CONVERTED 
 
 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THK 
 
 University of California. 
 
 GIFT OK 
 THE FAMILY OF REV. DR. GEORGE MOOAR 
 
 Class 
 
 
 
 
 
.... , 
 
 ' V • ' . ■ 
 
 W^' .^ ,. 
 
 
 
 
 
 -:^- "• m 
 
 t^^^^ 
 
THE 
 
 Brooklyn Council 
 
 OF 1874. 
 
 LETTER- MISSIVE, STATEMENT, 
 AND DOCUMENTS, 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 An Official Phonographic Report of the Proceedings, 
 AND the Result of Council. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 WOOLVVORTH AND GRAHAM, 
 
 1874. 
 
IK if 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by 
 
 WOOLWORTH AND GRAHAM, 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 
 
PUBLISHERS' PREFACE. 
 
 The Advisory Council convened in Brooklyn, March 24th, 1874, 
 was so large in numbers, it included so many distinguished men, 
 and was called to consider questions of such substantial and en- 
 during importance to the fraternity of Congregational churches, 
 that, beyond almost any similar body heretofore convened, it 
 attracted public attention ; and the more or less full accounts of 
 its proceedings which have been already published have been 
 widely read. In view, however, of the prominence and importance 
 of the Council, a general desire has been expressed to have a more 
 complete report of its discussions than has thus far appeared, 
 presented in a volume for permanent preservation. 
 
 Anticipating the probability of this, the committees of the 
 churches calling the Council had made arrangements beforehand 
 for a complete stenographic report of all its public discussions and 
 proceedings, by Mr. Frederick J. Warburton ; and that report has 
 been placed at the disposal of the present publishers, and is con- 
 tained in this volume. 
 
 Arrangements had also been made for a similar report of the 
 private deliberations of the Council, if it should seem desirable to 
 the body itself to have such a record made of them. But as the 
 Council preferred, no doubt wisely, to preserve the entirely con- 
 fidential character of the informal and interlocutory discussions of 
 its private sessions, no report of them exists. The " Result," which 
 was reached by means of them, is their only authentic record and 
 fruit. 
 
 That Result is contained in the present volume ; as is also the 
 
iv PUBLISHERS' rREFACE. 
 
 correspondence between the churches, which preceded the calling 
 of the Council, and the final report of the committees to the 
 churches that invited it. 
 
 The publishers have spared no pains to make the volume 
 accurate and satisfactory, in its exhibition of all the public words 
 and doings of the Council. They believe that the importance of 
 the subjects discussed will give it a permanent as well as an im- 
 mediate interest and value, — not only to the Congregational 
 churches of the country, but to the members of other Christian 
 communions, who may wish to know what Congregationalism is, 
 and what power it has to conserve the purity and the faith of the 
 churches. 
 
 One of the publishers, having been a member of one of the com- 
 mittees of the inviting churches, desires to add here his testimony 
 to the entire harmony which marked the proceedings of those 
 committees, in regard to the weighty matters entrusted to them, 
 from the time when the first resolutions were passed appointing 
 them to their office, till the time when their final report was made 
 to the churches which had appointed them, and when they were 
 discharged from further service. 
 
 He has never seen a company of Christian men more desirous 
 to do fully and faithfully, but to do nothing beyond, what the 
 churches intended ; or more certainly actuated by the spirit of love 
 to the cause and kingdom of the Divine Master. He cannot but 
 believe that such deliberations and action as those of the churches 
 and their committees, and of the Council in which these resulted, 
 will be followed by the blessing of Him who is the Head of the 
 kingdom, and will be found to have been to His honor and praise ! 
 
 New York, June, 1874. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGB. 
 
 LErrER-MissivE, summoning the Council 1-9 
 
 Statement by Joint Committee of the summoning Churches, 
 
 ACCOMPANYING THE LETTER-MiSSIVE 10-22 
 
 Documents : 
 
 The Charge Preferred in Plymouth Church, Oct. 6, 1873 ) 
 
 Report of Examining Committee, and action thereupon ( /» \ _ f. 
 
 by Plymouth Church, Oct. 31, 1873 . . . . | ^ ' ^^ 
 Card from Clerk of Plymouth Church, Nov. i, 1873 . J 
 
 First Letter to Plymouth Church, Nov. 8, 1873 (B.) , . . 27-31 
 
 First Letter from Plymouth Church, Nov. 28, 1873 (C.) . . 32-33 
 
 Second Letter to Plymouth Church, Dec. 5, 1873 (D.) , , 34-35 
 
 Second Letter from Plymouth Church, Dec. 6, 1873 • 1 /tt \ a_-, 
 
 Resolutions adopted by Plymouth Church, Dec. 5, 1873 > 3 j7 
 
 Third Letter to Plymouth Church, Dec. 15, 1873 (F.) . , 3S-46 
 Third Letter from Plymouth Church, Jan. 2, 1S74 . \ ir\ 
 Remarks by Rev. Mr. Beecher, June 29, 1873 . . > 
 
 Sessions of Council: 
 
 Opening Session, March 24 52-81 
 
 Second Session, March 25 82-128 
 
 Third Session, March 25 129-169 
 
 Fourth Session, March 25 1 70-191 
 
 Fifth Session, March 26 192-229 
 
 Thirteenth Session, March 28 230-237 
 
 Action by the Inviting Churches, April 3 238-241 
 
LETTER-MISSIVE. 
 
 Brooklyn, N.Y., March 9, 1874. 
 The Church of the Pilgrims, and the Clinton Avemu 
 Congregational Chm-cJi, SEND GREETING : 
 
 Dear Brethren in Christ : 
 
 Since November last we have been in correspondence, 
 through our pastors and special committees, with the Ply- 
 mouth Church in this city, on certain questions of church- 
 discipline, and of the proper fellowship of Congregational 
 churches. 
 
 The occasion of this correspondence, with our letters, and 
 the letters and resolutions of the Plymouth Church in reply, 
 will be found fully spread forth in the documents accompany- 
 ing this Letter-Missive, and in the explanatory statement 
 prepared, at our request, by our committees. 
 
 We have now reached a point where we feel ourselves to 
 need, and at liberty to seek, the aid of the wisdom of other 
 churches ; that we may know how far what we have done is 
 approved by them, and what course we should properly follow 
 in the future. 
 
 We have desired, and, as our letters will show, have earnestly 
 sought, that all the questions at issue between us, on the one 
 hand, and the Plymouth Church on the other, should be sub- 
 mitted by that church, as by us, to a Council chosen in com- 
 mon. 
 
 We have not been able to obtain from that church a deci- 
 sive answer, either in the affirmative or in the negative, to this 
 request ; and the further protracting of our correspondence 
 appears to us inexpedient, in view of the delays connected 
 with it, of its comparative fruitlessness hitherto, and of the 
 mutually suspicious and hostile feeling which it has shown 
 itself liable to excite. 
 
 We therefore wholly lay aside any effort to secure a Coun- 
 
2 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 cil which should have it for a part of its function to advise 
 that church, after due inquiry, as to the regularity of its past 
 proceedings, or the proper course to be pursued by it in fu- 
 ture ; and we now confine ourselves to asking a Council to 
 advise 7is, in regard to matters which have come before us in 
 connection with this correspondence, and which to us appear 
 of grave importance. 
 
 We especially ask the testimony and advice of our sister 
 churches, and of eminent divines, on the points presented in 
 the following Questions, to wit : — 
 
 First. Is it in accordance with the order and usage of Congre- 
 gationalism that a member may terminate his membership in a 
 church by absenting himself from its services and communion ? or 
 is a corporate and consenting action on the part of the church 
 necessary to such termination of membership ? 
 
 Second. During the voluntary absence of a member from the 
 ordinances, if specific charges, of grossly unchristian conduct, are 
 presented against him by a brother in the church, — to which 
 charges he declines to answer, — is it in accordance with the order 
 and usage of Congregationalism that the church shall withhold 
 inquiry as to the alleged wickedness, and, in face of such public 
 assertion of his offenses, shall treat him as if still unaccused, 
 dropping his name from its roll " without reflection upon him " ? 
 
 Third. When such a member is charged with having " circulated 
 and promoted scandals, derogatory to the Christian integrity of the 
 pastor, and injurious to the reputation of. the church," if he be 
 publicly released, by the church which he confronts, without ex- 
 amination of the facts, and without censure, from all further 
 responsibility to it, has the rule of Christ in the eighteenth chapter 
 of Matthew, concerning the treatment of the trespassing brother, 
 as commonly administered in Congregational churches, been main- 
 tained ? or is it distinctly disregarded, in a case which called for 
 its careful observance ? 
 
 Fourth. Was the action of the Plymouth Church, in the case of 
 discipline issued by it October 31, 1873, as presented in the pub- 
 lished documents, in accordance with the order and usage of 
 Congregational churches ? or was it an apparent departure from 
 these, tending, in the circumstances, to injure and offend othei 
 churches in fellowship, and warranting apprehension and remon- 
 strance on our part. 
 
LETTER-MISSIVE. 3 
 
 Fifth. In view of the aforesaid action of Plymouth Church, and 
 of the fact that this is maintained as in accordance with its custom- 
 ary policy, what is the duty, concerning that church, of the churches 
 calling this Council ? Especialh^, what is their duty in regard to 
 continuing in their fellowship with it ? 
 
 Sixth. In view of the resolution adopted by the Plymouth Church 
 Dec. 5, 1873, in which its rules are interpreted, publicly, and with 
 authority, " as relieving all other churches from responsibility for the 
 Doctrine, Order, and Discipline of this church, and this church 
 from all responsibility for those of other churches," what is the 
 duty, concerning that church, of the churches calling this Council ? 
 Especially, what action, if an}', should they take to release them- 
 selves from the mutually responsible connection with it, in which 
 they have stood before the Christian public ? 
 
 Seventh. Have the churches calling this Council acted, in its 
 judgment, in substantial accordance with the principles of Congre- 
 gationalism, as set forth in our authorized Platforms of Polity, in 
 the remonstrances and requests addressed by them to the Plymouth 
 Church ? or in what respect, if in any, have they erred toward that 
 church, and departed from these principles, in the representations 
 which they have made to it ? 
 
 We ask you, dear Brethren, to meet in Council, by your 
 pastor and delegate, at the Clinton Avenue Church in this 
 city, on the 24th of March, 1874, at 7, p.m., to consider these 
 Questions, or such of them as the Council may deem it wise 
 to consider, and to give us the light of your wisdom upon 
 them. 
 
 We purpose to notify the Plymouth Church of our action 
 in the premises, and to convey to them our desire and hope 
 that they will be present with us at the sessions of the Coun- 
 cil, by their pastor and a committee, to correct any statements 
 of fact which may seem to them erroneous, and to furnish 
 any further and special information which the Council may 
 request. 
 
 But it is to be expressly understood that the Council is 
 called to advise us, and not them ; that we propose no investi- 
 gation into the truth or falsehood of any charges which have 
 been made against any of their members ; and that, so far as 
 we are concerned, only the public proceedings of that church, 
 
THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 concerning which, as matters of fact, there seems room for no 
 doubt, will come within your cognizance. 
 
 We wish to know, simply, if our recent action toward that 
 church, when the reasons for it are fully explained, is deemed 
 to have been proper ; and how, in the judgment of sister 
 churches, we should order ourselves concerning it hereafter. 
 
 And we pray for a Result which may be for the good of all 
 our churches ; admonishing us, if we are deemed to have acted 
 wrongly ; guiding us aright, if we are found in error on the 
 Questions proposed ; but vindicating the polity which is con- 
 secrated to us by both memories and hopes, for which we have 
 faithfully labored in the past, which has seemed to us to be 
 intimately connected with the Christian progress of our coun- 
 try, and to which, as understood by us, we continue as ever 
 earnestly attached. 
 
 Wishing you grace, mercy, and peace, from God our 
 Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, we, are dear Breth- 
 ren, affectionately yours, in the faith and fellowship of the 
 Gospel : 
 
 For the Church of the Pilgrims : 
 Richard S. Storrs, Pastor, 
 Richard R Buck, 
 Archibald Baxter, 
 DwiGHT Johnson, 
 
 Joshua M. Van Cott, )^ Committee. 
 Eli Mygatt, jun., 
 Walter T. Hatch, 
 Lucien Birdseye, 
 
 For Clinton Avenue Congregational Church 
 William Ives Budington, Pastor, 
 Alfred S. Barnes, 
 James W. Elwell, 
 Harvey B. Spelman, 
 Thomas S. Thorp, \ Committee. 
 
