St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1876-03-03


the church to take such steps and that
the church has. with substantial unan
unity. declined to do 50.
g. Members who absent themselves
in like manner upon the sole ground
that they hclir,e the pastor of the
church To Ice guilty of crime. notwitlr-
standing the church has made all the
investigation into the facts which it was
ever asked to make, and has acquitted
and sustained lis pastor without Il dis
Scntiug vote.
/. Members who absent themselves
III like manner for some or all of the
reasons before stated.
}. Members who aIc generally report
ed and believed to have made charges
OF inSinIIationS oi gross immortality
against the other members of the
church. and " lIo decline either t" affirm
or DENY the truth of such reports, oI
such charges. when property questioned
hN suitable brethren for the sake of the
purity and peace OF the church.
To the inst four the council would
make the following reply: The reasons
supposed to he given by the persons
described for deliberate and permanent
absence from the services and meetings
of the church, without asking for letters
at dismissal, are, in our opinion, entirely
invalid. SchiSmatic AID unchristlan.
The example is destructive of all church
or. nniZntion. II Il member Is so fan
dissatisfied with the decision of the
church that he cannot share its fellow =
ship. he should at once ask for Il dis
mission in an orderly way. If he feels
bound to remain in the fellowship for
thu. purpose Of mingim" its members to
a better mind. hc should show himself
loyal toitSauthority as the essential con
ditinn of prosecuting the work to which
he NAV think his Master has called him.
The, conceit that he may protest more eff
f,rtuallv against the supposed errors of
the church by Withdrawing partially
from its fellowship, we regard as emf
ncntly dangerous and di>"r"anlzlng.
The fifth case stands by itself. and ad
mitS of only one possible an>wrr
person who is convicted of the otfense
described, and can find no reasonable
explanation of his conduct, ought, if he
persists, to he cast ont from the fellow
ship of the church, While we assert
these principles. We would advise any
church that III Il time OF excitement it
eh"uld use great torbcarancc with per
sons VIII" have withdrawn themselves
from It's fellow ship under il mistaken
theory of their rights and duties us
members of the church of Christ.
The fourth question is ;lS follows:
Ou"h: this church to have called {;
mutual OF other council of churches tol
the purpose OF investigating the char
acter Of its pastor, when requested IL
do 50 by Il member of the church VIII,
has never submitted any charges against
the pastor. and when such request is
made for the first time more than Il Neal
after an investigation has been had 10y
the church itself, and the pastor has been
sustained lay Il unanimous vote?
To this question the council would
reply It's follows: The church is the
tribunal appointed by Chi>t i"r the
investigation of the Utfcms,s of its mem
bcr>. y mutual council cannot, in the
uatlnc of the case, exist. unless there
arc two parties. one of which is ag-
gricvrd. In the caSc supposed. the
council cannot poperlN h. called unless
the aggIicved person has submitted
specific charges against the pastor.
and can furnish prima tacic evidence
that he can make then! good. We ut
trIly and cmllIailralIA rrpudiate the
doctrine that bcCaISc Il church member
finds himself in Il minority, even though
his opinion relates to the integrity and
Christian character of his pastor. that
he thereby has ANY claim upon the
church to unite with him to call IL inu-
tual council.
In reply Ia the fifth question. whether
the course of Plymouth church and of
The committee appointed 10y 1t i'll the
conduct OF the negotiations between the
church and Mrs. Mention concerning
the call OF Il proposed mutual council
was wi>.. aud just. or if there WAS error
on the part of The church in this matter.
the c"Hncil say : Local churches. how
ever Christian III fact. being diStuI bed
10y local influences. may property he
excluded from il mutual counril and
We regret that Mrs. Momlt"n's repre-
sentative did not substitute two other
churches for those objected to, aud thus
CRAFTY the expressed desire "t Mrs.
M"HlIon for Il MANUAL council.
With reference 10 the sixth question,
aS to whether ply month church. in the
principles and rules which IL has pro-
<idcd tor he maintenance OF ndrI and
ihc administration of discipline. and in
ANY known cases of its administration
undcr thoSc principles aud rules. has
gone hey oHd its rights a$ Il church ct
Christ, 81 as justly To forfeit its claim
to the confidence and fellow ship of the
Congregational churches, the council
say The part which relates /" the
rules of the church has already been
answered. The quesiiu of their ap-
plicaiion to this case WAS decided by a
former c"anciI. We regret that some
one had not sought from the pastor
himself the grounds of the SlandeIou>
reports, according to Matthew II, and
the church politl for :SF wears. If this
We're done. if The pastor WAS guilty. he
would have left the ministry: if limo
cent, he would have been restored to
confidence.
TIE NEW INVESTIGATION PROPOSED.
second. We find no reason to call in
question the method 10y which the COM
mittcc was constituted which inveSti-
gated the charges against the pastor.
but We cannot ovtIlook the relations of
PlymnHth church to its pastor and to
the churches of OIIr common faith from
the dissatisfaction which. more OF less.
prevails with thr previous inve>tiga-
tinms. While finding nothing to con
dcmn III the adherence of the church to
its pastor after the investigation and
tIial, and while recognizing its right to
decline any further investigation. in
view of the pastors demand to be
brought face. to face with his arruSprs
etc. we recommend for the peace OF the
churches aud the protection of Ply
mouth church. that this church empower
Il commission of five. to We created 10y IA
of three hereinafter suecitied !