Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1874-04-01
Results Of The Rrooklrn Council.


Below we give the material portions Of
the finding Of the great. Congregational
Council which convened at Brooklyn last
week Reliable information gives the final
vote on the adoption of the report as fol-
lows: Eighty-seven voted for the result as
it stands, eight voted against it, and twenty.
three refused to vote at all. When we con-
slider that this Council was composed Of one
hundred and twenty Of the ablest represen-
tatives Of Congregationalsm in the land
that after four days Of earnest and prayerful
deliberation they resolved, with so great
unanimity, that there was not only abundant
cause for calling the Council, but that the
specific act complained Of in Plymouth
church was entirely un. Congregational, and
that fellowship with said church is recon-
mended only so long as she shall refrain
from repeating like oiieuce-we think our
Brooklyn correspondent puts it rather strong
when be says he whole thing was "blot
upon the fair fan of the Brookyn churches"
We have to ssy. then, that the letter Of re.
monstWnce and admonition with which the
correspondence began was not uncaled for
The churches throughout the United States,
and the general public also, felt painful anx
ety on question imminent and urgent in this
city of Brooklyn, and involving the honor, not
of the Congregational churches only, but Of
Christianity itself
Without any more explicit reference to that
question, it will suffice to say that 10 Plymouth
church a complaint was brought againsta mem.
Der that he had " circulated and promoted
scandals derogatory to the Christian integrity
Of the pastor, and injurious to the reputation
Of the church The person complained Of APP
peared in the church meeting, and declared that
four years before that time he had, by his own
volition, terminated his connection with the
church, and thereupon his name was, by vote
of the whole church, dropped from the cata-
lOgue Of its members. That action OF the
! Plymouth church was the occasion on which
these two churches interposed with rem0n-
STRANGE and with n request for friendly CON
ference.
In this act they represented the interests Of
the whole fraternity Of Congroga churches,
whose princit les Of discipline and whose fair
U
which Plymouth church seemed to be pursuing
| For this moral heroism they deserve thanks
even should errors Of judgment be traceable il
some Of the details Of their procedure.
In our consideration OF the letter then ad
dressed 10 the Plymouth church, we find that
the impression made by it was in some measure
different from what was intended by its au
thors. Written under the pressure Of appre
tensions and anS ieties long suppressed, i
seems to have impinged more painfully thar
was intended on the sensbilitles of those t
whom 1t was addressed.
To many the letter seems entirely unexcep
tionablo in matter and in manner, and entirel,
appropriate to the occasion, while to others /
seems unnecessarily severe in the tone of its con
demnation OF the proceedings complained OF
In their second letter the complaining churches
having found what impressions they had mad
by their remonstrance, offered an explanation
which we trust was not unacceptable.
Concerning the reply of the Plymouth churc
TO that letter We say nothing more than tina
an ingenious explanation Of the reasons whc
had prompted the Plymouth church to rid it
self OF an offending member by an exceptions
method might have brought the correspondent
to an early and happy termination.
We can see no sufficient reason why the re
r quest of the complaining churches for irater
nal conference should not have been granted
In the subsequent correspondence we see o.
the part Of the complaining churches an eS
preston Of their desire to unite with the Pts
mouth church in referring the points of differ
ence to the advice Of council We find o
the part of Plymouth church no definite ca
preston either of consent or of refusal.
Yet, inasmuch as Plymouth church did nc
distinctly refuse to unite in n reference to
council, we cannot but regret the complaiuin
, oh did tho I'LL "a rpf a. ~
or an evasion should have become unequivoca
9 We say distinctly that the idea Of membei
ship in Congregational church is the idea
covenant between the individual member an
: the church that by virtue of that covenant tn
member is responsible TO the church for b
conformity to the law of Christ, and the churc
is resposibc for him, and that this responsible
ity does not ccase till the church by some FOL
NAL and corporate act has declared the dissolI
ton of the covenant. The covenant may
broken by the member. lie may offend, an,
when duly adm1nished, may give no satisia
: tory evidence Of repentance. In that case
, is cut off from communion. The church, ha
ing given its testimony, is no longer responsib
G for him, and he can be restored only by Il
, removal Of the consure. Voluntary absence
resident member from the communion of Il
j church and from its public worship does n
dissolve the covenant, but is reasonab
, ground OF admonition, and, if persisted in,
i final censure.
In regard to the future relations betwe
= these churches and the Plymouth church
A express our hopes that the very eAtraordinn
proceeding which gave occasion for the CORE
T, pondence aud for this Council will not be
n precedent for the guidance of that church hei
alter. Could we suppose that such proceedin
will be repeated, We should feel that the dis
gard Of the first principles involved in the id
- Of church membership, and the idea of the I
70 lowship Of churches with each other, would
e. quire the strongest possible protest. But
. communication from the Plymouth church
e this Council makes professions and decla
c. tions which justify the hope that such dey
n. ton from the orderly course Of discipline "
not be repeated.
al
:, We think that the action of that church
:" unmodihed, would justify these churches
en- Withdrawing their fellowship. Yet, inasml
~ as the Plymouth church seems to US to adj
in its communication to US the Congregatio
le- principles of discipline and fellowship, we
n wise the churches converting this Council
maintain with it the relations of fellowship
he heretofore, in the hope that Plymouth chu
in may satisfy these churches Of its acceptance
the principles which it has been supposed
he disavow.
:,
We regard the principles of fellowship VIII
RI the pastors and churches converting us have
A earnestly maintained to be those which we h
received from our fathers and the w ord of &
w, Mr.. John d. Sanborn has flattened
ar a good deal in his defense. Nearly all
hal
ne week has been devoted by the commit
pa to hearing witnesses in his behalf; but d