Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-03-31
Decision Of the Congregational Council
on the Matter in Dispute Between
1t and Other Churches.
No Church is Beyond the Reach OF Pub.
lie Opinion, or Of Other Churches,
Expressed or Directly-The
Correspondence.
The Idea OF Congregational Membership
Individual and Church RespOn-
sibility-The Finale.

anN - HAIL
This council has listened carefully to
the committees of the elsnrches by
:, sieh It was convened, and has re-
ceived from them a clear and earnest
statement of the aims and principles
which have determined the action of
the church in the proceedings which
they ask us to review. We have also re-
ceived from Plymouth church COM
munication declining an invitation from
this council, as well as from these
two churches, to appear by its
pastor and committee, and as
sist in the presentation and discussion
Of questions before, but, at the same
time, offering suggestion and argument.
When we have carefully and earnestly
considered, we cannot doubt the right
OF these two churches to ask advice of
us concerning the regularity of chris
tan character, and of what they have
done in their dealing with Plymouth
church. No church is beyond the reach
Of the public opinion of other churcaes,
expressed directly or through an eccle-
siastical council. Any church, in its es-
sential and inalienable independence,
may, in the exercise of reasonable
discretion, consider any public ac-
ton of one church, and may,
in the proper method, express
its approval or disapprOval, and may
make that public action the subject of
friendly correspondence and remOn-
STRANGE, or if it need be ground of tenn
porary or permanent cessation of the
acts of intermissiOn. There has
been laid before US a series of letters
that have passed between these two
churches and Plymouth church. On that
correspondence, it is our unquestion
able right to have an opinion and
express it, though we have no right to
try Plymouth church as party before
US. We have to say that the letter
of remonstrance and admonition <ith
which the correspondence began was
not uncalled for. The churches through
out the United States, and the general
public also, felt a painful anxiety in the
question, iminent and urgent in this
city of Brooklyn, and involving the
honor, not of Congregational churches
only, but of christianity itself. Without
any more explicit reference to that
question, it will suffice to say that in
Plymouth church a complaint was
brought against a member that he had
circulated and promoted scandals de-
rogatory to the christian integrity of
the pastor sndiniGrious TO the reputation
of the church. The pastor complained
of appeared in the church meeting, and
declared that four years before that time
he had, by his own vOlition, terminal
ed his connection with the church, and
therefore his name was, by vote Of the
whole church, dropped from the cata-
logue of its members; that the action Of
Plymouth church was an occasion in
which these two churches interposed
with remonstrance, and with request
for friendly conference. In this act they
represented the interests of the fraterni-
ty of Congregational churches, whose
principles of discipline, and whose fair,
christian fame were endangered by the
course which Plymouth church seemed
to be pursuing. For this moral
heroism they deserved thanks,
even should errors of judgment be
tracable in some of the details of the
procedure. In our consideration of the
letter then addressed to Plymouth
church, we find that the impression
made by it was, in some measure, differ
ent from what was intended by its au-
thor. Written under pressure of appre-
tensions and anxieties long suppressed,
it seems to have infringed more pain
fully than was intended on the sensibili-
ties of those to whom it was addressed,
and to many the letter seems entirely
unexceptionable in matter and manner,
and entirely appropriate to the occasion,
while to others it seems unnecessarily
severe in the tone of its condemnation
of the proceeding complained of.
The second letter, complaining that
the churches having found what
impression they had by their re-
OfFaraI
which, we trust, was not unacceptable
Concerning the reply of Plymouth
church to that letter, we say nothing.
More than that, an ingenious explana-
ton of the reasons which had prompted
Plymouth church to rid itself of an Of
Tending member, by an exceptional
method, might have brought the corre-
spondence to an early and happy termi-
nation. We can see no sufficient reason
why the request of the complaining
churches, for a fraternal conference,
should not have been granted. In the
subsequent correspondence, we see. on
the part of the complaining churches,
an expression Of their desire to unite
with Plymouth church. In referring
points of difference to the advice of
counsel, we find on the part of
Plymouth church no definite expression,
either of consent or refusal; yet inas-
much as Plymouth church did not dis
tinctly refuse to unite in a reference to
council, we cannot but regret that the
complaining churches did not urge their
request till refusal or an evasion should
have become unequivocal. We are not
invited, nor do we take it upon ourselves
to advise Plymouth church concerning
its methods of dealing with offenders,
but we are invited to advise these two
churches on certain questions. There
fore we say distinctly that the idea of
membership in Congregational church
is the idea of covenant between indi-
vidual members and the church, and
that by that covenant member is re-
sponsible to the church for his
conformity to the laws of Christ,
and the church is responsible for
him, and that this responsibility does
not cease till the church by some formal
and corporate act declare the dissolution
of the covenant. This covenant may
be broken by the member he may
offend, and when duly admonished
he may give no satisfactory evidence of
repentance. In that case he is cut off
from communion. The church having
given its testimony, it is no longer re-
stored only by the removal of censure.
Voluntary absence Of.a resident member
from the communion of the church and
from its public worship, does not dissolve
the covenant, but is a reasonable ground
of admonition, and il persisted in, of
official censure. When regular cem-
plant is made against such member,
that, in some other respect, he violates
the law Of Christ, and especially when
the complaint is that he has circulated
and promoted scandals derogatory to
the christian integrity of the pastor,
and injurious to the reputation Of the
church, the consideration that he has
long ago forsaken the church is only an
aggravation of his alleged fault. La
regard to the future relations between
these churches and Plymouth church,
we express our hope that the very ex-
traordinary proceeding which gave oc-
casion for the correspondence and for
that council win not be precedent for
tbe guidance of that church hereafter.
Could we suppose that such proceed;
jne would be repeated, we should feel
that the disregard Of the first principles