Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

then abandon his early prejudices as mistakes; expose theological errors; set forth truths not commonly accepted, and depart widely from the doctrines that public opinion declares sound. Then comes the question, Shall he disclose his convictions, or keep them to himself? If he is a serious man, he will do as Luther and Paul, and not "shun to declare the whole counsel of God," asking no question, whether public opinion will tolerate or condemn him. If the minister does this, he "gets into trouble." The Church, and by this we mean in this place the great guardian of established opinions, comes up to him, lays its hand on its ample conscience, and says, "Sir, you hurt our feelings. You don't believe as we do; not even as your father did before you. We shall not be responsible for your opinions, for we doubt your faculty for thinking. You are a dreamy, foolish person at best. Do turn your hand to some practical work, and leave speculation to us, whose business it is. It is better for you to give up thinking altogether, till you can think and feel as we do. We are good Christians, and would not disturb freedom of thought and speech for the world! Nay, we prize that above all things. But if you preach such opinions as we dislike, we will burn you alive, if we can, and at all events will give you a bad name in this life, and the expectancy of damnation in the next."

If, on the other hand, the minister takes the practical division of his work, turns his attention more to the doings than the doctrines of the public, he "gets into trouble" none the less. He comes to conclusions respecting the public virtue, which differ from the opinions commonly entertained, just in proportion to his ability, activity, and honesty. He sees the sin of society. Then the question comes, Shall he be silent; or when the watchman sees the evil coming, shall he cry aloud and spare not? He has great examples in favor of either course; but that of Paul and Luther in favor of speaking. If he publish his opinion, he comes in contact with the Selfishness, the Sensuality, and the Sin of society. Then the World,—and by this is meant the great guardian of established usages, comes up to him, lays its hand on its conscience, broad and conspicuous organ, and says, "Sir, you hurt our feelings. You have spilled our rum, and put out the fires

[ocr errors]

of our distilleries. You say that we shall not murder the Indians, nor enslave the Negroes, though we are Christians, and they but Pagan dogs; that we shall not tyrannize over our brother men, nor make them bear our burthens and earn our bread, though we are richer, stronger, and more cunning than they. We are good Christians, but we get our living by what you call sin; we must get our living, and our way must be right, for it has always been followed 'from the beginning.' We love God, - that is our religion; but you ask us to love men, which we can't do. We have faith, enough of that, but you ask works beside, and grace into the bargain. You hurt our feelings very much, and we can't be responsible for you any longer. We respect you for your learning and piety, but you are a dreamy, imaginative person, who know little about human nature. We think you had better turn your hand to doctrines and give up practical affairs, leaving them to us, who understand them perfectly. If you will preach Christianity, and we pay you for that, -pray confine yourself to its doctrines, and preach them with what freedom you will. We respect your holy calling, and have no doubt of your 'apostolical succession,' and right to bind, and to loose, and make men believe what you will, but let us do as we please. We are patient men; but when you talk about our wrong doings, and sins that we commit, we can't bear you, and we won't. Are we the only sinners in the world? If you will continue to tell us our faults and rebuke our sins, we will give you a bad name, and starve your wife and babies."

Now if the minister takes both horns of the dilemma, exposes the falsehood of the popular doctrines, and the sin of the popular doings, his case is very hard. "Hungry ruin has him in the wind." The "Church" and the "World" are out upon him in full pursuit. The "hue and cry" is raised. "Infidel," "Atheist," screams the Church. "Madman," "Reformer," roars the World. "Away with such a fellow from the earth, crucify him, crucify him," exclaim both. "He hath blasphemed against Moses," says the one, "and against Cæsar," says the other. "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die."

The speculative or practical reformer has a sad time of it. Public Opinion sets a bounty on compliance with the

prejudices and sins of the time; invites men to say "Peace, peace," when there is No peace. She looks among the simple ones, and discerns some young man devoid of understanding, passing near her corner, in the twilight, or the evening, or the black and dark night. She catches him, kisses him, and with impudent face says, "I have peaceofferings with me; this day have I paid my vows; therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee. I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with fine linen of Egypt. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon; come in, let us solace ourselves with lies." With her much fair speech she causes him to yield; with the flattery of her lips she forces him. He goes after her as an ox to the slaughter; a fool to the stocks; a bird to the snare, not knowing it is for his life! She has cast down many wounded; strong men have been slain by her. Her house is the way to hell, the descent to the chambers of death.

