South Congregational Church history and catalogue, 1852–1865 · scan page 132

Searchable source text

122  THE    EX-FARTE    COUNCIL.
Other  Cliurclies,"  did  not  make  them  remain,  "in  the  lan-
guage of  the  testimonials,"  •'  members  of  the  South  Con-
gregational Church,"*  but  members  "  dismissed."  Besides,
a  simple  "notification"  tons,  by  those  dismissed,  "that
they  did  not  intend  to  present  their  certificates  to  other
Churches,"  did  not  release  them  from  the  necessity  of  pre-
senting them  to  our  Church  for  re-admission ;  for  our  cus-
tom and  usage  is,  and  ever  has  been,  when  members  hold
certificates  from  us  which  have  not  been  presented  else-
where, if  such  parties  desire  to  return  to  us,  their  certifi-
cates must  be  acted  upon  by  the  Church.  This  was,  and
is,  our  custom.  Have  any  of  the  petitioners  holding  cer-
tificates of  dismission  from  us,  conformed  to  our  custom  in
this  matter  ?  No.  They  have  never  returned  their  certifi-
cates to  the  Church,  but  still  retain  them,  claiming  full
membership,  while  carrying  about  with  them  the  testimo-
nials that  they  are  dismissed  from  us.  Why,  then,  should
we  make  them  exceptions  to  our  rule  ?  Why  should  we
recognize  them  as  in  full  membership  upon  a  "notification,"
when  others  have  never  been  so  recognized  in  like  circum-
stances ?     Are  we,  as  a  Church,  bound  by  this,  their  new
*  Note  by  the  Author  of  South  Church  History.— The  argu-
ment drawn  from  the  language  of  the  certificates  of  dismission,  is  just
as  good  and  no  better  than  would  lie  that  of  an  officer  who  had  been
dismissed  from  the  service  of  the  United  States  by  a  Court  Martial,
but  who  should  claim  that  by  the  very  langunge  of  that  order,  he  still
held  his  posilioa  in  the  regiment.  AVe  will  suppose  the  order  to  read
as  follows:
'•Decision  of  Court  Martial,  Xo  52.— Ordered,  tliat  A.  B.,  First  Lien-
tenant  of  Company  11,  ninety-eleventh  regiment  U.S.  Artillery,  be,  and
he  is  hereby,  di.smissed  from  tlie  service  in  disgrace."
If  such  an  officer  should  appeal  to  the  language  of  tlie  order,  in  proof
that  he  had  not  been  dismissed,  wiio  could  gain-say  his  plea  ?  Does
not  the  order  itself  speak  of  liim  expressly  as  ''  First  Lieutenant  of
Company  II,  ninety-eleventh  regiment  of  U.  S.  Artillery  ?"  How  then
can  he  be  otherwise.  If  the  Court  Martial  wliich  dismissed  him,  is
not  good  authority  in  his  favar,  who  or  what  is  ?  And  yet  this  flimsy
argument  is  endorsed  by  the  Council  I

Cite this page

Silent Grounds Collective, Church Burial & Death Records, CH-P004-0132. South Congregational Church history and catalogue, 1852–1865, printed page not verified, PDF page 132. Hallock, Gerard, 1800-1866; digitized copy contributed by University of California Libraries https://archive.org/details/historyofsouthco00hall/page/n136/mode/1up Accessed September 8, 2026.

Historic U.S. publication before 1931; public-domain assessment based on publication date. Internet Archive does not necessarily provide an explicit license. Preserve publication and digitizing credits.