P. H. Mell

Mell, Patrick Hughes, D.D., chancellor of the State University, and for many years a leading and influential Baptist of Georgia, was born in Walthourville, Liberty Co., Ga., July 19, 1814. In his boyhood he studied in the academies in Liberty County and near Darien, Ga., and then he spent two years at Amherst College, Mass., afterwards teaching in the academy at Springfield, Mass., and in the high school at East Hartford, Conn. In 1838, at twenty-four years of age, he returned to his native State, and, after teaching school in lower and middle Georgia for five or six years, was elected to the professorship of Ancient Languages in Mercer University. He entered upon his duties in February, 1842, and continued a professor in that institution for thirteen years, during which time he became noted for his ability as a professor and for the firmness and excellence of his discipline. His connection with Mercer University was dissolved in November, 1855, but in August, 1856, he was elected Professor of Ancient Languages in the State University at Athens. When Dr. Alonzo Church resigned the presidency of the State University, in 1860, Dr. Mell was elected to the chair of Metaphysics and Ethics, which he still holds, although he was, in August, 1878, elected chancellor of the university, and ex-officio president of the State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. His position is one of great dignity, and has been filled by him with distinguished ability and success.

Dr. Mell’s religious life began in the summer of 1832, when he was baptized by Rev. Samuel Law, at North Newport church, Liberty Co., Ga. He began to preach at Oxford, Ga., in 1840, and was ordained by order of the Penfield church at the request of the Greensborough church, Nov. 19, 1842, at Penfield. From that time to the present he has preached almost without intermission, having charge of various churches, and some of his pastorates continuing for remarkably long periods. He was pastor of the Greensborough church for ten years; of the Antioch church, in Oglethorpe County, twenty-eight years; and of the Bairdstown church, on the line between Greene and Oglethorpe Counties, thirty-three years. Since his election to the chancellorship of the State University he has resigned all his pastorates and has devoted himself exclusively to the duties of his office.

As a preacher, he is logical and argumentative, delighting in the deep doctrinal subjects of the Bible, and rendering them simple and clear to the comprehension of his hearers. The power and penetration of his intellect enable him to grasp a doctrine forcibly and present it clearly; and his skill in the art of thinking and reasoning is so great that he always speaks logically, his conclusions having the force of demonstrations.

As an author, Dr. Mell has issued several works which have been accepted as standards, among which are his works on "Baptism," on "Corrective Church Discipline," and on "Parliamentary Practice." He has also published small works on "Predestination," "Calvinism," "God’s Providential Government," the "Philosophy of Prayer," and part of a work, "Church Polity," which promises to be of great value.

As a presiding officer, Dr. Mell has manifested pre-eminent excellence, which has been recognized by his repeated re-election to the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention and of the Georgia Baptist Convention.

During the late civil war, in response to a call by the governor of the State for six months’ troops, Dr. Mell, although professor in the State University, raised a company, of which he was elected captain, and when the regiment to which he belonged was organized, he was elected colonel. As such he remained in actual service six months at different points within the State.

Few, if any, have exerted a wider and more healthful influence in the denomination in Georgia than Dr. Mell.

—William Cathcart, 1881

The views which are presented in the following pages are such as have been held by the Baptist churches from time immemorial. The Author attempts to do no more than to exhibit the sentiments of our Fathers, and to defend them by showing that they are sustained by the Scriptures. It is not asserted, however, that in no instance have the principles herein set forth been departed from. In times of excitement, when party spirit ran high, or personal resentment swayed men’s minds, revolutionary measures have been resorted to in some few of our churches, and these principles have been trampled under foot. Such irregularities have never failed to be disastrous to those who perpetrated them, and their influence upon the cause of Christ has been only evil, and that continually. One of the unhappy effects is that they are taken as precedents by those who are not well informed, and quoted as instances of Baptist usage.

There has been no time in our history, perhaps, when such irregularities could be more easily propagated, if quoted by an influential man, than at the present. In the extraordinary progress of scriptural sentiments on the subject of gospel ordinances, multitudes in this country have been introduced, within a few years, into our churches from Pedobaptist organizations, who are but partially indoctrinated in those opinions which make us a peculiar people. Yielding to the force of the argument on the subject of baptism, and instructed no further, they have brought into our churches confused notions of church polity, or have even retained undisturbed the views which obtained in the communions they have left. While we cordially welcome these brethren to our ranks, we should see to it that they are instructed in the way of the Lord more perfectly. Should this unpretending little essay have any influence to this end, and tend in any degree to bind the churches to the scriptural sentiments of the Fathers, its author will be more than compensated for his labor.

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA,

March 20, 1860

1. None but converted persons authorized to be members ........................................................................................422

2. Churches liable to disorders ..................................................................................................................................422

3. The Savior prescribes the remedies ......................................................................................................................422

Two kinds—public and private ..................................................................................................................................422

1. Not necessarily secret ............................................................................................................................................422

2. Specific character of............................................................................................................................................423

PUBLIC OFFENCES

1. Not necessarily committed publicly ......................................................................................................................423

2. Subdivided into two classes ..................................................................................................................................423

First Class – Offences against religion and morality .........................................................................................423

Second Class – Offences against the church .......................................................................................................423

1. Open opposition to the faith and practice of the church .........................................................................423

2. Refusing to attend the meetings of .........................................................................................................424

3. Rebellion against its lawful authority .....................................................................................................424

4. Attempts to produce schism ....................................................................................................................425

Definitions of the two kinds of offence .....................................................................................................................425

The two kinds sometimes blended together ...............................................................................................................425

PRIVATE OFFENSES ............................................................................................................................................426

1. First step. Go to him ..............................................................................................................................................426

2. Obj. – He is an unscrupulous man ........................................................................................................................426

3. The Saviour’s directions to be implicitly obeyed ..................................................................................................426

4. Second step. Tell him his fault ..............................................................................................................................426

5. Evils attendant upon a resort to the newspapers ...................................................................................................426

6. Unsatisfactory results of such resort .....................................................................................................................427

7. Reasons why the offender should be told his faults ..............................................................................................428

8. Third step. Tell him his fault between him and thee alone ...................................................................................428

9. Four reasons for this ..............................................................................................................................................428

10. When a mutual friend may interpose between parties ........................................................................................428

11. Fourth step. Take one or two more .....................................................................................................................429

12. Reasons for this ...................................................................................................................................................429

13. Fifth step. Tell it to the church ............................................................................................................................429

14. Idea of reclamation implied ................................................................................................................................429

1. Gospel steps not to be taken in open immorality ..................................................................................................430

2. Public offenders to be summoned before the church ............................................................................................430

1. Every facility to be afforded him to meet the charge .....................................................................................430

2. The formality of a court of justice not to be observed ...................................................................................430

3. Where alone the offender has ground of complaint .......................................................................................430

3. To be promptly expelled when proved guilty of immorality ..................................................................................431

4. Is the first instance of intoxication to be an exception? ..........................................................................................431

Should be promptly expelled .....................................................................................................................................431

1. For the sake of public morals and the reputation of the church .....................................................................431

2. For his own good ...........................................................................................................................................431

3. As a warning to others ...................................................................................................................................432

5. Obj. – Do not the Scriptures say, if he confess, we should forgive? ....................................................................432

6. They refer exclusively to private offences ...........................................................................................................432

1. The course to be pursued in .................................................................................................................................432

2. To be treated as public offences ..........................................................................................................................432

3. Analogy from legal science .................................................................................................................................433

1. What shall be done when the aggrieved attempts to bring in private offences without previous gospel steps? ..................................................................................................433

1. The Moderator to rule him out of order .........................................................................................................433

2. In mixed offences, the complaint to be entertained .......................................................................................434

3. No injury done to the accused if the church differ from him as to the nature of the offence .............................................................................................................................434

4. How the complainant is to be treated who violates the Savior’s rule ............................................................434

5. Quotation from Elder J. S. Baker ...................................................................................................................435

2. Suppose complainant drops the subject: what then? .............................................................................................435

3. Whose duty to arraign a public offender? .............................................................................................................435

Any one can arraign ...................................................................................................................................................435

1. How to act when there is but one witness .............................................................................................................436

2. In case of a report against a brother .......................................................................................................................436

1. Innocence no infallible protection against unjust accusation ................................................................................436

2. Sometimes the victim of prejudice ........................................................................................................................437

3. Of malice .......................................................................................................................................................437

4. Of jealousy and envy .............................................................................................................................................437

What his feelings and deportment .......................................................................................................................438

1. He submits to the Divine will .................................................................................................................438

2. In all proper ways defends himself .........................................................................................................438

3. Does not indulge in the spirit of his persecutors, nor resort to the means employed by them ............................................................................................438

4. Seeks the interest of the church and of the cause of Christ ....................................................................439

1. The word "church" used in two senses .................................................................................................................440

First. The church universal ................................................................................................................................ 440

1. The meaning of ecclesia in this connection ............................................................................................441

2. The constituents of this assembly ...........................................................................................................441

3. This is not the body to whom offences are referred ...............................................................................441

4. The Baptist denomination and the church universal not synonymous ......................................................................................................................441

(1) Some in the Baptist denomination may not have been converted ..................................................441

(2) Many who have been saved have not belonged to the Baptist denomination .................................441

(3) The use of the word "church" in this sense not admissible .............................................................441

(4) Such a body destitute of organization .............................................................................................442

5. Pertinence of the term as applied to the church universal ...............................................................................442