 Augustus F. Libby, 
 Flamen B. Candler, 
 Calvin C. Woolworth, 
 
LETTER-MISSIVE. 5 
 
 THE CHURCHES AND MINISTERS INVITED TO SIT 
 IN COUNCIL ARE: 
 
 FROM MAINE: 
 
 Brunswick, First Church. 
 Portland, Second Parish Church. 
 
 High Street Church. 
 
 State Street Church. 
 Bath, Winter Street Church. 
 Bangor, Central Church. 
 
 Rev. W. M. Barbour, D.D., Bangor. 
 
 FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: 
 
 Portsmouth, First Church. 
 
 Concord, South Church. 
 
 Manchester, Franklin Street Church. 
 
 Rev. Asa D. Smith, D.D., Hanover. 
 
 FROM VERMONT: 
 
 Rutland, First Church. 
 Burlington, First Church. 
 Montpelier, First Church. 
 St. Johnsbury, Second Church. 
 
 FROM MASSACHUSETTS: 
 
 Cambridge, First Church. 
 Boston, Old South Church. 
 
 Union Church. 
 
 Phillips Church. 
 
 Eliot Church. 
 
 Central Church. 
 
 Shawmut Church, 
 Northampton, First Church. 
 
 Edwards Church. 
 Westfield, First Church. 
 PiTTSFiELD, First Church. 
 New-Bedford, North Church. 
 Worcester, Calvinist Church. 
 
 Union Church. 
 Amherst, College Church. 
 Cambridgeport, First Church. 
 
THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Springfield, South Church, 
 North Church. 
 Lowell, High Street Church. 
 Andover, Church in Theological Seminary. 
 
 Rev. H. M. Dexter, D.D., Boston. 
 Rev. S. B. Treat, Boston. 
 Rev. John Pike, D.D., Rowley. 
 
 FROM RHODE ISLAND: 
 
 Providence, Beneficent Church. 
 Central Church. 
 Union Church. 
 
 FROM CONNECTICUT: 
 
 Hartford, First Church. 
 Park Church. 
 New Haven, First Church. 
 
 North Church. 
 New London, First Church. 
 
 Second Church. 
 Stamford, First Church. 
 Fairfield, First Church. 
 Bridgeport, First Church. 
 
 Second Church. 
 Norwich, Second Church. 
 
 Broadway Church. 
 
 Rev. T. D. Woolsey, D.D., PIew Haven. 
 Rev. Samuel Harris, D.D., New Haven. 
 Rev. Horace Bushnell, D.D., Hartford. 
 Rev. R. G. Vermilye, D.D., Hartford. 
 
 FROM NEW YORK: 
 
 New York City, Broadway Tabernacle Church. 
 
 First Church in Harlem. 
 Albany, First Church. 
 Brooklyn, South Church. 
 
 Elm Place Church. 
 
 Central Church. 
 
 New England Church, (E.D.) 
 
 State-Street Church. 
 
 Puritan Church. 
 
 Lee Avenue Church, (E.D.) 
 
LE TTER-MISSIVE. 
 Syracuse, Plymouth Church. 
 
 BiNGHAMTON, FiRST ChURCH. 
 
 Fairport, First Church. 
 Homer, First Church. 
 
 Rev. Ray Palmer, D.D., New York. 
 Rev. D. B. CoE, D.D., New York. 
 Rev. E. W, Oilman, New York. 
 
 FROM NEW JERSEY: 
 
 Newark First Church. 
 
 Belleville Avenue Church. 
 Jersey City, First Church. 
 Orange Valley, First Church. 
 Orange, Trinity Church. 
 Montclair, First Church. 
 
 FROM DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: 
 
 Washington, First Church. 
 FROM OHIO: 
 
 Columbus, First Church. 
 Oberlin, Second Church. 
 
 Rev. J. H. Fairchild, D.D., Oberlin. 
 
 FROM MICHIGAN: 
 
 Detroit, First Church. 
 Second Church. 
 FROM ILLINOIS: 
 
 Chicago, First Church, 
 
 Plymouth Church. 
 New England Church. 
 Union Park Church. 
 
 Rev. G. N. Boardman, D.D., Chicago. 
 
 FROM WISCONSIN: 
 
 Milwaukee, Spring Street Church. 
 
 Rev. a. L. Chapin D.D., Beloit. 
 Rev. W. E. Merriman, D.D., Ripon. 
 FROM IOWA: 
 
 Rev. G. F. Magoun, D.D., Grinnell. 
 
 FROM MISSOURI: 
 
 St. Louis, First Church. 
 
» THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 The Resolutions, providing for the issuing of this Letter-Mis- 
 sive, adopted at special meetings of the Church of the Pil- 
 grims, and the Clinton Avenne Congregational Church, held 
 Februaiy 22,, 1874, are as follows : — 
 
 Resolved, That the Letter-Missive now read be adopted 
 by this church, and that the Council contemplated by it be 
 called, according to its terms. 
 
 Resolved, That to the Council be invited such churches, 
 near and more distant, with such eminent ministers of our 
 denomination, as may fully represent the ripe and wise judg- 
 ment of the Congregational churches on the questions sub- 
 mitted ; and that the pastor and special committee, in con- 
 nection with the pastor and committee of the CHnton Avenue 
 Church,* be requested to designate, and authorized to invite 
 them, after due consultation, and to sign, on our behalf, the 
 Letter-Missive. 
 
 Resolved, That the same committee be requested to send, 
 to the churches and ministers invited, copies of the letters, 
 etc., which have passed between our churches and the Ply- 
 mouth Church ; with such an explanatory statement, of the 
 history of the case, and of the principles involved, as may 
 seem needful ; and also to prepare and present the case for 
 the consideration of the Council, when convened. 
 
 Resolved, That the clerk of the church be instructed to 
 notify the Plymouth Church of the calling of the Council, at 
 least one week before its sessions commence, and to furnish 
 them a copy of the Letter-Missive, with an invitation to be 
 present at the Council, by their pastor and a committee, for 
 the purposes specified in the letter. 
 
 Attest, 
 
 LUCIEN BiRDSEYE, 
 
 Clerk of the Church of the Pilgrims, pro tern. 
 
 Flamen B. Candler, 
 Clei^k of Clinton Avenue Congregational Church. 
 Brooklyn, N.Y., Feb. 23, 1874. 
 
 * {" Church of the Pilgrims," as adopted by Clinton Avenue Church.) 
 
EXTRACT FROM THE PLATFORM. 9 
 
 ["When difficulties, whether internal or external, threaten 
 the peace and spiritual prosperity of any church, and are not 
 likely to be adjusted without aid, or when any question arises 
 on which the church needs advice, for the guidance and cor- 
 rection, or confirmation, of its own judgment, that church 
 has a right to ask the advice of other churches with which it 
 is in communion." — Platform of Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 52.] 
 
STATEMENT. 
 
 [The following Statement has been prepared by the Committees of the 
 " Church of the Pilgrims," and the " Clinton Avenue Church," at the request of 
 those churches. It is intended to accompany the documents hereinafter pre- 
 sented, and to give any needful additional information, in regard to the origin 
 and design of these documents, and the principles involved in them. It antici- 
 pates, in part, the full presentation of the matters to be brought before the 
 Council, on behalf of these churches, by their committees ; and it is hoped may 
 prepare the way for that, and make it at last more easy and complete. 
 
 The careful attention of the pastors and delegates of the churches invited to 
 the Council, is earnestly solicited to it. 
 Brooklyn, N.Y., March 2, 1S74.] 
 
 On the 6th of October last, as is shown by pubhshed docu- 
 ments, charges were presented to the Examining Committee 
 of the Plymouth Church in this city, by one of the members 
 of that church, against another, whose name was still upon its 
 roll, although he had withdrawn from its services. These 
 charges alleged, with specifications, that the member accused 
 had "circulated and promoted scandals derogatory to the 
 Christian integrity of the pastor, and injurious to the reputa- 
 tion of the church." No denial of the charges was interposed 
 by the accused ; but, to a special committee, appointed to 
 wait on him, he made answer that he had not been for nearly 
 four years an attendant of Plymouth Church, and did not con- 
 sider himself a member of it, or amenable to its jurisdiction. 
 
 The Examining Committee, however, at a subsequent meet- 
 ing, in face of this declaration, sent to him another communi- 
 cation, enclosing a copy of the charges, with their specific 
 allegations, and requesting from him an answer to them. In 
 response, he repeated his declaration that he had terminated 
 his connection with the church, was not a member of it, and 
 
STATEMENT BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE. ii 
 
 could not receive the document addressed to him in that 
 capacity. 
 
 Thereupon it was recommended by the Committee, without 
 further investigation of the charges, so definitely made, and 
 so recently accepted and forwarded, that since the member 
 accused had abandoned his connection with the church, by 
 prolonged absence from its services and ordinances, therefore 
 his name be dropped from its list. At a meeting of the 
 church, held on the evening of October 31, at which the 
 facts above stated were made known, and at which the mem- 
 ber accused was present, it was so voted, by a large majority ; 
 and his name was dropped, as the clerk of the church the 
 next day explained, in a published official note, " without re- 
 flection upon him." 
 
 The course thus adopted was advocated by the pastor, 
 according to published reports, as being in accordance with 
 the established policy of the Plymouth Church. 
 
 These facts becoming public, it appeared to many members 
 of our churches, that, if they were correctly understood, a 
 dangerous error had been committed, whether consciously or 
 not, by a church with which we had been for many years in 
 happy fellowship ; which we had highly honored for its works' 
 sake ; with whose pastor ours had been closely allied ; with 
 whose internal affairs we had never, in any case, sought to 
 interfere ; but the preservation of efficient discipline in which, 
 with the unblemished whiteness of its pastor's fame, was im- 
 portant to others as well as to itself, — was important, indeed, 
 to all Christians and churches. 
 
 The action taken had been corporate and public, and was 
 not the individual act of one or of many. It had been taken 
 deliberately, after consideration ; and taken in a case so signal 
 and startling, which many circumstances had made so noto- 
 rious, that the eyes of the whole community were upon it. 
 If, therefore, an instance can ever occur in which neighbor- 
 ing churches, affiliated with another in public fellowship, may 
 properly remonstrate with it against practices adopted, and 
 principles of action publicly applied, this seemed such a case ; 
 and the surpassing importance of the interests involved ap- 
 peared to leave us no alternative. 
 
12 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 It was felt that if the action thus taken was to be regarded 
 as exceptional in its nature, peculiar to the case presented, it 
 could not fail to leave the impression on many minds that the 
 church had departed from its ordinary course, and had shrunk 
 from investigating such serious charges, for reasons personal 
 to the pastor ; through which impression a name long honored 
 in the American churches would inevitably suffer. On the 
 other hand, if the action were to be regarded as not excep- 
 tional, but representative of a general policy, it appeared yet 
 more dangerous. For then it seemed to exhibit a distinct 
 abandonment by the church of that duty of watchfulness over 
 its members which involves investigation when proof is of- 
 fered of their unchristian conduct, with such subsequent and 
 remedial church-work as Christian fidelity may suggest, and 
 with the final exclusion, under censure, of those found guilty 
 and unrepentant. 
 
 Action like this apparently made void the Covenant of the 
 church ; since those who therein had solemnly promised to 
 " submit to necessary discipline, and avoid all causes of scan- 
 dal and offense," while the providence of God should continue 
 them in the church, were practically declared at liberty at any 
 time to annul these obligations, by the action of their indivi- 
 dual minds, though still enrolled as responsible church-mem- 
 bers. 
 
 It seemed precisely to contradict the principles which had 
 been avowed and proclaimed by the Plymouth Church, in an 
 elaborate edition of its Manual, published and distributed in 
 1854, and to show a complete departure from them. 
 
 It seemed most dangerous in itself. 
 
 It was felt that any member, accused of whatever flagrant 
 wrong-doing, would be authorized and encouraged, by action 
 like this, to avoid all scrutiny and censure by the church, by 
 adding to other misdemeanors the further offense of absenting 
 himself from its services and communion ; and that, in conse- 
 quence, the conviction of any one, of any offense, however 
 gross, and however capable of absolute proof, must thereafter 
 become impossible. 
 
