Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

CHAPTER III.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF POWER IMPLIED IN CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

I COME now to the second great division, into which all the questions that have arisen upon the subject of church government may be resolved, viz. the opinions that have been maintained respecting the nature and the degree of power implied in that government.

There were times when these opinions held an importance in the public estimation, and were defended with a zeal and animosity, of which it is difficult for us in our day to form a conception. I am very far from wishing to revive any portion of that bitterness; nor do I think it necessary for you to be intimately acquainted with all the tenets and arguments which have been broached in this voluminous controversy. I shall be able sufficiently to accomplish the purpose of this part of my course, by reducing all that may be said concerning the powers implied in church government, under five general positions. In illustrating these positions, I shall introduce the chief opinions that have been held upon this subject; and, by this manner of introducing them, I shall state, in the order which it will be easiest for you to follow and to retain, because it is the most natural order, both the principles from which the several opinions flow, and the sources from which the antagonists of each of them derived what they accounted a sufficient confutation.

or

1. The first general position is this, that the power implied in the exercise of church government it not a power created by the state, flowing entirely from those regulations, which the supreme rulers of the state may choose to make with regard to the Christian society.

It is necessary to begin with opposing this fundamental position to an opinion, which, from its author, is known by the name of Erastianism. In the course of the sixteenth century there flourished Erastus, a native of Switzerland, an acute philosopher, and a learned physician. In opposition to the judicial astrology which was then esteemed and practised, he recommended and improved the study of chemistry. Amongst other branches of the learning of the times which engaged his researches, he did not neglect theology. He embraced the reformed religion from conviction: but in consequence of the exorbitant claims advanced both by the Pope and by the rulers of some of the reformed churches, he conceived it was his duty as a good Protestant, in the beginning of the Reformation, to resolve all the powers exercised by church governors into the will of the state. It was his opinion, that the office-bearers in the Christian church, as such, are merely instructors, who fulfil their office by admonishing

and endeavouring to persuade Christians, but who have no power, unless it is given them by the state, to inflict penalties of any kind. Every thing, therefore, which we are accustomed to call ecclesiastical censure, was considered by him as a civil punishment, which the state might employ the ministers of religion to inflict, but which, as to the occasion, the manner and the effect of its being inflicted, was as completely under the direction of the civil power, as any branch of the criminal code.

We shall afterwards find, that the inconveniencies, which this opinion was meant to remedy, may be obviated in other ways. to the opinion itself, it discovers those partial views which the consideration of inconveniencies often occasions; and it seems impossible for any person, whose mind comprehends the whole subject, not to perceive that the opinion is false. Even were the Christian society merely a voluntary association, into which men entered without being obliged to it, still this society would possess the right which is inherent in the nature of all societies, of defending itself against intrusion and insult, and of preserving the character which it chose to assume, by refusing to admit those whom it judged unworthy of being members, or by requiring them to depart. But the Christian church is to be regarded in a much higher light than as a voluntary association. It is a society created by divine institution, founded in the duty which Jesus requires of his disciples to "confess him before men," and to unite for the purpose of performing certain rites. The members of this society, as his disciples, profess to believe certain doctrines, and declare that they are bound to maintain a certain character. This profession and declaration, being the very terms which bind the society together, are implied in the solemnities by which every member is admitted, or expresses his resolution to continue in the society. The administration of these solemnities, therefore, while it prevents those who do not comply with the terms from being admitted, indicates a warrant from the founder of the society, to deprive of ail its privileges those, who, after having been admitted, depart from the terms upon which their admission proceeded. It is reasonable to think that the same persons, who are appointed to administer the solemn rites by which the society is distinguished from all others, will be intrusted with the power of judging who are to be admitted and who may deserve to be excluded from the society; and it is obvious to every one who reads the New Testament, that the names there given to those persons are expressive of the degree of inspection and authority, which this act of judgment implies. They are called ήγουμενοι, επισκοποι, προεστώτες. They are commanded not only διδάσκει, νουθετείν, παρακαλειν, but also ελεγχειν,επιτιμαειν. Our Saviour, in the days of his ministry, before he had fully constituted his church, spoke of a case in which it was the duty of Christians to consider a person, who had been a brother, as having, by his own fault, forfeited that character, so as to deserve to be looked upon as a heathen and a publican. Matth. xviii. 17. After the church was constituted, the apostle speaks of κυβερνήσεις, as well as διδασκαλους, being set in it by God. 1 Cor. xii. 28. He claims an ova as belonging to him. 2 Cor. x. He exercises that ova by commanding the Corinthians sag a wicked person who had been a member of that church; he

