St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1874-04-03
(IO be cOHtinued.D
The Decision. of the Congregational
Council

The Decision. of the Congregational
Council.
The Council has listened carefully t,
the Committees of the churches 10y
which it WAS convened, and has rrceiv-
ed from them clear and earnest state
ment of the aims and principles which
have determined the action Of these
churches in the proceedings which they
ask lis to review.
We have also received from the Ply
mouth Church Il communication dc,lin
my an Invitations iIom this Council. a>
well as from the two churches. To APP
pear 10y its pastor and the Committee
and H>>ist in the presentation and dis
ru>>i"m of the questions before lis. bus
at the same time Offering Suggestions
and arguments which We have rarrfullN
and candidly considered.
We cannot doubt the right of these
tv" churches to ask Hd Vice of H. con
rrruiiig the regularity ami Christian
character "fw hat they have done in then
dealings with the Ply mouth Church.
No church is beyond the reach of The.
public opinion of other churches. eN
pIc>>rd directly at through an ecclc>i-
astiral council.
Any church in its essential and in
allcnable Independence may in the cN-
rrci>c of a reasonable discretion con
slider any public action of any other
churrh: may. III proper methods. ca
press its approval or diSapprovsl. and
may make that public action the sub
lcct of friendly correspondence and re
m"n-trancc. oI if need he. the ground
of Il temporary or permanent cessation
"i acts of INSTRUMENTATION.
There has been Laid before us I; series
of letters that have passed between
these two churches and the Plymouth
thuch. On that correspondence II l.
our unquc>tionahle right to have an
opinion and To express it. though We
have II" right to try the Plymouth
Church ~ Il party before us. We have
To say. then, that the letter of remuII-
STRANGE and admonition with which the
correspondence began was not uncalled
for
The churches throughout the United
States. and the general public also. felt
Il painful anxiety "n Il question immi-
ncnt and urgent in this City of Brook
lIm, and involving the honor. not OF
the congregational churches only. but
of Christianity itself.
Without any explicit reference to
that question. it will suffice to say
that in the Plymouth Church a com
plaint WAS brought against Il member
that he had ''crculatcd and promoted
scandals dcr"gatory to the Christian
Integrity OF the pastor and injurious to
the reputation of the church," The
person complained of appeared in the
church, meeting and declared that tour
Years before that time he had hy his
own Nolltion terminated his connection
with the church: and thcrcupun his
name was 10y It Vote of the chuch drop
ped from the catalogue ot its members
That action OF the Ply mouth Church
Was the occasion on which these two
lntcrpoScd. and with Il request
for friendly conference.
In this act they represented the in
tcrc>t> of the fraternity of Congrcga-
tIondl Churches. whose principles of
discipline and whose fair Christian fame
we've endangered 10y the course " hich
Plymouth Church seemed to hr plllslI-
ing.
For this moral hcroism they desverve
thanks. even should errors of Judgment
be traccahlc in some of the details of
their procedure. In our consideration
of the letter then addressed to the Ply
mouth Church. We find that the I'M
preston made 10y 1t was in some meas
ure different from what WAS intended
i'N It's authors. Written under the
pressure of apprehcn>ions and anXictics
long suppressed. it seems To have I'M
pinged m"rc faithfully than WIS in
tended "u the scn>ihiliritS of those to
" h"m ii was addressed. To many
the letter seems entirely unexception-
able IA matter and in manner, and ru-
tlrelN appropriate To the occasion
while Ia Others II seems unnecessarily
severe III the tone of its condemnation
of the proceeding complained of. In
their second letter the complaining
churches having found what impression
they had made 10y their remonstraucp
offered an explanation, which. we trust.
wa> not unacceptable. Concerning the
reply of Plymouth Church To that let
ter. we say nothing more than that an
ingenious explanation of the reasons
which had prompted Plymouth Church
To rid Itself of an offending member bv
an exceptional method. might have
brought the correspondence to an early
and happy determination. We can see
no sufficient reason why the request of
the complaining churches for IL fl;itcrnal
should not have been grant
ed.
In the subsequent correspondence we
see on the part of the complaining
churches an expression of their desire
to unite with the Plymouth Church in
referring the points of difference to the
advice of Il council.
We find on the part of Plymouth
Church no definite expression either of
consent or refusal. Yet, inasmuch as
the Plymouth Church did not distinctly /
refuse to unite on Il reference to IL Coun- /.
ell. we cannot but regret that the COM
planning churches did not urge their /
request till Il refusal OF an evasion should
have become unequivocal.
We are not invited nor do we take if !
upon ourselves to advise the Plymouth /
Church concerning its methods of deal /
ing with offenders. But we are invited !
to advise these two churches on certain
questions.
Therefore, we say distinctly that the
dea of membership i'll Il Congregational
church is the idea of a covenant be-
ween the individual and the church