 It was felt that an injury had been done, by the action thus 
 taken, to all the churches in responsible church-communion 
 
STATEMENT BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE. 13 
 
 with the Plymouth Church ; that this action, with the pohcy 
 apparently declared in it, would cast an undeserved reproach 
 on those whose principles and methods of discipline were 
 w holly diverse from what here were presented ; that they 
 tended directly to injure other more recent churches, in which 
 the example, if continuing unquestioned, might be naturally 
 followed ; that they were wholly opposed to the ancient and 
 honored principles and rules of Congregational churches ; 
 that they were not in accordance with the law of the Master 
 for the treatment of a trespassing brother ; and that they 
 practically dissolved the church, as an organized body, and 
 reduced it to a transient and casual society, without bond or 
 law, from which any one might depart, at any moment, with 
 as little formality as from a street-meeting. 
 
 Certainly it was with reluctance and pain that such conclu- 
 sions were admitted. A public difference with the Plymouth 
 Church was felt by our churches only less an evil than would 
 be silence in the face of such action. It was recognized by 
 them as no light thing to encounter the influence which that 
 church and its pastor had gained for themselves, by many 
 years of eminent service and splendid fame. Our hearts drew 
 back from a collision with those in whose Christian renown 
 we had long had pride, and with whom, only a year before, we 
 had joined in the crowning jubilee of their history. 
 
 But so general and strong was the impression among us of 
 the dangerous nature of this action, that the pastors of our 
 churches, with large committees, were at once instructed to 
 communicate with the pastor and members of the Plymouth 
 Church ; to represent to them the impressions made by their 
 action ; to ask for fuller explanations of the policy said to 
 have been adopted by them ; to ask their revisal of this poli- 
 cy, if it should prove to be as reported ; and, if no satisfactory 
 explanation, or action of revision, should be secured, to ask 
 them to unite with our churches in calling a properly repre- 
 sentative Council, to consider the subject, and to advise them 
 and us as to their and our duties concerning it. 
 
 This office the committees accordingly performed ; address- 
 ing to the pastor and members of that church a letter long 
 enough, and earnest enough, to show how strong were the con- 
 
14 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 viction and feeling awakened by their action, while not inten- 
 tionally unkind in its terms ; setting forth, at large, the views 
 of the matter which were common to our churches, and ask- 
 ing for a private conference, and, if no adjustment of views 
 were thus secured, for a reference of the whole subject to a 
 Council, mutually chosen. 
 
 This letter was not at first publicly read in our church- 
 meetings, because it was feared that such a reading of it, be- 
 fore an assembly of many persons, prior to its transmission to 
 the church addressed, might be held by that church an un- 
 friendly act, equivalent to a premature publication ; by rea- 
 son of which they would possibly be indisposed to receive the 
 •suggestions, and accept the proposal, conveyed by the letter. 
 Afterward, however, learning that the meeting of the Ply- 
 mouth Church was delayed for some weeks, that the letter had 
 been read in advance to many members of that church and 
 society, and that its not having been read and approved in 
 our public meetings was made an occasion of objection to it, 
 it was thus read, November 21, before it had been presented 
 at the meeting of the Plymouth Church ; and the action of 
 the committees, in drafting and sending it, was unanimously 
 approved. 
 
 This letter was publicly read to the Plymouth Church on the 
 evening of November 26 ; and Resolutions were adopted 
 by that church declining the proposed conference, on the 
 ground, asserted in the preamble, that we had prejudged the 
 case, and had threatened the church with a withdrawal of fel- 
 lowship. At this meeting it was declared by one of the prin- 
 cipal speakers, in a long written argument which was after- 
 ward published, that the member against whom the charges 
 had been presented had not been at the time a member of the 
 church ; that he had before wholly excluded himself from it ; 
 and that " it has been, from the very beginning, an avowed 
 principle in the Congregational system that a man can thus 
 cut himself off from the church, and cease to be a member 
 of it." " If any thing has deep root in the system of Congre- 
 gationalism," he added, it is a rule supposed to sanction this 
 practice. 
 
 It was added by the pastor that it was necessary for the 
 
STATEMENT BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE. 15 
 
 Plymouth Church to maintain the principles involved in its 
 action, in order to have the churches in the neighborhood, and 
 those in the Northwest, "built up on the broadest democratic 
 construction of Congregational church-fellowship ; " and that 
 the basis of that church puts it " on precisely the same rela- 
 tions with Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian churches, that 
 it does with Congregational churches." " The Congregational 
 churches," he added, " have no more right to interfere with us 
 than the Presbyterian churches have." 
 
 As the Resolutions thus adopted by the Plymouth Church, 
 while refusing the conference which we had asked, did not in 
 express terms decline the Council which had also been sought, 
 in case the conference should bring no satisfaction, a note was 
 addressed to them, asking if they had intended to decline the 
 Council also. 
 
 In reply, they requested our committees to state the points 
 which it was desired to submit to a Council ; and at the same 
 meeting, December 5, the following Resolution was unani- 
 mously adopted, according to immediate subsequent publica- 
 tion : — 
 
 "■Resolved, That we interpret these principles [contained in rules 
 previously recited] as relieving all other churches from responsibility 
 for the Doctrine, Order, and Discipline of this church, and this church 
 from all responsibility for those of other churches ; and as assert- 
 ing for this church a right to judge, in every case, what fellowship, 
 advice, or assistance, may, according to the laws of Christ, properly 
 be offered or received." 
 
 In responding to their note, the committees presented the 
 points which it seemed desirable to submit to a Council ; and 
 then, as specially directed by our churches, called the atten- 
 tion of the Plymouth Church to the above Resolution, as 
 seeming to affirm for it the position of entire independency 
 of all churches whatever, exterior to itself ; so that its Articles 
 of Faith might be altered or dispensed with, its Rules might 
 require no conditions for admission, its Covenant might be 
 wholly abandoned, without its recognizing any right of remon- 
 strance on the part of other churches. They cited statements 
 from the previous Manual of Plymouth Church, setting forth 
 principles of order and discipline in express opposition to its 
 recent action. They further pointed out the fact, that if such 
 a position as seemed now assumed should be maintained, while 
 
1 6 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 we should wish that church all success in its own work, and 
 in its preferred way of doing that work, the special relations 
 of our churches with it, of denominational alliance, and the 
 fellowship which implies reciprocity of duties, would be neces- 
 sarily suspended. 
 
 Though the points needing, in the judgment of our churches, 
 to be submitted to a Council, were explicitly stated in this 
 letter, and the request for such Council was not withdrawn, 
 we did not further urge them to join in it, in view of their 
 preceding Resolution ; since the very act of convening a Coun- 
 cil implies a responsibility to other churches which they ap- 
 peared to have wholly disavowed. 
 
 This letter was sent December 15. The answer to it was 
 adopted by the Plymouth Church, January 2. In this an- 
 swer, that church postponed any discussion of the points 
 presented by us as important in our view to be submitted to 
 a Council, while not declining to join, under any circum- 
 stances, in calling one ; and it replied to the other portion of 
 our letter — without any reference to the emphatic statements 
 quoted by us from its former Manual — by affirming that, 
 " Congregationalism is the conduct of the affairs of the church 
 by the whole brotherhood, not embarrassed by the unasked 
 interference of other churches ; " that this has been the view 
 of Plymouth Church from the beginning ; and that this posi- 
 tion " is Congregationalism, as we understand it, hold it, and 
 are determined to maintain it." It adds concerning our 
 churches : " If they choose to withdraw from a truly Congre- 
 gational fellowship, it is their right so to do. But we have 
 not withdrawn, and we will not withdraw." 
 
 The letter also declared that no document would thereafter 
 be received from our churches unless accompanied with 
 "proof of the authority of the whole brotherhood, regularly 
 and deliberately conferred ; " nor if it should contain (accord- 
 ing to their apprehension) "covert insinuations against the 
 character of any of the members of this church." 
 
 Further correspondence with them on the part of our 
 churches was not encouraged by this letter ; as we could 
 scarcely be expected to submit to their inquest the regularity 
 of our meetings, or the proper deliberateness of our church- 
 
STATEMENT BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE. 17 
 
 action ; the signatures of our clerks, even if certified to by 
 the pastors, might not be regarded as giving more " proof " of 
 the authority of the churches than those of our pastors and 
 large committees had previously done. " Covert " is a word 
 of elastic significance ; and it is of course difficult for us to 
 know who are, or are not, members of the Plymouth Church, 
 their connection with it appearing to depend wholly on their 
 individual volitions, of which, at any particular moment, we 
 can hardly hope to be definitely informed. 
 
 The letter itself appeared to us, whether correctly or not, 
 evasive and cunning, rather than ingenuous. The tone of it 
 impressed us as angry. Our references to the former utter- 
 ances of the church, through its authorized Manual, were met 
 by nothing but vehement assertions that the Plymouth Church 
 had always been the same, and was more truly Congregational 
 than were ours. And there were threats in the letter, certainly 
 not covert, for which nothing in our history, so far as we are 
 aware, had given occasion, to which we could hardly bring our- 
 selves to reply, though before them we were conscious of no 
 apprehensions. 
 
 It appeared plain enough that a correspondence to be pur- 
 sued, on either side, in such a spirit, would be of neither credit 
 nor service to any Christian interest. Accordingly, since then, 
 no further letters have been exchanged between our churches. 
 Certain private communications between the pastors, of that 
 church and ours, have since taken place ; but with these 
 neither the churches nor their committees have had any thing 
 to do ; and it is only understood by them that no satisfactory 
 adjustment of the points in discussion, and no agreement on 
 questions to be submitted to a Council, have been attained. 
 
 Our churches now find themselves, therefore, in a position 
 in which they urgently need the unbiased counsel of other 
 churches, who can look at the subject with experienced can- 
 dor, and with minds undisturbed by the local influences which 
 may unconsciously affect our judgments. 
 
 Out of the series of facts recited, emerge questions of 
 large extent, and paramount importance ; the early and right 
 decision of which appears indispensable, if Congregational 
 churches are to maintain their place among those which sur- 
 
l8 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 round them, and to continue to act together in their usual 
 modes of co-operative effort. 
 
 It should be distinctly understood what are the questions 
 thus challenging attention. 
 
 They are not questions as to the Christian character, or the 
 purity of life, of the pastor of the Plymouth Church. We are 
 not aware that proper charges, impeaching these, have been 
 presented to any church. Certainly, none such have been 
 presented to ours ; and we have none to present to a Council. 
 
 They are not questions as to the truth or falsehood of the 
 charges which were made, October 6, against a member of that 
 church, affirming his circulation of injurious scandals against 
 the pastor. These charges, it seems to us, should have been 
 investigated, and a decision upon them rendered, at the time, 
 by the proper authority. That this was not done was the 
 primal occasion of that correspondence out of which has 
 come the calling of this Council ; but the charges themselves, 
 with the evidence for them, it is not our province, or that of 
 the Council, to investigate. 
 
 The questions which remain, and which it is vital to the 
 welfare of our churches to have decided, concern the corre- 
 spondence of the order and usage of the Congregational 
 churches of the country with the action of the Plymouth 
 Church, in the case referred to, and in its subsequent Reso- 
 lutions and Letters. They are substantially two, though 
 naturally distributed into several particulars, — a question of 
 Discipline, and a question of Fellowship. Was the action 
 of the Plymouth Church right, according to such order and 
 usage, in the case issued by it October 31, taking that action 
 as presented in the public documents 1 Is its position of entire 
 independence, toward all churches exterior to itself, rightly to 
 be maintained, while its public Congregational relations with 
 our churches continue .'' 
 
 These questions are of controlling importance ; and, in 
 their practical bearings, they have a wide reach, in many 
 directions. 
 
 Primarily, and sensibly, they concern our churches ; and 
 we need an answer to them, as speedy as may be given, and 
 carrying all the authority possible. As at present situated, we 
 
STATEMENT BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE. 19 
 
 seem to ourselves entangled in a fellowship which brings the 
 burden of an indefinite obligation without conferring any 
 assured right or privilege. We are responsible without power. 
 We are in the position of a merchant accountable for the 
 debts of partners, upon whose contracts he can put no re- 
 straint. We are caught in the meshes of a public fellowship 
 which implicates us in the devious and irregular action of 
 others, while that action may be alien from all our practice, 
 and contrary to our deepest convictions. Even our subse- 
 quent protest against it is liable to be resented as an offense, 
 though without such a protest we should appear before the 
 public as abetting a policy which we utterly disapprove. 
 