Second. The word "church" applied to a local body ...........................................................................................443

1. Composed of those immersed upon a profession of faith .......................................................................443

2. This the body to whom jurisdiction over offences is given ....................................................................443

1. The importance of the question .............................................................................................................................443

2. Answered:—

(1) Upon the supposition that the pastor is himself involved ............................................................................443

(2) Supposing him to be free from entanglement ..............................................................................................444

3. His duty in private dealing ....................................................................................................................................444

1. Should endeavor by his ministry to prevent variance ....................................................................................444

2. Should see that private dealing be introduced scripturally ............................................................................444

3. Should maintain strict neutrality between the parties ....................................................................................444

4. Should bring the pulpit to bear

To prevent the formation of parties .............................................................................................................444

To make those at variance tired of their relations ........................................................................................445

4. The relation he sustains to cases of public dealing ...............................................................................................445

Same principles hold good .........................................................................................................................................445

CHAPTER VII

DEDUCTIONS FROM PREVIOUS PRINCIPLES—

SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE

Deduction 1. Local churches have exclusive jurisdiction over their members ..........................................................446

1. Appeal to be made only to the New Testament .............................................................................................446

1. The Savior gave such jurisdiction ...........................................................................................................446

2. Paul acknowledges it ...............................................................................................................................446

3. A church commended for exercising it. ..................................................................................................446

4. Churches condemned for not exercising it .............................................................................................447

2. Every church has supreme jurisdiction over its members .....................................................................................447

3. Objection to the use of the term "sovereign" ........................................................................................................447

4. Answered—1. The term is apposite to convey the idea ........................................................................................447

2. The idea shown to be scriptural ..............................................................................................................448

3. Difference between sovereign and independence ...................................................................................448

5. Question 1.—May a member refuse to be tried? ..................................................................................................449

Answer—No way to escape a trial .......................................................................................................................449

6. Quest. 2.—Suppose he does actually refuse .........................................................................................................449

Ans.—This of itself sufficient ground of expulsion .............................................................................................449

7. Quest. 3.—Suppose the arraigned differs from the church as to the kind of offence, &c ....................................449

1. The church the only judge of the law and the fact .........................................................................................449

2. After the arraigned raises the point of order, he is free from responsibility ..................................................450

8. Quest. 4.—Does not a church that rejects the law in Matt. xviii. cease to be a church? ......................................450

1. The true case stated ........................................................................................................................................450

2. The plea upon the principle that an error annihilates a church ......................................................................451

3. Shown not to be sustained by the Scriptures .................................................................................................451

9. The arraigned not to be the judge in his own case ................................................................................................451

10. Quotation from Elder J. S. Baker ........................................................................................................................451

11. Additional argument in favor of sovereignty ......................................................................................................452

12. The church has executive authority .....................................................................................................................453

13. Quest. 1.—May a church expel by majority? .....................................................................................................453

14. Unanimity desirable ............................................................................................................................................453

1. Means adopted by some churches to secure unanimity .................................................................................453

2. This implies that the majority must rule ........................................................................................................453

15. Arguments to show that a majority can expel......................................................................................................453

Quotation from Elder J. S. Baker on the point ....................................................................................................453

16. Quest. 2.—May a minority never unchurch the majority? ..................................................................................454

17. Answered in the affirmative ................................................................................................................................454

1. Shown on what principle................................................................................................................................454

2. Not applicable to a case of discipline ............................................................................................................454

18. Can an arraigned man and his supporters, the minority, unchurch? ...................................................................455

Shown that on this principle no one of adroitness can be tried ..........................................................................455

19. If the majority disregard the law in Matt. xviii, can the minority unchurch? .....................................................455

1. To mistake the nature of the offence is not to "disregard’’ the law ..............................................................455

2. To unintentionally misapply the law, is not to "disregard" it .......................................................................455

3. What alone is a disregard ..............................................................................................................................456

20. A minority thus attempting to shield one arraigned should be excommunicated ..............................................456

1. Can a minority be tried without Presbytery or Council? ......................................................................................456

1. Shown that they can be ..................................................................................................................................456

2. Writers not all agreed .....................................................................................................................................456

2. No passage in the Bible, in direct terms, prescribes a Presbytery .........................................................................457

3. Paul directs the Galatians to expel false ministers ................................................................................................457

4. Christ praises the Ephesians for expelling false apostles ......................................................................................457

5. Peter acknowledged the jurisdiction of his church over him ................................................................................457

6. Objection.—The ministry was conferred by a Presbytery, &c .............................................................................458

7. Preliminary inquiry ...............................................................................................................................................458

8. What is a minister? ................................................................................................................................................458

1. The prerogative to preach not peculiar to him ...............................................................................................458

2. His prerogative to administer the ordinances .................................................................................................458

9. What is ordination? ...............................................................................................................................................458

1. It does not impart any grace or qualification .................................................................................................459

2. Not designed to authorize him to preach .......................................................................................................459

3. A solemn public recognition ..........................................................................................................................459

10. What relation does a Presbytery bear to ordination? ..........................................................................................459

l. Meaning of Presbytery ...................................................................................................................................459

2. Different custom in the Northern States .........................................................................................................459

3. In what liable to misconstruction, and in what a corrective ..........................................................................459

11. Two designs in the use of a Presbytery or Council .............................................................................................460

12. Return to the objection ........................................................................................................................................460

13. The Presbytery does not confer the office or make the minister .........................................................................461

1. It does not take the same power to unmake as to make .................................................................................461

2. God alone can unmake ...................................................................................................................................461

3. He does interpose by conferring upon the church delegated sovereignty .....................................................461

14. Obj. 2.—A Presbytery was necessary to give confidence:

the same necessary to withdraw it ......................................................................................................................461

1. More needed to prove ministerial qualification than to detect crime ............................................................461

2. A church competent to pass upon a charge of crime .....................................................................................462

15. Obj. 3.—To try without a Presbytery implies the right to ordain without ..........................................................462

1. A church can ordain, though inexpedient ......................................................................................................462

2. Ordination a testimony ...................................................................................................................................462

3. Not influential without a Presbytery ..............................................................................................................462

16. The church does not ordain for herself, nor does the Council ............................................................................463

17. Obj. 4.—One ought to be tried by his peers .......................................................................................................463

18. The members of the church the minister’s peer ..................................................................................................463

19. Ministers subject to the churches ........................................................................................................................463

20. A Church may call in a Council ..........................................................................................................................463

1. The decision of the church is final ........................................................................................................................463

2. Incautious admission .............................................................................................................................................463

3. The New Testament not silent on the subjects of excommunicating ....................................................................464

4. Precepts, in two respects .......................................................................................................................................464

5. Directions as to the disposition to be made of the incorrigible .............................................................................464

6. Directions as to our feelings and deportment toward the excommunicated .........................................................464

7. Scripture example .................................................................................................................................................465

8. General principles forbid one church to receive the expelled of another .............................................................465

1. The subordination of the church to Christ .....................................................................................................466

2. Every church constituted independent ...........................................................................................................466

Reception and expulsion not commensurate nor correlative .........................................................................467

Church independence illustrated by a circuit court .......................................................................................467

3. Church union .................................................................................................................................................468

9. Three kinds of plea by way of objection ...............................................................................................................469

10. The plea explanatory ...........................................................................................................................................469

1st. You do restore to fellowship or Christian union is destroyed ......................................................................469

2d. Your act would be an interference ................................................................................................................469

11. The plea from expediency ...................................................................................................................................469

Ans.—The remedy proposed will introduce a greater evil than it corrects .......................................................469

12. Plea from exceptional cases, Masons, anti-missionaries, &c .............................................................................470

1. One joins the Masons, impelled not by conscience, but by motives of expediency ......................................470

2. One becomes a missionary conscientiously ...................................................................................................471

1. Duty of a church-member to seek the harmony of his church ................................................................471

2. Christian union not effected when one is received who has been expelled for being a missionary .......472

13. Quest. 1.—Can one expelled apply to his Association or to a Council? ...........................................................472

1. The Scriptures know nothing of Associations and Councils .........................................................................472

The germ of Associations and Councils not to be found in the meeting in Jerusalem .................................472

2. Associations of modern date ..........................................................................................................................473

How they can be useful .................................................................................................................................473

How they can be perverted ............................................................................................................................473

3. Council, when useful .....................................................................................................................................474

Mere advisory bodies called into existence by the church ............................................................................474

14. Ques. 2.—May not churches err? ........................................................................................................................474

The way in which they are most likely to err.......................................................................................................474

15. Quest. 3.—What remedy has one unjustly expelled? .........................................................................................474

Ans.—None, excepting from the church expelling ............................................................................................474

16. Uses to which he may put his expulsion .............................................................................................................474

1. He may submit humbly to the will of God ..................................................................................................474
2. He may suffer as a martyr ............................................................................................................................475
3. He may wait patiently, and by a well-ordered life and godly conversation disabuse

the minds of his brethren .............................................................................................................................475

4. He may find consolation in the fact that expulsion from the church is not expulsion

IT is the Saviour’s will of precept that the constituents of His churches shall be regenerated persons. He authorizes none to receive the ordinance of Baptism, and to have a lot among His visible people, but those who believe with the heart that He is the Son of God. His churches, however, are not composed of perfect beings. Men of passions and infirmities, of prejudices and defective knowledge,—frequently of discordant tastes and conflicting worldly interests,—are congregated together, and organized into visible local societies. In these circumstances, it must needs be that offences come. The influence of the grace of God, and the precepts of the gospel, serve to counteract this tendency; but it is never impossible for the flesh to get, for the time, the mastery of the spirit, and produce alienation among individuals, or discord in communities where brotherly love, order, and harmony usually prevail.

