1

ARTICLE LXIX.

"COME-OUTISM AND COME-OUTERS.”

BY WILLIAM GOODELL OF HONEOYE, ONTARIO CO., N. Y.

ques

The question, whether or no, the Christians of a given locality or region of country should "come out" of the churches with which they are connected, must be decided in view of the answers that shall be given to two other tions: namely, (1.) What is the distinctive and essential idea of a christian church? (2.) Do the particular churches in question, answer to that idea? Are they churches of Christ?

The word church means assembly. A christian church is an assembly of Christians. The character of the church, in a moral and spiritual view, is nothing distinct from the character of the members of whom it is composed. No creeds, nor forms of worship, nor of organization, no regular succession from pious ancestors or predecessors can make an assembly a christian assembly, unless the membership, for the time being, are Christians.

A church, or asssembly cannot claim the character of Christian, on the ground that some of its members are Christians. In the darkest period of the Romish church, and at the present time, some of its members were, and are, Christians. So, probably, of most heretical and semi-skeptical churches. But this does not prove the churches, as such, to be Christian. Churches disowned by God contain some Christians, otherwise there would be no place for the admonition "Come out of her, my people." Yet most persons. seem to take it for granted that a church is not to be abandoned, so long as a portion of its members are Christians, sentiment which condemns the Protestant secession, as well as those of the Waldenses and Puritans.

Under the former dispensation, God saw fit to set apart the family of Abraham, in the line of Isaac and Jacob, of whom he made a great nation, and constituted it his church, in a sense, until the time of the Messiah. Godly men could not come out of that church, as thus organized, however

corrupt it might be, until the new dispensation arrived, and hence their responsibilities differed, in this respect, from those of members of christian churches. It was no expression of religious fellowship with wicked Israelites to belong to the same family and nation and national church, along with them. The case is otherwise, now. Under the New Testament polity, the ties of family, of nationality, and of location, give no claims to the privileges of Church membership. Trite as these truths are, they need to be borne in mind, but are often overlooked.

In the distinctive and essential idea of a christian church, namely, that it is an assembly of Christians, it is implied that the members of these churches do mutually recognize and fellowship each other as Christians. Otherwise, church discipline and excommunication wonld be unmeaning and worse than frivolous. The idea of a Christian church implies a distinction between the Church and the world, a distinction which denies church membership to all who do not give creditable evidence of christian character. To admit or to retain a member, is to say by acts more significant than words, that we give credit to the religious professions of that member, and hold fellowship with him, as a Christian. Were it not for some remaining consciousness of this truth, the churches would feel no sense of shame, before the world, in view of the characters of their members, however disreputably they might conduct themselves. A denial of this truth would be equivalent to a denial of any essential distinction between the church and the world, and the propriety of setting up any barriers between them. And if this be not "disorganization," and "no-church-ism"-by what marks shall they be distinguished or made manifest? Not only the honor, but the very existence of christian institutions hangs suspended on the practical preservation of this idea. Admit that christian churches may knowingly receive or retain ungodly men in their membership, and the distinction between the church and the world vanishes at once. In other words, the Christian church disappears.

We have said that a church is not proved to be christian, because some of its members are Christians. We now advance a step farther, and say, as Paul does, most emphatically and eloquently, in 1 Cor. v. that a church that knowingly retains an ungodly, unrepentant member in its fellowship, becomes itself contaminated and corrupted by the process. In direct reference to the incestuous person whom he

admonished the Corinthian church to exclude, he demands "Know ye not that a little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump?" that communion and fellowship with one "wicked person" taints and destroys the whole body?

Thus it must be, if fellowship with wickedness be wicked. Blot out this feature of church organization, and you disband the whole. The constructive principle is violated, the barriers are broken down, and the church no longer, "discerns between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not."

A christian church or assembly, is a church, or assembly, that, as a body, is engaged in doing Christ's work, in which, thus much, at least, is included, the work of "binding up the broken hearted, setting at liberty them that are bruised, proclaiming deliverance to the captive," and "destroying the works of the devil." As all Christians are doing Christ's work, so all christian churches are doing the same work; not merely tolerating in their membership some who are doing it.

If any one thinks this rule a stringent one, let him consult, with the help of any commentator he pleases, such passages of scripture as Isaiah, chap. 1; chap. 5: 1-7; chap. 58; and Jeremiah, chap. 7:1-16. Let him notice what class of sins were the occasion of these declarations, and then ask whether New Testament church polity requires less than the practical application of this. Then let him listen to the Savior, when he says-"Ye are the salt of the earth, but if the salt hath lost its savor, it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men." "Down with the churches," comes then, as a matter of

course.

Christian churches are assemblies of Christians, associated together on the principles of equal brotherhood. Whenever that equal brotherhood is essentially perverted or violated, the constructive principle of the organization is violated, of course, and it ceases to be what it professes to be. To remain in such assemblies is not to remain in the assemblies instituted by Christ and his apostles. To remain in such churches is to make it impossible for us to honor Christ's institutions by becoming members of them. Now, suppose a church violates this equal brotherhood, and sets up a hierarchy contrary to God's word, or comes under such an anti-christian yoke, does it remain a christian church? And, if not, may a Christian remain in such a church? Did the Puritan seceders err in taking the practical negatives of

these questions? Yea? or nay? Or suppose a church sets up other tests of church membership besides creditable evidence of christian faith and character, thus shutting out those who are acknowledged to be Christians, separating Christians from each other, and authoritatively perpetuating the schism: is not this an essential violation of equal brotherhood? And if so, has a Christian who sees and knows all this, a right to participate in the violation, by remaining all his life long, a member of such a church? Can any man or body of men, effect a schism between Christians, establish usages perpetuating the schism, and thus bind Christians, for centuries af terwards, to perpetuate the schism by remaining in such churches? May they not "come out" for the purpose of organizing christian churches, instead of sectarian churches, (Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian,) without being justly charged, for so doing, with the sin of schism? Are we shut up to the necessity of sustaining schism by retaining membership in schismatic churches, or else of incurring the charge of schism, by coming out of them to re-organize churches on christian principles? What authority is it, that thus ties up our hands, and places us under a necessity of sinning? Can sect makers, (as some dream of our first parents,) compel all their posterity to sin?

To meet the case as it is, in this country, (as understood by thousands of Christians,) we must bring these suppositions together, along with some additional features. Suppose most of the churches virtually disorganized, so far as the original and essential idea of church organization is concerned, by the known admission or retention of ungodly and worldly members, not merely the "little leaven" of one member in a church, but in sufficient numbers to cripple the church and control it, at their pleasure-a membership unsound, not on the slave question merely, but on other vital questions, and scarcely distinguishable from the world around them in any important particulars-suppose these churches, for the most part, to have come, in some shape, under the control of hierarchal arrangements, and with scarce an exception, to maintain usages which violate the equal brotherhood of Christians, compelling them to hold ecclesiastical connection with some of the very worst of men, while shut out from church fellowship with many whom they consider the salt of the earth.

The problem for solution is, what is the duty of conscientious Christians, under circumstances like these? And