Nothing, therefore, can be plainer than that our Church requires nothing more than credible evidence of Christian character as the condition of Christian communion. Of that evidence the Church officers are to judge. Not one word is said of the adoption of the Confession of Faith, or of any thing but the evidences of piety. Any man, therefore, who gives evidence of being a Christian, we are bound by the rules of our Church to admit to our communion. And so far from there being the slightest intimation that the adoption of the whole system of our doctrine contained in our standards is necessary to a man’s being a Christian, there is the strongest evidence to the contrary. This evidence is to be found in the omission of any mention of the standards in those passages which speak of the communion of saints; in the mention of other terms than those of subscription to a formula of doctrine, and in the admission that true Churches may be impure both as to doctrine and practice, that is, may reject what we hold to be truth without forfeiting their Christian character.

The doctrine here contended for has been repeatedly recognized by the General Assembly. So recently as May, 1839, in their letter to the churches, the Assembly said: “We have ever admitted to our communion all those who, in the judgment of charity, were sincere disciples of Jesus Christ.” They add, however, that “this has no reference to the admission of men to offices in the house of God.” With regard to all office-bearers, they say: “The founders of our Church, and all who have entered it with enlightened views and honest intentions, have declared to the world and to all other Christian Churches that the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, is that sound doctrine, which we are to require of all those who seek the office of a bishop.” “Such are the principles,” add the General Assembly, “on which our Church was founded, and on which, for more than a century, it was faithfully administered. It is believed that during all this period no one was ever debarred from the communion of saints, who was regarded as a sincere disciple of Christ, and that no one was admitted to any office in the Church, or, if admitted, was allowed to retain his standing, who dissented in any material point from the system of doctrine contained in our standards.” [*]

There is one monstrous assertion relating to this subject involved in one of the passages quoted above from Mr. Coit’s sermon, which we cannot pass unnoticed. He virtually asserts that the New School party were cut off as unfit for Christian communion. This assertion is in the very face of the solemn declaration of the Assembly, that they had no intention of affecting either the ministerial standing, or the Church relations of any one in the four synods. They declared that it is because of their irregular organization, that the act of dissolution was passed, and that any who chose might organize themselves agreeably to the constitution, and thus their connection with the Church be preserved. This is the very view of the case which Mr. Coit gives, in the body of his sermon, of the acts of the Assembly of 1837. “As to the clamour,” he says, “which has been made about ‘cutting off five hundred ministers and sixty thousand communicants’ by the Assembly’s edict of 1837, the truth is, not one person was cut off, unless he exscinded himself upon the voluntary principle as every one will see who can read and will look at the enactment. The effect of the act was to abolish an anomalous ecclesiastical connection of four synods with the General Assembly; a connection which had grown up out of a temporary missionary arrangement, (made when the country covered by these synods was mostly a wilderness,) operating most perniciously upon the ‘truth, peace, and purity of the churches,’ and all the reasons for which had long ceased to exist.” This representation is undoubtedly correct. The acts of 1837 deposed no minister and excommunicated no Church member. They declared no man and no set of men unworthy of Christian communion. It would indeed have been a monstrous iniquity for the Assembly to excommunicate thousands of Christians of whom they knew nothing, and who had been neither accused nor convicted of any offence. The imputation of any such purpose to the General Assembly is a gross calumny against that venerable body.

The doctrine so plainly taught in our standards, that Christian fellowship should be extended to all who exhibit the Christian character, is no less plainly taught in the word of God. We are there commanded to receive all those whom God has received. In the fourteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, it is in various forms enjoined on Christians not to reject any who live on Christian principles. True religion consists in “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he who in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men.” And surely those who are acceptable to God may well be acceptable to his Church.

