Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Consociational plan, considered and objected to.

60

them, in Matt. 18: 18, to open and shut, to bind and loose."

The Consociational form of government adopted by most of the Congregational churches of Connecticut, may, perhaps, be regarded as an exception to the above remarks. In that State there are what are called "Consociations of Ministers and Churches," composed of pastors and delegates from all the churches within convenient distances. These are standing councils, to which all unsettled difficulties in the churches within their several districts are referred. The decisions of these bodies are final.

This plan of consociation was designed to break up the practice of calling ex parte* councils. It, accordingly, deprives an aggrieved church member, upon whom a Consociation has passed judgment, of the privilege of calling a council, to examine the correctness of these consociational proceedings. Whereas, in other Congregational churches, if a member has been dealt with by the church unjustly, as he supposes, he may ask the church for a mutual council;" that is, such a council as the parties can mutually agree upon; and if the church refuse, the aggrieved member may call an ex parte council; that is, select a council himself from the neighboring churches, and submit his grievances to them.t

Wise and good men have framed and supported this consociational system; and it possesses, apparently, some important advantages over the usual method of calling councils as occasions require. Still, I must regard it as a

* An ex parte council is one called by one party in a dispute, without the concurrence of the other.

+ See Mather's "Ratio Disciplinae Fratrum Nov-Anglorum," Article 9.

Standing councils peculiarly objectionable.

departure from strict Congregational and scriptural principles; and, of very questionable, if not of dangerous tendency. The principle, that every church is authorized to act authoritatively in all matters of personal concern, is of great importance. Anything tending to undermine this principle, should be deprecated. For this very reason, all councils to settle church difficulties, should be avoided as much as possible.

Standing councils, to adjust church difficulties, are a sort of standing invitation to the churches not to adjust their own difficulties. They present also, an additional inducement to the subjects of discipline to reject the decisions of the church, and to prolong the contest, by appealing to the standing council.

It is a serious question, too, whether the churches have the right to commit this work to delegated hands ;—whethér they can perform this Christian duty by proxy. Christ has said of the obstinate offender: "If he hear not the church, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican."

Consistently with this direction, the church may take advice and counsel—for, “in the multitude of counsellors there is safety"—but, to give the power into the hands of a council to "hear, judge, DETERMINE and FINALLY ISSUE any case," (as the Saybrook articles of discipline expressly do)* seems utterly inconsistent with the "Magna Charta" of Christ's churches.

The correctness of these views is corroborated by the remarks of Mosheim, upon the influence of councils on the primitive churches.

* See Saybrook Articles of Discipline, § VII.

Mosheim's testimony

Having stated that all the churches in the first centuries "had equal rights, and were, in all respects, on a footing of equality," he adds: "Nor does there appear in this century, any vestige of that Consociation of the churches of the same province, which gave rise to ecclesiastical councils and metropolitans. Rather, as is manifest, it was not till the second century, that the custom of holding ecclesiastical councils began in Greece, and thence extended into other provinces." Vol. I. p. 86, Murdock's ed.

[ocr errors]

Again, in speaking of the second century, he says: During a great part of this century, all the churches continued to be, as at first, independent of each other; or, were connected by no consociations or confederations.

"Each church was a kind of little independent republic, governed by its own laws, which were enacted, or at least sanctioned by the people. But, in process of time, it became customary for all the Christian churches in the same province to unite, and form a sort of larger society or commonwealth; and, in the manner of confederate republics, to hold their conventions at stated times, and there deliberate for the common advantage of the whole confederation. This custom first arose among the Greeks, among whom a [political] confederation of cities, and the consequent convention of their several delegates, had been long known; but afterwards, the utility [?]* of the thing being seen, the custom extended through all countries where there were Christian churches. These conventions of delegates from the several churches, assembled for deliberation, were called by the Greeks synods, [from σúvodos, an assembly] and by the Latins, councils [from concilium,

* We shall see, directly, how useful these conventions were.

Continued. Waddington's admission.

an assembly] and the laws agreed upon in them, were called canons [from xavov,* a rule], that is, rules.

"These councils, of which no vestige appears before the middle of this century, (i. e. the second) CHANGED NEARLY THE WHOLE FORM OF THE CHURCH. For, in the first place, the ancient rights and privileges of the people were by them very much abridged; and, on the other hand, the influence and authority of the bishops were not a little augmented. At first, the bishops did not deny that they were merely the representatives of the churches, and acted in the name of the people; but, by little and little, they made higher pretensions, and maintained that power was given them by Christ himself, to dictate rules of faith and conduct to the people. In the next place, the perfect equality and parity of all bishops, which existed in early times, the council gradually subverted. For, it was necessary that one of the confederated bishops of a province, should be intrusted with some authority and power in those conventions, over the others; and hence originated the prerogatives of Metropolitans. And lastly, when the custom of holding these councils had extended over the Christian world, and the universal church had acquired the form of a vast republic, composed of many lesser ones, certain head men were to be placed over it in different parts of the world, as central points in their respective countries. Hence came the Patriarchs; and ultimately, a Prince of Patriarchs—the ROMAN PONTIFF." Eccl. Hist. Vol. I. pp. 142-4. See also, an important note to the the same purport by Dr. Murdock, p. 142, note 2.

Waddington, (Ecc. Hist. p. 44), admits the correctness

* Pronounced canōn; hence the words canon and canonical,

Fourth doctrine-churches accountable to each other.

of Mosheim's account.

He says: "Though these synods, were doubtless indispensable to the well being of Christianity [?] they seem to have been the means of corrupting the original humility of its ministers."

If this be true, and if it be also true that, "like priest, like people," and that like causes tend to like effects— then, I ask, If councils are necessary, are they not "necessary evils?" and ought they not to be avoided as much as possible? And if the plan of Consociation has occasioned such countless evils in the churches in past ages, ought not we to regard it with a jealous eye? And, is not the doctrine, that no ecclesiastical council shall have any authority to enforce its decisions on the churches, highly important, yea, essential to the welfare and independence of the churches?

4. Another doctrine of Congregationalism, is, that the independency of the several churches adopting this system, does not free them from accountability to each other.

*

If a Congregational church is believed to have swerved from the truth, a sister church may call the offender to an account; and, by a committee, or by a correspondence, may labor with, and, if necessary, withdraw fellowship from the erring and obstinate church. But, in doing this, it is necessary for the complainant to take as nearly as possible, the regular steps enjoined in Matt. 18: 15—18.— The aggrieved party having labored unsuccessfully with the offending church, should next call for the assistance of one or more of the neighboring churches; and, if unsuccessful, either withdraw fellowship immediately, or call a council of neighboring churches, to advise in the case.t

*Mather's Ratio Disciplinae, Art. 9. § 1, 4.

+ Cambridge Platf. chap. 15. Also Upham's" Ratio Disciplinae," pp. 174, 206.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »