The Portland daily press., 1865-01-24
Judging for itself il decided that it had such

Judging for itself it decided that it had such
reasons. What were they? VI
Fyrst.-The Council did net officially speci-
~ the points upon which they considered the
candidate unsound: hence the Church was
called upon to give up its own intelligently
formed Judgment, to the mere dictaai Of the
Council. A requirement SO obviously unfair
and arbitrary, the church was not prepared to
accede to.
Second final ground of the Councils
action, as it was subsequently anofhciaily
stated, viz: the candidate's doubts as to the
eternity OF future punishment was not deem
ed by the Church Though the Church holds
itself to be as sound on this point as the Coun- |
cil) sufficient reason for excluding him from
the pastoral Office or evangelical fellowship.
Now we hold that the July Council must
Justify its action, before it can justly claim
acouiescence in its decision. 1t must show
that its action was not only in accordance
with Congregational usage, - which we do
not deny,-but that it was in accordance
with the obligations of equity and charity.
But farther. The charitable and courteous
recognition of my pastoral relation, ia the
way of pulpit exchanges, by the ministers OF
the other evangelical denominations in this
city, and proffered exchanges from Congrega-
tional ministers out of the city, near and far,
think may be regarded as an additional
mobilization of that Council. May we not,
therefore, say that this statement in the
resolution is not sustained by fact. 1
know that my argument, on this point, is
rather moral, than in accordance with law or
ecclesiastical precedents, and yet l doubt
whether 1t will have less weight with the
Christian public for this reason. In view
of these facts the 81 Parish Church and lis
Pastor are quite willing to refer their action
to the cousiderate judgment of the Church
and the world. aa % ilsasl se4ots esa Dc
And now, ii what have said be true,
should like to ask, why did the Bethel Council
resort to such high handed measure as the
adoption. of the resolution of expulsion? Was
it so much afraid its own orthodoxy would be
questioned by permitting me quietly to retain
nv seat, that it must needs transgress, not
only the bounds of moderation, but its eccle-
siastical authority, to purgeitselt? 1 am IT,
clined to think such fears we're groundless:
aud that neither lis orthodoxy, the cause OF
truth, nor the purity of the Church would
have suffered to any great extent by the man
| Hesitation, on its part, of a more liberal and
Catholic spirit. E0Els14IB2 SIE
therefore enter this my solemn protest
against the action Of said Council, as unjust,
unscriptural, revolutionary in its tendency,
and detrimental to the interests of Congrega-
tionalism and the Church of Christ.
T ID VI Il J. WALTON.
i P.jS. Since writing the above, have read
an article 10 your issue Of Saturday, signed
I'D" ore point Of which, bearing as it evident
4 ly does on the action of the Bethel Council, ]
wish to notice.
4 The writer says, "when the members Of the
Council assemble, they organize, and do doing
so, the Council determines, by majority, its
own membership" Now, If we felt called up
on to demur to the action of Council,
respectfully submit that we are not called up
on to accept "D's" decision in the natter
We maintain on the other hand that Council
has no right to determine its own membership,
for il the right to exclude be granted, you also
grant it the right to add to its membership
and in either case the wishes Of the inviting
Church are liable to be disregarded, to say
nothing of greater evils which might follow il
this point were yielded. FTNTgs-, f.5g
But it is asserted-"To deny the right Of the
Council to do this, is to deny it any right to
organize, &C." I had supposed that all delib-
erative bodies must organize before they can
purge themselves. In. therefore denying such
body the right to purge itself. wedo moi
thereby deny it the right to organize. These
are two entirely distinct questions. The right
10 organize 40 An the nature of things inherent
in all such bodies. The right to purge depends
upon whether such power has been delegated
In the case Of. legislative bodies, this power
has always, believe, been either tacitly OF
avowedly granted to them. where there is in
formality or fraud in the election returns, or
in cases of impeachment, but under no other
circumstances. IT the returns are fair md for.
NAL, Congress itself cannot go behind the
plainly expressed wish and choice Of the peo-
pie. d4 HIta NAtV9ss ear 5iepas lgdg5s
But there has been no such power as this
even delegated from the Congregational
Churches to their Councils, much less, there
fore, have they the power to expel Pastor,
who comes duly accredited from his church.
Nor is there any apparent necessity for such a
delegation OF power. If there be any one In
vited by the letters missive," whom the
churches do not wish to fellowship, they may
scine the invitation. Or If, from unforeseen
circumstances they find Others present, whom
they did not expect to meet. or whom they do
not wish to fellowship, they can either dissolve
the Council, if they are In the majority. or
withdraw from it, II in the minority. Either
cur is preferable to comforting upon Cur
Cou, III a power whose tendency is so dan
gerous alike TO the independency and frater-
nifty of our Church. J. E, W. 2
| --''a1 - .3lIfsaaHlng[ 10 ssIgnzs "a 80 Id