[Form of Gov., chap. ix. sec. 6.—Comp. Digest of 1873, p. 127.]
An overture from the Presbytery of Montgomery was presented, asking whether Church sessions have the right, under the constitution, to allow members to withdraw from the communion of the Church who are not guilty of any immoral conduct, and who do not manifest an intention to connect themselves with any other Church. The committee on Bills and Overtures reported through their chairman, the Rev. Dr. Thornwell, that this question ought to be answered in the affirmative. This report was objected to, and an amendment offered that it be answered in the negative. This gave rise to an animated debate, and the previous question having been moved and seconded, the amendment was cut off, and the vote taken on the report of the committee, which recommended an affirmative answer, when said report was rejected by a decided majority. Of the debate on this subject we find the following report in the New York Observer:
“Rev. Dr. Humphrey, of Kentucky, moved to strike out the word affirmative and insert negative. He contended that there are three modes only by which a member could be separated from the Church.
- By regular trial; 2. By dismission to another body; and 3. By death. If any other way is recognized by the constitution, he should like to have it stated by the committee. The obligation which a man takes upon himself is a vow to God, and God only can absolve him from it. It is a fundamental principle of Protestantism, that while the Church cannot be the Lord of the conscience, neither can it interfere to relieve the conscience of its responsibilities. The very nature of the relation makes it an affair with which the Church may not interfere unless immorality shall render it necessary.
“Other members followed enforcing these views, and illustrating the case by facts and examples.
“Rev. Dr. Thornwell. The point of the overture is entirely misapprehended. It is asked whether persons may withdraw from the Church who have been received unadvisedly, and are now satisfied that they are not converted persons, yet are regular in all their private and public duties. It is the custom of the Church when members absent themselves from the communion, to visit them by committee. Suppose a member gives as a reason for staying away, ‘I am satisfied that I am not a member of Christ, and when the pastor charged all those to retire who had not knowledge to discern the Lord’s body, I was constrained in conscience to obey the command.’ What is to be done? Will you discipline him? For what? For doing the very thing which you required him to do, and which if our principles are true, he was solemnly bound to do. What is the object of a trial? Is it not to ascertain whether a man is or not a member of Christ’s body? But if he confesses that he is not, it is the best evidence that can be given, and the session may declare the fact to the Church. It was the doctrine of Erastus that the Church was the channel of grace, and had no right to excommunicate members for any cause. But this is not the doctrine of any Christian Church at the present day. Now we hold that union with Christ is the basis of union with the Church, and a credible profession simply declares the fact. Will any Church session undertake to affirm that a man is and shall be a member of the Church, when he tells them that he is not a member of Christ? Certainly not. It is now proposed that in such a case the session shall place him in the same position with the baptized children of the Church, and not make him a heathen and publican.
“Another point. The Protestant Church knows no man unless he is voluntarily subject to her authority: and the vow of subjection is binding no longer than he feels that he has a right to submit to them. The Roman Catholic view is that a man is everywhere bound by his vow to the Church, and that once a virgin, bound by vow, always a virgin, once a monk, always a monk. But with us the vow is not to the Church, but to God, and he will be the judge. We propose no innovation, but the assertion of a right that is inherent in our Church, and ought to be distinctly set forth. Thus we shall separate the chaff from the wheat, purify the Church, and publish the fact to the world.
“The Church has been spoken of as a voluntary society, but there was this obvious feature: A voluntary society prescribes its own rules, but the Church has its laws from its head: they are not to be altered or amended.
“We should judge from this report that there was no essential difference between the parties to this debate; that Dr. Thornwell would not deny that a man’s relation to the Church cannot be dissolved at pleasure, and that the opponents of the report of the committee would not deny the justice of his remarks. The difference seems to lie in the use of terms. What is meant by withdrawing from the Church? If it means simply abstaining from the communion table, then we see not how Dr. Thornwell’s arguments are to be resisted. It is the duty of all who hear the gospel, to commemorate the death of Christ in the manner which he has appointed. Some, however, have not the qualifications which he has commanded his Church to require in those whom she receives to the Lord’s supper. Others are prevented by illness, by providential hindrances, or by scruples of conscience. Now if the question is whether a Church member may absent himself from the Lord’s supper, without justly subjecting himself to suspension or excommunication, we presume no one would be disposed to answer in the negative. He may be in a state of spiritual darkness; he may seriously doubt his own conversion; he may have erroneous views of the qualifications for that service. In all such cases he should be tenderly instructed, admonished, and borne with in all long-suffering and patience. But if he keeps aloof from this ordinance through indifference, or a worldly spirit, he is certainly deserving of censure, first of admonition, and if that prove ineffectual, of suspension. We should therefore be disposed to side with Dr. Thornwell in saying that there are cases in which a session would be fully justified in permitting a member to absent himself from the Lord’s supper. But we would not call this withdrawing from the Church. This mode of expression is derived from the Congregational theory of the Church, which makes the regenerate the materials and confederation the formal cause of a Church. A covenant into which certain believers enter with each other, according to this doctrine, makes them a Church. This is a voluntary compact and association, from which any man may withdraw, or from which he may be excluded. But according to the Presbyterian doctrine a man can no more withdraw from the Church, than he can withdraw from the moral government of God. The Church consists of all those who profess the true religion together with their children. Such children are baptized because they are Church members. The only possible way in which they can cease to be members, is either by open apostasy, or excommunication. Suspension from Church privileges is not exclusion from the Church, but simply a refusal to allow the full benefits of Church communion to certain persons for a season, just as a father may withhold from a disobedient son, the privileges of the family circle for a season without disowning him as a child. According to the Presbyterian theory of the Church therefore, no man can withdraw from it. He cannot cease to profess the true religion, except by denying its doctrines, for which he should be cut off. He cannot free himself from the obligation of submitting to the discipline of the Church, of communing with it, and of discharging all the duties of a Church member, any more than he can free himself from the obligation of the moral law. If he neglects his duties, he should be dealt with for his disobedience; tenderly admonished, suspended, or excommunicated as the case may be. Being born within the Church, or professing in baptism the true religion, he has incurred obligations and responsibilities from which he can never free himself, he has assumed a yoke which he can neither cast off, nor have removed by any human hand. The Church is a voluntary society not in the sense that a man may enter and withdraw from it, at pleasure; but because no one can be forced to enter it, or coerced to remain in it. In the same sense obedience to the moral law must be voluntary. But it does not follow that because a man cannot lawfully be forced to profess the true religion, he may cease to make that profession without censure. While therefore we agree with the majority of the Assembly in saying no man can be allowed to withdraw from the Church, we agree with Dr. Thornwell in thinking he may, in certain cases, be allowed to absent himself from the Lord’s table, without incurring the sentence either of suspension or excommunication.
← Chapter XII. A Particular Church, § 5. Dismission of Members to other Churches · Contents · Chapter XIII. Church Officers, § 1. Title of Bishop →