New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-04-15
rHE ADVISORY COUNCIL.

THE CHIkCh w HN'i
-. rMsrANcEs-sEvERANCE From BAD
CHURCH.
a.. Fditor Of The Tribune.
e.. Tho Rcv. Prof. Timothy Dwight-Whose
,oored name and whose honorable place mus,
-, osroct for any views which he may ne Pic'Sou
F,,iI rnon any subect-having in your columns 10
i,rod with some sharpness opinions espresso" -!
aoi Gentlemen. OF whom happen to be one upon '.o
din,s Of the late Advisory Council ask "a,,o
address the same circle OF readers IN reIeieH'' "
norton of his extended remarks oorsniracv
am not surpriscd-since the theory OF u Oof
hos been favorite one in the case ont OF WIZ, t
al ,rcvr-tbat the learned Prof ssor, III us p
come exclamation of the fact that three pro- y. i,,o
Tor and an editor whom he Names dls'ri'u'ON 49,, h,r
points from Andoyer TO Chicago ia aia,,os IN no
With the "striking similarity" OF 'neir Wv -
gard 70 the council and its result snouu tto
-, - oo,,s,.rocv He has, however, oN0''''O ~
80 ..rili,q similarity" OF uttcrances rs 10 tuiS
'"' = -,,,,,stton If not proof, OF daly coHlhu-
ition from the beginning until the present ,io'iion
M ,bo rart Of those from whom they piooeou .no oo'
,roovy must be vastly more EXTENDED IMAM III iuSi"u
and the great majority at least OF inc editors Oh
ne,vspapers in the land must nave Dceh III close
~, o-o,orlcd consultation He has forgotten also
~ ,onost law of mental action, in virtue OF which
che same PREMISES lead minds not thrown out OF gear by
,, HAS 70 identical conclusions. Were he bcst WIN
0re children who from the seclusion OF nVe separate
onartments should independently report TO MN lilt
,b and three make six. would this "remarkable SINH
1oritvv suggest TO his mind juvenile conspiracy
THE ANDOvER LITTER.
1,o, DWIGHT has done the honor TO ask Why II the
council were going wrong in considering the Andover
Letter did not at the time remind that body through
note addressed to the Moderator, through some sue
ostion or protest the newspapers that we were lt
TsI gong beyond our s charter >; and is pleased to
,,n,ate that having been silent then am bound for
- ,fcr IN hold nv peace" There were several rea-
sons WHY did not take the course which he suggests
Ono was that had then seen nor heard the An
d,.or letter and did not know what precise PROPOSE
tions il conveyed TO the Plymouth Church. Another
WAS that I was not aware that-WhateVer were
L. contents-;he An!over letter was before
The Council for its consideration; although had
hor informed that members of the Andover Committee
nod distinctly declined TO consent to its submission 10
that body as part OF the before It, sun ahotner
las that had been as familiar with all the hae's us
prof DWIGHT imagined me 20 be, should nave u SENSE
orcbI s-eak confidently. for do not think II would
roouire much-o know that for an outsider Ike myself
=, have taken The course which he suggests, would nave
h., N he entity of an impertinence impossible to
Christian gentleman The Council was clearly entitled
q, bol, its uuinuenced from without, and peace
fully TO reach whatever result its own CONSCIENTIOUS
irdrnent should demand The public is now as clearly
IN uosseson Of the right TO form, and in Christian
spirit to utter its own opinion IN regard 10 '"' I''u
without ccnsure express or implied
tut have no desire to 90 over the various points
which Dr. Dwight has raised, because my purpose can be
hotter met II understand hm-I speak mOcesty' De-
cause he has more than mtimated that in one instance,
az least have failed TO get distinct idea bnt il
understand hiln-hc had two great designs IN MS COM
nnictiou I'm the first place. he intended TO state, as
omphatcallv he could his ud gment that by inc Gam
bridge Platform the utmost power Wtch one NoIElyE 80
OF Withdrawing fellowship from II never OF w lnt' ~
proposing part in the trial OF that otner canG
inembc $" And, in the second place ne deslsned 10
prove that the AndOyer letter was uuCongresaohai
and the Advisory Council cute iSht IN MI, ah ~ o no
consideration and in the deyeTaee which II gaoe Go
points to brethren in the congregational ministry
TIE CAMBRIDGE PLATFORM
To 81, : 10 the same brethren, and conine
what offer to their friendly consideration TO these two
propositions viz: N that Dr. Dwight in his microscopic
Treatment Of the third SECTION Of the 10Th chapter OF the
Cambridge Platform, has ignored other portions OF the
same whicl-,f the document is to have the common
Justice Of being aiken as whole, and Of being inter
prcted by itself and by the opinions and intent Of its
creator3-must inevitably modify the working Of its
"thirl way OF communion in our day ANA l2 that he
defends the Council in urging upon the churches mis-
construction Of poity which would render 1t con-
temptbly pGwcrlcss to protect itself from the possible
scandal Of an impure ministry.