exhorts Christians μη συναναμιγνυσθαι εαν τις αδελφος ονομαζόμενος λοιδορος, η μέθυσος, η άρπαξ, &c. ; he represents it as their duty κρίνειν ου τους εξω, αλλά τους εσω ; and he assigns as a reason for their exercising this judicial power over those who were members of the church, that the wicked person, by being thus separated, might be amended, or brought to a better mind, and that the infection of his wickedness might be prevented from spreading. 1 Cor. v. Now these are general reasons arising from the nature and purposes of the Christian society, and totally independent of any authority which the church may derive from the state; and the church acted upon these reasons, both in the days of the apostles, and in the subsequent ages, when it derived no countenance or support from the state, but suffered persecution. Even then it exercised. the power resulting from its character, delegated to it by its author, and implied in the designations given to its office-bearers, by rebuking and censuring the faults of its members, and by expelling those whom it judged unworthy of its privileges.

These reasonings and facts seem to establish, with incontrovertible evidence, that some kind of authority over the members belongs essentially to the governors of the Christian society; that, as the church did exist before it was united with the state, it may exist without any such union; and that it will possess, in this state of separation, when it can derive no aid from civil regulations, all the authority which Christ meant to convey through his apostles to their successors, and of the exercise of which the apostles have left examples. The same reasoning and facts also prove, that when the church receives the protection and countenance of the civil power, she does not, by this alliance, lose those rights and powers which are implied in church government, as such. But as the church may encroach upon the state, by advancing claims which are not warranted by the purpose of her institution, or the will of her founder; so, on the other hand, the state may violate the immunities of the church, may intrench upon that jurisdiction which is essential to her character, and may forcibly subject the members of the Christian society to civil regulations with regard to those parts of their conduct, which, from their nature, fall under the authority of the office-bearers of the church. It requires a sound judgment, a mind which can easily disembarrass itself from the false views suggested by prejudice, passion, and interest, to make, upon all occasions, the necessary discrimination between the rights of the church, and the rights of the state; and as the line of distinction is not always obvious to an ordinary observer, those who keep on one side of the line are very apt to bring the charge of Erastianism against those who keep on the other. In modern times, this charge is not understood to imply that those, against whom it is brought, deny the church any power except what she derives from the state; for few follow the principles of Erastianism so far. The charge is meant to impute to the members of an established church too great a deference to the civil authority from which they derive protection, and an unbecoming tameness in submitting to invasions of those rights, which the church ought to hold sacred. It is a charge very commonly brought by the dissenters of this country against the church of Scotland; and in both the established churches of this island, there are members, whose zeal, in

defence of what they account the rights of the church, leads them to accuse of lukewarmness and Erastianism those who do not entertain the same opinion concerning the nature of the rights, or concerning the most prudent and effectual manner of preserving them inviolate. It is often a matter of intricate discussion, how far the accusation is just. Many of the cases, to which it has been applied, will occur in the progress of illustrating other general positions respecting church government; and I will not anticipate the mention of them. It is enough that I have given notice of the modern meaning of Erastianism; and from that meaning it will be perceived that my first general position may be considered as incontrovertible; for almost all who are now accused of Erastianism admit that the church has powers independent of the state. They differ from others as to the measure and extent of those powers, or the prudence of exercising them: they may perhaps regard the advantages which the church derives from an union with the state as more than a compensation for any restrictions which are imposed upon her; but they consider the acquiescence in these restrictions as a voluntary surrender, a compact in which the church has gained, by giving up what she had a right to retain. And thus the modern system of Erastianism proceeds upon this principle, that the power of the church is essential and intrinsic: it admits of modifications of this intrinsic power which to some appear exceptionable; but it acknowledges, that if the church, instead of deriving any benefit from the state, were opposed and persecuted by the civil magistrate, it would be not only proper, but necessary, to put forth of herself those powers, which, in more favourable circumstances, she chooses to exercise only in conjunction with the state.

