, 1875-12-26
BEECHER'S COUNCIL.
a sharp Protest from Conaplcuon.
Leaders In the Congregational
Church.

lt,o York Sun, Dec 24.
conference OF clergymen, influential expo
nants Of Congregatloualism, have priyntcl,
held ta conference upon the eS-parte counci
shat Plymouth Church has decided to call
They do not desire that their names should be
published, because their action las no ofIicia
weight but they have prepared what they cal
"a Protest by Several Congreeationalists," !" and
sent it to the Boston Congregationalist for pub
lication. The Rev. Dr.. Dexter, the we!l-snow \
editor OF that organ Of tho denomination, SAYS
- They ara OF the very highest standing before
our churches- and their names would ut once
arrest attention and awaken confidence The
protest starts a. follows;
The recent action Of Plymouth Church In calling m
advisory council after consenting to mutual council
in the ca.a of hrs 1Ioulton and whila corresponding
with reference TO the form Of tho letter mssive for
latter, rnay well call out an elnphatic protest from
precedent, the righta and liberties Of every church
member fu our denomination would be jeopardfzed !;
and that part Of our olty which has bean developed
for their protection would ba undermined and over
thrown, An aggrieged member Of Plymouth Church
applied, IS was her right for mutual council. Two
weeks later the Church accepted her request, and
framed certafn questir-s to be submitted At the
meeting Of the Church Immediately following tho re-
cepton Of this reply, the applicant communicated to
tho Church her Of the questions 1T Issue
and asked tho Church 70 select its proportion OF the
delegates TO tho accented council. Plymouth Church
deberated thlreon days. rejected the applicants form
cedtd stin mutual council and referred to COM
n,ittee the designation of ti1no place, etc. Then
without waiting for the issue to be adjusted, and
Ehe still Affirming its consent to this mutual council
the Church, on motion Of Mr. Beecher adopted reso-
lutiona appointing committee 70 draw up lettar-
reported in twenty hours. 1ts recommenations
were adopted. They fixed the dato Of the Advisory
Council 30 ~ under the circumstances necessarily to
priority Its proceedings those Of tho &C.
cepted mutual council.
Tho protest then quotes the questions pro-
posed for submission to the councils to show
that those which Plymouth Church insists on
presenting to the Mutual Council are mainly
concrete statement of those which it proposes to
submit to an earlier OK parte council. It then
saya:
The case, then, Is this: An advisory council called
exclusively by Of the parties IN controversy Is to
decide upon the issue previously proposed for mu
uent, Ia to be obtained before the accepted mutual
council can assemble. We submit that Il such pro
psrts council @ tA sx pors because @ ehosea By
one Of the parties intarastsd> has legitimate
priority to e., a11 council ena thus rs Pre-
Still further: This pare council can really control
the proceedings Of tho mutual counctl-deciding in
adyance the queions which the lastcr is called TO
aider with the exception Of matters Of form. In
this way the relief which our system provides for op
p1eassd indyiduals must be wholly nultihod. -.
In the case instance Of ar. Wes-a report recon-
msnding hat be be dropped Is kept hanging over his
head. }Yers he dropped be would have right to d
mutual council ; but by this new device council can
be introduced, nominated by the Church aoue under
whose advice the Church shelter itself provided
other churches consent to become parties to such
procedure Ara our churches ready 70 sanction this
departurs2 Will they not before becoming parties to
it, seriously and carefully consider It's character and
como luence2 We make no objection, under other
crcumstaucea, 10 advisory council OF. the part Of
Plymouth Church any other church, provided such
council Be restricted to IT, legitimate sphere but it
Is persersson OF such council 70 introduce 1t 70
posed and accepted, and shall decide in adGance the
questions agreed to be submitted TO thnt.