There is no duty more frequently or pointedly enjoined in the New Testament, than love of the brethren. It is made the badge of discipleship. “Hereby” says Christ “shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. This duty involves of course the recognition as brethren of all those who are really such, and the exercise of cordial affection and confidence towards them. It matters not by what name they may be called, whether they follow with us or not; if they bear the image of Christ, those who fail to recognize and honor it, fail to love the brethren; they reject and despise those whom Christ has received, and have reason to consider seriously lest Christ should say unto them, In as much as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not unto me. It would avail as little in such a case to say, We did not regard him as a brother; for this is the very heart of the offence. If a man is a brother and gives the scriptural evidence of the fact, not to see and recognize that evidence is an indication of that very state of mind which is so offensive to our Divine Master. Will it avail us in that day, to say, We did not think any man could be a Christian who sang Watts’ Psalms, or who did not wear plain clothes, or who refused to give a pledge of total abstinence, or who declined to join an abolition society, or who denied the authority of the Pope or of prelates, or who did not adopt the same standards of doctrine as we did? The question will be, Did you refuse to recognize those as Christians who were really such, and who gave scriptural evidence of their being the disciples of Christ? What that evidence is, is recorded in the word of God, and every man and every Church must apply it upon their own responsibility. One thing, however, is plain, viz.: that we are bound to receive all those whom God has received; and are forbidden to require more for communion with us, than he requires for communion with him.

There is a prevalent misconception on this subject, which ought to be corrected. It is said that by communing with any Church we recognize or sanction their errors. This is not so. We recognize them as Christians, and nothing more. If a Presbyterian commune in a Congregational or Episcopal church, no man regards him as sanctioning their distinctive views of Church government. It is simply in their character of fellow Christians that he sits with them at the table of the Lord, to which they have a common right. And great is the guilt of those who refuse that right to any to whom it properly belongs.

Our standards tell us that particular Churches “may err in making the terms of communion too lax or too narrow.” No one, it is presumed, can accuse our Church of going to either extreme, in requiring, as the condition of Christian communion, nothing more and nothing less than Christian character. And no individual congregation or presbytery in our connection has a right to alter those terms. In applying the rule the responsibility rests upon the officers of each particular church, and no doubt errors in this matter are often committed. The Bible contains a perfect rule of faith and practice; and we are bound to believe all the Bible teaches, and to do all that it commands. But perfect faith is no more necessary to true discipleship, than perfect conduct. There are some things which, if a man does, would afford decisive evidence that he is not a Christian; and there are some truths the rejection of which affords no less decisive evidence of the same fact. But as there are infirmities of temper and behaviour, so are there errors in doctrine, which are consistent with true religion, and we have no more right to exact a strict conformity to our own belief of the true import of the rule of faith, than we have to demand perfect conformity to the rule of duty. “Those who are to be admitted to sealing ordinances,” says our Directory, “shall be examined as to their knowledge and piety.” Beyond this no Church session has a right to go.

We have ever regarded the erroneous views and practice of the Churches in relation to Christian communion as one of the greatest evils of the Christian world. It is not the existence of sects, for that perhaps is unavoidable, but it is the refusal to recognise as brethren those who really love and serve Christ, that is to be condemned and deplored, It is this that has turned the ancient eulogium: See how these Christians love one another, into the condemning testimony: See how these Christians hate one another. It is our presumptuously declaring that to be common, which God has cleansed, which has arrayed the different parts of the Church against each other. There is such a thing as a faithful adherence to the truth, without anathematizing all who differ from us. We may guard our ministry and admit none to the office of teacher in our churches, who do not hold that system of doctrine which we believe God has revealed, and which cannot be rejected in any of its parts without evil to the souls of men; but we may still recognise as Christian brethren all who hold the essential doctrines of the gospel, and who love the Lord Jesus Christ.

c. Temperance Question

[Book of Discipline, chap, ii., sec. 3.—Comp. Digest of 1873, pp. 483–492.]

This subject came up on the review of the Minutes of the Synod of Pittsburgh. It appears that the question, “Should a retailer of intoxicating drinks, knowing that they are used for the common purposes of beverage, be continued in the full privileges of the Church, and certified as a member in good standing,” was referred by that Synod to a committee, who made a report, which was adopted, and is to the effect that no member of the Church should be excluded from its privileges, except for some “offence;” that an offence “is anything in the principles or practice of a church-member which is contrary to the Word of God, or which, if it be not, in its own nature, sinful, may tempt others to sin, or mar their spiritual edification;” that the practice of retailing intoxicating drinks need not be pronounced in its own nature sinful, but that it certainly tempts others to sin, and therefore is an “offence” within the meaning of the Book. But is it such an offence as ought to exclude those who commit it from the privileges of the Church? In answer to this question, the report states that anything which would be a proper ground for debarring an applicant admission to the Church ought to be considered a sufficient ground of excommunication or exclusion; that anything which essentially impairs or destroys the evidence of Christian character is a bar to admission, and ought to be considered a ground for exclusion. In proof that the practice in question does destroy the credibility of a Christian profession, it is argued that “the man who, at the present time, is ignorant of the effect of the practice referred to, in tempting others to sin and marring their spiritual edification, must be criminally regardless of what is going on around him. And he, who, knowing this, perseveres in the practice, evinces a state of heart directly the reverse of that which is produced by the grace of God that bringeth salvation.”