 We cannot sustain such a position. It were, in our judg- 
 ment, entirely unreasonable to expect it from us. 
 
 Even if we could continue to hold it in view of the past, we 
 should feel it indispensable to be extricated from it, in forecast 
 of what may occur in the future. For who can predict what 
 further divergences from the accepted Congregational system 
 may be encouraged by the authorized consciousness in a 
 church of such an entire independence of others as here is 
 affirmed } If the Plymouth Church were at any time hereafter 
 to alter essentially its Articles of Faith, even omitting from 
 among them the Divinity of our Lord, we should plainly be 
 debarred, by its recent Resolution, from any remonstrance 
 against its action, while it still might insist, as emphatically 
 as now, that from " fellowship " with us it would not with- 
 draw. 
 
 Such a position is simply insupportable. If this is to be 
 Congregational practice, many churches will certainly prefer 
 to identify themselves with some other communion, in which 
 responsibility is associated with defined and undeniable rights. 
 No church, it seems to us, will be willing to pledge public 
 fellowship to a society which shall afterward be at liberty to 
 do what it pleases in regard to Doctrine, Order, and Discipline, 
 while it claims that the fellowship binds to silence the churches 
 which have pledged it. The isolation of each is the ultimate 
 alternative to the common and recognized rights of all. In- 
 stead of a denomination of free but mutually responsible 
 churches, consenting together in essential principles, we shall 
 
20 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL 
 
 be irresistibly resolved into a multitude of discordant and 
 suspicious ecclesiastical units, with no more real moral cohe- 
 sion than belongs to neighboring pebbles on the beach. 
 
 This is a result of the principles declared by the Plymouth 
 Church which is not merely special to ourselves, or to other 
 churches in this vicinity, but is common, by its nature, to all 
 Congregational churches in the land. 
 
 But beyond this appear grave practical questions, of instant 
 importance, and widest relations. 
 
 If it be admitted that a member may at any time terminate 
 his membership in a Congregational church by simply with- 
 drawing from its services, and that all which the church has 
 afterward to do, no matter what charges are brought against 
 him, is to alter its roll in conformity with his will ; and if it 
 be further admitted that a church may at any time do what it 
 likes in respect to doctrine, order, and discipline, without 
 responsibility to other churches, and without admitting in 
 them any right of remonstrance, — then the practical question 
 at once arises, whether the churches standing upon the Plat- 
 form of PoHty put forth at Cambridge in 1648, and subse- 
 quently amended and re-affirmed by the National Council in 
 1865, are ready to contribute, of their influence and their 
 means, to propagate and nourish, all over the land, societies 
 like these ? 
 
 Our own Church-Extension and Aid Committee needs an 
 answer to the radical questions which underlie this, to the 
 further prosecution of its important and promising labors. 
 
 Our Home Missionary Societies will find their work in the 
 collection of moneys for the aid of feeble Congregational 
 churches at the West and South limited and hindered, if not 
 arrested, in the absence of a definite settlement of these ques- 
 tions. 
 
 So, equally, will the Congregational Union. How many 
 will assist in making up large sums of money to house and 
 help such loosely-compacted and irresponsible societies ? 
 
 Even the Society for promoting Christian Education, by 
 the aid of students or the endowment of seminaries, will find 
 its constituency crumbling beneath it, if the churches to be 
 served by the men whom it educates are to be at liberty to 
 
STATEMENT BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE. 21 
 
 wholly unloose the bands of discipline, and to hold themselves 
 irresponsible toward others. 
 
 Nor can the American Board go forward, as the hearts of 
 its members have urged that it should, as Divine indications 
 have seemed to suggest, in the establishment of churches, 
 substantially Congregational, in foreign lands, if the principles 
 upon which those churches are to be based are left in this 
 intolerable doubt. 
 
 In a word, the whole system of co-operative effort, among 
 our Congregational churches, proceeds, in our view, upon the 
 idea that these churches are mutually responsible to each 
 other, in a sense in which they are not responsible to Episco- 
 palians or to Methodists ; and that membership in a church 
 implies something more than a temporary intention which any 
 one may revoke at his will : that if a church, therefore, by 
 corporate action, puts an end within itself to the salutary disci- 
 pline of the household of Christ, or gives up a principal doc- 
 trine of the Faith, it is to be admonished by others ; and, if it 
 shall not heed the admonition, it is to be excluded from fellow- 
 ship. If these ideas are now to be repudiated, or suffered to 
 lapse as things obsolete, the whole system of co-operative effort 
 based upon them, in our judgment, will rapidly disappear. 
 
 We therefore desire and ask the counsel of other churches 
 on the Questions presented in the Letter-Missive with which 
 this Statement will be sent. We have sought to make these 
 as concise as possible, while covering the points concerning 
 which an authentic testimony seems to be needed. If any 
 authority were requisite on our part for making such an appeal 
 for your advice, it would be found in the provision of the Plat- 
 form which expressly declares (p. 52), in the enumeration of 
 particular occasions for Councils : " When any question arises 
 on which the church needs advice, for the guidance and cor- 
 rection, or confirmation, of its own judgment, that church has 
 a right to ask the advice of other churches with which it is in 
 communion." 
 
 We unfeignedly rejoice, that, after the experience — not 
 wholly unlooked-for, but very unwelcome — through which the 
 Lord, during recent months, has called us to pass, we now 
 may have this rightful recourse to a Council so large, so wise, 
 
22 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 and so impartial, as we hope to convene ; by which we are 
 ready to be admonished and corrected, if to it we shall seem 
 to have done wrong ; to which we gladly remit the questions 
 which to us appear of wide relations, and grave importance ; 
 on whose result the future of Congregationalism in this coun- 
 try may largely depend ; and in which we trust will be plainly 
 revealed that " mind of the Spirit " to which righteousness is 
 dear as the means of true peace, through which the Master 
 still speaks to the world, and in following which is always free- 
 dom, safety, joy. 
 
DOCUMENTS. 
 
 A. 
 
 Copy of the Charge presented Oct. 6, 1873. 
 
 MR. TILTON'S RELATIONS WITH PLYMOUTH 
 CHURCH. 
 
 The proceedings in Plymouth Church on Friday evening, Oct. 
 31, concerning Mr. Theodore Tilton and his membership or non- 
 membership in that body, make it proper for *' The Golden Age " 
 to give the following documentary particulars : — 
 
 The Clerk of the Examinifig Committee to Mr. Tiltoii. 
 
 Brooklyn, Oct 16, 1873, 
 Mr. Theodore Tilton : 
 
 Dear Sir, — At a meeting of the Examining Committee of Ply- 
 mouth Church held this evening, the Clerk of the Committee was 
 instructed to forward to you a copy of the complaint and specifica- 
 tions made against you by William F. West, and was requested to 
 notify you that any answer to the charges that you may desire to 
 offer to the Committee, may be sent to the Clerk, on or before 
 Thursday, Oct. 23, 1873. 
 
 Enclosed I hand you a copy of the charges and specifications 
 referred to. Yours very respectfully, 
 
 393 Bridge Street. D, W. Tallmadge, Clerk. 
 
 Mr. West's Charge against Mr. Tilton. 
 I charge Theodore Tilton, a member of this church, with having 
 circulated and promoted scandals derogatory to the Christian 
 integrity of our Pastor, and injurious to the reputation of this 
 church. 
 
 [" The Golden Age," from motives of proper delicacy, omits to 
 give currency to the specifications.] 
 
 23 
 
24 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Mr. Tilton's Reply to the Clerk. 
 
 174 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, Oct. 20, 1873. 
 Mr. D. W. Tallmadge, Clerk. 
 
 My dear Sir, — I have received from you an official paper 
 addressed to me as a member of Plymoudi Church, 
 
 Nearly four years ago I terminated my connection with that 
 church, and am not now a member thereof. 
 
 Therefore the document addressed to me in that capacity I 
 cannot receive. 
 
 To avoid any seeming discourtesy in returning it herewith, I 
 retain it, subject to your direction. 
 
 With my best wishes for the prosperity of the church, I remain. 
 Truly yours, 
 
 Theodore Tilton. 
 [From the Golden Age (New York), Nov. 8, 1873.] 
 
 Report of the Committee, and Action of the Church. 
 
 On the evening of Friday, October 31, a special meeting of Ply- 
 mouth Church was held, immediately following the stated meeting 
 for voting upon the reception of new members. At that meeting 
 the regular Examining Committee (comprising nine deacons, six 
 deaconesses, and six other members of the church) offered the 
 following report : — 
 
 Brooklyn, Oct. 24, 1873. 
 
 At a meeting of the Examining Committee of Plymouth Church, 
 held last evening, the following preambles and resolution were 
 adopted : — 
 
 Whereas^ Charges were presented to the Committee by William 
 F. West against Theodore Tilton ; and 
 
 Whereas, A Special Committee having been appointed by the 
 Committee to wait upon Mr. Tilton with reference to said charges, 
 said Tilton, upon the evening of the 6th of October, made answer 
 to that Special Committee in these words : — 
 
 " I have not for nearly four years been an attendant of Plymouth 
 Church, nor have I considered myself a member of it, and I do 
 not now, nor does the pastor of the church consider me a member, 
 and I do not hold myself amenable to its jurisdiction in any man- 
 ner whatever ; " and 
 
 Whereas, Theodore Tilton, in reply to a communication addressed 
 to him by the Clerk of this Committee, which communication, with 
 
THE CHARGE: ACTION BY PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 25 
 
 a copy of the charges preferred against him by William F. West, 
 was put into the hands of said Tilton on the 17th October, inst., 
 and a request made of him that he should answer the same by the 
 twenty-third day of October, inst, says in a letter addressed to the 
 Clerk of the Committee, under date October 22, 1873 : — 
 
 " It is about four years since I terminated all connection with 
 the church, and am not now a member thereof ; therefore the 
 document addressed to me in that capacity I cannot receive ; " 
 and 
 
 Whereas, It thus appears that Theodore Tilton, a member of 
 this church, has abandoned his connection with the church by pro- 
 longed absence from all its services and ordinances ; therefore, 
 
 Resolved, That this Committee recommend to the church that 
 the name of Theodore Tilton be dropped from the roll of member- 
 ship of the church, as provided by rule No. 7 of the Manual. 
 
 D. W. Tallmadge, 
 Clerk Examming Committee. 
 
 Some general discussion ensued, in the course of which Mr. 
 Tilton, who was present, having asked and received the privilege 
 of speaking, re-affirmed his declaration of having severed his con- 
 nection with the church years previously. After remarks by the 
 Pastor and other brethren, and the rejection of divers motions and 
 amendments, the meeting voted that the report of the Committee 
 be accepted, and their recommendation adopted. 
 
 [From the Christian Union (New York), Dec. 3, 1873.] 
 
 Card of the Clerk of Plymouth Church. 
 
 Sir, — Your report of the recent proceedings in Plymouth 
 Church inadvertently speaks of Mr. Tilton's " expulsion." This 
 is an error. Mr. Tilton was not expelled. Having four years ago 
 ceased from his membership, his name, which has hitherto re- 
 mained on the roll, was last evening, in accordance with the facts, 
 with the rule, and without reflection upon him, taken from the 
 roll. 
 
 The rule by which Mr. Tilton's name was dropped from the 
 membership of the church is as follows : — 
 
 Rule 7. Dropping Members. — Members may be dropped from 
 the roll of the church with or without notice to them, as may be 
 deemed just, by a two-thirds vote of the church, upon the recom 
 
26 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 mendation of the Examining Committee, either upon their own 
 application, or, in case they have abandoned their connection with 
 the church by prolonged absence or otherwise, upon the applica- 
 tion of any other person. Respectfully, 
 
 S. B. Halliday, 
 Clerk of Plymouth Church. 
 69 Hicks Street, Brooklyn, Nov. i, 1873. 
 
 [From the New York Sun, Nov. 3, 1873.] 
 
Letter addressed to Plymouth Church, November 8, 1873. 
 
 Brooklyn, Nov. 8, 1873. 
 To the Pastor and Members of Plytnouth Church, Brooklyn, New 
 
 York : 
 
 Dear Brethren, — For many years we, as Congregational 
 churches, have dwelt in hearty fellowship with you, meeting with 
 you gladly in Conferences and Councils, interchanging members 
 with you, as these have chanced to change their residence, and mani- 
 festing in all ways, on whatever opportunity, our cordial Christian 
 confidence and regard. 
 
