Page images
PDF
EPUB

which this Church unanimously opposed. Our pastor then desired this Church to consent to his going to London, so as that he might discourse that people, in order to settle them in peace, promising he would not do anything further than he could see his way clear, and the will of God with the consent of this Church. But we still denied his going to London at this time for several weighty reasons."

We would not set up the Congregational Fathers as an authority, nor would Mr.Browne, we presume. But we may derive much instruction from their views and methods; and we are content to receive from Ainsworth, Burroughes, and their brethren, a fresh impression of the solemn obligations under which pastor and people lie to each other. Moreover we perceive that they carried out their views consistently and impartially. They held that a Church had no right to dissolve its connection with a pastor, except for some default in doctrine or in life. But they held at the same time that no pastor had a right to dissolve his connection with a Church, without the Church's consent. These rights, or denials of right, must, we think, stand or fall together. And it cannot escape notice that our Churches have not departed from ancient practice one-hundredth part so much as pastors have done. It is the rarest thing possible for a Church to dismiss a pastor for any reason whatsoever. It is the commonest thing possible for a pastor to dissolve his connection with his Church, without even asking the consent of the Church. If the old theory was the right one, the declension from it has been mainly on the part of the ministers rather than of the people. But we cannot help thinking that the old theory was an extreme one in both its aspects. Where there is neither heresy nor crime there may be an utter mutual incompatibility, there may be unsuitability or inefficiency, such as to necessitate a separation. Then how is it to be effected? By friendly negotiation, if possible. But if the pastor refuses to retire, what then? "In such extreme cases," Mr. Browne himself says, we can do what the House of Commons does on behalf of the nation-viz., refuse to grant supplies till grievances are redressed. This," he adds, "is our constitutional check, happily not frequently, though sometimes necessarily, resorted to." To our mind this is a most unsatisfactory answer. The process of starving out a minister seems to us mean and worldly. So far as the Church is concerned, exhaustion and disorganisation are the almost inevitable consequences. Far better, we think, if there is an extreme case which would justify stopping the supplies, to adopt the extreme but straightforward course of a vote of dismissal. Both Church and minister would suffer less in the end.

66

The power of dismissal may be abused, so may the power of stopping the supplies, so may the power which individuals have of annoying a minister, and thereby driving him from his post. But one of Mr. Browne's extracts suggests to us the best means of curbing and checking this abuse of power. "The writers of the Apologetical Narration,' the Dissenting brethren in the Assembly of Divines, 1643, say:-' God so ordered it that

[ocr errors]

a scandal and offence fell out between those Churches, whilst living in banishment, whereof we ourselves, that write these things, were then the ministers. One of our Churches having unhappily deposed one of their ministers, the other judged it not only as too sudden an act (having proceeded in a matter of so great moment without consulting their sister Churches, as was publickly professed we should have done in such cases of concernment), but also in the proceedings thereof as too severe, and not managed according to the rules laid down in the Word.'" Let not our Churches

And

think that they can set each others' opinion at defiance. Let them learn to "consult sister Churches" in cases of difficulty and emergency. when acts of cruelty to faithful pastors have been committed, let the guilty Church be made to feel that its acts are reprobated and condemned by sister Churches. Let the displeasure thus incurred be plainly manifested by pastors and Churches, and the result will be most salutary. We err now by almost never "consulting sister Churches," and by too readily condoning the wrong-doings of Churches. We must learn, while exercising selfgovernment, to take our stand more boldly on the rights and duties of intercommunion.

So far as mere organisation and rule are concerned, we know of no other means of preventing disorder and wrong but the revival of this idea of intercommunion which the elder Congregationalism cherished as sacredly as it cherished the idea of independent self-government. But we look beyond this to the revival of right sentiments as to the spiritual obligations of pastor and people; or rather, perhaps we should say, to the permanence and strengthening of such right sentiments, for we believe they already exist to a large extent. JOHN KENNedy.

