Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-02-19
DISCIPLINE AND THE srANDARDs.

A leading member of one of the promi-
nent religious denominations gentleman
oil ability, but of quiet, unpretentious,
thoughtful piety-addresses the APPEAL the
following communication:
To the Editors OF the Appeal:
The late lamented N. W. Cluskey, formerly con
nected with the Memphis press was a great stick
Ter Tor consistency. While managing editor of the
make the editorials consist" The slightest anti
thesis wouH throw him into a rage and the usual
demand that the editorials consist" make the
same complaint of the APPEAL Your editorials
40 not always consist" For instance, a few
months since you sustained the Methodist Church
~. aishlng Dr. Thomas end conVicting him be-
cIuse ne repudiated the avowed faith of his
Stuu s'n denied its fundamental doctrines and
tne position that discipline was as necessary in
S tl.iCn Us IN an army. But in recent editorials
imropgft1a WHICH makes ulsClplllc
Won % -, anu IN the APPEAL OF Friday morning
ueo SO lar as TO say: 1.-THE fact is the religious
not y becoming tired of sectS and wants TO see
al baIiaf III put union, thinking that differences
Shin Deiiel need not separate good men in their wor
q cPpns,, now do you make these two positions
DISCIPLINARIAN.
As the writer of the foregoing has been
constant reader of the APPEAL for nearly
-p'Y.'"o years, we shall take pleasure in
showing him that the position of the APPEAL
uoes consist" Indeed, after reading this
article, We believe our correspondent will
conieSS MS own obtuseness. The APPEAL
maintains that so long a as man is a MEM
Der CT church he IS in honor bound TO re-
speel and lndorse its standards. Indeed. we
go Iurlher' and say that any other course
would be downright duplicity and hypocrisv
we commended the action of the Methodist
conference In expelling or silencing DIR.
IholnaS' because he refused to preach the
doctrine which constituted a cardinal tenet
IN the creed Of his church and which tho
Methodls's paid him to preach. Bv his own
AVo"aiS ~ thomas not only silently an.
fagonzed the standards of his churcb. but he
openly and zealously preached against the
faith which he was employed to defend ord
his church vindicsted its self-resnect and
acted wisely In saying to the world that n,
Thomas was not a Methodist. If through
intense reflection, prayerful thought or snv
new revelation OF truth, DR.. Thomas had
reached the conclusion that The A.
trines to which he once subscribed .nd
which he promised to teach. were faIso -
was at perfect liberty to repounce Tho go
ards OF the Methodist Church. Nobody de-
MED him the right to leave his church 80
soon as he discovered that he was preach
ing against the creed he had OBLIGATED bin,
self TO support. But DR.. Thomas did not
avail himself OF this freedom. He claimed
the right to act as minister OF the Method
Ist faith, when his avowed purpose was to
destroy the confidence of others in that faith
We have argued that if the preaching of
DIR. Thomas is contrary to Methodist stand
ards he ought, logically, to be re-
tired from the Methodist denomination
and as our correspondent remarks above,
We have insisted that discipline in a
:1urch is as necessary as in an army.
But there is no Inconsistency in all this with
N advocacy Of the largest religious tolera-
ion and the expression quoted by our cor
Advocating a rigid observance
O standards Is no Endorsement of the stand
.rds themselves. Indeed, the necessitr for
he expulsion Of DR.. Thomas was an .-,,,,-
nent against the narrow grooves in which
he standards force good men to circr,,,
cribe their Iabors for it was conceded tia,
Dr.. Thomas was an able minister. H;s
iiety was unquestioned, and he was winning
onverts to christianity, but was deposed in
liz usefulness because he disagreed with his
church Jn a uou-essentIal tenet in the creed
II his church The question is a. to the pro-
oriety OF the standards by which DR.. Thomas