Heidelberg Castle
ANTIGO
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Ministers
Sailing under False Colours
A Message from C. H.
Spurgeon
Upon
the plea of spiritual liberty, of late years certain teachers who have
abjured the faith of the churches which employ them, have nevertheless
endeavored, with more or less success, to retain their offices and
their emoluments. A band of men who maliciously blaspheme the atonement
and deny the deity of our Lord, continue at this hour to officiate as
pastors of more than one Reformed Church upon the Continent. A powerful
body of sceptics, whose doubts upon the inspiration of Holy Scripture
are not concealed, yet remain in churches whose professed basis is the
inspiration of the Bible. Ministers are to be found who deny baptismal
regeneration, and yet put into the mouths of children such words as
these, "In my baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child
of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." In the same
establishment may be found believers in nearly every dogma of the
Popish creed, who nevertheless have declared their faith in articles
which are distinctly Calvinistic; and now last, and, to our minds, most
sorrowful of all, it comes out that there are men to be found among
Caledonia's once sternly truthful sons who can occupy the pulpits and
the manses of an orthodox Presbyterian church, and yet oppose her
ancient confession of faith. Our complaint is in each case, not that
the men changed their views, and threw up their former creeds, but that
having done so they did not at once quit the office of minister to the
community whose faith they could no longer uphold; their fault is not
that they differed, but that, differing, they sought an office of which
the prime necessity is agreement. All the elements of the lowest kind
of knavery meet in the evil which we now denounce. Treachery is never
more treacherous than when it leads a man to stab at a doctrine which
he has solemnly engaged to uphold, and for the maintenance of which he
receives a livelihood. The office of minister would never unwittingly
be entrusted by any community to a person who would use it for the
overthrow of the principles upon which the community was founded. Such
conduct would be suicidal. A sincere belief of the church's creed was
avowedly or by implication a part of the qualification which helped the
preacher to his stipend, and when that qualification ceases the most
vital point of the compact between him and his church is infringed, and
he is bound in honor to relinquish an office which he can no longer
honestly fulfill. Scrupulous conscientiousness would not wait for any
enquiries of church courts, but with noble delicacy, jealous of her own
honor, would come forward and boldly say, "Gentlemen, the doctrines
which you believe me to hold are no longer dear to me: I know that your
church is not likely to alter her belief, and as I cannot square mine
with hers, I leave her. I could not profess to be what I am not, or eat
the bread of a church whose articles of faith I cannot accept." Having
said this, the preacher has restored things to their natural position,
and has a right, as far as his fellow men are concerned, to prophesy
whatsoever seemeth good unto him. Whether he becomes orthodox or
heterodox, more enlightened or less sound, is mainly his own business,
and that of those who may accord with him; certainly, it is no concern
of ours at this present, nor indeed is it so the concern of any soul
breathing, that the man should be in any degree denied unbounded
liberty of utterance; he has a right to speak what he believes, and in
God's name let him speak. To put him to the loss of civil rights, or
social status (so far as this last is a matter of voluntary act), is a
suggestion to be scorned. To touch a hair of his head, or label him
with an opprobrious epithet, would be disgraceful. He has cast off the
bond which he found irksome; he scorned to be in fetters; he in common
with all his fellows may now tell out his message in the world's great
audience chamber, and our prayer for him is, the Lord send him divine
light and love, and may his labor never be frustrated. But if the man
make no such declaration to the religious body from whom in heart he
differs, and offers no such resignation, but remains with it in name
and in pay while secretly or openly opposing its covenanted faith, we
have no words which can sufficiently describe the meanness of his
conduct. If a priest engaged in sacrifice in the temple of Juggernaut
should be converted to Mohammedanism, he would be a great rogue should
he continue his ministrations in honor of the Hindoo deity; and every
rupee that he received from the worshippers of the idol would be the
fruit of fraud. Or to change the instance, should the pastor of a
Christian church become a conscientious believer in the divinity of the
goddess Kalee, he would be nothing short of a villain if he held his
position and pocketed the contributions of believers in Jesus. The
cases may be said to be extreme, but they are scarcely more so than
some existing among us, and the principle is the same as in less
glaring instances. By what tortuous processes of reasoning could it be
made to appear consistent with uprightness for an Arminian to accept
emoluments upon the condition of teaching Calvinistic doctrines, or how
could a Calvinist be justified should he enter into covenant to teach
the opposite tenets? Would it be any decrease of the inconsistency of
either official if he should, after gaining his position and securing
its salary, become a stickler for ministerial liberty and insist upon
delivering himself of his own real opinions which he dared not have
avowed at his installment, and which, ex officio, he ought to
denounce? A church, having a written creed, virtually asks the
candidate for her pulpit, "Do you hold fast our form of sound words,
and, will you endeavor to maintain it?" On the response to that
enquiry, other things being settled, the appointment depends. The
candidate's "yea," is accepted in confidence as being sincere, and he
is inducted; but if it be a lie, or if at any time it cease to be
altogether true, it is only by a sophistry unworthy of an ingenuous
mind, that a man can justify himself in retaining his place; he is
bound in honor to relinquish it forthwith.
It may
be said that churches should leave their ministers free to preach
whatever they please. Our answer is,
that it may or may not be the proper course, to us it seems to be a
plan worthy only of a race of triflers, but that is not the point in
hand. When churches agree to leave their preachers perfectly unbound as
to doctrine, our remarks will have no relevancy, for where there is no
compact there can be no breach of it; but the fact is that the churches
as a rule do not give such boundless license, but lay down more or less
distinct creeds and rules of practice, to which assent is given by all
their ministers; and while these are still in use, no man can promise
to maintain them, and yet war against them, profess to esteem them, and
yet despise them, without his conduct being a great moral mystery to
those who fain would think him an honest man.