2. My second general position is, that the power inherent in the nature of the Christian society, which it derives from divine institution, and not from civil regulation, is merely a spiritual power; in other words, it is concerned only with the consciences of men, and gives no claim to any authority over their persons or their properties. It includes a right to administer instruction, admonition, reproof, censure all that may establish those, who submit to it, in the prac tice of their duty, may improve their character, or make them ashamed of their faults. It includes also, we have seen, what is commonly called the power of excommunication, i. e. a right, by a judicial sentence, to deprive of the privileges and benefits of continuing members of the Christian society those who are found unworthy. But this is the utmost length to which it can go. Whenever a person is excommunicated, or when he says that he no longer submits to the authority of church government, that authority ceases with regard to him: he is to the church "as a heathen man and a publican;" and excommunication, being the severest infliction within the compass of the power implied in church government, completely exhausts that power, so as to leave nothing more which it can warrantably do.

That the power of which we are speaking is merely a spiritual power, may easily be deduced from the purposes for which the Christian society was instituted; and this deduction is confirmed by explicit declarations of the divine founder.

Human government is ordained of God, for the purpose of securing the subjects in the possession and enjoyment of their rights. The

administration of it, therefore, implies the exercise of a coercive power, which may restrain those who are disposed to invade the rights of others, or which, if the execution of their purpose is not prevented, may inflict such a punishment upon the transgression, as shall deter from a repetition of the like outrage. But the kingdom of Christ, being founded in opposition, not to human violence, but to the influence of an evil spirit, was established for the purpose of delivering men from this spiritual thraldom, by imparting to them the knowledge of that truth which Christ reveals, by cherishing those graces which his Spirit forms, and by leading them, in the obedience of his precepts, and the imitation of his example, to that future happiness of which his mediation encourages them to entertain the hope. This kingdom was not intended to secure men in the enjoyment of their rights. For although the principles which it inspires renders its dutiful subjects incapable of doing injury to others, and although the establishment and propagation of it have produced a salutary effect upon the manners of mankind in general, still it supposes that the evil passions of men will continue to operate; it gives notice that wrong will be done; it teaches how wrong ought to be borne; and it represents reproach, and injury, and persecution, as forming part of that discipline, by which its subjects are prepared for a higher state of being, where their sufferings are to cease, and their patience is to be rewarded. The administration of this kingdom, therefore, does not imply the exercise of force. Although all power in heaven and in earth is committed to the Lord of this kingdom, yet, in that branch of the administration of his kingdom, which he has reserved in his own hands, he does not employ his power to place a guard round his faithful subjects. To that protection, which they derive from the general course of Providence, and from the means of defence furnished by human government, he makes no other addition, than the influence which his doctrine has upon the minds of their neighbours, and the esteem and good-will of which their own character, formed by his doctrine, renders them the object. In like manner, in that branch of the administration of the kingdom of Christ, which we call church government, he does not suppose that his officebearers are invested with civil power. The end of their appointment is, to bring to a better mind such of their brethren as have erred and transgressed; and in this end they often succeed by the spiritual power which is given them. But they are not allowed to employ a method of cure inconsistent with the spirit of the Christian religion; and those who are obstinate and incorrigible they are commanded to leave where they found them.

There were three occasions in our Lord's life, upon which, agreeably to the deduction that has now been made, he declared explicitly that the administration of his kingdom upon earth implied a spiritual, not a civil power. The first was his answer to an application made to him by one of his hearers, "Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me." Luke xii. 13. Instead of using his influence with either of the parties, or giving any decision upon the matter in dispute, he said, "Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you ?" And he proceeded to guard his hearers against covetousness; intimating, in the most significant manner, that his re

[blocks in formation]
« ÎnapoiContinuă »