The Great Lawgiver in Zion recognizes the possibility of the action of disturbing elements, and has left His people in no doubt as to the remedy to be applied in every instance. He has not left us to legislate on the subject, nor to resort to expedients to meet cases as they arise, but Himself has classified offences, and prescribed the course to be pursued in every case. It only remains for us to perceive clearly the Divine discrimination, and to carry out implicitly the Divine prescription.

What then is the inspired classification of offences?—and what, under the classification, is the course of treatment prescribed by Infinite Wisdom?

The Scriptures cite us to but two kinds of offence. Matt. xviii. 15 points out the one kind, where the object of the offence is an individual,— "If thy brother trespass against thee;" and 1 Cor. v. to the second kind, where the object of the offence is either public morals or the Church. The former of these is usually characterized by the term PRIVATE, and the latter by the term PUBLIC. The use of these terms will be retained in this essay, though they are each liable to some ambiguity of meaning. PERSONAL is employed by some in preference to "Private;" but neither term is exactly suited to the case, since private may be understood in the sense of secret; and personal is not necessarily in antithesis to public. Nor is the term public more happy in conveying the idea intended, since it may be understood in the sense of ostentatiously—before the world. If this criticism be repeated in substance, it will be only to warn the reader against a misapprehension of the idea designed to be conveyed.

1. What are "private offences," as described in Matt. xviii.?

Ans. 1. Not necessarily secret offences. Many "public offences" are committed secretly; as theft, fornication, &c. The thief and the fornicator select the time usually when the friendly darkness will conceal them,—when they confidently trust no eye will detect them. But theft and fornication are not "private" but "public" offences, according to scriptural classification, even though the former may have been committed against a brother. But of this more anon.

Ans. 2. "Private offences," then, i.e. those referred to in Matt. xviii., are those that are personal, committed exclusively against individuals as when encroachments are made upon individual rights, interests, or feelings. A, on the impulse of the moment, accidentally cripples B’s stock that have broken into his enclosure, or, through mistake, makes encroachments upon his territory, or speaks harshly or disparagingly of him, or accosts him in a cold and repulsive manner, or refuses to speak to him at all:—these are a very few examples of an offence specific in character, but endless in combination and manifestation. The specific character is that the act is not a crime against religion and morality, and the object of the act is a brother.

Ans. 1. Not necessarily those that are committed publicly and ostentatiously. One church-member may publicly and ostentatiously refuse to speak to another, and in other ways unjustly treat him with contempt. But, as has been seen above, this is not a "public" but a "private" offence, since the object of it is exclusively an individual. Those who perpetrate "public offences" more frequently, though not always, try to conceal them under the veil of secrecy.

Ans. 2. "Public offences" may be subdivided into two classes:—(1.) Where they are crimes exclusively against religion and morality; and, (2,) where they are offences against the Church in its organized capacity.

(1.) A crime is committed against religion and morality exclusively when the offence has no individual or body of individuals for its object; but when it is incited for the gratification of a depraved taste or for the indulgence of a corrupt propensity; as drunkenness, profanity, lewdness, falsehood, &c.—the last not perpetrated against an individual. Here the offences are crimes not against men, but against God. The drunken church-member, in the mere fact that he is drunk, infringes upon no brother’s personal rights, tramples upon no brother’s individual feelings, and damages no brother’s personal individual interests. This is not the intention, this is not the result. The only object may have been to gratify a depraved appetite. He is a "public offender," (1st,) because he has committed a grievous offence, and (2d) because the object affected by the offence is not an individual, but public gospel morality and the cause of Christ.

(2.) Transgressions committed against the Church in its organized capacity constitute another class of "public offences." The instances of this kind of offence are innumerable, some of which may be given as follows:—

(1.) When a member of the Church openly renounces its doctrines of faith, and engages in an active and uncompromising effort to subvert them,—when he denounces its practice of restricted communion, gives notice at the means to disregard it, and carries the annunciation into effect by the overt act,—he is a public offender. Here the object affected by the offender’s act is not the individual members of the Church, but the Church in its organized capacity. Let not this citation, however, be misunderstood. No reference is made to those who are ignorant of Gospel doctrines, or who even have doubts as to the Scriptural character of those held by the Church. A gospel church is not a circle of doctrinal proficients, but a school for learners, where those who are acquainted only with the alphabet of the gospel—with the first principles of the doctrine of Christ—may receive instruction, and know as they follow on to know the Lord. The only qualification for admission into a gospel church is repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. There are, doubtless, multitudes in the churches who know nothing of the profound doctrines of grace, or even have misgivings as to the correctness of the interpretations put upon them, who are yet guilty of no offence, and members in good standing. Reference is had to those, solely, who declare open war against the doctrines and practices of the Church and engage in active efforts to subvert and destroy them. The Church is bound to hold these as "public offenders;" and if there is to be any difference in the treatment of their case and in that of other public offenders, it is to be found in the injunction, "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject." Tit. iii. 10.

(2.) Refusal, after admonition, to attend upon the stated conference-meetings of the Church, is a "public offence." Here, again, the object affected by the act is not the individual members of the Church, but the Church in its organized capacity. Nor is the act an infraction of the public rules of gospel morality, excepting in so far as it may be a violation of the member’s vows when he entered into the Church. Nowhere in the Scriptures is a rule in so many words, (such as not a few of our churches have passed,) requiring attendance of members at such an hour of such a day on conference-meetings. According to the Scriptures, there is necessarily no immorality in an absence from any place on any Saturday in the month; yet our churches, acting within lawful limits, have passed such a rule, and their members have pledged themselves to abide by it. Nothing is more common than for churches to expel members, after admonition, for non-attendance upon conference-meetings. Why? What is the nature of the offence? Not "private," certainly; because no infringement has been made upon individual rights, interests, or feelings; not public, in the sense that a crime, in the nature of things, has been committed against gospel morality, for simple absence from any time and place contains essentially no moral character; but a "public offence," because it is committed against the authority of the Church, which the member is bound and pledged to regard.

(3.) Rebellion against the lawful authority of the Church—a refusal to heed its citations, or, in other ways, a denial of its lawful jurisdiction over him—is, on the part of the member, a "public offence." He neglects to hear the Church, and, if he persists,—by Divine direction,—is to be considered by her in the light of a "heathen man and a publican." Every consideration drawn from the Scriptures, and from the Church’s sense of duty to herself and to the cause of Christ, requires her to cut off from herself a member in a state of open rebellion. But the offender may not have trespassed at all upon individuals, and he may have been guilty of no gross offence against morals,—i.e. such as is incited by depraved tastes and corrupt propensities. He is, nevertheless, guilty of a public offence, since he is found arrayed in open rebellion against the authority with which Christ has invested His Church.

(4) It is a "public offence to attempt to make divisions and disturbances in a church. A schismatic, one who factiously distracts the Church, and threatens to divide it, the Church is expressly commanded to excommunicate. ‘Mark them who cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.’ Rom. xvi. 17, 18. Here, again, the act, because perpetrated against the Church in its organized capacity, authority, and interests, is a public offence." These are but a few of the many instances that may be cited.

The following, then, are the conclusions to which we arrive:—

But it is sometimes the case that these two kinds of offence are so blended together as to seem to constitute a third class. It is from this combination that nearly all the difficulty originates in the treatment. Further on, it will be shown that these do not constitute a distinct class. For the sake of convenience, however, they will be termed here mixed offences. Where the act is essentially a crime against religion and morality, and the object affected by it is a brother, we have both offences in combination. The following may be given as examples of this:—willful and malicious slander against a brother; profane denunciation of him; theft from him; fraud perpetrated upon him, seduction; personal violent assault upon him, with fist, bludgeon, or horsewhip, violent and libelous publication of him in the newspapers, or by advertisement set up in conspicuous places. These are a few of many examples which may be given. Falsehood, profanity, theft, fraud, seduction, a breach of the peace by personal violence or libelous publication, are offences against religion and morality, though they may be perpetrated against members of the Church.

IN the treatment of "private offences," the Saviour, in Matt. xviii., gives the course to be pursued, commonly called "Gospel steps:" "Go and tell him his fault between him and thee alone." 1st. Go to him and seek a private interview. Observe, he does not say, address him a note, or employ a committee of friends to negotiate with "seconds," who may represent your antagonist as men of the world do in their so-called "affairs of honor." Submit the case to no second hands, but "go" yourself, and see your offending brother face to face.

The amount of this is, you must do evil that good may come,—or, at least, that evil may be avoided. You have too little faith in the prescriptions of Christ, and must substitute expedients of your own. But, unfortunately for you, in the very unlawful precautions you use, you place yourself completely in the power of him whom you characterize as a designing man. I grant you that if your antagonist (for that is the correct term, under the present aspect) does take advantage of your disobedience and indiscretion, and use them for your injury, he goes far to prove himself the unscrupulous and wicked man you fear he is; but this development is of no advantage to you, since it does not atone for your disobedience, nor make you any the less completely in his power. You lack confidence in the prescriptions of Christ, and propose to substitute precautions and expedients of your own, and the Master may suffer you to be involved in a long train of inconsistencies, embarrassments, and suffering. The first direction, then, to be observed, is, seek an interview with your offending brother face to face.