l. The Congregatonalism of time has dverged
from that which shaped, and sphcrcd itself in, the Cam
bridge formula in many respects. But there are two,
which, from the nature o. the ease mus ctsslg hNo
vital relations intercourse between churches, ana the
method Of dealing with ministers accused Of heresy or
a. The local Congregational Church. IN the exact and
distinctive form known to tue Cambridge Platform. no
longer exists among men. That church ineluded-ds
members subject 10 ITS dsCplincs baptized children.
QlatiOm, hi, p Within IL was Preslytery OF Elders,
one u whom was pastor ana one teacher Wllie o,Aers
"attendcd especially unto rule" ibid, Vi, 4, o.
Ordinary members had only a power Of "pllyilcgc;
that i, they had the privilege TO choose Their elders, and
then to them. as is said "rhc work AM duty OF
the people is expressed in the phrase OF obying their
elders aud submitting themselves unto them in the
Lord ibid, V, ., Nj BF consequence INC Clutlb
had absolute negative all action OF the church;
so no church act can be cOnsummated or perfected
without the consent Of both" Nbd, X, ID This, OF
course applied TO the election or any ne" elder or tho
deposition OF an old one. The Platform Itself accurately
characterzes this kind OF church government when 1t
says In respect OF the Prcsbytery, and power com
United TO thtu, it is Aristocracy' Gbid, x, 81
guishes between THIS which he calls COngrcgatiOnaiisn,
puts the ehele IL not the whole OF tie rule aud cru
ment INTO the hands OF the people. and browns the
theirs' Keycs, WHY; while Richard Iatncr said: "A
Government meer Popular. or Democratica, is fare
ron inc Iracts N these churches, and believe farre
from the minde OF Christi (Answcr The Elders, Az
II needs no argument to prove that all this has passed
away Brownisul, pure AID simple, long ago modified
ana possessed American COnucVat iUalism that only
i've church governmental The country was not Tue pure
o5Moctac{ OF to-day. Yet the Cambridge PLATFORM
individual church, necessarily refcrs H. tIo.e local
ecclesiastical alls'oeracics which itself describes
PRESENT DOCTRINE OF FELLOWSHIP.
(2) When the Cambridge Platform wa, adonioa opr
present doctrine Of fellowship By which the entire b,Jv
congregational churches and ministers is held respo6
sbe for the good charactr conduct Of every iud
Nd thereof go long such responsibility De not repu
dated in the public withdrawal Of that fellowship ey
listed only in the most rudimenary form At tine date Of
'hc assembling Of the Synod scarcely more than Gfty
churches had been formed this side Of the sea- OF
Nhom less Than forty lad representation in it, Each OF
these stood byitseilitsown settlement; by the isolation
OF Its position, vel as by the momentum OF the ,st
struggle in England canst the absorbing Capitalization
" Tue national Church, led 20 PIT special stress upon
~ hsH to be- and TO be recognized ~ having the right