146 



CONGREGATIOXALISTS. 



of the churches invited had declined to be rep- 

 resented. The delegates who were present 

 had gathered from fourteen States. Plymouth 

 Church was invited to declare its views orally 

 before the Council on the questions presented 

 by its pastor and such committee as it might 

 appoint, and by the same committee to convey 

 such information concerning the action referred 

 to in those questions as the Council might re- 

 quest. It declined to appear, " lest," as it re- 

 plied in its letter, " by our acceptance we 

 should seem to renounce our conscientious con- 

 victions and to withdraw our solemn testimony 

 against the violation of Christian liberty, cour- 

 tesy, and equity, which has characterized the 

 calling of this Council and the steps which led 

 to it, and lest we should establish a precedent 

 full of danger to smaller churches, as encour- 

 aging irregular and unwarrantable proceedings 

 on the part of strong churches, which the 

 weaker party might afterward, by the force of 

 our example, be compelled to condone." In 

 the same letter, the church made some ex- 

 planations of its position on the subject of 

 church-fellowship, which were subsequently 

 referred to in the decision of the Council as 

 having, to a certain extent, influenced its ac- 

 tion. The first business was to determine 

 whether the Council was a mutual, an ex-parte, 

 or an advisory one. It was decided to be an 

 advisory Council. Its discussions were con- 

 ducted for the most part in secret session. 



The decision of the Council was embodied in 

 a formal document. It reviewed the circum- 

 stances which led to the calling of the Coun- 

 cil, and the preliminary correspondence which 

 took place between the churches calling it and 

 Plymouth Church. In respect to that part of 

 the correspondence in which a reference of the 

 points of difference to the advice of a Council 

 was sought, it said : 



We find on the part of Plymouth Church no defi- 

 nite expression either of consent or refusal. Yet, 

 inasmuch as the Plymouth Church did not distinctly 

 refuse to unite on a reference to a Council, we cannot 

 but regret that the complaining churches did not 

 urge their request till a refusal or an evasion should 

 have become unequivocal. 



On the main questions on which advice was 

 sought, it pronounced the following judgment 

 and opinions : 



We say distinctly that the idea of membership in 

 a Congregational Church is the idea of a covenant be- 

 tween the individual member and the church ; that 

 by virtue of that covenant the member is responsible 

 to the church for his conformity to the law of Christ, 

 and the church is responsible for him ; and that this 

 responsibility does not cease till the church, by some 

 formal and corporate act, has declared the dissolution 

 of the covenant. The covenant maybe broken by 

 the member. He may offend, and, when duly ad- 

 monished, may give no satisfactory evidence of re- 

 pentance. In that case, he is cut off from commun- 

 ion ; the Church .having given its testimony is no 

 longer responsible for him, and he can be restored 

 only by the removal of the censure. Voluntary ab- 

 sence of a resident member from the communion of 

 the Church, and from its public worship, does not 

 dissolve the covenant, but is a reasonable ground- of 

 admonition, and, if persisted in, of final censure. 



"When a regular complaint is made against such a 

 member that in some other respect he violates the 

 laws of the Church, and especially when the com- 

 plaint is that he has circulated and prompted scan- 

 dals derogatory to the Christian integrity of the 

 pastor and injurious to the reputation of the Church, 

 the consideration that he has long ago forsaken the 

 Church is only an aggravation of his alleged fault. 



In regard to the future relations between theso 

 churches and Plymouth Church, we express our hope 

 that the very extraordinary proceeding which gave 

 occasion for the correspondence and for this Council 

 will not be a precedent for the guidance of that 

 Church hereafter. Could we suppose that such pro- 

 ceedings will be repeated, we should feel that the 

 disregard of the first principles involved in the idea 

 of church-membership aijd the idea of the fellowship 

 of churches with each other, would require the 

 strongest possible protest. But the communication 

 from the Plymouth Church to this Council makes 

 professions and declarations which justify the hope 

 that such deviation from the orderly course of dis- 

 cipline will not be repeated. The accused person in 

 that case has not been retained in the church, nor 

 commended to any other church. 



We recite some of those declarations from the 

 Plymouth Church which encourage the hope we 

 have expressed : " We rejoice," says the Plymouth 

 Church, " to live in affectionate fellowship with all 

 churches of the Lord Jesus, and especially with 

 those who are in all things like-minded with us, 

 holding to the same faith and order, not only in 

 things fundamental but in things less essential yet 

 dear to us by conviction or association. * * * * We 

 cheerfully admit that whenever any church shall 

 openly and avowedly change the essential conditions 

 upon which it was publicly received into the fellow- 

 ship of neighboring churches, or shall by flagrant 

 neglect exert a pernicious and immoral influence 

 upon the community, or upon sister churches, it is 

 their right either by individual action or by coimcil 

 to withdraw their fellowship. We hold that preced- 

 ing disfellowship in all such cases there should bo 

 such affectionate and reasonable inquiry as shall 

 show that the evil is real, that the causes of it are 

 within the control of the church, that the evil is not 

 a transient evil, such as may befall any church, but 

 is permanent and tending to increase rather than 

 diminish." 



While it is not to be forgotten that this communi- 

 cation from Plymouth Church is entirely subsequent 

 to the case as it stood upon the convening of this 

 Council, when the Plymouth Church, by its action 

 of December 5th, had declared itself responsible for 

 no other church, and no other church for it, in re- 

 spect to doctrine, order, and discipline, which action, 

 as interpreted in the circumstances then existing, 

 implied a withdrawal to the ground of total inde- 



Eeudency, yet that church is to be fraternally judged 

 y its latest utterance. 



These professions on the part of Plymouth Church 

 may be accepted by father churches as indicating its 

 intention to maintain an efficient discipline, and to 

 regard the mutual responsibility of churches. At 

 the same time, the Council feels constrained to de- 

 clare that these declarations seem to us inconsistent 

 with the resolution of interpretation adopted by 

 Plymouth Church, December 5 ? 1873, and with other 

 acts and statements appearing in the published doc- 

 uments. We think that the action of that church, 

 as presented in these documents, if unmollified, 

 would justify these churches in withdrawing fellow- 

 ship. Yet, inasmuch as the Plymouth Church seems 

 to us to admit, in its communication to us, the Con- 

 gregational principles of discipline and fellowship, 

 we advise the churches convening this Council to 

 maintain with it the relations of fellowship as here- 

 tofore, in the hope that Plymouth Church may sat- 

 isfy these churches of its acceptance of the princi- 

 ples which it has been supposed to disavow. 



