PART THIRD.

PASTORAL LIFE.

Preliminary Reflections on the Choice of a Parish, and on Changes.

A PASTOR'S functions, in his relation to his parish as a whole, are those which pertain to public worship and instruction; in his relation to families and individuals, they are embraced in the care of souls. He sustains relations, also, to the universal Church, but chiefly as a Christian; nothing, so far as these are concerned, being specially proper to a pastor.

Before examining separately each of these branches of his work, let us consider the work as a whole, and regard the minister at the moment when he is about to put himself at the head of a parish. I do not at present distinguish the work of the suffragan from that of the pastor: I shall speak of the suffragan hereafter.

As there is a call to the ministry in general, there is one also to this or that particular ministry. We will endeavor to give some rules. The first rule is not to have solely or chiefly in view, in this determination, our own convenience or personal advantages; but the measure of our strength, the nature of our talent, the circumstances of the parish, the need it has of us rather than of some other, or of some other rather than of us. After settling this question, but not till then, we may consult also our own convenience, our own particular

H

interest. I will not say that the difficulties and dangers which one may foresee will be decisive as to the question of his call; but that at least, when there is doubt on this point, this consideration will, in very many cases, remove it, and that, in general, we ought less to shrink from a post which promises us difficulties than one which exempts us from them.

The second rule, after dismissing interest, is also to dismiss all those considerations which are not drawn from the nature of things, the interest of the kingdom of God, and the direct or indirect teachings of the Divine word. In this matter, as in many others, superstition, indolence of mind and of conscience, arbitrary maxims, have played a large part. We prefer consulting these advisers rather than God, conscience, and reason.

Many have thought it best, and have counseled others, to remain passive. That we may not decide wrong, say they, let us not decide at all; let us take what is offered to us. It is not strange that a man, especially a Christian, should, in such a matter, fear to decide for himself. There is not one of his steps which is not invisibly connected with a long series of consequences impossible to be foreseen, and often as serious in themselves as their cause is inconsiderable. The Christian knows better than any other how apt he is to deceive himself. He knows that "the way of man is not in himself."-Jer., x., 23. Bengel, on this subject, says, "The less of himself an instrument puts into an action, and the more he leaves God himself to act, the purer and more complete is the action."* It is, indeed, useful to set one's self aside; it is dangerous to have to make use of one's own will when considerations of interest are complicated with those of duty But we must take care that we do not sacrifice to mental indolence while we think to sacrifice to humility. It is also true that when we are important enough to engage BENGEL's Leben von Burk, p. 145.

attention, and when institutions allow men to anticipate movement on our part, it is a great privilege to be called without having first presented ourselves; and in every case it is better not to move than to act without full conviction; conviction which, in questions of this kind, it is not easy to obtain. In ecclesiastical constitutions passivity is not possible. Even where it is possible, I do not think that, except very particular cases, we should remain passive. Passivity in the Christian life is the exception, and not the rule.

in

Jesus Christ would raise Christian obedience to the highest degree of spontaneity, and would invest with the greatest power the element of individuality, which, in the old economy, was compressed. It is only when the exercise of liberty is impossible that we are permitted to wait; and even in this voluntary submission the Christian has liberty. This principle, which, until the sixteenth century, lay in oblivion, makes Protestantism a very serious matter; and if we should rejoice in this restoration of the Gospel, and with it that of personal liberty and responsibility, we should do so with trembling. But if the impossibility of foreseeing and calculating the consequences of each action should restrain us from action, it is evident that we should never act.

That, then, which is required is not passivity, but to purify, our motive by prayer; not to act without full conviction (Rom., xiv., 23); not to substitute our will for that of others, or of God, by forcibly turning aside the natural course of things; finally, not to employ intrigue and simony in order to obtain a desirable post. There are here very subtile points, as to which, however, an upright conscience will not be misled. It is seldom necessary, and it is not possible, to indicate their different forms. With us, the former law shut every avenue to simony in making promotion depend upon age; the new law has not much opened the door. There is

Bengel held the purity of vocation in such high regard that he excludes all those who are influenced by the wishes of near relations.

in this a compensation for the inconvenience of our not being able to make capacity the standard of employment, or the need of each parish the determining consideration in providing for it.

But, after all this reservation, we may adopt the formula of Harms: When, in my own judgment, and in the judg /ment of competent persons, I have the qualifications requisite for a place, and when I feel myself able, with God's assistance, to fulfill its duties, I may then openly offer my services, and, in order to obtain the place, make use of all legitimate and honest means.'

The principle of passivity seems to have prevailed in the first ages of the Church. Not only do we there find forced ordinations, but also calls to such or such a post accepted without saying a word; it was even a virtue not to make inquiry. This is intelligible enough; the contrary would not have been once thought of. The circumstances are no longer the same. Remark, nevertheless, that on a change of circumstances the principle may reappear; it has reappeared, although with restrictions, in the work of missions, so like that of the first propagation of Christianity. In every work where heroism is necessary, obedience is necessary also; the first thing to be broken down is the will, at every point in which there is the most of sensibility and delicacy.

The question may be asked: When there is a direct call on the part of our natural superiors, without our having in any way contributed to it, should we always obey? No; even in this case we may refuse, though not without strong reasons. Here the just presumption is in favor of acceptance; we must, then, seriously examine, and not refuse, except under full evidence that we are bound to do so. We can not, however, admit the opinion expressed by Dr. Schleussner: "My dear Professor Polycarp Leyser strongly recommended me," says he, "to refuse no regular call; for, said he, God punishes

* Pastoraltheologie, iii., 217.

those who allow themselves to do so, either by withdrawing them from this world before the end of the year, or causing them to lose their gifts, or permitting them to fall into some snare."*

The third rule is to be certain of the disposition of the parish in this matter, and not to impose ourselves on it against its will. A conscientious and delicate minister, on his own account, would secure to the parish a participation in the choice of a pastor. If he is not precisely desired, he must at least be welcome. This is said in general, and not without exception. For if we think that if we are excluded, the parish will be ill provided for, and if there is reason for believing that our presence will easily and promptly dissipate prejudices which may have spread abroad concerning us, it is, perhaps, our duty to proceed.

The fourth rule is not to exchange lightly one place for another. When one is doing well, when he is blessed in the position which he occupies, when he is sufficient for it, a great point is gained. We must not too easily yield to the thought that we might more profitably use all our faculties and do more good somewhere else. We must not too easily abandon a place to which we are suited. The reason should be a very strong one which forces us from it: The necessity, the danger of another parish: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!"-Acts, xvi., 9: We must have heard this ery before venturing to remove.

Sometimes, also, after having passed a certain time in a place where we have done and are yet doing good, we may remember that where Paul had planted it was necessary that Apollos should water; we may be less suited to the work in the sequel than we were at its beginning. Our part, so to speak, may have been performed; we may no longer increase; the work, in order to advance, must pass into other hands. Still, I think that a true Christian develops himself with

* BURK, Pastoraltheologie in Beispielen, tome i., p. 98.