FOR THE CHRISTIAN's MAGAZINE.

CHURCH OF GOD.

No. X.

BESIDE

Results.

ESIDE the conclusions which we have drawn from the general Constitution of the Church of God, relative to Christian communion, and the rights and duties mutually subsisting between the Church and her infant members, there is a

Third result relative to her officers; especially those who labour in the word and doctrine. It is this: They are PRIMARILY the property of the CHURCH CATHOLIC; and only in a SECONDARY and SUBORDINATE sense, the property of a particular congregation.

Throughout the christianized world, it has always been customary, in a greater or less degree, to remove ministers of the gospel from one pastoral charge to another, or to liberate them from pastoral ties altogether, that they might promote, in a different form, the interests of the Christian cause. For very obvious reasons, these removals happen most frequently to men of talents. Nor is there a single thing which creates more uneasiness and heart-burning. It is perfectly natural. For neither individuals nor societies are fond of parting with

what they consider a treasure. Able, faithful, discreet ministers, are a rare blessing; and it would say little for the understanding, and less for the religion, of any Church which should lightly relinquish it. We must further admit, that a wanton disruption of the pastoral ties is foolish, unwarrantable, and extensively pernicious.

Still the question of its propriety must be tried, not by examples of its abuse, nor by its unpopularity, but by the principles on which it is founded. This cannot be done, without examining the nature of the claim which a particular congregation has to her minister.

The pastoral connexión is commonly compared to a matrimonial connexion; which, being for life, the popular inference is, that the pastoral connexion also is for life.

This proves nothing, except the facility with which most people impose upon themselves by sounds and similes. A simile is no argument. And the simile of a man and his wife, to denote a pastor and his congregation, is peculiarly unhappy. If it is to prescribe the duration of their union, it must also regulate the discharge of their duties. Now, as married persons must confine their matrimonial intercourse to themselves, not allowing a participation in it to any other, this simile, working up the ministerial relation into a sort of pastoral matrimony, would render it absolutely unlawful in a minister to hold religious communion with any other people, and in his people to hold religious communion with any other minister. Nor, if a minister's just maintenance should grow inconvenient to a people's finances, or he should fall into disfavour, even without any charge of misconduct, would they think it sound reasoning to turn upon them with their own

simile, and say, "A minister and his people are as "husband and wife. A wife takes her hushand for "better for worse: so did you take your minister; " and as you took him you must keep him. The plea "of poverty or disgust is of no avail; a woman is not to quit her husband whenever she thinks that "he spends too much of the fortune she brought him; "nor is she to run away from him merely because she "does not like him any longer, or has a fancy for some one else. This is no better than downright adultery and such is the behaviour of a congregation, who has grown tired of a minister, and "wishes to get rid of him." It would be very hard to persuade a congregation that this is correct reasoning; and yet it is exactly such reasoning as we hear every day against the removal of a minister, grounded on the notion of something like a marriage covenant between him and his charge. The reasoning proceeds from feelings pretty general among men, prompting them to prefer a bargain which shall be all on one side, and that side their own. They wish to have the whole comfort without risk of privations on the one hand, or of irksome burdens on the other. It is perfectly equitable in their eyes, that a minister should leave them to better their situation; but to leave them in order to better his own, is almost, if not altogether, an adulterous desertion; and even if it be to forward upon a larger scale, and with more efficacy, the advantage of Christ's kingdom, his authoritative removal is little, if at all, less than robbery!

But let us be just. They are not the people only who adopt this preposterous reasoning. Ministers have too frequently fallen into the same errour; and, in some instances, they have exactly reversed the popular conclusions; stating it as good and whole

some doctrine, that a minister should have it in his power to retain his cure as long as he pleases; and to resign it when he pleases; but should by no means be subject to removal when the people wish it. Thus, in their turn, making the bargain all on their own side. This is paltry work: It is, on both sides, a calculation fit only for sharpers. In so far as it arises from honest opinion, it springs out of a radical mistake, which is to be rectified by considering how the unity of the visible church affects ministerial character and labours.

The mistake is this: that "a minister and his congregation possess each other, if I may so word "it, in a mutual fee simple-that they have an ex"clusive and absolute right to each other;" whereas no such possession, no such right does, or can, exist.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, when he "ascended up " on high, leading captivity captive, gave gifts unto men. And he gave some," (i. e. some whom he gave were,) "apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints; for the "work of the ministry; for the edifying of the body "of Christ." Eph. iv.

Here ministers of the gospel are said to be Christ's ascension-gift to his church! But what church? Certainly not a particular congregationfor the gift includes ministers who never could be confined to so limited a charge. No one particular congregation; no, nor any section of Christians, though containing many congregations, could appropriate to themselves the labours of an apostle, or an evangelist. These were, beyond all contradiction, officers of the church catholic, or of VOL. III.-No. III.

Y

the church visible. But it is to the same church that Christ has given the ordinary ministry-" pas"tors and teachers." They are included in one and the same gift. Therefore, a minister belongs primarily and immediately to the church catholic; and only mediately, that is, through the medium of the church catholic, is assigned to a particular congregation. It is, of course, her province and duty to determine how, and where, he shall be employed. The only rule of judgment is, the greatest amount of benefit which may accrue from his services to the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom. The determination of this point must be confided to such a portion of the church catholic, assembled in judicatory, (since it is impossible for the whole to meet,) as shall secure, according to human probabilities, a wise and impartial decision. To lodge such a power in the hands of a particular congregation, would be manifestly improper; for it would not only make one set of men the judges in their own case, and in their neighbour's too, but would subject the great interests of the church of God to the control of persons unfurnished with sufficient information, often impassioned, always prepossessed; and, therefore, incapable of “ judging righteous judgment." Mistakes, and improprieties will, no doubt, occur, be the power where it may because perfection is to be found no where. Yet, when a question is to be tried before a court composed of representatives from several particular churches, having much more ability, and better opportunities of informing themselves, than the mass of any congregation can have being also free from that selfish bias to which the best minds and hearts are liable from calcula

See this subject discussed at large in the CHRISTIAN'S MAGAZINE, Vol. I. p. 53–73.