New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-03-23


for year while still residing the Oy, and then
church with having led iicenso1s life during that
year and when thus accused to plead his voluntary
would i be according 70 the customary methods and
policy OF Plymouth Church 10 accept that plea 70 sns
pend inquiry the facts and ~ drop his name from
the roll without censuref Suppose further II yon VIII
allow the snppostion that the church itself should omit
from Its Articles OF Faith that which arms the IN
spiratiOn OF the Scripture that which declares the
Divinity Of our Lord, would It STILL In It's own Judgment
or IN yours be entitled TO claim that the churches before
In fellowship with It should make remonsrance, but
should continue IN the fellowship without reference t"
its aeton1 WIN IVES BUDNGIoS
X. 8. sroRRs
nv DEAR BRETHREN: heartily assent to the fact that
one uniting with church does so by his own voluntary
act and with the OF the brotherhood and that
for the sake o. good order, OF courtesy ana CHRISTIAN
l should dissent from any such view Of membership M
implied or asserted that 10 Joining church one 30 sur
Withdraw from unless the church gives MIN back the
right tn do 80. No church owns Its members NO cove
No word happily expresses the idea Of church
than that which you empoy-brotherhood. The church
peculiar form Of family, only 1t has not legal con.
tract between s members as there between husband
parents and children 1t is voluntary brotherhood for
moral ends, in which the members held by personal
afectonate, and sy sympathetic lnflueDcea.
In fact 1t may be said that il 1t is not general usage
among Christian churches for members to leave upon
their proper judgment and liberty, yet II IL SO fire.
quent to snow the practical recognition OF the right
The Covenant of Plymouth Church contemplate such
In the providence Of God shall continue among u.s.
and though they cleared their minds of local preudces
In wonderful manner by going back to scripture, yet
the operation OF scripture to loose them from BONDAGE
seen With Rome aud those which been
Impossible but that they should reflect opinions and
of their other things. 1t was, ana is the
custom-law OF England that persons in public trusts
cannot resign. No member of Parliament can resign
his seat legal hcton has to be used TO get INN out
IIa npts tho Off nj
Hundreds; member OF Parliament can hold an
office Of profit and trust this act yods his
And. in general the Englsh custom Is, once
process The power Of an individual to leave office or
position in corporate bodies was unEnglish In Amer
established, and very Important decisions been
rendered by our courts
As there IL absolutely teaching in Scripture the
right Of church-member TO leave local church, even
though does not consent either from a6ot9er or
be insisted upon authoritatlveiy by Congregational
churches on this point.
do not wish you to suppose that advocate the com
mon Of this ultimate right OF the individual 10
exclude himself from the church. For social and moral
reasons account Of the true spirit OF brotherhood
every one leaving church should do 1t with respectful
notice and assent And therefore the ground taken by
in practice. But IT, In any extraordinary case an indl
vdua member chooses to exercise his latent right and
goes forth INTO the world or INTO another BODY no
church which processes to derive all ts authority from
Sacred Scriptures can make TINS act an onense ana no
amount Of consent OF congregational writers can iorDld
that which the Scriptures do not forbid, and winch the
4 laws of tho land permit.
The second inference which deduce from your first
principle IA, THAT II member OF such brotherhood
formally and publicly CHARGED by another WIN graSe
such must be considered until ascertained
that he is innocent and 80 may be retained with
his honor indicated or that guilty and must II
possible be reclaimed; and that H. In the later case
he prove unrepentant he must be excluded from the
brotherhood as being believer and, therefore, not
properly one OF It's members
made and judiciay entertained by the church against
recognized member OF the church. and he shall then
CATION, 1t may proper for the church, far
necessary TO vindicate its own good name or for the
with the case and To declare its Judgment. But To
pursue such with pains and penalties, after his
own withdrawal, would probably render all concerned
| actionabe at law.
But one has gone out from the church for yearshas
religious views, and is known for years to have disa
vowed church membership. 1t is not the duty Of the
attempt bring back under their jurisdiction for the
trial. whom by long consent they have treated
and, think, wise provision Is made TO prevent the
frequent occurrence OF trials, which IN 80 large mem,
| the Examining Committee are here explaiuedl
amy Of hc h had
his withdrawal 10 escape investigation or withdrawal
While under judicial process is wide the truth The
only fact out Of which such report could have arisen
| IS that the Examining Committee in investigating
charges against long long
recognized members, have reported that charges
account OF the virtual nonmembership OF the parties
Tho only point which there seems likely to be q
difference OF principle s the inherent right OF man to
leave when he regards his duty 10 do
Practically, agree For obvious reasons the separa-
tion should be mutual act But at the bottom there
hes principle of individual right and liberty which no
covenant shoue restrain and no church take away In
| regard to fellowship would say IN general:
l. That regard The fellowship OF churches as highly
important and to be cherished and to be developed by
such OF it as shall make each church feel the light
\ and warmth OF love which God has kinded IN every
other Fellowship is the Interchange Of love and
patty and mutual service between churches
it should exist among all churches, or Whatever
sect especially between those OF the faith and
order. That this fellowship may develop Itself IN kindly
suggestions afectionate advice or even expostus-
ton, admit For fellowship which virtually Furnishes
though the penalty be moral Is all the more oppressive
on that very account since the progress of Christian
civilization moral penalties tTansceDdanty more
painful and if wrongly unskillfully employed, OPP
| pressive, than any other punishment can he.
change the essential conditions upon which it was pub
! Icly received into the fellowship OF neghboring
churches, it s their right either by individual action
| or by council, to withdraw their fellowship II any
church SHALL by fragrant neglect make Itself covert
for immortality or shall exert pernicous ana immoral
they have right TO withdraw themselves from the con
tagiou Preceding diselo wshp In all such there
NAV be- aud should be, aectonae and reasonable
inquiry shall show that the eyll Is real-that the
causes within the control OF the church. that the
evil il not transient evil, sucn AS may Deial any
church, but IS permanent and tending 10 Increase
rather than diminish.
s. make a distinction between a withdrawal Of fe
owshp by the will OF individual churches aud the ar
raignment of a church, and virtually putting IL upon
trial before council. There Is power earth that
can Try a sovereign church by Whatever name IL may
Recommendation OF accommodation Of a church by
mendatIon in derogation Of its local independence.
and ia without warrant IN the Word OF God. The at
tempt to bring churches TO trial has been produc
tive of good II IL likely In every waytO produce
| chief. There was never such occasion to employ
councils and withdraw fellowship upon their recon-
mendation in New-Engiand during the Unitarian
| controversy. But there council called.
While, then, I heartily believe In the fellowship OF
churches am mindful that 1t was through the claims
of fellowship that the churches Of old learned to
else domination and that there is an Inherent danger In
the disciplinary exercise Of fellowship which should
| guard.
You next proceed TO say that in your Judgment both