Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-03-26
CONGREGATIONAL.
Meeting of the General Council.
Plymouth Declines to Participate.
Will Beeeher Run Local Self Govern
ment into the Doctrine Of seeessiOn7

Plymouth Declines to Participate
| Will Beeeber Run Local Self Govern
| ment into the Doctrine Of seeession1
NEW YORK, March 25.-The lecture
room of Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, wa:
filled to-day by members Of the congrega
tion, who assembled pursuant to adjourn
ment Friday evening last to be ready to
take the action made necessary by the pro
ceedings of the Congregational Church now
in session. Moderator NJ. f.. Edgarton
called the meeting to order. Rev. Edward
Beecher offered prayer. A committee from
the Council was announced in waiting and
the gentlemen were invited to seats on the
| platform.
After resolution was adopted to receive
any communication they might have to
make, Prof. Egbert d. Smith, of the COM
mittee, said they brought a message from
the Council which they hoped would be re-
ceived with tender and brotherly affection.
| The Council was animated with a feeling
| Of respect and love for the pastor and mem
bers of his church. 1t was desired that all
the transactions of the Council might be in
the day and light, and with such light as
could come from the pastor and members OF
L tlAu p2dCO
Plymouth church in the same position as
the other churches for free discussion in
the Council.
The resolution of the Council inviting
Plymouth church to attend the Council
and present its views, was read, aud on mo-
tion of Henry the thanks of his church
were voted to the bearers of the message,
and committee appointed to make fit
q oT, ial, H.
one. While the committee were delibera-
ting on the reply, the clerk Of Plymouth
church read to the congregation the charges
Of arTaignment.
PIymouth's Protest.
In short time the committee returned
and stated an address had been agreed
upon which was read. 1t was a protest
made for the following reasons: This is
an exparte council, convened without any
regular and sufficient steps to obtain a
mutual council called to consider our affairs
for the sole instruction of two other
churches, and carefully fettered so as to
make it impossible by the terms of its call,
for the council to alter itself into a mutual
council. If it is claimed that one or more
churches acting on the pretext that they
are not in controversy with sister church
and desire instructions only for themselves,
may call a council to instruct them as to
their relations with that church, free from
the rules governing the call of ordinary ex-
exparte councils; this claim appears to be
subversive of the whole system of mutual
councils. Ifthis council has been regularly
called, is competent to advise the churches
calling it as to their duty towards us, their
own pastor can call council without con-
sulting US, TO advise him publicly what is
his duty towards our church. We have in
quired in vain for a precedent of this kind.
This council is summoned to advise, pre-
ciselY as We were originally summoned to
take advice, under a distinct menace and
moral coercion. Just as Plymouth Church
was in one breath requested to explain
facts, and informed that it must be cut off,
unless the facts had been unsupported, so
this council is called upon TO advise
whether the action of Plymouth Church
has been confirmable to Congregational
usage, and at the same moment, informed
if such indeed is Congregational usage.
The two churches cannot sustain such
position. So far as this council is COnSid-
cred, the points of conflict between Ply
mouth Church and neIghboring churches,
the whole frame of the council, in its wide
spread constituency and national character,
so appropriate and admirable, if called only
TO deal with large and general questions, is
directly in opposition to the genius Of Con-
gregationalism, one great aim of which is
TO confine troubles TO their own locality
and settle them in their neighborhoOd by
the aid of neighbOring churches, without
spreading the tale of local dissenSiOns over
the whole land. The charges brought
against this church are partly based upon
reported speeches of its pastor. although it
is well-known that Plymouth Church, with
the hearty concurrence of its pastor, has,
from the beginning of its history, declared
that no man, however beloved and revered,
may usurp the rights of brotherhood, and
has always insisted, and does now insist,
that by its own acts and declarations, and
by this only, it will be judged, and the
maintainance of This rule, with respect to
all churches, is held to be an essential
part of Congregational policy.
We have never denied the right of
churches to offer to each other advice in a
Christian spirit, nor the duty of churches
to receive such an offer in the spirit of
brotherhood. We have asserted the right
of every church acting in like spirit of fra
lOhC, hllllC llIC OllCE W uC-
cline advice and to Judge for itself when,
according to the laws of Christ, an occasion
has arisen for exercising this right, and
having received an offer of advice which
seemed to US to be rendered In a spirit not
according to the mind of Christ, we did de-
cisively exercise our right by declining to
listen to advice in such spirit; nor can We
ever assent to any doctrine of church-fel-
Il, - 4
liberty of the local church, or which shall
convert that which the Lord ordained as a
safeguard and an Instrument of sympathy
into an irritating espionage and an instrU-
ment Of oppression. In asserting that this
church was not responsible for the doctrine,
order or rdiscipline Ofother churches, we never
for a mOmeIh intended to cut ourselves of
from relationship to them. There is a GER
tain vague and general sense in which ell
Christians are responsible for one another.
But this is not the sense in which the word
is generally used. The responsibility of
members of the same church for another is
the mildeSt form in which the word is COM
monty understood, and it was just that de-
gree of responsibility between the churches
which we meant, and still mean, to deny.
The members of a church can put each
other on trial before the church. We deny
the right of any church to put another
church upon trial before any ecclesiastical
body whatever.
A Declaration of Principles
is appended, of which the following para
graph gives sufficient explanation:
awhile We are ready at all times to re-
ceive suitable inquiry and to- give to sister
churches every reasonable explanation con-
corning our action in cases of public inter-
est, we hold that it is our right and may be
our duty to avoid the evils incident to a
public explanation or a public trial, and
that such an exercise of our discretion fur
nishes no ground for the interference of
other churches; provided we neither retain
within our fellowship nor dismiss by letter.
as in regular standing, persons who bring
open dishonor upon the Christian name"
This was followed by the adoption of
the following
Resolution;
We are constrained to decline it, lest by
our acceptance We should seem 10 renounce
our convictions and to Withdraw our
solemn testimony against the violations of
christian lharfU