It is
frequently bewailed as a mournful circumstance that creeds were ever
written; it is said, "Let the Bible alone be the creed of every church,
and let preachers explain the Scriptures as they conscientiously think
best." Here again we enter into no debate, but simply beg the objector
to remember that there are creeds, that the churches have not
given them up, that persons are not forced to be ministers of these
churches, and therefore if they object to creeds they should not offer
to become teachers of them; above all, they should not agree to teach
what they do not believe. If a man thinks the banner of a political
party to be a wrong one, he should not enlist under it, and if he does
so, with his heart in another camp, he may expect ejectment with
remarks unflattering. Protest by all means against creeds and
catechisms, but if you sign them, or gain or preserve a position by
appearing to uphold them, wonder not if your morality be regarded as
questionable.
It has
been insinuated, if not openly averred, that to deprive a man of his
office in any church because he denies its doctrines is persecution.
But if the members of a religious community are forced to support a man
who undermines their faith, are they not most clearly
persecuted? If they are compelled to endure as their spiritual leader a
person who impugns the doctrines which he was chosen to defend, is not
this persecution of the heaviest sort? The liberty of preachers is
important, but the liberty of hearers is important too. It would be
wrong to oppress the individual, but it is not less so to oppress the
many. Let the preacher use his tongue as he wills, but by what show of
right should a congregation support him while he is opposing their
views of truth? There is the whole world for every earnest speaker to
talk in, but for what reason is he to have possession of a pulpit
dedicated to the propagation of dogmas which he glories in refuting? We
have scarcely patience to expose so self-evident an absurdity. The
whine concerning persecution is effeminate cant. Not thus did the
heroes of the Disruption set up a caterwaulling when, because they
could not agree with regulations forced on the Scottish Establishment,
they surrendered all that they possessed of church house room and
provender. Did Luther and Calvin claim to remain priests of the church
of Rome, and hang on to benefices under the Pope's control? Did the
Nonconformists of two hundred years ago claim to eat bread episcopally
buttered after they had refused compliance with the Act of Uniformity?
Every
free association has at least a civil right to make its own laws; no
man is bound to join it, but, having joined it, if he disobey the rules
it is no persecution, but the purest justice, to east out the offending
member. To put such a perfectly justifiable and even necessary
expulsion on a level with thumb-screwing, burning, or imprisonment, is
sheer idiotic maundering; and one wonders at the littleness of the
souls who allow such pleadings to be offered on their behalf. Half a
grain of heroism would make a man say, "No, I have no right to a
stipend which I am disqualified from earning. I shall be a loser, but
the world is wide, truth is precious, and while I am true to my sacred
calling, and the spirit of truth, I doubt not that God will bear me
through, and that there are true hearts beating in unison with mine who
will rally round me: at any rate, I dare not act dishonestly." However
great a man's error, one feels a sympathy with his person when he is
moved by honorable sentiments to make personal sacrifices; but, even if
we were certain that truth was on his side, if he violated the rights
of others by forcing his opinions upon them, indignation should be
excited in every just man's bosom.
But
suppose a church to be founded upon compromise, and intended to embrace
parties of many shades of opinion? Then, of course the latitude
specified may be enjoyed without infraction of the code of honor,
although it is possible that difficulties of another sort may arise;
but even in such a case there must of necessity be some points settled,
something not to be considered as moot, and our remarks are applicable
to deviations from those settled standards to the fullest degree.
Concerning these there must be no shuffling, or honor is gone.
Ecclesiastics may not think so, but the common sense of observers
outside never hesitates in its verdict when the clergy play with words.
The proverb concerning the falseness of priests owes its origin to the
aptness of ecclesiastics to twist, language. No conceivable mode of
expression could fix a doctrine if certain divines had the exposition
of them. Black is white, and red no color, and green a peculiar shade
of scarlet with theological word-splitters. Alas! that it should be so,
for the crime is great, and thousands have died at Tyburn for faults
not a tithe so injurious to the commonwealth.
What is
to be done with persons who will not leave a church when their views
are opposed to its standards? The reply is easy. They should have a
patient hearing that they may have opportunity to explain, and if it be
possible to their consciences, may sincerely conform; but if the
divergence be proven, they must with all the courtesy consistent with
decision be made to know that their resignation is expected, or their
expulsion must follow. The church which does not do this has only one
course before it consistent with righteousness; if it be convinced that
the standards are in error and the preacher right, it ought at all
hazards to amend its standards, and if necessary to erase every letter
of its creed, so as to form itself on a model consistent with the
public teaching which it elects, or with the latitude which it prefers.
However much of evil might come of it, such a course would be
unimpeachably consistent, so consistent indeed that we fear few
ordinary mortals will be able to pursue it; but the alternative of
maintaining a hollow compact, based on a lie, is as degrading to
manliness as to Christianity. Much and often have we marvelled at the
inertia of Christian manhood. An Imaum who traduced the prophet from
the pulpit of the Mosque, would have small tolerance from the disciples
of Mahomet beyond the leave to go his way, and never pollute the place
a second time. Not even the most debased of idolatries would so
stultify itself, or become so heartlessly hypocritical, as to enrich
with the gold and silver of its votaries priests who avowedly an
laboriously opposed the gods, and the teachings of the Shastras. It, is
reserved for certain Christian churches to degrade themselves by
tolerating as their teachers the acknowledged and professed propounders
of another gospel, an d allowing the inspiration of the Bible, the
deity of Christ, and the verifies of the faith, to be scoffed at to
their faces on the Sabbath-day by their own paid ministers. How long
ere this reproach shall be rolled away!
"Now
then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God
did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled
to God."
2 Corinthians 5:20
Home