Year: 1874

With the closing hours Of Saturday. after an
anxious examination of the matters laid before
them, the Congregational Council at Brooklyn
finally adjourned. The decision, which is
printed in full on another page of THE TRIB-
UNE, has been awaited with great interest.
In substance it declares that the action of
the Plymouth Church, complained of by its
neighbOrs, was irregular and not accord
ing to Congregational usage. 1t will be
remembered that another point raised by the
churches calling the Council was that which
pertained to their future fellowship with the
Plymouth Church. The Council say that they
advise continuance Of relations in Christian
fellowship with the Plymouth Church, unless
that organization should repeat the action
complained of, or regard that as a precedent
for all future time.


In order to more clearly understand the de-
cision thus arrived at it is necessary to briefly
recapitulate the main facts in this somewhat
peculiar case. A member of the Plymouth
Church, after years of peaceful fellowship
with his brethren, WAS charged with
unchristian conduct. These charges
coming before the church, it was
pleaded in bar of all further proceedings
that he had. of his own voltion, severed bis
connection with the church, four years before,
and that he was not, therefore. amcnablc to
discipline. After some discussion this plea
was substantially admitted and the MEM
Der referred to was dropped from the
rolls of tho church. To this the Church
of the Pilgrims and the Clinton
ave. Church objected. They maintained
that it was not Congregational usage to thus
exclude from the brotherhood one who had
once entered into covenant with tho church.
They urged that such a course was dsorderly
and calculated 20 bring discredlt on the
CAUSE of Christ as upheld by the COngre-
gational churches. They argued. further,
that q member could leave brother
hood only by letter of dismissal and
certificate of his Christian standing, by death,
or by accommodation for cause. TO all OF
this the Plymouth Church entered general
denial as to usage, and urged that this par
ticuar case was in harmony with their own
established forms of proceedings. AS this point
is the pivot of the whole discussion, we re-
produce herewith the Councils decision
thereon


Therefore, say distinctly that the idea OF member
shin in Church the idea OF covenant
between the Individual member and the church, that by
Of that covenant the member is responsible 10 the
church conformity to the law OF Christ and the
church responsible for him; and that this response
bty oes not til the church, by some formal and
act has declared the dissolution OF tho cove
nant The covenant may he broken by the member. He
may offend, and when duly admomshed. may give no
satisfactory evidence OF repentance. Ia that case, he ia
cut of from communion. Tho church having gwen its
testimony longer responsible for him, and he can
be restored only by the removal OF tho censre. Volun
tary absence OF resident member from the commu-
mon the church, aud from its public worship. does
not dissolve the covenant, but Is reasonable ground
OF admonition and II persisted in. OF final censure.


This, then, concludes the whole matter for
the present. How the three Brooklyn churches
Immediately interested in the case will receive
the decision remains to be seen. The Council
was composed of men of eminent ability, high
Christian character, and strict impartiallty.
1t is evident that their deliberations were
conducted with great dignity, fairness, and
tenderness. The conclusion to which they
have arrived undoubtedly seemed to them
inevitable. 1t will be so received, probably.
by the great bulk of the denomination repre-
scnted in the convOcation which has just dis
solved.