POSTSCRIPT.-Since writing the preceding we have received with much pleasure the following communication respecting the opinions of Dr. J. Pye Smith on the rights of pastors and Churches. We have likewise seen a letter from the Rev. John Aldis, of Reading, a much-respected Baptist minister, respecting the famous document containing objections to the ministry of the junior pastor, of which so much has been made. It is due to all parties that the explanation should be made as public as possible.

"The printed document is, after all, only a work of fiction, though, like many others, founded on fact.' One of the deacons, anticipating a meeting of the pastors and deacons, jotted down in outline eight topics, on which he wished to give his opinion. These mere jottings are now before me, and without enlargement or explanation are quite unintelligible. They were intended solely for his own use, and unaltered could be used by no one else. Having used the paper in this way, he lent it to one, to whom he had shown and explained it, as suggesting rather than expressing his own sentiments; beyond this he knows nothing, and has neither done anything with these jottings, nor authorised anything to be done.

66

Comparing the printed reasons' with the jottings, I find in the former

[ocr errors]

some words added, others changed, some transposed, and others omitted; while of course the expansions and applications intended and given really are entirely wanting. One case will make this plain. The printed 'reasons' say, 'They (the sermons) set up too high a standard of Christian life.' The jottings read, 'The ideal standard of Christian excellence and practice is too high.' Here they set up' is added; excellence and practice' is changed to 'life;' 'too high' is transposed; and 'ideal' is left out, though in the explanation this was pointed out to be, as in the writing it plainly is, the key to the whole matter. The simple meaning of this much-abused objection, then, is that the descriptions of Christian character were too much idealised, and therefore too remote from the practical and experimental-a defect frequently charged on the ministrations of young pastors, and alleged substantially by John Foster against the sermons of Robert Hall.

6

"I think I have thus made it clear that the reasons' and jottings are widely different things; that the former is the product of one hostile to the Church, which has been censured for it; that the latter were simply private property intended for personal help; that neither emanated in any way from the Church, and that neither was ever sent or handed to the minister by any member of the Church."

DR. PYE SMITH ON THE MUTUAL RIGHTS OF CHURCHES AND PASTORS.

To the Editor of the Christian Witness.

DEAR SIR,-Thoroughly admiring your clear, comprehensive, and judicious comments on the Reading case, I send you an extract from a letter addressed to me some twenty years ago by Dr. Pye Smith, from which it will be seen that that distinguished man was at one with you in your views, and suggestions. Yours truly, X. Y. Z.

"Through the ignorance, weakness, credulity, and manifold wickedness of men, any good principle may be abused, and thus summum jus summa injuria, but such cases cannot alter original right. A Church may conduct itself very unwisely; it may be faithless to its Lord; it may yield to an artful and unprincipled minority, or majority; but a remedy is not to be sought by abandoning principle. The source of the evil lies in-1. Want of holy care at the door of admission to membership; 2. The lamentable deficiency in professors of religion as to information on all branches of Christian ethics, which we have to deplore; 3. The disuse of holding friendly communion of Independent Churches for mutual counsel and advice, by which, in the way of agreed arbitration, differences would be nipped in their bud.

66

'Undoubtedly I never meant to countenance the idea that a spirit of

faction, excited by unreasonable men, has a right to drive a minister from his pulpit, or forcibly terminate his official duties. Such an idea is palpably wrong, absurd, and wicked. But the question returns, what is a faction? The injured pastor cannot be judge in his own cause; the injurers will not, I I presume, admit that they are a faction.. With whom does the resolution of this question rest? I reply, with the Church itself; and if it cannot arrive at a convincing conclusion, the litigant parties, be they two or more, should resort to a council, formed pro re nata, of the pastors and delegates of a few neighbouring Churches, who after duly investigating the whole case, should give opinion, counsel, and exhortation :—all conducted with prayer and Christian love. If, however any Church violate righteous principles by unjust and oppressive decisions, or by permitting a minority to domineer over it and persist therein, neighbouring Churches after such a scrutiny as I have indicated, are in duty bound to decline to hold fellowship with such a Church, till it has repented, and made reparation."