2. "Tell him his fault."

Tell him. Not blaze it abroad in the newspapers, nor growl about it in the presence of others; but go and tell HIM his fault, in the spirit of meekness. It is a question whether our religious newspaper press has not been used too much of late to produce and to aggravate personal differences between brethren. If the editors have themselves not been the guilty parties, have they not been too ready to yield their columns to excited persons, who have real or fancied grievances to allege against their brethren? The first that is heard, even by the alleged offender, of the thing complained of, is contained, perhaps, in a newspaper article. In this, by innuendo, by insinuation, or by statement in detail, the public are told how greatly the writer has suffered in his person, his rights, his interests, or his feelings, by the action or the words of the real or fancied aggressor. The latter is held up as a very bad man, and the public are impliedly called upon to condemn him. If the one assailed possesses a similar spirit, rejoinder is to be expected in the public newspapers: the gauntlet thrown down is promptly to be taken up. The appeal now on both sides is to the public; and the effort of each is to array as partisans as many of that public as he can. This is especially true if the parties at variance are men of influence and equally matched in strength. At first but one newspaper column may be wheeled into hostile position. The war begins with a single gun on either side. Only one embrasure of the newspaper battery opens for the protrusion of the hostile ordnance. But, as the hot shot and shell, the grape and canister, tell with reciprocal execution, the excitement and the rancor rise in intensity, until progressively the whole battery is unmasked and every gun is plied with deadly execution. Begrimed with smoke and distorted by passion, the countenances of the combatants bear no longer the lineaments of followers of the Prince of Peace. The din and uproar drown the gentle voice of conscience and the sweet monitions of the Holy Spirit, while the sulphurous smoke, charged with an odor from the world beneath, poisons the upper air and shuts out from the combatants the blessed light of heaven.

This, however, is but the beginning of the fray, the distant cannonading with which the conflict opens. Forces must be raised, and resources gathered, that the issue may be decided in a pitched battle, by a hand-to-hand engagement. To attract recruits and rally forces to the standard, each plants himself upon some great principle dear to people’s hearts, which, if you would believe him, he has been set to defend, and which must stand or fall with him; or the cry is raised that the religious party he represents is to be trampled in the dust in his person. The slogan of party catches the ear of the heated, the restless, and the ultra; and the cry of "principles in danger" arouses the quiet and conservative like the sound of the fire-bell at night. Vast armaments are gathered, and stand face to face in hostile force. And what then? A religious Solferino is fought. The battle rages in the midst of the cries and imprecations and slaughter of BRETHREN. And when the reputed victor, in the midst of his exhausted forces, surrounded by the dying and the dead, comes to sum up the result, it is only to find himself arrested by obstacles he cannot force, and glad to enter into a Villa Franca truce, which will end in nothing but protracted negotiations and endless complications. The leaders, drifted whither they did not intend, invariably fail in their purposes; while the people, their adherents, with feelings embittered and brotherly love destroyed, find their ancient landmarks obliterated, and their cherished institutions wellnigh subverted and destroyed; a-n-d—that is all!

How different, however, are the process and result when the Saviour’s directions are observed!

"Tell HIM his fault," because,—

1. You may have misconceived him through misapprehensions or misrepresentations. Your brother may be able to disavow, or, if he acknowledges, to explain, and thus remove all complaint.

2. You may thus be able to RECLAIM him. When your brother trespasses against you, he sins against God also, and against his own soul. How much more noble, then, is it for you, keeping your own heart right, to reform and "gain," than to come off victorious over your brother in mortal conflict! "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself lest thou also be tempted." "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." James v. 19, 20.

"Tell him his fault between him and thee alone."

1. If you go in the first instance accompanied by others, you may seem to have summarily decided against the offender, without giving him a hearing, and thus excite in him a spirit of independence and defiance.

2. You may seem to have no confidence in his capacity to do right, and thus rouse his resentment.

3. Accompanied by others, you may seem to have entered into a conspiracy against him. It may appear that you are approaching him systematically as an enemy to entangle and expose him, and thus put him on the defensive. If he is cautious and prudent, you make him wary, but not the less an antagonist; if he is fiery and impulsive, you make him aggravate the difficulty by defiance and wrath.

4. You may seem to be desirous to humble him by making him succumb and confess his fault before witnesses, and thus touch his pride.

The great object is to "gain your brother:" therefore, make the attempt first by yourself.

Ans.—To this it is answered, that it is perfectly legitimate for a mutual friend to bring variant parties together. And, by so doing, it is often the case that much good is accomplished.

But you observe that the question proposes a case very different from that under discussion. You speak of those who are mutual trespassers,—who are equally at variance, and therefore both wrong. But the question under discussion relates to a case where only one is a trespasser, while the other is as yet free from blame. Our discussion relates to the duty of the one who, yet free from wrong in act or feeling, has been trespassed upon by his brother. The duty of such is to keep right himself, and to do all in his power to recover his erring brother.

After all the disinterested efforts made by yourself, the offender may remain incorrigible. What then? Become disgusted with him?—leave him to himself, and treat him ever thereafter as an enemy? Bring him before the Church? No. One step more remains to be taken.

4. "Take with thee one or two more,"—not partisans or enemies, but those in whom the offender has confidence:

1st, That they may be arbitrators between you. If, after they hear him, they are satisfied that he is wrong, they can tell him so, and add their influence to yours to bring him right.

2d, If he is incorrigible, they may be witnesses for you in the next step you may have to take.

The Saviour designs that His people shall not be at variance. It is His revealed will that brotherly love shall continue among them, and that they shall be of one heart and of one mind. If, however, variance should arise, He requires the parties to settle it privately between themselves; and He gives directions which, if followed implicitly, and the heart of each is right, will lead to the desired result.

He requires you to settle your difficulties privately between yourselves, because,—

1. In no other way can they be settled to the mutual, hearty satisfaction of both parties. Any other method of settlement will consist either in the condemnation of one or both of the parties, or in a compromise between them which will satisfy neither.

2. He would save His cause from the reproach of brethren publicly worrying and devouring one another.

3. He would save His churches from the adjudication of personal difficulties between their members; so that they may never be the arena for personal strife, nor the field of battle for conflicting hosts.

4. But, if the offender continues incorrigible, He has provided, in the directions He gives, not only for the safety of the innocent and the punishment of the incorrigibly guilty, but for the peace and unanimity of His Church, which is to be the tribunal in the last resort. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." By their testimony, the "one or two" disinterested brethren may afford protection to the innocent and light to the Church, so that it may act with unanimity and unerring certainty.

If all the efforts made by the aggrieved alone, and in conjunction with the "one or two" disinterested brethren, fail, the case assumes the character of a "public offence;" and the last step is to be taken by the offended.

5. "Tell it to the Church." Of course, in the spirit of meekness, with the hope and prayer still that the offender may be reclaimed. This idea of reclamation is distinctly implied in the words following:—"If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen man and a publican." He may not neglect to hear the Church. What then? Even then, though he has been almost lost, you may "gain your brother." It is imperative upon the Church, when a question of mere personal variance, involving no immorality, is brought before it, to attempt in the first instance to reclaim the offender. It is her duty to examine into the facts, and to use her arguments and moral force to bring him to a sense of his wrong and to a reparation of it. Never, until she speaks to him and he deliberately and persistently "neglects to hear," is she, by the ultimate resort, to make him bear to her the relation of "a heathen man and a publican."

Of the effects of excommunication by a church, more will be said anon.

How should public offences be treated? When one has been guilty of open immorality, shall "gospel steps" be taken? Is it demanded that a thief, or a drunkard, or a debauchee, should be approached first in private, and then in company with one or two others, before he is arraigned in presence of the Church? Certainly not; for no private reparation can atone for, or counteract the effects of, immoralities.

1. If he does not bring the matter up himself, he should be cited to appear and answer to the charge. In this arraignment, he should have every facility to meet the charge against him; for it does by no means follow that every one is guilty who has been accused. No one should be condemned without a hearing; and, to have a hearing, he must be in possession of all the counts of the indictment against him. He must have the privilege of confronting the witnesses, and of sifting the testimony against him, that he may be able to speak effectively and to the point in his own behalf. It is not meant, though, to be asserted here that a church should go through with all the formality observed by a court of justice, but simply that no one should be forced to a trial until he becomes fully informed of all the charges and has an opportunity to sift the evidence relied upon to convict. Excepting in extreme and very complicated cases, no written documents need be employed in the citation and trial. The arraigned may hear the charge for the first time as it may be announced orally, or read from the clerk’s record, in open conference. If he pleads not guilty, and desires time to prepare himself for the trial, all reasonable indulgence should be granted, and nothing pertaining to the case should be withheld from him.

It goes far, however, to show conscious guilt, if a church-member arraigned endeavors to quash proceedings by the plea that he had not been served with written processes. Not until he asks for information, and for the postponement of his trial, and is refused by the Church, has he any ground of complaint. Church-trials are designed not only to convict the guilty, but to clear the innocent who have been accused. An innocent man, then, so far from trying to embarrass the action of the Church in the premises, will do all in his power to facilitate such action. It is for the interest of the innocent that the Church promptly and thoroughly investigate the charges against him, that his innocence may appear, and that the confidence of his brethren and of the world may be restored to him. And it goes far to prove, if not his guilt, at least a heart not right, for the accused to take offence at the arraignment or ascribe it to conspiracy against him.