That this is not establishing a new term of communion in the Church, the report argues, because the old and acknowledged condition of communion is, credible evidence of Christian character, and as the practice of retailing intoxicating drinks has been shown to vitiate that evidence and to work a forfeiture of the privileges of Christian communion, we do but enforce the old condition. This report was “adopted by the Synod, and recommended to be read in all the congregations within its bounds.” When the committee of the General Assembly reviewed the Minutes of that body, they recommended that they should be approved, with the exception of the above report, because it virtually made “the retailing of intoxicating drinks a test of piety and a term of membership in the Presbyterian Church.”

This recommendation gave rise to a protracted discussion. Dr. Lord proposed as a substitute for the report of the committee, “That the records be approved except so far as they seem to establish a general rule in regard to the use and sale of ardent spirits as a beverage, which use and sale are generally to be decidedly disapproved; but each case must be decided in view of all the attendant circumstances that go to modify and give character to the same.” Mr. Breckinridge moved the following as a substitute for Dr. Lord’s proposition, or rather for the exception in the report of the committee: “But whereas the question has been made before this General Assembly whether the sale of intoxicating drinks, in all cases, shall be a bar to communion in the Presbyterian Church, therefore, Resolved, That while the Assembly rejoice in the success of the temperance reformation, and will make use of all lawful means to promote it, they cannot sanction any new terms of communion.” This resolution was rejected, and that offered by Dr. Lord was finally adopted.

Did we not know how liable we all are to have our minds clouded and perverted about the plainest matters, and how easily the evil resident in our nature mingles with everything we do, we should be surprised to find good men differing about such a subject as temperance, and unholy feelings influencing the discussions to which such difference of opinion gives rise. We make this latter remark without any reference to the recent debates in the General Assembly, for we rejoice to believe that throughout the long, animated and exciting discussion, there was not, as one of the audience testifies “the least exhibition of rude deportment or unpleasant feeling.” But how is it that there should be such diversity of opinion even in the Assembly on such a subject? To what does this diversity relate? Not to the sinfulness of intemperance; not to the prevalence of the evil, not to the amount of crime, degradation and misery, of which it is the fruitful source, not to the duty of all men to endeavour by precept and example to oppose its progress, not to the great good that has been effected by temperance societies, not to the desirableness of continuing and extending the influence of the reformation already so happily begun; but mainly to certain questions in morals, which are indeed of great practical importance. We believe that the dissensions among good men on such subjects as temperance, slavery, and the like, arise in a great measure from the want of due discrimination somewhere as to the elementary principles of ethics. By elementary, we do not so much mean obvious, as ultimate. Men may agree that a thing is right, but differ as to the grounds of this judgment, and such difference will of necessity produce diversity in the reasons by which they enforce the duty, the means they employ to carry out their views, and the spirit which animates their endeavours. It makes all the difference in the world, whether a thing is wrong in itself, or for reasons extraneous to its own nature. If it is wrong in itself, it is always wrong; it is always the ground of reproach or censure; and it should be opposed in a way entirely inadmissible on the supposition that it is, in its own nature, a matter of indifference. It is evident that it is the prevalent doctrine of our Temperance Societies, and of our self-called temperance men, that the use and sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage is in itself an immorality. As to this point there can be no higher authority than the National Temperance Convention held at Saratoga, July, 1841, who declared, “That the tendency of all intoxicating drinks to derange the bodily functions, to lead to drunkenness, to harden the heart, sear the conscience, destroy domestic peace, excite to the commission of crime, waste human life, and destroy souls; and the rebukes and warnings of God in his word in relation to them, in connection with every law of self-preservation and of love, imposed upon all men a solemn moral obligation to cease forever from their manufacture, sale and use, as a beverage, and so unitedly call upon us as men and Christians, not to pause in our work until such manufacture, sale and use, shall be universally abandoned.” This declaration of the immorality of the manufacture, sale and use of all intoxicating drinks as a beverage, being founded, not on the peculiar circumstances of any time or place, but on the inherent nature and tendency of such drinks, is a declaration that their sale and use are, and always have been sinful. And as it is a fact, just as clear as any other fact contained in the Scripture, that God and Christ did not prohibit, but allowed the use of such drinks, we cannot hesitate to say that the above resolution is infidel in its spirit and tendency, however many good men may have been cajoled or driven into the sin of giving it their sanction. It has produced, therefore, its legitimate effects in vitiating the arguments, the measures, and, to a lamentable extent, the spirit of the Temperance Society. It has led to a disregard of the authority of the word of God, to a shameful perversion of its meaning, to shocking irreverence in the manner of speaking of our blessed Redeemer. It has in all these and other ways tended to undermine the foundations of religion, and has given, in many places, an infidel character to the whole temperance movement. It has just as necessarily led to coercive measures in the promotion of the object aimed at, invoking the aid of Church courts and Church censures. It has produced a spirit of denunciation and censoriousness. Good men are represented as bad men, for no other reason than a denial of the false principle above stated, and for their opposition to the arguments by which it is sustained. We refer, as a single example, to the case of Dr. Maclean, one of the most disinterested of men, a man who has more moral worth than would serve for an outfit for a whole generation of such men as ignorantly traduce him; a man, who not only practices upon the principles of total abstinence, but has over and again signed pledges to that effect, who is yet constantly more or less defamed, because he refuses to submit his judgment and conscience to this new and self-created tribunal of moral principle and conduct. Just so long and so far as the false doctrine above stated, is maintained by our Temperance Societies, will it be the duty of the friends of religion and of temperance itself, at whatever cost to themselves, to bear their testimony against it, and resist all measures designed to establish and enforce it.