A NIGHT IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

THE IRISH CHURCH BILL DEBATE.

Premier of

WEEKS have passed since the night I speak of; but it is a night of which the historian of the future will have much to say-the 17th of June, 1869— the third night of the debate on the Irish Church Bill. It had been announced that the veteran leader of the Conservatives, the Earl of Derby, would open the debate. The grand chamber in which the Peers of England assemble was crowded. The Peers' own benches were filled. In the ladies' galleries were Princesses, Peeresses, and the daughters of Peers. On the steps of the throne, and on either side of the throne, were Peers' sons and Privy Councillors. These stood packed together as uncomfortably as if they were in the midst of a street crowd. And among them, leaning sometimes on a railing, stood for many hours the England. The Premier's face was my study for some time. the very front of the strangers' gallery, I had a full view of him. There was the foremost man in England, listening to discussions on a measure which had originated in his conscience and been perfected by his genius, hearing from the lips of Peers bitter invectives against himself. His presence was not ostensibly recognised by any of the speakers-that would have been out of order. But they knew he was there. And they knew that he had more power than all their angry Lordships put together. And he knew it more power, because his policy is essentially just and righteous, and because its justice and righteousness are recognised by the country which he serves; and with the consciousness of integrity and power, I am not surprised at his calm and lofty bearing.

Sitting in

With the skirmish which preceded the debate on the 17th of June, I do not intermeddle, further than to say that whether the letter of the great tribune, John Bright, to the Mayor of Birmingham, was wise or unwise, the speech of Lord Cairns was that of a special pleader, who put forth all his lawyerly wit and ingenuity to discover the worst construction of which every word in the offensive letter was susceptible. When Lord Derby rose every eye was intent upon him and every ear open. Once before I had seen and heard him. Four and thirty years had passed since then. And nothing struck me more as I listened to him than the unchangedness of the man. He was now old and feeble. Then he was young, hale, and robust-looking as a country farmer. But mentally he was unchanged. He might have been asleep all those thirty years and more. Of growth and progress there was no sign. Nor was there sign of his being conscious of growth and progress around him, except by his spasmodic effort to resist and retard it. Old ideas, very shallow, and very dogmatic, were propounded in old forms with as much confidence as if they had never been put into the crucible of public discussion.

My first seeing and hearing of Lord Derby was in the hall of the Glasgow University, when he delivered his inaugural address as Lord Rector. He was then the Hon. Mr. Stanley. His election was the issue of a keen contest between the Liberal and Dissenting students on the one side, and the Tory and Church students on the other-Mr. Stanley having now disowned the Whigs, with whom he had co-operated in the Reform movement, because of the appropriation clause, by which they would have sanctioned the secularising of some portion of the Irish Church revenues. The only idea in Mr. Stanley's inaugural address, which I remember, is singularly enough, germane to the discussion in the House of Lords. After remarks on the importance of religion, he jumped to the conclusion that the establishment of religion by the State was a right and necessary thing. I cannot recall words or sentences. But I remember that it was with considerable rhetorical skill that he passed from the universal admission of importance of religion to his argument in favour of Establishments. The young heroes of the Voluntary controversy in the University-and they were many—were perfectly conscious of the fallacy of their Lord Rector's argument. But the Lord Rector himself has not yet discovered it. Nor does he seem conscious that anyone else has. "Religious equality on the part of Government," exclaimed Lord Derby, in a tone which seemed to say he was uttering an indisputable axiom, means an equal indifference to all religions." The Government which gives no preference to any one class of religionists proves itself indifferent to all religion! The Queen of England reigns over Christians, Mahommedans, and Hindoos in India. And the principle of her reign is the religious equality of all. Therefore, the Queen of England cares not whether Jehovah, Jove, or Baal be God! But I will not trifle with my readers in arguing such a point.

« PreviousContinue »