge of discourtesy or schism. Presbyterians may recognize Methodist preachers as ministers of the gospel, and welcome them to their pulpits, but they cannot be expected to receive them into their own body or make them pastors of their own Churches. The same of course may be said of Methodists in regard to Presbyterians.
5. Another important duty which rests upon denominations recognizing each other as Christian Churches, is that of noninterference. When one Church has planted itself in a field which it is abundantly able to cultivate, it is a breach of the principles of unity for another denomination to contend for joint-occupation. This is a great evil and one of constant occurrence. It often happens that one denomination organizes a Church in a village the population of which is barely sufficient for one Church, when another starts a rival Church, which can succeed only by drawing support from the other. When the field is the world, and so much land remains unoccupied, it is a great wrong thus to embarrass the operations of our fellowChristians, and to burden the people with the support of two, three or more Churches, where one would do more good than many.
6. Finally, it is obviously the duty of different denominations to cultivate peace. They should avoid all the causes of alienation and illfeeling, and do everything in their power to promote Christian love and fellowship. It is their duty, indeed, to maintain what they believe to be the truth, and endeavour to promote unity of faith; but they are bound to abstain from mere rivalry and sectarian conflicts.