2. If the arraigned is proved to be guilty of a gross offence against religion and morality, he should be at once, and without delay, expelled. "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." 1 Cor. v. 13. All will grant that this conclusion is correct in regard to such offenses as murder, fornication, theft, &c.; but they do not see that railing, covetousness, drunkenness, and extortion may not be dealt with more gently, and forgiven upon repentance and confession. The Apostle Paul, however, places them all in the same category with fornication, and prescribes the same treatment to them all in common. "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one you ought not to eat." 1 Cor. v. 11.

It is the opinion of some—and there may be force in it, though not perceived by the present writer—that in the case of drunkenness the first offence may be forgiven on repentance and confession; since in that instance the offender may have been "overtaken in a fault;" and that it takes a repetition of the act to show that he is properly a "drunkard." Be this as it may, just so soon as these and other gross crimes are proved upon one that is "called a brother," he should be withdrawn from.

1. For the sake of public morals and the reputation of the Church, she should testify unmistakably. This course would meet with approbation more heartily from no one than from the offender himself if he is a Christian; for to such the honor of the Master and the reputation of His Church are dearer than his own good name, or even than life itself. When a confession of sin and a profession of penitence are received as satisfactory, and the offender forgiven, the act may be misunderstood by the world; but when the member is cut off, there is no room to suppose that the Church views the offence as trivial and venial.

2. For the good of the offender himself, he should be excommunicated. If he is not a Christian, he should not be a member of the Church; if he is a Christian, excommunication will not harm him. Corrective discipline, even in its highest censures, is an act of kindness to the offender, and designed not to injure but to reform. Such was the effect of the discipline inflicted upon the incestuous man at Corinth. While undisturbed by his brethren and permitted to go on in sin with impunity, he seemed not to be aware of the enormity of his crime; but after expulsion he is brought to reflection and penitence. So that we find the apostle, who had demanded his exclusion, afterwards, on satisfactory evidence of his repentance and reformation, acting as his intercessor and begging his restoration. "Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many. So that, contrariwise, ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him; lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that you would confirm your love towards him."

3. As a warning to others, the Church should affix to gross crime unmistakably the mark of its reprobation.

Ans.—To this it is answered, that the injunction refers exclusively to private or personal offences. "Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him."

In public offences not involving gross immorality, a milder course may be pursued, and corrective discipline may be successful and complete short of excommunication.

What course is to be pursued in mixed offences? When the act is a public offence, and the object affected by it a brother, is it his duty to take "gospel steps"? When one willfully slanders his brother, or defrauds or steals from him, or violently assaults his person, or libelously publishes him, is he the less a liar, a defrauder, a thief, an infractor of the peace, and a libeler, because his victim happens to be a member of the Church? Suppose these acts had been perpetrated against one not a church-member: would they not have been criminal? Would not the Church have been bound to take cognizance of them? And if so, under what head of offences would she have classed them? If they are crimes against religion and morality when committed against an irreligious man, do they lose their nature when committed against a member of the Church? Whatever may be counteracted, or removed, or atoned for, so that neither individuals nor the cause may be injured, can be disposed of by private dealing. But gross public offences, whatever may be their combinations or objects, cannot be disposed of in that way. The brother trespassed upon may be, and doubtless is, under obligations to seek a private interview with the brother who he believes has willfully slandered, or defrauded, or stolen from him; since in all these things he may have been mistaken. He may even pursue a like course with one who has horsewhipped or libeled him, and bring them all to confession of their wrong, and to a tender of all the private reparation in their power. But would that relieve the Church from the obligation to discipline its members for the crimes against religion and morality contained in lying, in fraud, in seduction, in theft, in a breach of the peace by personal assault and libel? Nay, if the one trespassed upon in the ways indicated above concludes to take no action in the premises, and to bear his grievances in silence, would the Church, acquainted with the facts, be debarred by this from dealing with its members for lying, fraud, theft, &c.?

The answer to be given, then, to the question at the beginning of the above paragraph, is, If the act is a gross offence against religion and morality, and the object affected by it a brother, it is to be dealt with as other gross offences that are purely "public," whether the aggrieved takes "gospel steps" or not.

Thus it will be seen that in "mixed offences" the nature of the sin is the basis of its classification, and not merely the object against which it is committed. The "private" feature is merged in and swallowed up by the gross crime which constitutes the act. This is nothing novel. The same classification obtains in legal science. Sir Wm. Blackstone, in his Commentaries, book iv. chap. 1, p. 5, says, "Murder is an injury to the life of an individual; but the law of society considers principally the loss which the state sustains by being deprived of a member, and the pernicious example thereby set for others to do the like. Robbery may be considered in the same view: it is an injury to private property; but, were that all, a civil satisfaction in damages might atone for it: the public mischief is the thing for the prevention of which our laws have made it a capital offence. In these gross and atrocious injuries the private wrong is swallowed up in the public: we seldom hear any mention made of satisfaction to the individual, the satisfaction to the community being so very great. And, indeed, as the public crime is not otherwise avenged than by forfeiture of life and property, it is impossible afterwards to make any reparation for the private wrong; which can only be had from the body or goods of the aggressor." In like manner, in the case of theft, seduction, murder, or other gross crimes, as the offence against religion and morality can in no other way be atoned for than by the expulsion of the offender, it is a matter of no importance, so far as it relates to the question of his continued church-membership, whether or not he renders satisfaction, if possible, to the individual his victim.

And it will be seen, also, that those that for convenience have been termed "mixed" do not constitute a distinct class, but are to be ranged under the head of "public offences" and treated accordingly.

Ans.—It is the duty of the pastor or other Moderator to inquire whether the Saviour’s directions have been followed, and, if he finds that they have not been, he should rule as out of order the introduction of the case. If the pastor should fail to discharge this duty, then it will be competent for any member to raise the point of order, and to appeal from the decision of the chair, if it be in violation of the Saviour’s rule. And the Church, when thus appealed to, is in duty bound to overrule by vote the decision of its presiding officer. This is said of offences exclusively that are purely personal,—when the act is not a crime against religion and morality, and the object affected by it is a brother. In "mixed offences," where the act complained of is a gross immorality,—as theft, slander, seduction, fraud, personal violence, and libel,—it will not be out of order for the Church to entertain the charge though no "gospel steps" have been taken, since, as has been shown, these and the like gross offences against religion and morality are "public offences," though they may have been committed against a church member.

But it may be asked, "May not the arraigned himself raise the point of order?" Most assuredly. "And if raised by him, how is it to be decided?" By the ruling of the Moderator first, and, if this be appealed from, by the vote of the Church. And the decision of the Church is final. "But if he claims to think it to be purely a private offence, and that, therefore, the proceedings are premature, is it not a great hardship and injustice to the accused for the Church to entertain the charge?" Assuredly not, if he is innocent. In our courts of justice, parties arraigned for crime pick flaws in the indictment, and endeavor to quash the proceedings on technical grounds, when they feel themselves in doubt as to their ability to meet the main issue successfully. But when they are satisfied that they are able to clear their character from aspersion before their fellow citizens, they waive all plea from informality of proceedings, and court a thorough investigation. It would be a great outrage to withhold from an arraigned man the charges alleged against him, or to press him to trial without giving him reasonable time to prepare for it; but a slight mistake in the technical wording of the indictment is neither outrage nor injustice to him,—nor would he avail himself of it to quash proceedings, unless he felt conscious that he needed such a plea, and placed a higher estimate upon a mere release from trial than upon his good name and standing among his fellows. In no respect can injustice be done to the accused by what he is pleased to consider a premature entertainment of the charge. He is either guilty or innocent of theft, or fraud, or personal violence, or libel, or other gross crime committed against another, a church member or not. If guilty, no arraignment after the commission of that act can be premature. If innocent, he cannot too soon be afforded an opportunity to free himself from the charge. And when one thus charged strives to divert attention from the indictment, and endeavors to fix it upon some alleged informality, he goes far to show to all discerning persons that he is conscious of an inability to meet the issue; and, to say the least, he excites in their minds a strong suspicion of his guilt.

In another connection the question will be discussed as to how far responsibility attaches to the arraigned when the Church, in the management of his case, treats as "public" that which is purely a "private" case; and what in the premises are his duties to the cause of Christ.

Strictly private offences, however, should be ruled out of order when attempted to be brought into the Church without previous "gospel steps" resorted to ineffectually. If the complainant, through ignorance, attempts to introduce it, he should be kindly instructed as to his duty. If he acts thus with willful disregard of his obligations, he should be reproved and compelled to follow the Saviour’s rule.¹

Ans. 1.—If he silently bears his grievance and suppresses all resentment, making it not the occasion of disturbance, his patience and meekness (if he is influenced by these) is commendable; but he is guilty of sin in not obeying his Saviour and attempting to "gain his brother."

Ans. 2.—If the variance continues, the Church may, and is in duty bound to, arraign both parties,—one for failing to follow the instructions of Christ, the other for his trespass; and both for being, by their wrangling, disturbers of the peace.

Ans.—Any one who witnessed the act, or has heard the rumor of it, or has felt the effect of it. On no plea of obscurity, or youth, or sex, can church-

members excuse themselves for silence and inaction, while public offenders are wounding Christ in the house of His friends. Nothing said above, though, is designed to condemn those who, on account of obscurity, youth, or sex, prefer to put the facts into the hands of more aged and influential brethren, holding themselves in readiness to act as witnesses when called on.

Caution.—It may, however, in some cases, be best to see the offender first, before you act.