The New York Observer says, in reference to the discussions in the Assembly, that “through the whole progress of the debate not a single expression was heard that could be distorted by the most fastidious ear into a support of that dogma of modern ultraism, which has so often jeoparded the temperance reform; that ‘it is a sin per se to use or sell intoxicating drinks.’ All appeared satisfied, and many expressly declared their willingness to rest the cause on the broad ground of expediency so clearly set forth by St. Paul, in regard to both ‘meat and wine, which they considered as a firm and ample foundation for the glorious superstructure.” Our brethren of the Synod of Pittsburgh also, state that they do not affirm the practice of retailing intoxicating drinks, to be in its own nature sinful. We fear, however, there is often a great mistake made as to the proper place of expediency, as it is called, in questions of duty. The principle which the apostle lays down, Rom. 14 ch. and 1 Cor. 8 ch., is, that it is wrong for us to make such use of our liberty, in things indifferent, as to lead our brethren into sin. This is the general principle, but it is subject to the important limitation that this compliance with either the scruples or weakness of others, must be “for their good to edification. If it would sanction any false doctrine, or tend to establish any false principle of duty, the compliance would itself be wrong; because it is far more important, and far more useful for others, that the truth should be kept pure than that those who are weak or ignorant should not be offended. Paul’s precept and example, as well as the very nature of the case, impose this limitation on the principle in question. To avoid giving offence, and to save the Jews from the sin of rejecting the gospel, without a hearing, he circumcised Timothy; but when there was danger that compliance would sanction the doctrine of justification by works, he refused to circumcise Titus. Christ would not comply with the conscientious scruples of the men of his generation, but consented to be called a Sabbath-breaker and a wine-bibber, because he saw their good and the cause of truth required it. It was in the same spirit of enlightened Christian ethics that Luther urged his followers to observe certain religious days, adding, however, if any man says you must do it, then go to your ordinary work as hard as you can.

It follows, therefore, that any rule of duty founded on expediency must be variable. If I am bound to abstain from certain things only because the use of them would do my brethren harm, the obligation exists only when his real good would be promoted by my abstinence. If the obligation arises from circumstances, it must vary with circumstances. If it was Paul’s duty at Jerusalem to have his head shaved and keep the law, it was his duty at Antioch to disregard the law and to eat with the Gentiles. If it was his duty under one set of circumstances to circumcise Timothy, it was his duty under another to refuse to circumcise Titus. If it was his duty in Corinth to abstain from eating meat, it was his duty among the Essenes, who made religion to consist in such matters, to eat it. Thus we doubt not, in our day, it is a duty in many parts of the country to practice on the principles of total abstinence; in others, no such obligation may exist; and we suspect in others it is an imperative duty openly to refuse to do it. If in any place such abstinence would countenance false doctrines, or false principles of morals, or sanction infidel sentiments, or add weight to infidel measures, we ought not to give place by subjection, no not for an hour. Let real love to our brethren, guided by the word of God, direct our conduct, and though we may not all act in the same way, we shall all act right.

