[Here is another never-republished letter of Elder Trott from 1834 - ed]
Fairfax Courthouse, Virginia, September 5th 1834
Concluded
What I have said on the supposition of churches supporting immoral practices (Although there was an apparent reference in the circular to a local case, it was designed to have a bearing, as it of course naturally would, on the situation of many of our brethren in different places, who are born down under the burden of corrupt doctrine, and a multiplicity of the schemes of men, and know not how to extricate themselves, being clogged with the present established order among our churches, I will here observe, that the course pursued by many of the Baptists for years passed in scheming to obtain majorities in the churches and associations, then bringing in their benevolent institutions, and taking advantage of the order that the right of transfer of membership is in the church, and the associational rules, to compel the minority to submit to their impositions, is to me a species of persecution of the meanest kind. It would be better, I think to live in a state of exclusion than to submit to it.) When one church may hold as a right of conscience another may claim. And the same liberty we would claim to ourselves we would award to those who may differ from us in doctrine or practice; Satisfied with the privilege of withholding, or withdrawing our fellowship from those whose faith or practice, we believe to be contrary to the word of God.
The view above, taken of this subject, has no tendency toward breaking down or exposing to contempt the regular discipline of Christ's house. Those churches deserving to be recognized as visible churches of Christ cannot be confined in their fellowship, their regard for the honor of Christ’s cause, or in their distress for the wounding of that cause, by the precincts of their own little bands. That which scripturally subjects a person to exclusion from one Church of Christ will lend all churches that love the truth, and the pure and orderly walk marked out in the scriptures, to withhold their fellowship from the offender till he returns and gives satisfaction for his offense. The church that would countenance disorder and treat with contempt the regular discipline exercised by a sister church, by extending fellowship to the unrepenting excluded person, should, and would be disowned by all orderly gospel churches. From the whole view of this subject, it is evident that there may be difficulty in some cases, in deciding whether we ought or ought not to interfere with the discipline of another church, by receiving persons excluded or withdrawn from them. And truly the subject ought, at all times, to be approached with the spirit of meekness and candor, and with a firm regard for truth and order. And we ought to be satisfied from a clear careful inquiry, that the excluded person, has been excluded for truth's sake, and not for error, for a due regard to order and to the scriptures as to standard and not for disorder or immorality, before we extend to him the hand of fellowship; And the same about a person who has withdrawn from a church, not having removed his residence beyond its bounds. No orderly church would knowingly receive a disorderly person into fellowship, though excluded or separate from even a seasonal church.
I will just add, for the sake of any, who may dread to act where duty calls to action; From the fear of subjecting themselves to the ill will of others, that any church or any individuals that will not adhere to and be governed by what, after careful and prayerful examination, they conscientiously believed to be the requisition of God's word, even at the expense of standing alone and being reviled, are not worthy of Christ. See Matthew 10.37 and 39.
Samuel Trott
Additional Remarks
It is objected to the position I have laid down, that the established order is, that the right is in the churches to dismiss their members and that to depart from this rule except in extraordinary cases, would throw confusion into the churches, as they would not know what become of their members, or who belong to them.
I will notice, first: the principle, that the right should be in the churches of dismissing their members, that is of transferring our membership to other churches. Do the scriptures contain a perfect rule for the order and government of the churches? If they do not the king of Zion stands impeached with the want of faithfulness or with the deficiency of wisdom, And the churches are left to be subjected to all the confusion of Babel; Everyone thinking his own device the best. If the New Testament does not contain a perfect rule by which the churches should be governed, then this order, general as it is, must fall to the ground; For there is neither precept nor example for it within the lids of the Bible. Surely if the great head of the church had intended to establish so important of regulation as this, there would have been some instance given us by the Holy Ghost, of its being acted upon in the Apostolic churches. As there is not, and there are manifestly some instances of persons becoming members of one church after having been members of another, that conclusion is inevitable, that they gave themselves to the church in the second instance, as they had done in the first, that is after their baptism, and were received by the same independent voice of the church; And this too in the case of Barnabas and Saul, as has been shown, men guided by the holy ghost, and who therefore must have set correct examples. The order that the churches have adopted shows in its operations the fallibility of a human contrivance.
First. Its direct tendency is to destroy the independence of the churches in one very important point, in the reception of their members, depriving them of the privilege of judging for themselves the experience of the persons whose membership is transferred to them. For if the right is in the church, to remove the membership of her members, she of course has the right to give them a membership in another church, that is, her letters of dismission give them a title to be received in another church. And so in fact it is generally understood. It is true that when a person presents his letter to a church a vote is taken on his reception, but in most cases this is a mere form, as the general idea is, that to refuse to receive a person upon the regular letter of any church is a virtual declaration of non-fellowship with that church. If one church may thus put one member into another church, she may put 50 or enough to constitute a majority of the church and thus by her members take the complete government of this other church; And all this without the other churches considering herself entitled to the privilege of inquiring into the experience of the members thus imposed upon her, to see whether she could have gospel fellowship with them or not. Known to you, Brother Beebe, and probably to some of your readers, is an instance of a church in a certain city, wishing to avail themselves of the accommodation of a valuable meeting house owned by a sister church in the same city, and at the same time to enjoy the ministry of their present pastor. To accomplish this they dismissed enough of their members to the other church, to form with some of the members of that church, favorable to the plan, a majority of the church, and thus enable them to dismiss the pastor of the church, and by whose exertions principally this meeting house had been built, and to call the other preacher; this done, that this preacher with the remainder of his flock went over to that church and now enjoyed the possession of the coveted meeting house. Certainly, an order which can favor such schemes, cannot comport with the independence of the churches, or be infallible.