1. You may have been the only one who witnessed the deed. In that case, it would be best to ascertain whether he will acknowledge it. He may, when you arraign him, plead not guilty. Should he do so, and his previous character be unimpeached, you may place yourself and the Church in an embarrassing position. Your charge will be met by his denial; and there will be simply a question of veracity between you. Now, it is not impossible for a charge of gross immorality in overt act to be brought miraculously against an innocent person. Unless, then, you can present corroborating circumstances to sustain your allegation, in the event he will plead not guilty, painful as it may be, you had better remain silent, and wait until the developments of Providence shall further expose him. Instances have been known in which Churches have been compelled to excommunicate both the arraigner and arraigned from not being able to know whether the latter had been guilty or only maliciously slandered, and because of the irritation caused by the question of veracity. When more than one, however, are able to testify to the fact, or circumstances strongly corroborate the allegation, the offender need not be seen first.

2. By seeing the offender first, he may be induced to bring the matter forward himself, and thus relieve others from an unpleasant and sometimes hazardous duty.

3. In the case of a report to the disadvantage of a brother, it is especially important that you see him first before you act. The report you have heard may not be general rumor, but a falsehood of limited circulation and recent origin. For you to announce this in the public meeting of the Church will be to give it a wider circulation. It is always proper, then, for you first to put your brother in possession of the report circulating to his discredit, and aid him to trace it up to its source. If, after this, the rumor increases, and seems to be well founded, and the brother tries to hush it up,—declining to take any further action in the premises,—it is your duty to name it in the Church, that a committee of investigation may be appointed.

The fate of the Saviour of the world is a striking proof that innocence is no infallible protection against unjust accusation and condemnation. From the world the Christian is prepared to expect tribulation; for he that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution; and if they call the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they those of his household! But in the Church of God he feels secure. From his brethren, children of the same heavenly Father and subjects of the same divine grace, he expects nothing but brotherly sympathy, encouragement, and protection. But Paul has told us of perils among false brethren; and how often are a man’s enemies those of his own household!

It is not impossible for a man of true piety and unexceptionable deportment to find himself, through misapprehension, malice, or jealousy, unjustly arraigned before his brethren.

Sometimes he is a victim of PREJUDICE. His brethren have been taught in advance to believe him capable of wrong; and his acts, imperfectly understood, and seen through the medium of prejudice, may be so colored and distorted as to seem hideous. Certain causes, acting upon a peculiar nervous constitution, may produce effects in speech and manner that may appear equivocal; or he may be the victim of a train of circumstances which may seem to implicate him in a crime that his soul abhors.

Purity of heart and life is no infallible protection against the machinations and the tongue of MALICE. Nay, this very purity may be the occasion to arouse the vindictiveness of the vile and wicked. A holy life is a standing reproof against their depravity; and, while it deserves to command their respect, it as often excites their resentment. Nor is this feeling confined to the world. Often—with regret it is confessed—do the worldly-minded members of the Church feel resentment against those whose uniform consistency is a constant reproof to their laxity of principles and irregularity of deportment. In times of apostasy and defection from the truth, those who adhere to their principles, and lift up their protest against prevailing laxity, are sure to be the victims of persecution. And if their remonstrances cannot be silenced in any other way, there will not be lacking those who will suborn witnesses to sustain any accusation that may be plausibly brought against them. Especially is this true if, in their zeal for the truth, they may have been betrayed into any indiscretion of word or act.

It is sometimes the case that one becomes the victim of JEALOUSY AND ENVY. His talents, the influence he has with his brethren, the attention he attracts from the public, and his success in his enterprises, arouse the base passions of envy and jealousy in little minds of large pretensions and slender merit. The homage rendered to the one is by the other considered as so much tribute unjustly withheld from himself; and the success of the former, blighting the prospects of his competitor for pre-eminence, is considered by him a mortal offence. For this, all unconsciously to himself, the successful man is held personally responsible. Jealousy and envy first ripen into hatred, and hatred gives birth to conspiracy and intrigue. The shadow cast upon the interests of the jealous man can be removed only by leveling in the dust the object that intervenes between him and the light.

Thus, all unconsciously to himself, one may have an enemy to watch him, to garble his sayings, to pervert his actions, and to weave around him meshes that he may find it hard to break. Thus, as has been said, it is not impossible for one deserving the love and confidence of his brethren to find himself, through misapprehension, malice, or jealousy, an object of distrust, and arraigned before the Church for crimes his soul abhors. To such an one, excepting his consciousness of innocence, the only consolation is, that the Lord reigns. When such a lot as this befalls a pious man, what are his feelings and deportment?

1. He submits himself to the divine will, and patiently accepts the position assigned him. He acknowledges the providence of God in all things; and, though he knows he is the victim of misconception or of wickedness, he accepts it as the divine will that he should be placed in these trying circumstances. He may, and doubtless does, find it difficult to realize that he is arraigned under grave charges before his brethren; but he takes consolation in knowing that God has some wise purpose to accomplish in him or by him, and that He will make the wrath of man praise Him, and the remainder of wrath will restrain. You will not find him chafing under his condition; but with strong faith he lays hold of the promise that no temptation shall befall him except such as he shall be able to bear; and he even rejoices if it should be the Lord’s will that he should suffer shame for His name. Like his fellow-servant Paul, he takes consolation in knowing that his bonds will somehow or other tend to the furtherance of the gospel. To the Lord’s will he bows with humble submission; and he meekly takes the place of an accused man assigned him by His providence.

2. He will in all proper ways defend himself against the charges alleged against him. This he owes not only to himself, but to his Master, whose truth is suffering in his person, and who designs that His cause shall be promoted by his good name. But,—

3. He will be careful to refrain from an indulgence of the spirit of his persecutors, and from a resort to the means employed by them. Is he reviled? He reviles not again. He has no grievous words to utter that stir up anger; but he prays for them that despitefully use and persecute him. Enormous as is the sin of his enemies, like the first Christian martyr, he prays that the Lord might not lay it to their charge. Is he the victim of misapprehension, or do circumstances seem to fasten guilt upon him? He recognizes the right and duty of his brethren to prosecute the investigation they have commenced. Nay, he encourages them to proceed, because in this way alone can he be relieved, and because he prefers to be unjustly condemned rather than that the sin which seems to attach to him should go unrebuked. Placing the best construction upon the course of his brethren of the Church, he labors candidly to remove their misapprehensions, or to unravel the meshes which circumstances have woven around him. His traducers, perhaps, have made appeals to prejudice to prepare the public mind for the favorable reception of the charge. Shall he meet them on their own ground, considering that the end justifies the means? As soon as he receives intimation of their intentions, shall he make an appeal to the public through the newspapers, or by advertisements set up in conspicuous places, or by letters missive to all the neighboring churches, to be read in open conference? Shall he thus in advance assail the motives of these men, wicked though they be? Shall he inform the world that a conspiracy is formed against him for his destruction, and that the Church is under the control of the conspirators,—the willing instrument for the accomplishment of their nefarious designs? Shall he make an appeal to the sympathy of the public and of his brethren in the churches around, on the plea that he is to be made a victim on account of his piety or his faithfulness to sentiments they hold dear? His enemies, as he thinks, through prejudice, have in advance arrayed the Church against him. Shall he, to meet them by a like appeal to prejudice and public sympathy, attempt to array an outside influence of church-members and men of the world to OVERAWE the Church? Shall he form a party of outsiders to clamor in advance against the threatened arraignment, to attend at the trial, and, with lowering looks and disorderly utterances, to stand around him as his "friends," and, if the worst should happen, and he be expelled, to unite, with him at their head, in a combined assault upon the Church, with the intention to annihilate it, and, after accomplishing, as they suppose, their purposes, to march off with flying colors, proclaiming that not he, but the Church, has been excommunicated, and that he is the most proper church member of them all? These are actions that are to be expected, not from a pious but a wicked man, who has no defense to make for his crimes, or who desires to organize for himself a sect that can sustain him in his wickedness and give him a victory over his hated rivals, or who can impart to him factitious greatness, influence, or pecuniary gain.

4. An innocent man arraigned is anxious that God’s cause and Christ’s Church should suffer as little as possible, preferring to be immolated himself rather than that principles dear to his heart should be subverted. He values his reputation as dearer than life; but he is not willing that this should be vindicated at the sacrifice of the principles and the forms that Christ has prescribed to be operative in such cases. He desires earnestly to be acquitted, and to retain his place among God’s people; but even this high boon he will not accept at the price of the establishment of such principles in the churches of Christ as will make it impossible to discipline designing and wicked men. Far better, in his estimation, that he should be unjustly excommunicated, than that the churches should in effect give up the power to withdraw fellowship from all offenders, excepting from the weak and helpless. Never will he seek to obtain release on the ground that the Church has not the power of putting away from Christ’s professing people the wicked man who may be artful and influential. A pious man who is unjustly accused desires to be justified before the Church and the world; but he uses only the forms and appeals only to the principles that Christ has instituted, and which have been sanctioned by immemorial usage. He acknowledges the jurisdiction of the Church over him, and will accept of no justification before the world in terms, excepting that which he can obtain through the Church. And if, after all his lawful efforts to relieve himself, he should be finally condemned, he meekly submits to the Lord’s will of purpose, knowing that He who has promised that all things shall work together for his good has some wise purpose to accomplish in him or by him. Suppose his enemies do glory over him, or the thoughtless point the finger of scorn at him: better these, infinitely, than triumph and notoriety and emolument at the expense of truth and a clear conscience. God not infrequently permits his servants to pass through the fiery furnace, not only that the dross may be consumed, but that the pure GOLD MAY APPEAR. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

THE evangelists record but two instances in which the Saviour used the word "church." In each of these instances He employed it in a different sense. In Matt. xvi. 18, referring to the confession of Peter, He says, "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it;" and in Matt. xviii. 17, "Tell it to the church," &c. The most casual glance will show that He could not have had in view the same object each time. The inspired penmen of the New Testament make the same distinction in its use. A careful collation of the passages in which the word is found will show that, in its relation to the kingdom of Christ, it has two meanings.