It follows also, from the very nature of expediency, that every man must be allowed to decide and act for himself. He is not to subject his conscience or conduct to the judgment of others in such cases. If a thing be indifferent in its own nature, if God has neither commanded nor forbidden the use of it, then I must decide for myself whether it is right to use it or not. It is a question which no man can decide for me, and which depends on whether most good will result from using or not using the thing in question; a point often exceedingly difficult, if not impossible with any confidence, to decide. This is the very principle which Paul so strenuously asserted. While he said it was wrong to eat meat with offence (i.e., so as to cause others to sin), he said also, Let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant, to his own master he standeth or falleth? Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks, and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

It is only stating what has already been said in another form, to say that expediency never can be the ground of any general and peremptory rule of duty as to any specific thing. The general principle is plain and admitted, but the application varies with every man’s circumstances, and must be left to each man’s conscience. All those general declarations therefore, of the duty of total abstinence, from the use of intoxicating drinks, if they do not rest on the false doctrine, that such use is in its own nature sinful, have no foundation at all. Expediency can only sustain the declaration that the use is wrong in certain circumstances; for if it is wrong under all circumstances, it is wrong in its own nature. Brethren evidently deceive themselves. They say they take the ground of expediency and then proceed to make declarations and lay down rules which can have no other foundation than the inherent evil nature of the thing denounced—Would Paul have laid down the general proposition, that eating meat offered to idols was “an offence,” which should exclude a man from the communion of the Church? Does he not say the very reverse, and forbid our making the use or disuse of any thing indifferent in its own nature, a condition of Christian communion? Let brethren ponder the fourteenth chapter of his epistle to the Romans, and we are persuaded they will feel that all such general rules as that under discussion in the Assembly are anti-scriptural, and subversive of the true principles of morals, as well as of Christian liberty and love. No one doubts that a man may make such a use of his liberty, as to dress, as to manner of living, as to eating or drinking, as shall clearly show he has not a Christian spirit, and for such offence he may be dealt with as the case deserves; but this is a very different thing from laying down the general rule that every man who dresses or lives in a certain way, or who eats or drinks certain things, shall be excluded from the Church. How can any one believe that every man that buys and sells wine, that has a vineyard, or who turns his apples into cider is, the world over ipso facto, proved not to be a Christian? Yet this is the length to which the principle involved in the minute before the Assembly must of necessity go. A man may use wine under circumstances which prove that he is a bad man; but this does not prove that the use of wine shows him to be wicked. He may retail intoxicating drinks in a way that shows he is not a Christian, but this does not prove that the act of retailing them vitiates the evidence of his Christian character. If a thing is right or wrong according to circumstances, it cannot be said to be in itself a bar to Christian communion.

It seems strange to us, that any one should contend that making the use or sale of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, is in itself a proof that a man is not a Christian, is not adopting “a new term of communion.” If you establish a new test of piety, you certainly thereby establish a new term of communion. If the fact that a man holds slaves, or that he sings Watts’ psalms, or that he uses wine, is made to prove he is not a pious man, do you not, in the common and correct sense of the terms, make those things conditions of union with the Church? And is it not plain that by so doing you violate the Scriptures, place yourself above the Master, and undertake to prescribe rules for his house on your own authority and contrary to his will?

One of the greatest evils of these extremes, is that it forces those who oppose them into a false position. Because they oppose an erroneous and injurious method of promoting temperance, they are looked upon as opposing temperance itself; they are said to take part with the drunkard, and to stand in the way of all that is good. Did Christ favour the disregard of the Sabbath, because he exposed the error of the pharisees? Did he promote intemperance, because he resisted the ascetic doctrines of some of the Jews? So his enemies said, but was it true? If evil flows from these discussions about temperance, whose fault is it? Are they to blame who oppose false principles, or they who advance them? Reproach on either side is nugatory. The simple question is, what is true and right? May we not hope that brethren who agree in thinking not only that intemperance is a great sin, but that it is a sin which calls for special watchfulness and zealous opposition; will agree as to the principles on which that opposition is to be conducted? We may be certain that if the principle on which the temperance reformation is made to rest, is not sound, the whole effort will come to a disastrous end. Those therefore are the best friends of temperance, who contend for the truth.

d. Marriage Question

[Directory for Worship, chap. xi., sec. iii.—Comp. Digest of 1873, p. 688.]