If a man resists the allurement, "he loses his usefulness," and then comes the doctrinal issue of Truth versus the Church, or the practical issue of Righteousness versus the World, or it may be the minister litigates in both suits. The manner in which such cases are tried by men is very plain; the sentence passed under the law of the Almighty he may read that runs, in the three most notorious instances of the Mosaic, the Christian, and the Protestant Reformation.

Now the "average" ministers take the average of opinions, and the average of morality for their standard of truth and duty. Their Ideal is the Ideal of the mass of men, and of course is but little above the Actual of the mass of men; at any rate is only a little higher degree of the same thing; the Christianity of the majority of pulpits is only the Christianity of society slightly idealized and elevated. Since then there is so little speculative or practical difference between the pulpit and the pews, quarrels between a minister and his people in general come from a want of prudence, rather than from a superabundance of wisdom or zeal on his part; and in such quarrels we think the minister is almost always the party to be blamed.

Now into this general and difficult position Mr. Pierpont

VOL. III.

.NO. II.

27

entered, as he came into the Christian ministry; and what was a special mischief in the case, he came, as the "Result in Council" informs us, into a place where "the circumstances of his parish and the condition of things. . were peculiar, and such as called for a large measure and constant exhibition of that wisdom which is from above." Of course, then, to do justice in the premises, the general and essential difficulty of a minister's position is to be taken into the account, and the special and accidental difficulty of a position in the midst of such peculiar circumstances, as require a large measure of wisdom from above.

The circumstances of the case are unfortunately but too well known, and require no reiteration in this place. The public know of the border-war between the Pastor and the Parish. Letters were circulated through the press; "the skirmish was long and the foray was hot." Then came a rumor that a "Council" was to be called. The preliminary measures began to be taken; letters were written; "letters missive" issued. issued. That rumor was followed by another, that the council had come to an end. Then came a third rumor, of another council. Public expectation was aroused; of whom should the council consist; of men already implicated, who by their conduct had prejudged the case against one of the parties; or of men not yet committed, if such men exist? Will any council do justice in the premises, to either side; with what authority will it speak? These are questions which Time has answered, as he will many more.

But "the world was not made in a day." Men think the whole will fall through. They reckon without their host. An ex parte council assembled; the parties appeared; the question of "jurisdiction in the case" came up, and was settled; the ex parte became a mutual council. After many grievous delays and hard words, on the first day of June, in the year of grace, 1841, behold the Council on its feet, ready for action, and "preceded by the Moderator," passing "into the Supreme Court Room."

The Council was surely a most respectable body. Not to mention the lay portion thereof, among the clerical members there were men of talents, of education, of up

rightness, and of piety. Of course they had their prejudices, (as all men,) which would silently bias their judgment to the one side or the other. It is not for us to bring a charge against the Council; they acted as such men under like circumstances would act. But if the Journal of the Council is to be trusted, (and its veracity and fairness we do not question,) then we must say, there appears a disposition almost continual to throw the weight of that body against the Pastor, whenever it was possible to do so, in the trial, and to thwart and censure him, while full swing was given to any that opposed him. To cite but one case out of several, and perhaps we have not taken the worst, though the most obvious it may be, -if any one will read the record of the meeting, on the 12th of April, 1841, (pp. 99 to 107 of the Journal,) if he is not reminded of some proceedings in the English State trials, he will at least, we think, doubt that a fair hearing is likely to be had of the case. The facts were these: the twelve churches that composed the original Council were not all represented, as one clergyman had left his parish. The Pastor complained of this, and also that he had not been consulted as to the day of holding the Council, while the other party had been consulted. - pp. 100, 101. It subsequently appeared, however, that no partiality was shown in the arrangement. There is nothing in the reported language of the Pastor that strikes us as offensive. But one member of that body says, "the gentleman [Mr. Pierpont] has poured out the torrent of his censure upon the Council, and was about to pour out the torrent of his sarcasm," &c. - p. 101. The Moderator suggests to the Pastor "that the strain of his remarks must be different." - p. 102. The Pastor says, that he will take back anything he has said that is wrong. The Moderator again; "No farther reflection upon motives can be permitted."— p. 103. Mr. P. "Wherein have I called in question the motives of the Council?" Moderator; "It will be better to proceed to the objections," &c. However, Mr. P. was allowed to explain himself, and at length presented other objections to the Council proceeding at that time. One member "wished to know if these were all the objections, and whether, if these were considered, others were not to be presented." p. 106. Another, alluding to a remark of the Scribe, says,

« AnteriorContinua »