The morning journal-courier., 1907-12-30

mend to Taylor church the following l judgments and advise in the matters specified in the letter missive under which the council was convened
 First The action of the church in dropping Rev. Thomas c McKay's i name from the membership of the church without warning and without due process of discipline according to the precepts given in the New Testa- ment. Matt Is, we regard as con- trary to the usage of Congregational l Ism and the rules of Taylor church and as lnequltable, and we therefore advise the church to rescind such ac- l ton and to restore MT McKay's name to the list of members.
 "Second: We have not found in the testimony submitted to us evidence that would justify withholding from MT. Mckay the usual letter of dismissal, and we recommend that the church promptly grant him such a letter. whenever he may apply for q letter to a specified church in accord ance with the bylaw of Taylor church.
 Third. The custom of the church has been irregular, against Congrega- | tional usage and negotiable In the cases of any others who have been dropped without warning and hearing. and if any such persons desire to be restored to membership, the church should upon such request immediate 1 ly restore their names to the roll of membership and should then proceed regularly, if the church wishes to pro- eeed to any discipline Of such mem- bers.
 Fourth Evidence is not clear that MT. Mckay has directly advised irreg ularity in attendance among the pee- pie of the church, but in so far as he has encouraged 1t by his example or 1 failure to protest against 1t, his influ- 1 ence has been harmful Such prece- dent or example, however, is no jus tifcation for like subsequent rreg- ularity in dropping names from mem bership without due process of dis cipline under the leadership Of the T present pastor, Mr. Harris; in our judgment it Is the plain duty of any pastor in the Congregational ministry to advise his church that such action is wrong and not to be tolerated among churches of our order
 with reference to the charges pre- ferred against the conduct of MT Nc Kay. the council upon the evidence presented has adopted the following conclusions.
 First It Is not clear to what extent
 MT Mckay has prompted dscord charged. But 1t seams apparent that he failed to use his best endeavors 'to promote peace of the church under the
 ministry of his successor, Mir. Harris. If is also true that those in control of the administration of the church have failed to use their best endeavors to conciliate others who dissented from their action. But in view of the past controversies and the present condition
 of the church we would advise MT. Mo Kay to refrain from visits or conyer- satlons which would in any way tend to continue strife and to destroy the ~peace or prosperity of the church. Second 4From the testimony pre-
 sented on the charge of untruthfulness
 there is evidence of a certain careless . ness of statement on the part of MT, McCay at times which might easily lead to misapprehension We find for , one instance, that there was no foun- dation whatever for the impression conveyed by him that other ministers,
 members of the council and especially { the Rev Frank R. Luckey, might be charged with plagiarism, and that Mir.
 Mckay was utterly without justiflca-
 ton in making intlmations
 With regard to the alleged disturb, , ance at the prayer meeting of Novem- ber 12 the council adopts the following | minute:
 First The church. in accordance with it's rule, Article 5, should have
 called a special meeting in compliance
 with the petition of some thirty-seven persons, more than ten of whom were still members of the church. The right
 of petition is indefeasible.
 Second The church also at the } meeting November 12, according to it's rules, Article ?, should have enter
 tained the business presented by said petitioners and should have taken some action to the deliheration and final disposition of it. We yindicate, however the right of said persons to present their petition at the prayer
 meeting of the church as they did only on the ground that the church had failed to call such meeting in re- sponse to a previous request and when no orderly motion was made or entertained we regret that the peti-
 tioners, if they felt that they were re- fused due hearing. did not withdraw ] in a quiet manner and made their protest to a council of our churches.