Overtures were received from the Synods of New Jersey and Alabama, and from the Presbyteries of Troy, New York, West Lexington and from the Western District, requesting the Assembly to send down to the Presbyteries, the question, whether the Confession of Faith should be amended by striking out the last clause of the 4th section of the 24th chap., which says, “The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred, nearer in blood than of her own.”

These overtures were referred to the Committee of Bills and Overtures, who reported, May 22, in favour of sending down the proposed question. Two of the committee, Dr. J. C. Lord and Rev. Hiram Chamberlain, dissented from this report, and recommended the adoption of a resolution declaring any such reference to the presbyteries inexpedient. When the resolution proposed by the committee came up, May 26, Dr. Hoge, moved to lay the whole subject on the table; on the ground that the consideration of it would lead to a long and unprofitable discussion of the merits of the case. This motion prevailed; yeas 83; nays 55. On the afternoon of May 29th, Dr. Leland, moved to take up the subject; urging that it was not proper to neglect the request of so many of the lower judicatories. He added that although he had always been opposed to such marriages, he was more opposed to refusing to apply, in such cases, to the constitutional source of power for a decision. Dr. Leland’s motion was carried by a vote of 56 to 49. The motion was then advocated by Dr. Maclean, on the ground that the request was made by whole synods and presbyteries; that there was so much diversity of opinion in the Church on the subject, that a reference to the presbyteries was the only way by which the question could be settled; that the Confession of Faith ought not to contain anything which hundreds of our ministers and thousands of our Church members, with whom the speaker fully sympathized, believed unauthorized by the word of God: that the other Churches by which we are surrounded, the laws of the land, and the general sentiment of the country were in favour of the lawfulness of marriages which our book condemns.

Dr. Hoge and Mr. Breckinridge spoke against the motion, and the former moved that the whole subject should be referred to a committee of three, to report an amended form of the section to be sent down to the presbyteries. A motion, however, was made to lay the whole subject on the table, which prevailed: yeas 68, nays 63. On the following day, Dr. Hoge moved that the subject be again taken up, with a view to appoint a committee to report on the subject to the next Assembly. He said he made this motion not because he wished any change in this article in the Confession, which he believed to be, as it now stands, in accordance with the word of God, but simply because some of the brethren think we have not treated them and the judicatories of the Church fairly in the disposition of the subject which we have made. The motion to take the subject up was carried: yeas 61, nays 54; and then without debate or division, it was voted to refer it to a committee of five to report to the next Assembly. It was at first determined to appoint this committee by ballot; but subsequently, on the nomination of Mr. Breckinridge, the following gentlemen were appointed, viz.: Messrs. Hoge, Spring, Leland, Hodge and N. L. Rice.

That this is a difficult and complicated subject, must, on all hands, be admitted. There are three very distinct questions in relation to it, which ought not to be confounded. 1. Is the doctrine now taught on this point in our Confession in accordance with the word of God? 2. If so, ought the article in question to be made a term of Christian and ministerial communion? 3. If not, is the striking out of the clause proposed to be erased, the right remedy for the difficulty?

