New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-03-18


and impenitency they may forbear communion mr
ell OF neighbor churches for their convection. IL tne!
hear not the synod, the synod having declarou .ne
obstinate particular churches approving anu accept
ing the Judgment of the synod to declare the SEN
tence of nOncOmnuniOn respectively concerning 'hei'
There is no word in this passage which gives tho per
mission TO try to propose to take part IN tne %
the pastor any other member OF another chicn' an"
II it is not found here is not claimed that IL can
DO discovered anywhere else the Cambridge platform
respectfully submit TO all candid readers that the SUM
nation of points in this paragraph, which was maze III
the Committees report, is fair and full ana accurate
setting forth OF what IT contains and that tue
which the Committee makes as to the assumption "hue
lying entire statement is the only just inference ana
the necessary one This summation ana inference are in
the following six points
II will he observed that according 10 that thfu WY
Of communion" the right OF rmons'rnnce aceruhs W
neghbor church is carefully defined and resiictcH: ,
i. The right accrues only IN case OF "A pupio ohcno
which the church itself not taking 10 rnoe
q The right is restricted TO the act OF ailn1tsis st
church supposed delinquent to proceed tselI 10 ln' cs
gaze ana remove ,pe ;ns ia exoresly said to be by
way of admOnitIOn as one apostle might aahohish an
g. II the aimonished church does not heed the admon
ton, the almonishins church may unite MIN UsrG,
that is admontOn TO the church 10 proceed tse u
investigate and remove the scandal ,oo, ,,, .s.ord
f. church admOnished refuses 10 heeu tDe secohu
admoniton, the admonishing churches may "foforar
communion with that church ana a sas is
for the purpose Of convincing that they dsro-
s. II the result Of the council synod shall declare the
adnonShcd church obstinate then any partcnnIr
churches approving and accepting the judgment oI to
synod to declare the sentence OF nOncomhhioh IT,
spectlvely concerning them. ..-. 4,
g. The assumption underlying the entire statement Is
that the right try member OF church Tor any OF
belongs to that church alone and thus II Is IMPLIED
that the onc right belonging 10 other churches WIN re-
gard to the oensc is that of neighborly admonon to
that chuIcis tor its negligence in not rcmov,ngh.
The Boston platform TO precisely the same effect IL
is claimed indeed by the editor Of me CongTegiona'i
that this platoT in one paragraph, allows such trial
of a member OF one church by council proposed or
called by another church But II is clear soon IA the
paragraph carefully examined in its own language ana
in its distinctly marked reference to the Cambridge pat
FORM that 1t does not permit any such thing as ths Ia
paragraph OF the ID chapter (paSe o6) the boston
Platform says "A council orderly assembled to advise
concerning and administrations OF church. ana
finding that church deliberately receives and main
tans doctrines which subyert the foundations OF the
Christian faith it wilfuy o!eraes and uphods
notorious scandals, that persise lily dis?eears ana
contemns the communion OF the churches, may aitcr III
admonition advise churches TO withhold from that
ering church all OF comm till It snail give eV
dence of refurnation Any church, after due admonit0p
may call council to advise In snch case Dr. Dexter
maintains that the council spoken Of in this paragraph
such a the Andoyer letter proposed to fiymouh
Church to unite with il in calling But such is not the
meaning of the language The language means pre-
oiSely what the Language OF the Cambridge Platform
means I'm the passage cited above from the committees
report (which passage is referred TO In the note on TINS
paragraph at the foot of the page in tV Boston Plat
fOrlul; and kind of council which is intended Is ih
which is set for;h in the fourth point OF the s'lnn
tion" given above from the report II Ia not
mutual coiuc mt all and Is not be called TO try
often ling member another church, hut to convct or
convnco that church that they are diSresaidn5 ihe Cd
obligations Of fellowship rDeXter however maintains
further in his recent article III The Congre9fondf"
that inasmUch such council may "adVisc'' "c'
upou "nudng that such church wlfuly t"lciateS ana
unhods ro orons scandals" IL may fino" this fact by
triaof the accused member of that churchwhch riaihe
council shall itself institute and carry on AMI that II
cannot find" IL in any other way! That i 10 say u
civil court has, by the fun ancnta laws OF nc S'"'e'
exclusive authority to try certain persons accused o.
crime answering thus TO the authority OF TIA" local
cnurcb in Concrcga,ionais with reference to its own
memhcr, and another has the power to a2inoni'h
or ccnsure the aforementioned conrt in case II does
not try such persons but toleratcs ana uphod, lhe
by not trying thcm the second court can only d'crhc
whether the is worthy of censure by Itself try
in the accused person This would be regarded iAink
hy most LAWYERS and Judges as u somewhat singular doc
tiuo TO hold The reference 10 She Cambridge Platform
which is made in the paragraph no" under dIscussio'
shows very clearly that 1t altogether dc posi-
ton with respect meaning Of the Boston Pitforn
The finding" which j. referred 20 Is 10 he ieached
through an inquiry to whether the admcn'shed church
is coutmacnusly neglcctins the admonitions already
given or the language OF the old platform has IT, Is
con inung IN ObstnaCy AMI impcnitcEcy, anu ftldlhS
itself to investigate the onensc II cannot be TOO e"
hacay stated tlt thc powers OF chure III regard
TO another church. such circumstances are cny those
of admonition ard Of Withdrawing fellowship or OF TAX
ing stems toward dsfeliowship and at al that OF try
ing or proposing take part IN the trial or that "ther
clnrcls members. The live gentlemen whom nave
mentioned and all Others may he challenged 10 produce
any provision in these historic platforms OF our Con3fe
caonasm which contradcts the position taken on TINS
subject by the late Advisory Council
WHAT ANDovER WISHED TO 10.
The Andoyer Seminary Church. however, proposed to
take the other power, unknown 70 Congrcgaton1isn-
namely TO try the pastor of Plymouth CnuTch by
Mutual Council Of which 1t should itself appoint one
half OF the members This the one and Only pro-
p5sal of the letter which 1t addressed to Plymouth
Church. The letter had no meaning and significance
except this 1t has been claimed, since the Council That
the gst " Of the letter an admoniiion This has
been asserted by Prof smyh and By Dr. Bartlett III sub
stantaIly the language. But any one who VIII read
the letter in question, will that the adnotoy sen
tences TO which these gentlemen refer, are ony poI-
ton OF preamble and that the ono single proposal OF
the letter introduced founded upon this preamble,
nv te words We therefore ask you to unite with us In
calling an ecclesiastIcal council empowered to make
thorough invest cation Of this painful case III thch
goes ON to suggest that the Council shall meet IN or near
Brooklyn and that onebaf Of the members OF II shall
bo chosen By each Of the two churches, &c Prof. Snyth
ID is sad has compared this in speaking of it to one
OF his casses to the ci,se OF troublesome dog The
owner OF the dog A. is approached by ID on the
subject of the trouble occasoned by the animal
among the neghbors. We will suppose that Ii, after
stating the facts A. addresses him. rs far rs possible
after the manner of the Andoyer letter lin the passage
which col aims as 1t is said the gst of III: In view,
then OF the fact that your dog is disturbing
the neichborhooi by his barking that he Ia frightening
my children and Others that lie is very offensive in his