1. It is used to express the whole company of those who are saved by Him,—from righteous Abel down to the last one who shall be redeemed by His precious blood. The following passages may be cited to sustain this meaning: "Gave him to be head over all things to the church." Eph. i. 22. "Unto him be glory in the church by Jesus Christ throughout all ages, world without end." Eph. iii. 21. (Here, this glory is to Him in the church in heaven, world without end,—long after all local churches shall cease to exist.) "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God." Eph. iii. 10. "The husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church." Eph. v. 23, &c. "But ye have come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, and to the general assembly and church of the first born which are written in heaven." Heb. xii. 22. Other passages of a like nature may be quoted; but let these suffice.

The Greek word ecclesia, which is translated "church," signifies an assembly. It is objected that it cannot with propriety be applied to the whole company of believers, since they never have met in an assembly on earth. The last passage quoted, however, meets this objection, by suggesting that the place of assembling is not earth, but heaven.

The constituents of this assembly are those who have been called by God’s grace, regenerated by God’s Spirit, and redeemed by Christ’s blood. From the time of Abel they have been gathering together to the place of meeting. In all time, and from all regions, they have been converging to the heavenly Jerusalem; and when the last of the redeemed shall be prepared to answer to his name, they will constitute in fact what they always have in God’s purpose, the general assembly and church universal of Christ gathered together in heaven.

This cannot be the body to whom the Saviour has given jurisdiction over offences. It possesses visibility excepting in the persons of the individual members of it who so live as to show the power of Divine grace; it contains no external organization or officers; and it never will meet together in time. It is maintained by some that the church universal is composed of the aggregate of Baptist churches,—that the Baptist denomination and the church universal are synonymous terms. To this opinion there are the following difficulties:

1st. This would be to include in the general assembly and church of the first-born which are written in heaven, some who have never been converted, and who will finally perish. Every one will grant that many, if not all, the Baptist churches, may contain persons who will live in hypocrisy or self delusion, and die in impenitence and go to perdition.

2nd. This would be to exclude from the general assembly and church of the first born many who have been converted and saved in heaven. On this principle, all the Old Testament worthies would be excluded from the universal church; though we are told that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets, shall sit down in the kingdom of heaven. These and multitudes of others now in glory died before the formation of the first Baptist church in Jerusalem. On this principle, the thief on the cross will be excluded, though the Savior said to him, "This day shalt thou be with me in paradise;" and even John the Baptist, the Forerunner of Christ, would be shut out; since he never was baptized and never was a member of a Baptist church.

If Christ was made head over all things only to the aggregate of Baptist churches, then He does not and never did bear that relation to Abraham and a vast multitude of others, though they were redeemed by His precious blood.

3d. This would be to use the term "church" in the sense in which we deny it to the Romish hierarchy and other organizations of vast territorial extent.

The Baptist denomination, since the dispersion of the disciples in Jerusalem, never did and never will meet together in one assembly on earth. If, then, the Baptist denomination in the world, which cannot meet together in one assembly, can be called a church, how can we deny to the Methodist Episcopal organization, or the Presbyterian organization, the name of church, on the plea that they cannot thus meet together? The Baptist (and we think the scriptural) local organization is called a church, because it constitutes an assembly capable of meting together in one place. Upon what principles, then, can we call the Baptists denomination a church, when it is composed of distinct churches, that by the very theory of their organization must remain distinct, and which will lose their distinctive characteristics and become annihilated when they are merged into one general organization? If they are merged together in fact, they are annihilated in fact; if the merging is a mere mental conception, then the mental conception is an annihilation of the true scriptural conception. According to the signification of the word ECCLESIA, it is as easy to conceive of the church or assembly of all the Romanists in the world as of the church or assembly of all the Baptist churches in the world. Nay, easier, since in their case nothing prevents but the physical impossibility, while in the case of the Baptist churches to this physical impossibility are added the thousands and thousands of barriers afforded by the organization of each. An assembly composed of individuals, however impossible, may be conceived; but what imagination can picture an assembly whose components are local churches? But

4th. If it is correct in any sense to call the aggregate of Baptist churches A church, where and what is the general organization? A number of machines placed in contact side by side do not become one vast machine: so the array of thousands and thousands of Baptist churches do not in fact or mental conception constitute one general church. They still remain what they were before,—the churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. Here are organizations; but where is the organization par excellence? Where is the head of this church, either in the form of Pope or Bishop, or Pastor—where its place of meeting and what its functions?—Let the constituents of the church universal be regenerated persons, the place of meeting heaven, and the period when they shall completely assemble, the time when all Christ’s redeemed people shall gather together in one, and we can perceive the propriety of the term applied to it,—"the general assembly and church of the first-born whose names are written in heaven." Then can we see the pertinence and truth of the apostle’s declaration when he says, "Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it;—that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish," Eph. v. 25-27. Christ’s church universal is composed exclusively of regenerated persons from all Christian organizations, and from no organizations, who have no external bond of union, and who will never all meet together until they constitute the general assembly above.

But this cannot be the church to whom Christ gives the jurisdiction of offences.

2. The word "church" is used again in the New Testament to designate a local society, composed of those, and those only, who profess regeneration and faith in Christ, and who have been immersed upon a profession of that faith,—who are able to meet together in one place, and who observe the ordinances and maintain the worship of God. This is the only external organization which the New Testament designates by the term "Church." To these local churches the followers of Christ unite themselves, securing first their fellowship by convincing them that they have believed with the heart unto righteousness, and submitting to the ordinance of baptism, which is an indispensable prerequisite to membership. These bodies in the management of their internal affairs Christ makes independent of each other and of all the world besides; and to these he delegates sovereignty over their members, enjoining them to watch over them in love, to instruct them in the truth as it is in Jesus, to comfort the feeble minded, to warn the unruly, to restore the wandering, and, if need be, to put away from among themselves wicked persons. It is the Local Church, then, to which Christ has given jurisdiction over offences.

What relation does the pastor of the church bear to corrective discipline?—and what are his duties in the premises? There is no question more important than this. Often have difficulties been aggravated, and churches torn to pieces, because pastors did not have a clear conception of the relations they sustain to cases of discipline. The question at the head of this paragraph will be answered, 1st, Upon the supposition that the pastor is, himself, involved in the difficulty; and, 2d, Upon the supposition that he is free from entanglement.

Ans.—Precisely that which is prescribed in the case of a private member of the church. He should lay aside his authority as presiding officer, and take his seat among his brethren; for surely no man would assert the claim to preside in his own case. If he has a private grievance against one of his brethren, he is to pursue the "gospel steps" prescribed to others; and if, in the last resort, he tells his grievance to the Church, he is to stand aside, and permit the Church to appoint, temporarily, an officer in his place. If he is charged with a "public offence," he is to be dealt with like a private member, with the single exception that an accusation is not to be received against him except from the mouth of two or three witnesses. The question whether a minister can be dealt with and expelled without the intervention of a Council or Presbytery will be discussed in a succeeding number.

2. Upon the supposition that the pastor is himself free from entanglement, what relation does he sustain to corrective discipline? This question will be answered, 1st, In relation to cases of "private" dealing; and, 2d, In relation to cases of "public" dealing.

1st. What is the pastor’s duty in regard to cases of variance between brethren? To this it is answered,—

(1.) To instil into his members in advance, by his ministry, such principles as to prevent variances; and after their occurrence, to enlighten them with such instructions from the Scriptures as to show them how to manage them according to the mind of Christ. Ministers of the gospel should see to it, that their members, young as well as old, are thoroughly instructed in regard to scriptural polity; and that in this they are perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

(2.) It is his duty to see that every case of "private" dealing, if brought into the Church at all, be introduced according to the Saviour’s directions.

(3.) It is his duty to maintain the strictest neutrality as between the parties. Questions of order he is to decide: principles which are applicable to the case, he should announce in conference, and in the pulpit, with boldness and plainness. But as soon as he begins to decide upon questions of fact, or to announce as to who, in his opinion, is guilty or who innocent, he trenches upon the prerogative of the Church, which alone has the right to decide upon such points. He should keep profoundly locked in his breast his opinions of the facts, and of the guilt or innocence of the contestants. Just so soon as he indicates an opinion, he ceases to be an umpire between those at variance, and the moderator of the Church, and descends to be the head of one of the parties which may be formed or forming in the Church. The pastoral relation, with ministers who violate this principle, can never survive more than one serious church difficulty.

