Year: 1874

| THE ACTION OF PLYMOUTH CHURCH CONTRARY TO
| CONGREGATIONAL UsAGE-FEILowsHP TO BE
STILL MAINTAINED.


| The Council has listened carefully to the
Committees OF the churches by which convened.
and has received from them clear and earnest state.
nent of the aims and principles which have determined


the action OF these churches in the proceedings which
they ask us to review.


We have also received from the Plymouth Church a
communication declining invitaon,from this Coun-
OIL as well as from churches, TO appear by ts
pastor the Committee and assist In the presentation
and discussion Of the questions before but at the
same time Offering suggestions and arguments which
we have carefully and candidly considered.


We cannot doubt the right OF these two churches to ask
advice OF us concerning the regularity and Christian
character Of what they have done in their dealings with
the Plymouth Church. No church is beyond the reach
OF the pubic opinion OF other churches expressed either


ANY church In its essential and inaienabe independ
enoe may the exercise Of reasonable discretion con
slider any public action OF any other church; may In
proper methods express its approval or disapproval
aud make that public action the subject OF friendly
correspondence and remOnstrance or II need be, the
ground OF temporary or permanent cessation OF acts


There been laid before us series OF letters that
have passed between these two churches ana tho
Plymouth Church On that eorrespondence u Is our un


though have right to try the Plymouth Church as
81 remoDstrance and admonition with which the CORE.
| spondenoe began was not uncailed for





general public aso felt painful anxiety on question


Imminent and urgent In this City of BROOKLYN and in.
volvng the honor not OF the congregational churches
only, but Of Christianity ITSELF . -


without any explicit reference to that question will
suiice TO say that In the Plymouth Church complaint
was brought against member that he had circulated
promoted scandals derogatory to the Christian in;


the church" The person complained o. appeared In the
that time no had by his voon Terminated his
necton with church and thereupon his name was by


Of H S
occasion on which these two churches interposed aud


In this act they the interests of frater
nifty Of Congregational Churches whose principles OF
sered by the course which Plymouth Church seemed to
For this moral heroism they deserve thanks. oven
should errors Judgment be traceabe in some Of the
details of their procedure In consideration Of the
that the impression made by was In measure
different from what intended by It's authors Writ
long il seems to have impnged faith
whom It was addressed. To many the letter
trely xceptionabe In matter and In manner. and
seems In the tone Of It's condemna
tion OF the proceeding complained Of In their second
the complaining churches having found what I'M
preston they had made by their remonsrance offered
xplanaton which. we trust, was not unacceptable
Concerning the reply OF Plymouth Church TO that letter.
we say nothing more than that ingenious explsna
ton OF the reasons which had prompted Plymouth
ceptional method might have brought the correspond
70 an early and happy on We can see

churches for fraternal conference should not have
been granted


In the subsequent correspondence see the part
the churches expression 6 their desire
TO unite with the Plymouth Church Ia referring the
points Of difference To the advice OF q Council
We ind on the part OF plymouth Church no definite
expression either OF consent refusal Yet nasmuch
as the Plymouth Church did not distinctly refuge 10
unite a reference TO Council cannot but regret


that planning churches did not their request
till q refusal evasion should have become uncquy-
| ocal.


We not invited do we take IL upon ourselves 70
advise the Plymouth Church concerning ts methods or
dealing with offenders. But we are invited to advise
| these two churches certain questions


Therefore, say distinctly that tue idea or member
ship In Congre gaona Church Is the idea OF covenant
the individual member and the church, that by
virtue OF that covenant the member responsible To the
church for his conformity u the law of Christ and the
church Is responsible for HIM and that this respons
bity does not till the church. by formal aud
corporate act has declared the dissolution Of the
The covenant may be broken by the member. He
may offend, and when duly admonished. may give no
satisfactory evidence OF repentance In that case he Is
of from communion the Church having given Its
testimony Is longer responsible for him. and he
DO restored only by tho removal OF the Volun
tArY ahsanca al ra.idant niaoba FROM Tim toamuni0n