I have known one or two instances of churches having a standing rule, that they would receive no person by letter from any church without first examining him on his experience, the same as a candidate for baptism. These churches thus maintained their own independence in the reception of members and had the satisfaction of knowing for themselves, that they had experimental fellowship with all they received. But by pursuing this course they had counted the letters of dismission brought to them, nothing more than letters of commendation.
Second. The fallibility of this order is manifest from the frequent instances in which churches find themselves under the necessity of departing from it. Often our Baptists, coming from England to this country, though in good standing in their churches, were obliged to come off without letters of dismission. And in some instances in moving to the far West, females have to start with or follow their husbands at an unexpected moment. Besides some extraordinary cases which my objector admits. Now if this was the order established by divine inspiration for the transfer of membership, then there would be but two ways of receiving members consistently with the word of God, by letters of dismission and by baptism; and how many of the precious, conscientious followers of Christ would be thrown out from the privileges of church fellowship, where it so?
In reference to that part of the objection which supposes, that to admit the right of a transfer of membership, is to be in the individual, would throw confusion into the churches, as they would then not know what members they had; I would ask, is it a fact that this order will increase the difficulty of the common plan? And I am confident that every candidate brother on a little reflection will answer, no. It is a generally received idea, that persons having letters of this mission remained members of the church from which they were dismissed until they were received by some other church. How many members have been reported as dismissed, by most of our churches of whom those churches know nothing, as to their present situation, whether they are connected with any other church, or not; whether they are walking orderly or disorderly. Is it not a known fact that persons often obtain letters of dismission and then keep those letters for years? Churches on giving letters of dismission to their members very frequently make no further inquiry about them; and the individuals dismissed are apt to think their relation with the church and consequent obligations to it, dissolved. I cannot think it would be so where the church is governed by what appears to be the scriptural order in this case. The churches would not think their watch care over their members as ended and consequently, their inquiries after them would not cease until they found they had regularly given themselves up to assist her church, or had done so gone into error, or disorder, by joining a church for which they had no fellowship, or into the course of the world as to dissolve the fellowship of the church for them. Hence in due time, they would report them either as removed or excluded as the case might be. And orderly members in going out of their neighborhood would feel no less solicitous to obtain letters of commendation from the church than they do to have letters of Dismission. Removing from the bounds of their church and in fellowship with it, they feel themselves under much stronger obligations to inform the church how they had disposed of themselves than that they had a letter of dismission. Much more might be set upon this ground; But I will just add, that the present order is the ground of much deception being practiced to obtain letters of this mission.
But here is the rub many in our day are in favor of a greater amalgamation of everything, rather than of a separation of the discordant parts of which the Baptist denomination is now composed, and at which I think the scriptural order, would have a tendency to facilitate this separation.
In conclusion; if it is not presuming in me, as an individual, to ask it, I would request all our old school churches to investigate this subject; And if they find the views I have taken on this subject; And that they find the views I've taken of this subject to be correct, that they would act upon them; If not they can but let them alone. If any of your correspondents or readers, find I am incorrect, I should be glad that they would set the subject in a correct scriptural light.
Yours,
S. Trott 1834
Please send me an email at gsantamaria685@gmail.com. We will accept payment in Zelle, Cash App, Venmo personal check, or postal money order. Please make sure you give your mailing address. I will not post my Zelle, CashApp, or Venmo information until you write me due to privacy concerns. For those mailing a check or money order, you may mail me at:
Guillermo Santamaria
45 Westons Mill Road
East Brunswick, NJ 08816 USA
Until Welsh Tract Publications is reorganized as an LLC, I will handle the financial transactions. Understand that Welsh Tract Church does NOT have any affiliation with Welsh Tract Publications. Like the website and the YouTube channel, these websites were created by the friends of Welsh Tract Church. We do not believe in any extra-church organizations or "ministries". Flash Drives are now available.
The Lord Bless you!
DIGITAL (POCKET) THOMPSON NOW AVAILABLE FROM WELSH TRACT PUBLICATIONS
This flashcard contains all of the known articles written by Elder Wilson Thompson from 1832 until he died in 1866. It also contains Simple Truths, His Autobiography in a PDF file, an audiobook, and his work Triumphs of Truth. Also, these works will be fully searchable and will fit on your smartphone. It will also be suitable for printing. The cost will be $60 for the flash drive containing all this information. We accept Zelle, CashApp, Venmo, or personal checks. For more information write to gsantamaria685@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. If an answer is needed, we will respond.