Cases of difficulty and discipline do sometimes occur, so aggravated in their nature or so complicated in their treatment that it is found impossible to make a satisfactory settlement by ordinary methods; especially so if discipline has ended in exclusion. The excluded member will be almost sure to think he has been dealt with unjustly, and will wish for some redress; and if the case has been of long standing and much complicated, he will be equally sure to have others sympathize with him and condemn the action of the church. Now, although the presumption is that the church has done right, and is justified in its action, the possibility is that the church has done wrong, and is censurable for its action.  
What can be done in such a case?
 
Note 1.—On the New Testament theory of church government, the action of this individual local church is final. There is no power either civil or ecclesiastical, [p. 38] that can reverse its decision or punish it for wrong-doing. It may make mistakes, but no human tribunal has authority to compel it to confess or correct them.
 
Note 2.—Councils, if appealed to for redress, have no authority; they are simply, always, and everywhere advisory—that, and nothing more. They can express an opinion, and give advice; but they have no authority to issue decrees, and would have no power to enforce them if they should.[1]
 
Note 3.—Any person who believes himself wronged by church action has the inalienable right to appeal to the church for a new hearing, and, failing in this, to ask the counsel and advice of brethren, should he see fit to do so.
 
Now observe—If an excluded member believes himself unjustly dealt by, and wishes redress the following is the proper course for him to pursue:
 
1. Apply to the church which excluded, and ask a rehearing. State to them the grounds of his complaint and the evidence on which he thinks he can satisfy them, if a fair opportunity for being heard be given him.
 
2. If they refuse him a rehearing, let him appeal to them to unite with him in calling a mutual council, before which the [p. 39] whole case shall be placed, all parties to abide by its decision.
 
3. If a mutual council be declined by the church, he would be fully justified, should he feel so inclined, in calling an ex-parte council, before which he should place the facts and seek its advice.
 
4. Or, instead of calling an ex-parte council, he could apply to some other church to be received to its fellowship, on the ground that he had been unjustly excluded. Should he be received to another church, that would give him church standing and fellowship again, and vindicate him so far as any ecclesiastical action could vindicate him.
 
5. If all these resorts fail, there is nothing left but for him to wait patiently, and bear the burden of his wrong until Providence opens the way for his deliverance. He may, after all, conclude that he himself was more in fault than he at first supposed, and the church less so.
 
Note 4.—An ex-parte council should not be called in such a case of difficulty until all efforts have failed to secure a mutual council; as such a council, if called, would probably do nothing more than advise a mutual council and adjourn.
 
Note 5.—Any church can well afford to grant a rehearing to an excluded member. It would be in the interest of peace, justice, and reconciliation. If the church be right, it can afford to be generous.
 
[p. 40]Note 6.—Any church has the right to receive a member excluded, from another church, since each church is sole judge of the qualification of persons received to its fellowship. But any church so appealed to would use great caution, and with due regard to its own peace and purity, ascertain all the facts in the case before taking such action.
 
Note 7.—If a mutual council be called, one-half the messengers and members are to be chosen by the church and one-half by the aggrieved party; but the letters missive calling the council are to be sent out by and in the name of the church, and not of the aggrieved party. But these facts, as to the mutual call, are to be stated in the letters.
 
Note 8.—A church excluding a member has no just cause of complaint against another church for receiving such an excluded member, since the one church is just as independent to receive one whom it judges worthy of fellowship, as the other is to exclude one whom it judged unworthy of fellowship.