 We have done this in the belief that you, as a church, held and 
 taught the Evangelical faith, and were solicitous with us to honor 
 and maintain, in your internal discipline, the interests and the law 
 of Christian purity. 
 
 It is now publicly reported, without contradiction, that, at a meet- 
 ing of your church, properly convened, and numerously attended, 
 held on the evening of October 31, you voted, by a large ma- 
 jority, to drop from the roll of your membership, without ex- 
 amination, and without censure, a member of the church, present 
 in the meeting, against whom specific and serious charges were 
 known to be pending ; which had been presented by a brother in 
 the church, which had been accepted by the Committee of the 
 church, and of which the accused had been duly notified, — charges 
 vitally affecting the Christian character of the accused, if they 
 should be proven and unexplained, and intimately connected with 
 the good name of your Pastor, if any attempt were made to rebut 
 them by pleading that the statements charged as slanders were jus- 
 tified by facts ; that you did this upon the ground, as stated in 
 your preamble, that the accused member had " abandoned his con- 
 nection with the church, by prolonged absence from all its ser- 
 vices and ordinances ;" — and that your Pastor, in advocating this 
 action, declared in substance, the church acquiescing, that the 
 Plymouth Church " is not, and never has been, like many of the 
 
 27 
 
28 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 New-England Congregational churches ; " that one of its two 
 prominent principles has been, " that the door of entrance to it 
 should be as large as humanity," and the other, "that the door 
 of emission from it should be as large as necessity ; " and that 
 the policy adopted by the church has been, when a charge of 
 wrong-doing was made against a member, and the case was 
 thought one which, if pursued, would turn the church from its 
 great Gospel work, for the Examining Committee to go to the 
 accused, and advise him quietly to withdraw from the church. 
 
 The policy is here, as we understand it, distinctly avowed, as hav- 
 ing been deliberately adopted and pursued, and as therefore proper 
 to be applied to the exciting and prominent case at that moment 
 before the church, of avoiding the thorough investigation of com- 
 plaints charging members of the church with unchristian conduct, 
 by requesting the accused, if there should seem occasion for the 
 accusation, to withdraw from the church, without censure, in an- 
 ticipation of such investigation. 
 
 This is not a withdrawal of watch and discipline on the part of 
 the church, for the sake of relieving innocent persons, suspected 
 of no moral delinquency, from obligations which to them have 
 come to seem burdensome. 
 
 It is not even represented as a hazardous but a seemingly neces- 
 sary expedient, adopted reluctantly, in some extreme and excep- 
 tional case, the prosecution of which might be attended with 
 peculiar embarrassments. 
 
 It is announced as a prevailing policy of the church ; amounting, 
 with inevitable force, to a definite and permanent abandonment by 
 it of that duty of watchfulness over its members which involves a 
 careful and ample investigation when proof is offered of their un- 
 christian conduct, with such subsequent and remedial church-work 
 as the case may demand, and the Word and the Spirit of God point 
 out. 
 
 It seems to us undeniably plain, that such a course, however at- 
 tractive as avoiding trouble, and giving opportunity to escape such 
 issues as it never is pleasant to encounter, is directly subversive of 
 all true Christian discipline : 
 
 That it is unjust to those aggrieved by another's wrong-doing ; as 
 denying them the opportunity to make his guilt manifest, and shield- 
 ing him from the public condemnation which is often to them their 
 only reparation : 
 
 That it is injurious even to the person accused ; as tending to 
 diminish his sense of his guilt, while withdrawing from him those 
 
FIRST LETTER TO PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 29 
 
 Christian processes, of remonstrance, rebuke, and, if he be obdu- 
 rate, of final excision from the church, under censure, the fruit 
 of which may be to lead him to repentance : 
 
 That it is injurious to the church ; whose Christian wisdom is 
 developed, whose patience is exercised, whose sense of the beauty 
 and obligation of righteousness is re-enforced, and whose fair fame 
 is vindicated, by the careful, considerate, and prayerful exercise of 
 its power of discipline : 
 
 That it is injurious to the world \ which is encouraged, and almost 
 justified, in deriding the practical morality of the church, and 
 exalting in contrast its own societies, which at least expel unworthy 
 members : 
 
 That it is, most of all, injurious to Christ ; whose law for the 
 treatment of the trespassing brother, contained in the eighteenth 
 chapter of Matthew, it distinctly disregards ; whose spirit it repre- 
 sents as one of fear, not of wisdom, love, and of a sound mind; 
 and whose name it dishonors in the house of His fr'cnds. 
 
 It seems to us to offer opportunity, and positive inducement, to 
 the flagrant transgressor of whatever rules of morality or religion, 
 to evade all scrutiny and censure by the church, by simply absent- 
 ing himself, without reason given, from its services and communion, 
 — an act which constitutes of itself an offense, instead of operat- 
 ing to palliate another. 
 
 Such a course of action appears to us especially untimely, and 
 especially dangerous, when the sin alleged is against the good 
 name of a minister of Christ; in whose undimmed repute for 
 purity of life the whole church has an interest ; against whom 
 circumstantial and damaging statements are alleged to have been 
 made, by the member whom the church thus puts beyond its reach ; 
 concerning whom suspicion is almost sure to be increased by such 
 an apparent avoidance of duty ; and where the proper opportunity 
 to vindicate his name is certainly sacrificed. 
 
 But such a course must be always untimely, always dangerous ; 
 without warrant in the Word, without support of Christian wisdom, 
 and involving tendencies that can be only prolific of evil. 
 
 We are impressed with the conviction that credit cannot properly 
 be given to the letters dimissory of a church which adopts and avows 
 such a policy ; that even its unchallenged members will lose the 
 claim which grows out of their membership, to the confidence of 
 other Christians and churches, so long as the church with which 
 they are connected distinctly repudiates its prime obligation to 
 watch over their purity, to investigate its evidence when it is as- 
 
30 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 sailed, and to publicly declare its discovered absence ; that, while 
 injuring itself by such a course, the church brings discredit upon 
 the communion with which it is associated, and does great wrong 
 to the whole Christian brotherhood. 
 
 And we feel that we, as related and neighboring Congregational 
 churches, are not at liberty, before our own consciences, or before 
 the Master and Judge of all, to remain silent when a policy is 
 avowed which impresses us as so novel, so unscriptural, so danger- 
 ous in its present application, and so demoralizing ; that we cannot 
 continue in unquestioning fellowship with any church which accepts 
 and declares it. 
 
 In remembrance, therefore, of the pleasant relations which have 
 so long subsisted between us, in the hope that there may be expla- 
 nations by you which will cast a new and welcome light on the 
 position which you have assumed, or that you may be moved by 
 our representations to revise your late action, and adopt a course 
 more in harmony with the law of Christ, and with the common 
 usage of our churches, we earnestly invite you, by your Pastor and 
 a committee, to meet with us, in private conference, at your own 
 lecture-room, as speedily as possible, on such a day as you may 
 appoint, that we may more fully ascertain from yourselves the 
 nature and the reason of the action which you have taken, and 
 may more largely present to you the effect of that action, as now 
 understood, on your own church, and on its relations to those hith- 
 erto associated with it. 
 
 We do this, brethren, not as assuming the slightest authority over 
 you, or seeking in the least to invade the prerogatives which are as 
 dear to us as to you. We do it in the exercise of that fraternal 
 right which always accompanies fraternal obligation, and which is 
 therefore vitally involved in our fellowship with you. We do it in 
 accordance with the evident and perennial principle, essential to 
 Congregationalism, which is correctly and clearly stated in your 
 Church Manual, published by vote of the church in 1854, that Con- 
 gregational churches " may admonish each other, in case of heresy, 
 lax discipline, or any scandalous offense." 
 
 We do it in absolute kindness of spirit, but under the deepest 
 convictions of duty ; believing that you, however unconsciously, 
 are imperiling the name, the influence, and the future of all our 
 churches ; that you are giving the sanction of your large numbers, 
 and prominent position, to measures and a policy which will recoil, 
 with injurious effect, on your own fame and Christian power, 
 and which will work a sure disaster wherever applied ; that you 
 
FIRST LETTER TO PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 
 
 31 
 
 are leaving a palpable blight on the name of your Pastor, by seem- 
 ing to shrink from that investigation which the man accused of 
 slanders against him distinctly challenged ; that you are doing 
 essential dishonor to the Lord himself, by representing his king- 
 dom on earth as a promiscuous and casual society, without cohe- 
 sion or law, out of which any offender may pass, at any moment, 
 whatever his offense, without resistance, and without rebuke. 
 
 Brethren, in face of an error so vital and vast, and so threat- 
 ening in its consequences, we cannot be silent. We are constrained 
 to ask this interview with you. And we must further request, that 
 if no essentially different state of facts from that which now 
 appears, and which has been above recited, shall be presented by 
 your committee, in the conference which we seek, — if your recent 
 action is to remain, as it seems to us, an energetic principle of evil 
 in your own church, and of instant detriment and bad example to 
 every other, — the same committee may be instructed to unite 
 with us, according to the venerable rule of our fathers, in calling 
 a properly representative Council, of the Congregational churches 
 of the country, to which your recent action, with the general policy 
 of discipline involved in it, shall be submitted, and by which you 
 shall be advised on your duty in the matter, and we on our further 
 fellowship with you. 
 
 We are, brethren, with affectionate recollections, and earnest 
 prayers for your Christian welfare. 
 
 Yours, for the faith and order of the Gospel, 
 
 Richard S. Storrs, Pastor, 
 Richard P. Buck, 
 Archibald Baxter, 
 DwiGHT Johnson, Committee of the 
 
 Joshua M. Van Cott, \ Church of the 
 Eli Mygatt, jun., Fiigrms. 
 
 Walter T. Hatch, 
 LuciEN Birdseye, 
 
 William Ives Budington, Pastor, 
 Alfred S. Barnes, 
 James W. Elwell, 
 
 Harvey B. Spelman, Comjnittee of 
 
 Thomas S. Thorp, V the Clinton 
 
 Augustus F. Libby, Ave. Church. 
 
 Flamen B. Candler, 
 Calvin C. Woolworth, , 
 
c. 
 
 Letter from Plymouth Church, Nov. 28, 1873. 
 
 To the Pastor and Afejnbers of the Church of the Pilgrims, Brook- 
 
 lyn, New - York : 
 
 Dear Brethren, — At a special meeting of Plymouth Church, 
 held in their lecture-room, on Wednesday evening, the 26th in- 
 stant, called for the purpose of considering a joint letter, bearing 
 date Nov. 8, addressed to it by the pastors and committees of 
 seven brethren each, of the Church of the Pilgrims, and Clinton 
 Avenue Church, and also to consider a communication, laithout ad- 
 dress or date, signed " Sidney Sanderson," Assistant Clerk, appar- 
 ently proceedings of a special business meeting of the Church of 
 the Pilgrims, held Nov. 7, together with a communication from 
 Clinton Avenue Church, bearing date Nov. 22, certified by Fla- 
 men B. Candler to be proceedings of the Clinton Avenue Church, 
 at meetings held on the 7th and 21st of November,* after the read- 
 ing of the several documents, and discussions had thereon, the fol- 
 lowing preambles and resolutions were passed by the following 
 vote : in the affirmative, 504 ; in the negative, 25. 
 
