ciple was quietly ignored when an irremediable want of unanimity threatened a deadlock in the proceedings against Newton. The course adopted differed from the procedure of Dissenters, only in that the document issued by the majority contained no allusion to the existence of a minority; whereas in the documents of Dissenters a more open course is commonly pursued.
The prosecuting party did not accept the view of Newton and his friends, that the exclusion was tantamount to an excommunication. All that can be said is that if it was not an act of excommunication it was a gratuitous impertinence. Newton had not applied for fellowship, and therefore the church was not under necessity to decide on his case in order to guide itself in an actual emergency. If excommunication was more than the church intended, its decision was merely a totally uncalled-for intimation to Newton that if he did present himself he would be refused. Tregelles was surely justified in saying, “I have no doubt, but that it is supposed that the sentence is to act as an excommunication; but do you expect to find Christian men in general to acquiesce in such an issue from such proceedings? The whole is null and void, both before God and before His saints.”[1]
- ↑ I here append, as an interesting relic of a great scholar and true-hearted Christian man, a copy of the protest by which Dr. Tregelles dissociated himself from the disciplinary proceedings of Rawstorne Street. The protest was entrusted to Gough, and it is gratifying to learn that it was duly read by him.
“As a Christian long in fellowship with the Christians meeting in Rawstorne Street, London, I do solemnly, in the fear of God, protest against the character, objects, and competency for disciplinary action, of the meeting purposed to be held there to-morrow evening, as being wholly contrary to the word of God, and the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ; so that any disciplinary proceedings issuing from such a meeting, even though professedly