As to the first of these points there are avowedly three opinions in the Church. The one that the Confession as it now stands is in its strictest sense in accordance with the Scriptures, and therefore that the marriages in question are in such a sense unlawful as to be invalid in the sight of God. Separation of the parties, according to this view, is in all cases an indispensable requisite for admission to the privileges of the Church. The second opinion is, that although the marriages in question are unlawful, i.e. contrary to the rule laid down in the Scriptures, they are not, in all cases (i.e. the remotest degrees of kindred forbidden in our Book,) invalid. The separation of the parties in such cases, so far from being a duty would be, according to this view, a sin. This view of the subject we believe to be far more prevalent in the Church than the other. Many brethren who are the most strenuous in their support of the Book, are disposed to leave the parties already living in such connections, unmolested in the enjoyment of their Church privileges. But this they could not do, if they believed their marriages to be invalid. This second opinion is founded on the obvious principle of religious ethics that although, in many cases, it may be wrong to enter into certain engagements, yet the engagement, when formed, is binding. That this is a sound principle cannot be doubted, and admits, were it necessary, of abundant illustration. It was against the law of God for the ancient Israelites to form any treaties with the heathen; and yet, in many cases, such treaties when formed were morally binding. It is contrary to the divine will for any man to violate the law of the land, and yet, in a multitude of cases, the municipal law regulating marriage, may be violated without rendering the contract morally void. In England, a few years ago, the law forbade any man but a minister of the Established Church to solemnize marriage; the ceremony could be legally performed only at certain places, and during certain hours of the day. Yet no one doubts that a marriage solemnized by a Romish priest, or a Presbyterian minister, or out of canonical hours, was valid and binding in the sight of God, though in one sense contrary to the law of God, by being contrary to the law of the land. But to take a case nearer to the point, God forbids in his word believers and unbelievers to be unequally yoked together. It is laid down as a principle meant to be conservative of the peace and religious character of families, that the people of God should not intermarry with his enemies. Should a minister of the gospel marry a gay, worldly woman, he would certainly violate this principle; and still more obviously would he act contrary to the divine law, were he to marry a skeptic or a heathen. But in no one of these cases would the marriage be invalid. In like manner, God has laid down the general rule that a man should not marry his near kindred. This law cannot be violated with impunity; but it does not follow that every marriage inconsistent with it should be dissolved. About the principle there can be no doubt; whether it is applicable to the case of marriage, depends on the view taken of the general law of marriage. If that law is a moral one, in the highest sense of the term, then no engagement inconsistent with its provisions can be binding, any more than a man can bind himself to commit murder. But if it be a positive law, or only in a secondary sense moral, and therefore dispensable, then the principle is applicable, in all cases where the sacred obligation of the marriage contract is more obligatory than the positive law with which it is in conflict. If a man is in such circumstances that he cannot comply with both of two laws, it is a plain principle that the weaker law gives way, or ceases to be binding. If the law of the Sabbath conflicts with the claims of mercy, it is in that case no longer obligatory; for God will have mercy and not sacrifice. It is not our purpose at present to argue any thing; but merely to state what are the opinions prevailing in the Church in relation to this subject. It is certainly true that while some brethren think all marriages forbidden in our Confession are not only unlawful, but invalid; a much larger number, while they believe them to be unlawful, i.e., inconsistent with the rule laid down in the Scriptures on the subject, believe them to be, in the case referred to, valid and binding.

A third opinion is that the law, as it now stands, is inconsistent with the word of God, forbidding what that word, and the laws of almost all our states, do not prohibit. How large this class of brethren is we cannot tell. In the northern portion of the Church, they probably constitute a great majority; in the southern and western portions a minority.

The second question is, Whether the law forbidding a man to marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, ought to be made a term of ministerial and Christian communion? This is a grave question. It seems plain that we are not at liberty to make every truth contained in the word of God, a term of communion. This is contrary to the express command of the apostle, and would render the unity of the Church impracticable. It is only those things which are clearly revealed, and which are of such moment that ministers cannot differ about them and be qualified for the office of preachers in the same Church, that should be included in the terms of ministerial communion; and only those about which Christians cannot safely differ, that should be embraced in the terms of Christian communion. Now it is said, we should be very sure that a thing is clearly revealed before we can make the disbelief of it, the ground of exclusion from the Church. The fact that there is such an avowed diversity of opinion on the subject in question, is one of the arguments urged against the clause complained of being retained in our Confession of Faith.

Again, it is urged against the rule that it never was, and practically it cannot be uniformly enforced. Although in one part of the Church it has been carried into effect, in another it has been suffered to lie dormant. So that we have, and ever have had, in our Churches, and at times in our eldership and ministry, men in good standing, who have contracted marriages in violation of this rule. But even this is not the greatest difficulty. Such is the state of opinion in the Church on this subject that uniformity cannot be attained. If it would violate the conscience of a northern presbytery to discipline a brother for such a marriage, it would violate the conscience of many of our presbyteries in the south, to pass the matter in silence. Where the sentiment of the Church is against the marriage, it cannot be overlooked; where the opposite sentiment prevails it cannot be censured. We have heard of a minister who had scarcely more than twelve members of a large congregation who would consent to hear him preach, after his marriage with the sister of his deceased wife; and when he attempted to administer the Lord’s Supper, all the elders declined serving. Such a man is as it were excluded from the ministry by public sentiment, before any Church censure can be brought to bear upon him. Now what is to be done? This is a practical question. Shall we agree to differ? or must we separate on this point?