 Whereas, This church has received a letter from the Church of 
 the Pilgrims, and the Clinton Avenue Congregational Church, ask- 
 ing for a conference concerning the alleged lax discipline of this 
 church ; and 
 
 Whereas, This letter, confessedly based on public report merely, 
 expresses a settled conviction that this church is in error, "vital 
 and vast ; " that we have done " essential dishonor to the Lord 
 himself;" that our policy is " unscriptural and demoralizing;" 
 that such action as the letter accuses us of taking " must be always 
 untimely, always dangerous, without warrant in the Word, without 
 support of Christian wisdom, and involving tendencies that can be 
 only prolific of evil ; " and 
 
 * The joint letter alluded to was received on Saturday, Nov. 8. The two 
 subsequent documents alluded to, came to me just two weeks later, namely, 
 Saturday, Nov. 22. 
 3a 
 
FIRST LETTER FROM PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 2)Z 
 
 Whereas, Besides this pre-judgment of the case, this letter dis- 
 tinctly threatens us with a withdrawal of fellowship ; therefore, 
 
 Resolved, That, while we cherish as sacred the remembrance of 
 many years of harmonious co-operation in Christian work and wor- 
 ship with the Church of the Pilgrims, and the Clinton Avenue 
 Congregational Church, and should look with great pain upon any 
 thing which threatened to disturb the peace and love that have 
 hitherto existed between us, the circumstances recited leave us no 
 alternative but to decline the proposed conference. While this 
 church is, in the words of her Manual (Rule i), " an independent 
 ecclesiastical body, and in matters of doctrine, order, and discipline 
 amenable to no other organization," she will nevertheless, in the words 
 of the same Manual (Rule 2), " extend to other evangelical churches, 
 and receive from thejn, that fellowship, advice, and assistance which 
 the laws of Christ require."" In accordance with these, her im- 
 memorial- declarations, Plymouth Church is at all times ready to 
 be advised and admonished by sister churches, according to the 
 ancient, approved, Congregational, Christian method, beginning 
 with proper inquiry into facts, and proceeding through successive 
 steps of mutual explanation and discussion, to the final expres- 
 sion of opinion, including, if need be, admonition or censure. But 
 Plymouth Church is not ready to reverse this order, and submit 
 first to censure, secondly to argument, and afterward to a request 
 for the facts. 
 
 Resolved, That the clerk of this church be instructed to send to 
 the Church of the Pilgrims, and the Clinton Avenue Congrega- 
 tional Church, copies of these preambles and resolutions. 
 
 S. B. Halliday, 
 Clerk Plymouth Church. 
 Brooklyn, Nov. 28, 1873. 
 
 3 
 
D. 
 
 Letter addressed to Plymouth Church, Dec. 5, 1873. 
 
 Brooklyn, Dec, 5, 1873. 
 To the Pastor and MeiJibers of Plymouth Chitrch, Brooklyn : 
 
 Dear Brethren, — The Resolutions adopted by you, at your 
 meeting on November 26, have been communicated to our respec- 
 tive churches ; and certain courses of further action, on the part of 
 these churches, have been adopted by them as probably desirable. 
 This action, however, is in its nature provisional, as being based 
 upon an understanding of your Resolutions which it is felt may 
 possibly not be correct. Therefore, before it is communicated, or 
 any steps are taken to give it effect, it is important that they should 
 know, by an authorized statement, if their understanding of your 
 Resolutions is, concerning one point, the right one. 
 
 In their letter of the 8th November, they requested you to unite 
 with them, by your Pastor and a committee, in a private confer- 
 ence, for fuller explanations, and interchange of opinion, on the 
 subject presented in that letter ; and, further, in case such confer- 
 ence should lead to no satisfactory result, to unite with them after- 
 ward in calling a properly representative Council of Congrega- 
 tional churches, to which the whole subject involved in their 
 correspondence with you might be submitted, and by which you 
 and they might be advised as to your and their duties concerning 
 it. 
 
 The invitation to a conference you have, in your Resolutions, 
 distinctly declined ; and it has been supposed by our churches that, 
 in declining this, you undoubtedly intended to decline also the in- 
 vitation to join in a susbequent Council. But, as your Resolu- 
 tions do not in express terms declare this, it has occurred to 
 them as possible that their impression on this point may be in- 
 correct. 
 
 Before taking any further steps, therefore, we desire to ask on 
 their behalf, in a wholly fraternal spirit, and with an earnest desire 
 to follow things which may make for righteousness and peace, 
 34 
 
SECOND LETTER TO PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 
 
 35 
 
 whether, in declining to accede to their proposal for a private con- 
 ference, you intended to be understood as declining also to unite 
 with them in calling a Council ? It is important that they should 
 be distinctly informed on this point, for the sake of preventing 
 any possible injury to them or to yourselves, growing out of a mis- 
 apprehension of each other's position. It is only the more evi- 
 dently important because their letter, before addressed to you, 
 seems to have been seriously misunderstood by you, and to have 
 been taken in a sense, and as manifesting a spirit, which were 
 not intended, and which, if such a misunderstanding had been 
 anticipated, would have been distinctly disclaimed. 
 
 We are therefore the more solicitous that no future misunder- 
 standing should occur, if prudence may prevent it. And it would 
 be extremely gratifying to our churches if they should learn, in 
 answer to this inquiry, that you are ready to unite with them in 
 asking the advice of an unbiased Council, on matters in which 
 we have a common interest, and concerning which we may all be 
 profited by light from others. 
 
 Hoping that we may receive an answer to this fraternal inquiry 
 as soon as it shall be practicable and convenient for you to return 
 it, and wishing you the best gifts from God our Father, and the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, we are yours, in the service and kingdom of 
 God, 
 
 {For the Church of the Pilgrims^ 
 Richard S. Storrs, Pastor^ 
 
 Richard P. Buck, 
 
 Archibald Baxter, 
 
 DwiGHT Johnson, 
 
 Joshua M. Van Cott, \ Committee. 
 
 Eli Mygatt, jun., 
 
 Walter T. Hatch, 
 
 LuciEN Birdseye, 
 (J^or the Clinton Avenue Church^ 
 William Ives Budington, Pastor, 
 
 Alfred S. Barnes, 
 
 James W. Elwell, 
 
 Harvey B. Spelman, 
 
 Thomas S. Thorp, "^Committee. 
 
 Augustus F. Libby, 
 
 Flamen B. Candler, 
 
 Calvin C. Woolworth, 
 
E. 
 
 Letter from Plymouth Church, Dec. 6, 1873. 
 
 69 Hicks Street, Brooklyn, Dec. 6, 1873. 
 
 To the Rev. R. S. Storrs, D.D., William Ives Budington, D.D., and 
 Committees of the Church of the Pilgrims, and Clinton Avenue Con- 
 gregational Church. 
 
 Dear Brethren, — At a regularly called meeting of Plymouth 
 Church, held last evening, it was voted unanimously, that the fol- 
 lowing paper be signed by the Pastor, Moderator of the meeting, 
 and the Clerk, and forwarded to you. Fraternally yours, 
 
 S. B. Halliday, Clerk 
 
 Flytnouth Church. 
 
 Dear Brethren, — We have received your third letter, dated 
 Dec. 5, 1873 ; and it has been read to the church. 
 
 It gives us great pleasure to accept your statements in regard to 
 the spirit and intent of your letter of November 8. 
 
 As we do not admit the statement of facts, nor the allegation of 
 principles held by us, contained in your letter of Nov. 8, we are 
 not aware, on our part, of any questions requiring the advice of a 
 Council. 
 
 If, however, you desire further light, and will state to us the 
 points to be submitted to a Council, we will promptly inform you 
 of the decision of this church. 
 
 We cannot consent to be parties to the calling of a Council, 
 without being definitely informed as to the precise matter which is 
 to be referred to it. 
 
 Wishing you Grace, Mercy, and Peace, 
 
 E. H. Garbutt, Moderator, 
 S. B. Halliday, Clerk, 
 Henry Ward Beecher, 
 
 Pastor Plymouth Church. 
 36 
 
RESOLUTIONS OF PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 37 
 
 Resolutions adopted by Plymouth Church, Dec. 5, 1S73. 
 
 Whereas, It is desirable that the relations of Plymouth Church 
 with other churches should be clearly understood, — therefore. 
 
 Resolved, That this church reiterates the principles declared in 
 Rules I and 2 of its Manual, adopted April 17, 1848, as follows : — 
 
 This church is an independent ecclesiastical body, and in mat- 
 ters of Doctrine, Order, and Discipline is amenable to no other 
 organization. — This church will extend to other Evangelical 
 churches, and receive from them, that fellowship, advice, and as- 
 sistance which the laws of Christ require. 
 
 Resolved, That we interpret these principles as relieving all other 
 churches from responsibility for the Doctrine, Order, and Dis- 
 cipline of this church, and this church from all responsibility for 
 those of other churches ; and as asserting for this church the right 
 to judge, in every case, what fellowship, advice, or assistance may, 
 according to the laws of Christ, properly be offered or received. 
 
 [From the Christian Union (New York), Dec. 10, 1S73.] 
 4 
 
Letter addressed to Plymouth Church, December 15, 1873. 
 
 Brooklyn, Dec. 15, 1873, 
 To the Pastor and Me7nbers of Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, N.Y.: 
 
 Dear Brethren, — Your note of the 5th inst. has been received 
 by us, in which you ask us " to state the points to be submitted to 
 the Council," which, on the 8th November, we invited you to 
 j'oin us in calling. 
 
 The matter appeared to us to have been stated, with sufficient 
 distinctness, in our letter of that date. We therein asked you "to 
 unite with us in calling a properly representative Council of the 
 Congregational churches of the country, to which your recent ac- 
 tion [referred to in the letter], with the general policy of discipline 
 involved in it, shall be submitted, and by which you shall be ad- 
 vised on 3'our duty in the matter, and we on our further fellowship 
 with you." 
 
 This request you seemed to some of us to have neither accepted 
 nor declined ; though others felt that you had, in intention and in 
 effect, declined it, in declining the conference which we had pro- 
 posed as antecedent to it. It was to remove all doubt on this 
 point, and avoid any possible misapprehension, that we addressed 
 to you our note of the 5th inst; and it was a definite answer to 
 this previous request, by an affirmative or negative reply, which we 
 then sought. 
 
 As, however, the 'comprehensive statement, which to us had 
 seemed sufficiently definite, has appeared to you to want exactness, 
 we are quite ready to mention the following as among the points 
 on which we desired, if you should unite with us, to have the testi- 
 mony and advice of a Council. We put them into the form of 
 Questions, that we may present them more precisely. 
 
 First. Is it in accordance with the principles and usages of Con- 
 gregationalism that a member may terminate his membership in a 
 church by simply absenting himself from its services and commu- 
 nion ? or is a corporate and consenting action on the part of the 
 church necessary to such termination of membership } 
 
 SecoJid. During the voluntary absence of a member from the 
 
THIRD LETTER TO PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 39 
 
 ordinances, while tlie church has not consented by any vote to the 
 termination of his membership, if specific and formal charges, of 
 grossly unchristian conduct, are presented against him,by a brother 
 in the church, — to which charges he declines to answer, — is it in 
 accordance with the principles and usages of Congregationalism 
 that the church shall withhold inquiry as to the alleged wickedness, 
 and, in face of such public assertion of his offenses, shall treat the 
 accused as an innocent absentee, and drop his name from the roll 
 of its membership, " without reflection upon him " ? 
 
 Third. When such a member is charged with having " circulated 
 and promoted scandals, derogatory to the Christian integrity of the 
 Pastor, and injurious to the reputation of the church," if he be 
 publicly released, by the church which he confronts, without exam- 
 ination of the facts and without censure, from all further responsi- 
 bility to it, has the rule of Christ in the eighteenth chapter of 
 Matthew, concerning the treatment of the trespassing brother, 
 been honored and maintained ? or is it so distinctly disregarded, in 
 a case which called for its careful observance, as to warrant appre- 
 hension and earnest remonstrance on the part of other churches ? 
 
 Fourth. Was the action of the Plymouth Church, in the case of 
 discipline issued by it October 31, in accordance with the principles 
 and usages of Congregational churches, and with the law of 
 Christ as administered by them ? or was it an evident departure 
 from these, tending, in the circumstances, to impair the Christian 
 reputation and influence of the church, to leave the name of the 
 Pastor without timely vindication, and to injure and offend other 
 churches in fellowship ? 
 
 Fifth. In view of the aforesaid action of Plymouth Church, as 
 presented in published documents, and especially of the fact that 
 this has been maintained as in full accordance with its customary 
 policy, what is the duty, toward that church, of the Congregational 
 churches heretofore in public fellowship with it ? Especially what 
 is their duty in regard to continuing in this fellowship ? 
 
 The above questions probably present all the points which we 
 should have wished to submit to the Council, if you had chosen to 
 join us in calling it. Very possibly, after the conference with you 
 which we vainly sought, some of them might have been omitted, or 
 substantially modified. We state them now, as answering your 
 question what points were in our minds, prompting the desire to 
 convene such a Council. They seem to us of sufficient importance 
 to relieve us of any possible appearance of undue importunity, 
 and to explain our repeated application on the subject. 
 