(4.) Where all believe that he is in fact a neutral as between the contending brethren, the pastor has it in his power to bring the pulpit to bear with telling effect upon the adjustment of the difficulty. And this he should not fail to do. In serious difficulties, he should direct his attention to the accomplishment of two objects: First, to prevent the formation of two parties in the Church, with the members at variance at the head of each respectively; and, second, to make the combatants themselves ashamed and tired of their relations. In every case of variance of long standing, where both parties are wrong in feeling and equally matched in strength, the attempt of each inevitably will be to array to himself in advance as many partisans in the Church as possible. This the pastor in the pulpit can prevent. It should be his purpose to isolate the case,—to fence the contestants off to themselves, and, if they must fight, to make them fight it out alone. To accomplish this, he should never in the pulpit refer directly to the case. This would be very malapropos. The Scriptures abound in principles which he can so discuss as to make the pious members of the Church afraid to involve themselves, or by their act to encourage either of the parties in his course. The particular case should never be mentioned; but the remarks should be so directed as to graze along by it, and suggest it to the mind of the hearer. When the members of the church have been thoroughly drilled into neutrality and silence, then the case becomes more simple; and the pastor can bring all the artillery of the pulpit to bear upon the individuals at variance. To these we should give no rest, and afford no consolation. They should not be permitted ever to retire from the sanctuary without being wounded and bleeding. They should be made to feel that the gospel has nothing for them but condemnation. To accomplish this, no little address is necessary. The pastor should never in the pulpit refer to the case in terms. This would be a personality and offensive. But the contending brethren should be compelled to believe that, somehow or other, he is preaching to nobody but to them; and yet they must find nothing in his remarks to complain of him about. What he says must be in the form of principles equally applicable to both in common, so that the blow leveled may not be weakened by the suspicion that he is discriminating for or against either. In this way, if they are thoroughly convinced that the pastor has not taken sides in the issue between them, and they are Christians, it will not be long before they become heartily sick of the position they occupy, and ready to hail with pleasure a proposition of some mutual friend to mediate between them. In the management of cases of this kind, time, prudence, and faithfulness are all-important.

2. What relation does the pastor sustain to cases of "public" dealing? The same principles that are to govern him in private dealing hold good here. The reader may make the application for himself. It will be enough to say that it is never his duty to arraign one before the Church, or to charge him in private with any offence he has not confessed, unless he (the pastor) witnessed the commission of the act. In the pulpit and the chair, the pastor bears, in many respects, the same relation to the Church in the trial of public offenders, that the judge upon the bench does to the court in the trial of criminals. It is the duty and prerogative of others to arraign the offender, to array the testimony, and to prosecute to conviction. To the pastor it is reserved to see that the trial is commenced and prosecuted upon gospel principles. From the beginning to the end, he is to intimate no opinion, publicly or privately, of the guilt or innocence of the accused who pleads not guilty; but to hold the scales of justice even. The Saviour has devolved upon His Churches, and not upon His ministers, the responsibility and the duty of condemning and putting away from them wicked persons. If, however, the Church permits immoralities to be perpetrated by its members with impunity, it is the prerogative and the duty of the pastor—avoiding personalities—to give a scriptural delineation of the crimes committed; to hold them up to public reprobation; and to give the Church no rest until it is willing to do its duty. And all this, too, without saying in terms that the crime has been committed by any of his members, or tolerated by his Church.

In answer, then, to the question, What relation does the pastor sustain to a case of discipline? it is said,

1. He has entire control of all the principles that are operative in the case; and he should announce them on all proper occasions from the pulpit and the chair.

2. He has nothing to do with the facts, or with the guilt or innocence of parties; and he should keep profoundly silent on these, giving no one occasion to infer what his opinions are. By this means,—

1st. He will be an umpire between the parties—and he can gain unobstructed access to them for the gospel principles with which he would influence their judgements and their consciences.

2d. He will retain an influence with all which he can wield for the good of the church in the progress of the trial.

3d. He will avoid the formation of a faction against him, which may embitter his existence, cripple his influence, and terminate in the severance of the pastoral relation.

DEDUCTION 1.—Local churches have exclusive jurisdiction over their members. This proposition asserts two things:—first, a local church has jurisdiction over its members; and second, this jurisdiction belongs to it exclusively. But they can both be proved by the same process. Here there is no room for abstract reasoning. The only proof admissible is that derived from the New Testament. To the New Testament alone, then, let the appeal be made. To the churches belong exclusive jurisdiction over their member, because,—

1. The Saviour gave them such jurisdiction. This is clearly implied in His directions to the offended brother, "Tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican." Matt. xviii. 17.

2. Paul acknowledges this jurisdiction when he exhorts the Corinthians to discipline the incestuous man. "Do not ye judge them that are within? [i.e. your own members.] Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." 1 Cor. v. 12, 13.

3. In the Revelations the Saviour commends one church for exercising it. To the church at Ephesus He commands John to write, "I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil; and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate." Rev. ii. 2-6.

4. He condemns other churches for not exercising it, and enforcing discipline. To the church at Pergamos He says, "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come to thee quickly," &c. Rev. ii. 14, 15, 16. To the church at Thyatira He says, "Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols." Rev. ii. 20.

Now, jurisdiction implies supremacy and power. If "that woman Jezebel" could have refused to be tried, or in other ways to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Church over her, then the church at Thyatira could have pleaded that it lacked the power to call her to account; or if others, either churches, church officers, or committees, had joint jurisdiction, the Church might have shifted the responsibility, and pleaded that she had been disabled by the opposition or indifference of others. No. It was the duty of the Church to restrain, or to put away to the professed followers of Christ, wicked persons; and the Church was vested with the power to do so. Hence the condemnation passed by the Saviour upon her and her alone. Under Christ, every local church has supreme jurisdiction over its members. It can, without permission asked of an offender, or of any other individuals or organizations in the world, arraign him, try him, condemn him, and, if need be, expel him. This jurisdiction is commonly expressed by the term sovereignty. Against the use of this term, of late, strenuous objection has been urged. This objection may be leveled either against the appositeness of the term to convey the idea, or else against the idea itself designed to be conveyed by it.

First.—Why is not the term an appropriate one? It is answered, "It is absurd to call that a sovereign body which is subject in all things. Christ is the only King in Zion, and, therefore, the only sovereign." This objection is urged by those who grant and maintain that every church is independent. The so-called independence of the churches, and the consequences drawn from it, constitute the main ground of their arguments against church sovereignty. Now, upon the same principles upon which they repudiate sovereignty, how easy will it be to show that there can be no such thing as independence. If the Church cannot be sovereign because it is subject to Christ, then it cannot be independent, either, because it is dependent upon Christ in all things. So, you see, it is as broad as it is long; and if there is no sovereignty, then there is no independence either. Upon the principle of the objections there is not now, and never has been, a sovereign State in the world; for God reigns supreme, the only absolute sovereign in the universe. In relation to God, all nations are subject and dependent; but in relation to their subjects and to one another they are sovereign and independent. So gospel churches, in relation to Christ, are both subject and dependent in all things; but in relation to their own members and to one another they are both sovereign and independent. So it will be seen that not absolute and incoherent, but delegated, sovereignty, is claimed for gospel churches. And all that is meant is, that under the law of Christ, in the enforcement of discipline, they have supreme jurisdiction over their disorderly members.

Second.—But it may be that the objection is leveled at the idea legitimately conveyed by the term "sovereign." Will any one maintain that a church has no right to arraign, try, and expel an offender, that in these things her members are not subject to her? Will any one maintain that it is optional with the member whether or not he will submit to a trial, when arraigned on charges before his church, and that a church, when endeavoring to put away from her number a wicked person, cannot succeed, unless she obtain his consent, and the consent of those that are without? If so, then is there no such thing as corrective church discipline. Members may withdraw from the church, but there can be no such thing as withdrawing fellowship from them; and excommunication will mean nothing more than that the disorderly member has given his consent to relieve the church from any further responsibility for him. If churches have not the Power to deal with and excommunicate disorderly persons without their consent, then, when the Saviour instructed the offended to carry the offender before the church, He but MOCKED HIM; when He praised the church at Ephesus for trying the false apostles, He gave them credit for that which was but TEMERITY and PRESUMPTION; and when He chided Pergamos and Thyatira for tolerating wicked persons, He unjustly held them accountable for that over which they had no control. It was their misfortune, and not their fault, that these disorderly persons were retained, since, according to the supposition, they had not the power to put them away. Surely, on reflection, it must be granted that, under Christ, every local church, in enforcing discipline, has supreme control of its offending members—that, in administering the laws of Christ, it has the power to discipline its members without asking the consent of them or of anybody else.

Sovereignty and independence are not synonymous terms. In an earthly kingdom, sovereign, as a term, is the correlative of subject, and implies the power to govern, either under law or without it, as the sovereign may be limited or absolute in power. Independence in a State marks its relations not to its own people, but to other States, and signifies freedom from control by other States. So church sovereignty marks the relation the church bears, not to other churches, but to its own members, and signifies her power to govern them, under the laws of Christ. Church independence marks the relation that the church sustains, not to her members, but to other churches, and signifies her freedom from their control. The sovereignty of a church is subverted, when her members successfully rebel against her authority; as when a member under charges refuses to be tried, and successfully tears himself free from her jurisdiction. The independence of a church is infringed upon when other churches, associations, or councils, either voluntarily, or at the instigation of her recusant member, interfere with her discipline, or otherwise attempt forcibly to control her. Under Christ, a local church is both sovereign and independent. It is not claimed, however, that she has the power to make laws. It is granted and maintained that Christ is the only law giver, and that all that is left for the Church to do, in the case of offences, is to administer and execute the law. It has no legislative power; but Christ has invested it with judicial and executive powers.

First.—The Church is invested by Christ with the power to arraign and try its members.

Ans.—He may SAY h