This introduces the third question. Is the erasure of the clause proposed to be stricken out, the proper remedy for the difficulty?

Practically it certainly will not reach it; for as the Book will still condemn marriages within the degrees prohibited in the Word of God, all those sessions and presbyteries who think the marriage in question included in the prohibition, will feel not only authorized, but required to proceed just as if the Book were left unaltered. We shall have just the same diversity of opinion and practice without the clause that we have with it. We have heard it suggested that the best plan would be to leave the Book as it is; and allow the several sessions and presbyteries (as they have ever been allowed,) to pursue their own course in the matter, the General Assembly not interfering to coerce obedience to the rule where the lower court does not feel called upon to enforce it; and acting only when a case is made and brought up by appeal from some lower judicatory. This is substantially the very course the Church has been pursuing the last fifty years; and it is the course we doubt not, in practice, that she will have to pursue for many years to come. This course is attended with no real hardship; because it admits of the free exercise of the different opinions which exist in the Church on the subject. If a man is a member of a session or presbytery who are known to believe the Word of God condemns such marriages, he acts with his eyes open when he contracts them. He has no right to force his brethren to tolerate what they think wrong; or to insist upon being a member of a body against the judgment and conscience of all his fellow members. It may be said that it is an anomalous state for a Church to be in; one presbytery suspending from his office a minister for an act which another presbytery passes without censure. This is very true. But it is, and for fifty years or more, has been the actual state of the Church. And how can you help it? You cannot force all to think alike, and therefore you cannot make all act alike. You must either allow this diversity of opinion and practice, or you must split the Church. Believing as we do that a decided majority of the Church is in favour of the Book, substantially as it now stands, we suspect the course which would give the most general satisfaction is the one just suggested. Leave the Book unaltered, and leave the lower courts to act under it according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Another strong objection against striking out the clause under consideration, is that it will leave the section in a state at once ambiguous and unsatisfactory. It will be ambiguous because it will then say “marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity, forbidden in the word.” But there are not a few in our Church who say there is no law relating to this subject in the Bible. Others say that although the 18th chapter of Leviticus relates to marriage, it is no longer binding. Others say it is binding as far as the specified cases go, but no further. Others say it is binding not only as to the specified cases, but as to the degrees of which those cases are instances. Here are no less than four different views prevailing more or less in the Church, and the Confession, if altered in the manner proposed, decides nothing respecting them, except indeed, by implication that some degrees are prohibited in the Scriptures. If it were said, we must teach no doctrine inconsistent with what is taught in the word concerning original sin, it would be a very unfit clause for a confession of faith or bond of union among brethren.

The section would not only be ambiguous, but it would be satisfactory to no portion of the Church. It would declare that such marriages can never be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. This is the clause which after all gives most trouble, and which the proposed alteration leaves in full force, applying to each and every case prohibited in the word. As a matter of fact, there can be no doubt that a very large number of our ministers and elders do not believe that all these marriages, though unlawful, are invalid. To them therefore, as well as to those who take more liberal ground on the whole subject, the section as it would stand, will be altogether unsatisfactory.

The mere striking out of the last section, therefore, appears to us to be the worst of all expedients. It cannot prevent the diversity of opinion and practice that now prevails; it would render the law in the highest degree ambiguous; and leave it as unsatisfactory to a large part of the Church as it is at present. Whether the committee who have it in charge to report on this subject to the next Assembly, will be able to prepare anything to meet all these conflicting views, remains to be seen. Dr. Hoge, we learn from the proceedings of the Assembly, is in favour of a modified form of the whole section, which, if we are correctly informed, differs from the present, mainly in this, that it does not pronounce all these marriages to be invalid, which is the common understanding of the Book as it now stands. A section which should affirm the continued obligation of the law of marriage, as contained in the 18th ch. of Leviticus; that should state what, in the judgment of the Church, the intent and scope of that law is; and that should leave it open to the Church courts to deal with each particular case according to its merits, might possibly be framed so as to meet the views of the great majority of our brethren.

---

← Chapter XII. A Particular Church, § 3. Infant Members Subjects of Discipline · Contents · Chapter XII. A Particular Church, § 5. Dismission of Members to other Churches →