40 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 In any event, however, the particular " points " to be submitted 
 would not have been for us alone to determine. You would have 
 determined them, with us, through the careful deliberation of our 
 respective committees. Only the general subject-matter could 
 properly be presented by us, as the ground of our request. And 
 since your note of the 5th inst. expressly declares that you are not 
 aware of any questions requiring on your part the advice of a 
 Council, it may have been superfluous in us, even in answer to your 
 request, to specify these. They were all involved, to our appre- 
 hension, in our first letter. As that has appeared to you to furnish 
 no ground for uniting with us in asking light from other churches, 
 we shall not be surprised should this equally fail. 
 
 But, dear Brethren, at the same time that your note of the 5th 
 was received by us, a Resolution also appeared, published in many 
 newspapers, and published since in that paper which your Pastor 
 controls, as having been unanimously adopted by you at the same 
 meeting which authorized this note ; which Resolution seems to us 
 of greater importance, both to you and to ourselves, than does 
 the note, or perhaps any other action of yours recently taken. 
 And on this we desire, if you will allow us, to present to you some 
 considerations. Our desire to do this, kindly and carefully, has 
 been the occasion of delaying this letter. Except for that, it 
 would have been immediately sent, when your note was received. 
 
 The Resolution referred to reads as follows : — 
 
 '■'■Resolved, that we interpret these principles [contained in Rules 
 previously recited] as relieving all other churches from responsi- 
 bility for the Doctrine, Order, and Discipline of this church, and 
 this church from all responsibility for those of other churches ; and 
 as asserting for this church a right to judge, in every case, what 
 fellowship, advice, or assistance, may, according to the laws of 
 Christ, properly be offered or received." 
 
 The above Resolution purports to have been affirmed by you, 
 and pursuantly published, in order "that the relations of Plymouth 
 Church with other churches should be clearly understood." It so 
 forcibly affects the relations heretofore existing between your 
 church and ours, that had it been earlier adopted by you, or known 
 to us, our whole recent history, in relation to each other, would no 
 doubt have been different. 
 
 To make our meaning entirely obvious, suffer us to present a 
 rapid recital of what seem to us important and incontestable facts. 
 
 In a " Manual of the Plymouth Church," — a large, handsome, 
 authorized Manual, put forth by you in 1854, which bears upon 
 
THIRD LETTER TO PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 41 
 
 its front " Published by vote of the church," which was widely cir- 
 culatedj and of which copies were liberally supplied to us, — are 
 incorporated two chapters, one entitled, " A Brief Account of Con- 
 gregationalism," the other " Church Discipline." These are not 
 appended to the Manual, as things accidental and extrinsic. They 
 are incorporated in it ; made as integral parts of it, so far as ap- 
 pears, as is either of its several divisions. They precede your 
 lists of " officers " and " members," and appear to present what 
 those officers and members combine to set forth. If any portion 
 of that careful " Manual " represents Plymouth Church, as it then 
 was, certainly these do. And as treating more at large the sub- 
 jects which they discuss, they seem to show the mind of the church, 
 in regard to those subjects, more distinctly and fully than does any 
 thing else within the same covers. 
 
 In these important divisions of the Manual, thus prepared, 
 authorized, and published by you, occur the following statements, 
 representing the principles of Congregationalism which you then 
 proclaimed, and no doubt practiced : — 
 
 "They [i.e. Congregational churches] live in close fraternal 
 union ; often meet in Councils and Conferences ; ask and receive 
 advice and assistance from each other ; and may admonish each 
 other, in case of heresy, lax discipline, or any scandalous offense." 
 
 *' No member of the church has a right to pass over without 
 notice the dereliction of a fellow-member from Christian duty, on 
 the plea that the offense is not personal against himself." 
 
 " It is proper, therefore, that the church from time to time ap- 
 point Committees of Inquiry upon the cases of absentees, or of 
 members, who, though residing in our vicinity, are supposed to be 
 living in the neglect of covenant obligations. ... If, in the 
 course of their investigations, they find matter worthy of discipline, 
 they should act precisely as it is proper for church-members to act 
 in any case where facts requiring the discipline of the church are 
 brought to their knowledge." 
 
 " In all cases of open and scandalous offenses, or of any breach 
 of morality, or any fundamental error in doctrine, affecting Chris- 
 tian character, when efforts to bring the offender to repentance 
 prove unavailing, the church should proceed to the act of excom- 
 munication or excision, giving the reasons for the same, which 
 should be publicly announced before the congregation, on the 
 Lord's Day." 
 
 The principles thus cited from your elaborate " Manual " of 1S54 
 are the ancient, approved, and honored principles of the Congre- 
 
42 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 gational order. They are in complete substantial agreement with 
 the principles of the Cambridge Platform, which, surviving the 
 changes of two centuries and a quarter, still retains among our 
 churches its vital authority. They are the principles of the Plat- 
 form of " Ecclesiastical Polity " put forth by the National Council 
 at Boston, in 1865, of which Council your pastor was a distin- 
 guished member. And these principles, which were set forth by 
 you, with this abundant fullness and particular emphasis, in a 
 Manual prepared and published by yourselves, seven years after 
 you were organized as a church, and which must certainly then have 
 represented your existing' and previous practice and belief, we have 
 never hitherto supposed to have been annulled or surrendered by you. 
 
 Our letter to you of the 8th November was based on the sup- 
 position that you still stood, as an organized church, on the founda- 
 tion of these sound and approved Congregational principles. We 
 should have held it unfriendly on our part to imagine that you had 
 essentially departed, within a period so brief, from the principles 
 which 3'ou then so forcibly declared, so clearly, and in a form so 
 permanent, communicated to us, and so widely proclaimed. 
 
 Therefore we wrote you as we did, a month since ; intending to 
 write in all brotherly kindness, though with an earnestness propor- 
 tioned to the vigor of our convictions. We felt then, as we feel 
 now, that if your action, on October 31, was correctly represented in 
 the published reports, you were taking a step, which, for a Congre- 
 gational church, was novel, unwise, unscriptural, dangerous ; that 
 you had erred seriously, however unconsciously, in dismissing from 
 your membership, without scrutiny or censure, a member of the 
 church, who, though for years withdrawn from your ordinances, was 
 still r. member by your own former principles, and who had been 
 specifically and formally charged, according to published docu- 
 ments before us, with having circulated scandals, derogatory to the 
 pastor, and injurious to the church. 
 
 Such an act would have seemed to us of doubtful propriety, and 
 of hazardous tendency, if it had been represented by you as wholly 
 exceptional, justified and demanded by extraordinary circum- 
 stances ; though we might not, in that case, have been moved to 
 remonstrate. But such an act, when apparently set forth, and sought 
 to be justified, as simply representative of a permanent and gov- 
 erning policy in the church, assumed an aspect far more serious. 
 It seemed then as certain as any moral fact or force could possibly 
 be, not only to bring suspicion upon your Pastor, but to injure your 
 fame and Christian power, to make discipline among you uncertain 
 
THIRD LETTER TO PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 43 
 
 and difficult, it not to end it altogether, and to cast an undeserved 
 reproach on the churches which were recognized as in special rela- 
 tions of fellowship with you. Their methods of church discipline 
 would be reasonably supposed to be substantially identical with 
 yours, unless they should make a distinct and formal remonstrance 
 and protest. 
 
 Therefore we wrote you, frankly, energetically, but with no in- 
 tentional vehemence or asperity, and asked you, as a church long 
 associated with us, to meet us in private conference on the subject, 
 to present the facts from your own point of view, to hear and con- 
 sider our impressions ; and afterward, if no adjustment of views 
 were thus secured, to submit the matters involved to a Council. 
 
 Brethren : we felt necessity laid upon us to write you thus. 
 What some of you unexpectedly regarded as impertinent intermed- 
 dling, appeared to us an imperative duty ; not less imperative be- 
 cause unwelcome. Any action of your individual members would 
 not have been matter of which we should have taken any cogni- 
 zance. Reported utterances from your pulpit, whether we agreed 
 with them or not, Vv'ould not have been likely to offer occasion for 
 our remonstrance, so long as your creed remained evangelical. 
 But your deliberate, public action, in open church-meeting, before 
 an intent and watchful community, on a matter so grave, and so 
 intimately and sensibly concerning us all, demanded, we felt, no 
 less at our hands. And we cannot now see, looking back at the 
 subject from the point of view which we then imagined you to 
 occupy, as well as ourselves, how we could have written otherwise, 
 or less, with fidelity to our duty. 
 
 It would now appear, however, from your recent action, and 
 from statements made in connection with it, that you have not only 
 wholly omitted the chapters from which we quoted above, in the 
 recent editions of your " Manual," copies of which have not been 
 sent us, but that you have decisively given up the principles them- 
 selves, then accepted, honored, and published by you ; and, fur- 
 thermore, that you no longer regard yourselves as in any special 
 or responsible relations to the Congregational churches around 
 you. You declare to all whom the newspapers reach, that you in- 
 terpret your still existing " Rules " as " relieving all other churches 
 from responsibility for the Doctrine, Order, and Discipline of 
 this church, and this church from all responsibility for those of 
 other churches." 
 
 In other words, you seem to us to take henceforth, according to 
 the inevitable force of your words, the position of entire independ- 
 ency of all churches whatever, exterior to your own ; so that your 
 
44 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Articles of Faith might be essentially altered, or wholly dispensed 
 with ; your Rules might require no conditions whatever for admis- 
 sion to the church ; your Covenant might be entirely abandoned, 
 without your admitting any right of intervention or remonstrance 
 on the part of other churches. 
 
 We should not probably be recognized by you as having the 
 right to make any objection to your taking this attitude, if you 
 prefer it, and severing yourselves from the mutually responsible 
 fellowship with us in which we have stood for twenty-six years ; 
 and since this is published as your formal, unanimous, corporate 
 action, interpreting your Rules, and declaring the position which 
 you propose hereafter to occupy, we have only to say, that, if you 
 decide to maintain that position, of course our special relations 
 with you, of denominational alliance, and the fellowship which im- 
 plies reciprocity of duties, will be suspended, agreeably to your desire. 
 
 Do not, in any undue sensibility, interpret these temperate words 
 as a threat. They are nothing of the sort. They are simply the 
 indication of what will, of course, inevitably follow, if you insist 
 on such an independence as your Resolution in terms declares. If 
 you are to be in no sense hereafter responsible to us, nor we to 
 you, — if any remonstrance against your action, coming from us, is 
 to be held by you intrusive, — we must, of necessity, be to each 
 other, in coming time, as wholly separate as are Baptists and 
 Methodists, the Episcopalian who would laugh at us if we ques- 
 tioned his canons, the Unitarian who would shut his door in our 
 face if we ventured to remonstrate at his lack of a creed. 
 
 This must, we say, be the final result. Before definitive action, 
 however, is taken by us in this direction, we shall wait to be fur- 
 ther informed, if we should be, of the exact meaning, and the fully 
 defined relations and extent, of your recent Resolution. In any case, 
 we should be unwilling to take action by ourselves, or unadvisedly, 
 on a matter so grave. As preliminary to it, we would seek the 
 advice of other churches, according to the wholesome custom and 
 rule of our system of government. In what interests all, a fair 
 representation of Pastors and churches should give to all an au- 
 thorized expression. But pending delay for further light, and the 
 process to secure the needed advice and consenting action, from 
 other churches, while we understand you to maintain this position 
 of entire independence of all other churches, we shall certainly 
 not attempt to intervene in any matter, either of Doctrine, Order, 
 or Discipline, which may engage your attention. 
 
 Nor shall we ever do this hereafter, if the relations you seem 
 now to have assumed, toward us and all others, are to be perma- 
 
THIRD LETTER TO PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 45 
 
 nent. If you elect to stand hereafter wholly by yourselves, and to 
 relieve all other churches of all responsibility for whatever you may 
 do, and if they who have stood in mutually responsible fellow- 
 ship with you accept and complete your action in withdrawing, — 
 it will, of course, be no concern of theirs afterward, except as it 
 may be of all citizens and friends, what charges are made against 
 your Pastor, or what you may do with the men who make them. 
 If you should be moved, at any subsequent time, to radically 
 change, or wholly lay aside, your Articles of Belief, while other 
 churches, and ours among them, would no doubt lament such 
 action for your sake, they certainly would not feel authorized to 
 remonstrate. And instead of inviting you to meet with them in 
 Council, we do not see how they could properly take part in a 
 Council with you ; since the action of such a Council, if affecting 
 yourselves, will have been vacated in advance, of all just influence 
 and salutary effect, by your declaration of entire irresponsibleness 
 to all other churches. 
 
