The Portland daily press., 1874-03-30
The Brooklyn Council.
THE DECISION 1T RENDERED.

New YORK, March 29.-The following is the
text of the decision rendered by the Congrega-
tiOnal Council after the secret session, lasting
two days and half:
This Council has listened carefully to the
committees of the churches to which it was
convened, and has received from them clear
and earnest statement of the aims and princi-
Piles which have determined the action of the
churches in the proceedings, which they ask us
to review. We have also received from the
Plymouth church a communication declining
an invitation from this Council as well as from
these two churches, to appear by its pastor and
committee and assist in the presentation and
discussion of the questions before us, but at
the same time Offering suggestions and argu
menus which we have carefully and candidly
cons dered We cannot doubt the right of
these churches to ask advice of us concerning
the regularity of the Christian character of
what they have done in their dealing with the
Plymouth church. No church IS beyond the
expressed either directly or through an ecclesi-
astic council. Any church in its essential and
inalienable independence may, in toe exercise
of reasonable discretion, consider any public
action of any other church, may in the proper
methods express it's approval or dsapproyaI.
friendly correspondence and remOnstrance; or
if needed be the ground of a temporary and
pre-emptorily cessation of acts of inter-com-
munion.
tiers that have passed between these two
churches and the Plymouth church. On that
correspondence it is our unquestiOnable right to
have an opinion and to express it. Though we
have no right to try the Plymouth church as
party before us, we have to say then that the
letter of remonstrances and admonition With
which the correspondence began is not nncall-
ed for The churches throughout the United
States and the general public also felt a Iainful
anxiety on question so imminent and urgent
in the city of Brooklyn and involving the honor,
not the Congregational Churches Oalv, but of
Christianity itself. Without any more explicit
reference to that question, it will suffice to saw
that in the Plymouth church complaint was
brought against a member, that he had 'circu-
lated and promoted scandals derogatory to the
Church, integrity of the pastor and injurious tn
the reputation of the church,
The person complained of appeared in the
church meeting and declared that tour wears
before that time he had, by his his own voiiton
terminated his connection with the church.
and therefore his name may be vote of the
whole church, dropped from the catalogue of
its members.
That action of Plymouth Church was the &C.
casion on which these two churches .interposed
with remonstrances and with request for
friendly conference. In this act they represent
ed the interests of the fraternity of Congrega-
tional churches, whose principle of discipline
and whose fair christian fame were endangered
by the course which Plymouth Church seemed
to be pursuing. For this moral herosm they
deserve thanBs, even should errors of judg-
ment lie traceaole in some of the detailf of
their proceedings. on our consideration of the
letter addressed to Plymouth church, we find
that the impression made by it was in some
measure, different from what was intended by
its author. Written under the pressure of APP
prehensiOns and and anxiet es ong suppressed,
it seems to have infringed pore painfully than
was intended, on the sensitveness of those to
whom it was addressed. To many, the letter
seems entirely unexceptioual, in matter and in
manner and entirely appropriate to the occa-
sion, while to others it seems unnecessarily Sc
we're in the tone of its condemnation of the pro-
ceedings comnained of.
In their second letter the complaining
churches having found what impression they
had made by their remonstrance, offered an ex-
PLANTATION, which we trust was not unacceptable.
Concerning the reply the Plymouth church
made to that letter, we say nothing more tnan
that an ingenious explanation of the reasons
which had prompted the Plymouth churcn 70
rid itself of an offending member by an excep-
tional method, might have brought the cores
pondence to an early und happy termination.
we can see 40 sufficient reason why the re-
quest of the complaining churches for frater-
nal conference, should not have been grantee
In the subsequent correspondence We see on Inc
part OF tine complaining churches, an express
slen OF their desire to unite with Plymouth
church in referring the points of difference OF
OF Plymouth church no definite expression,
either OF consent OF of refusal; yet, inasmucn
as Plymouth church did not distinctly refase 70
unite IN reference to a council, we CANNOT Du.
regret that the complaining churches did not
urge their request until refusal or an evasion
should have become unequivocal.
We are not invited nor do we take it upon
ourselves to advise Plymouth Church concern.
ing the methods of dealing with offenders, put
we are Invited to advise these two churches on
certain questions; therefore, we say Distinctly
That the idea of membership in Congrega-
tlonal church is the idea of a covenant pc
tween the individual member and the churcn,
that by virtue of that covenant the member is
responsible to the church for his conformity, 70
the law of Christ, and the church is reponslole
for him. and this responsibility does not cease
until the church, by some formal and corporate
act, has declared the dissolution of the cove
nant. The covenant may be broken by the
monished may give no satisfactory evidence of
repentance. In that case he is cut off from