 Brethren, we pause before affirming to ourselves that you have 
 foreseen, and distinctly intended, these consequences of your action, 
 in adopting your recent Resolution ; though all these appear to us 
 definitely involved in it. If you have foreseen them, and maintain 
 your position, we can only wish you all the success that you can 
 desire in your own work, and in your preferred way of doing that 
 work, and commend you most heartily, in the separate sphere 
 which you purpose to occupy, to God's guidance and grace. 
 
 But, dear Friends of so many years, do not, we beseech you, 
 make the mistake of supposing that yours is the democratic way, 
 ours the aristocratic, of conducting church-affairs. Unless it be 
 deemed aristocratic to guard carefully the reputation of our Pas- 
 tors from scandalous attacks within our own brotherhood, and 
 while maintaining the rights of church-members to hold them 
 also to their just responsibility, our churches are precisely as 
 democratic as yours. An aristocratic church can only be one in 
 which the authority belonging to all is vested in a few ; and that 
 has never been our custom. 
 
 We adhere to the early, constant, tried Congregational principles, 
 which change has not shaken, nor age decayed ; and you appear to 
 us to have given them up. That expresses precisely our view of 
 the difference between us. Our Manuals remain essentially what 
 they were twenty years ago, and we interpret them now as then ; 
 but yours seems since to have been essentially changed. While 
 we intend to be as democratic as were the churches of the New 
 Testament, we are not convinced that irresponsibility is synony- 
 
46 
 
 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 mous with democracy. And we find no reason, if you will allow us 
 so to say, in your recent experience, why we should surrender the 
 principles, which, with us, have been vital and organic from the be- 
 ginning ; why our conception of the local church, as a body of 
 associated worshiping believers, watching over each other, mutually 
 responsible, and in responsible church-communion with other such 
 bodies, should be displaced from our minds or manuals, and for it 
 be substituted a changeful assembly of customary attendants on a 
 particular ministry, any one of whom may at any time attack an- 
 other, or the Pastor, with grossest charges, and be dropped from 
 the roll without trial or censure. We prefer to be so related in 
 the future, as we have been in the past, to neighbor churches, that 
 they may admonish us if to them we seem to do wrong. And we 
 do not desire the irresponsible independence which to us appears 
 to be simply isolation. 
 
 It was well said, in the " Manual " which you formerly published, 
 that the principles of church-government from which we have quot- 
 ed " are in perfect harmony with the principles of our civil govern- 
 ment." Unless you regard that as aristocratic, you can hardly so 
 regard the churches which adhere to the principles you then pro- 
 claimed, but which you seem since to have discarded and annulled. 
 With pleasant remembrances of the years of our fellowship, and 
 the prayer that the Word and the Spirit of God may abide with 
 you always in the future, we are. 
 
 Your Friends, and Brethren in Christ, 
 {For the Church of the Filgrwis^ 
 Richard S. Storks, Pastor, 
 
 Richard P. Buck, 
 
 Archibald Baxter, 
 
 DwiGHT Johnson, 
 
 Joshua M. Van Cott, 
 
 Eli Mygatt, jun., 
 
 Walter T. Hatch, 
 
 Lucien Birdseye, 
 {For the Clinton Avenue Church^ 
 
 William Ives Budington, Fastor, 
 
 Alfred S. Barnes, 
 
 James W. Elwell, 
 
 Harvey B. Spelman, 
 
 Thomas S. Thorp, 
 
 Augustus F, Libby, 
 
 Flamen B. Candler, 
 
 Calvin C. Woolworth, 
 
 Committee, 
 
 Committee. 
 
Letter from Plymouth Church, January 2, 1874. 
 
 To Rev. Richard S. Sforrs, D.D., Rev. Winiam Jvcs Budingtoii, 
 D.D., and Messrs. Richard P. Buck, Archibald Baxter, Dioight 
 Johnson, Joshua M. Van Cott,Eli Mygatt,jun., Walter T. Hatch, 
 Lucien Birdseye, Alfred S. Barnes, James IV. Elwell, Harvey B. 
 Spelman, Thomas S. Thorp, Augustus F. Libby, Flamen B. Can- 
 dler, Calvin C. Woolworth, Committees : 
 
 Dear Brethren, — Your letter of December 15 has been received, 
 and read to this church. It is largely occupied with explicit or 
 implied comparisons between the Congregationalism of Plymouth 
 Church and that of the churches you represent. That there is a 
 difference we admit ; and, since this may be our last reply to you, 
 we feel that the time has arrived for a statement on our part, set- 
 ting forth the principles which have constituted the inspiration of 
 our history. 
 
 Plymouth Church was founded at a time when the domination of 
 ministers in the newly-formed Congregational churches in the city 
 of New York had excited profound indignation ; and its members 
 were determined, from the beginning, to vindicate the rights of the 
 brotherhood. 
 
 They refused to allow a Council to organize them, protesting in 
 the midst of the service, and obliging the officiating minister to 
 recognize the fact, that of their own sole right and authority they 
 organized themselves into a church. 
 
 They refused to allow their minister to preside, ex officio, at any 
 meeting ; and there never has been a formal business meeting of 
 the church at which he has presided, unless elected by vote of the 
 church. 
 
 They even went so far, in the earlier years, as to refuse to allow 
 him to preside at the prayer-meeting of the church, lest he might 
 take advantage of that position to call, by virtue of a careless 
 general consent, indifference, or ignorance, irregular business 
 meetings. 
 
 47 
 
48 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 According to our rules, no business (with a single definite excep- 
 tion) can be conducted at any meeting of the church, of which 
 previous notice has not been given from the pulpit ; and in the 
 twenty-six years of our history there has never been a case in which 
 business of importance has been transacted by the Pastor, or any 
 officer, or any committee, except as specifically determined by a vote 
 of a called meeting of the whole church. 
 
 It is in view of this history and uniform practice that w^e declare 
 ourselves to represent the Congregational polity more truly than 
 either of the two churches which have called us to account. It is 
 this history and constitutional policy of our church which should 
 be known by those who would fully understand the steps we have 
 taken since your interference in our domestic affairs. It is this 
 inbred and unalterable spirit of Plymouth Church that is ignored 
 by those who charge us with a change of ground in the interpreta- 
 tion of the rules of our Manual, given at our recent meeting. It is 
 our adherence to this principle, that the authority of the church 
 does not reside in the pastor, or in any standing committee, but in 
 the whole brotherhood itself, which constitutes our peculiar diffi- 
 culty in dealing with committees professing to represent two 
 churches, our near neighbors. 
 
 For it is well known that in neither of these churches has ever 
 been heard the voice of the brotherhood in open and called assem- 
 bly, pronouncing on the subjects alleged to be at issue between 
 them and us. Your committees are but a pastoral emanation, 
 authenticated by nothing better than a church-meeting, the resi- 
 duum of a prayer-meeting, gathered without public call or notice. 
 
 While the whole spirit and temperament of Plymouth Church 
 resulting from its origin and its management, on principles equally 
 applicable to all Congregational churches, render it averse to inter- 
 ference in its domestic affairs on the part of any other church, 
 yet, had this course been taken kindly and fairly by the whole 
 brotherhood of both or either of the churches to which we have 
 referred, there would have been every disposition on our part to 
 afford them all the light and knowledge that they reasonably could 
 have asked. This we said, in substance, in our first reply, but it 
 seems to have been unnoticed or forgotten. Instead of being thus 
 approached, Plymouth Church has been arraigned, catechised, con- 
 ditionally judged and threatened, and all the questions of fact, of 
 our independency, of our responsibility, of our relation to Congre- 
 gationalism, of our competency to join in calling a Council or to 
 take jDart in one when called, have been determined for our instruc- 
 
THIRD LETTER FROM PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 49 
 
 tion. Under the plea of a desire to be enlightened, a persistent 
 attempt has been made to enlighten us. And this treatment, to 
 which the self-respect of our church and its sense of the influence 
 of its example and testimony would not allow it to submit, has 
 proceeded from a joint committee, which, whether technically 
 irregular as respects both churches represented or not, was at 
 least, in its origin and authority, so foreign to the habits of this 
 church as to render it almost impossible for us to transact business 
 with it. 
 
 We do not complain, brethren, of the phraseology of your letters. 
 It is of the substance of the thing covered by that language, that 
 we complain. You have assumed, from the beginning to the end 
 of your correspondence, an unwarrantable attitude toward this 
 church. 
 
 We have hitherto waived these considerations and many others, 
 in the hope of an amicable adjustment. We have not used the 
 material in our hands for an offensive warfare, and we hope to be 
 spared the necessity of a course that could not be otherwise than 
 injurious to the peace of the commonwealth of Congregational 
 churches. And we do now again waive all these just and natural 
 scruples in replying to your last letter. 
 
 But we wish it now to be distinctly understood that we must 
 hereafter decline to receive, from you, documents which are not 
 accompanied by proof of the authority of the whole brotherhood of 
 your churches, regularly and deliberately conferred ; and that we 
 must decline to receive, in any case, from them or from you, letters 
 containing covert insinuations against the character of any of the 
 members of this church. 
 
 With these reservations v/e now proceed to answer your letter of 
 December 15. In the first part of it you enumerate the points which 
 you would probably have desired to bring before a Mutual Advisory 
 Council. But, after this enumeration, you proceed to say that the 
 most recent declarations of this church have completely altered the 
 whole case, and that, if these declarations are adhered to, you do 
 not see how we could enter any Council. We infer that you mean 
 to withdraw your invitation, and we shall therefore postpone any 
 discussion of its terms until it shall have been renewed by your 
 churches. We do not decline to join in calling a Mutual Council : 
 it is you who seem to us to have first offered an invitation, under 
 dubious authority, and then withdrawn it. 
 
 In the second part of your letter you argue that the recent decla- 
 
so THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL, 
 
 ration of this church, quoting and interpreting its ancient and 
 unaltered rules, constitutes a change in its position equivalent to 
 a voluntary disavowal of Congregational fellowship. This is not 
 the case, Congregationalism is the conduct of the affairs of the 
 church by the whole brotherhood, not embarrassed by the unasked 
 interference of other churches. This view of it is at least as old as 
 Plymouth Church. It is as old as many Congregational writers 
 who have expounded the principles which Dexter sums up in the 
 following statement : — 
 
 " Christ by his own voice, and through that of his apostles, placed 
 upon the local church the sole and final responsibility of its affairs, 
 under himself" (p. 55). 
 
 " Not only did the individual churches, in obedience to apostolic 
 counsel, and under the apostolic eye, perform untrammeled all the 
 functions of their church life, but the sole responsibility of their 
 life and labors was laid and left upon them by Christ and the apos- 
 tles, who everywhere recognized the right and duty of the brethren 
 to make final decision upon all matters " (p. 57). 
 
 This view we also believe to be as old as the apostolic churches. 
 The position of Plymouth Church, deliberately taken at the begin- 
 ning, and never changed, is Congregationalism, as we understand 
 it, hold it, and are determined to maintain it. 
 
 That it does not prevent a church from giving or receiving fel- 
 lowship, advice, and assistance, is sufficiently proved by the whole 
 history of this church, and of other Congregational churches. 
 That we have not now suddenly invented or discovered or remem- 
 bered it, may appear from the remarks made in the pulpit of this 
 church last June, on the occasion of a collection for the Congrega- 
 tional Union, a copy of which, as phonographically reported, is 
 appended to this letter. 
 
 We have no desire to interfere with the churches you represent 
 in any course they may feel constrained to take. If they choose to 
 •withdraw from a truly Congregational fellowship, it is their right so 
 to do. But we have not withdrawn, and we will not withdraw. 
 Nor can we surrender, for their accommodation, the fundamental 
 principle by virtue of which we exist as a church, — the principle of 
 our solemn and sole responsibility to the Master for the manage- 
 ment of our own affairs. 
 
 Wishing you the enlightenment of the Spirit upon your path of 
 duty, and praying that you may be led to continue in that mutually 
 independent fellowship and mutually voluntary and cordial co-oper- 
 
REMARKS OF MR. BE EC HER. 51 
 
 ation which we have for so many years enjoyed, and which we have 
 done nothing to disturb, we are 
 
 Yours in Christian liberty and love, 
 {For Plymouth Church^ 
 
 Henry Ward Beecher, Pastor, 
 F. M. Edgerton, Moderator, 
 Thomas G. Shearman, Clerk. 
 
 Remarks of Mr. Beeeher, jfune 29, 1873, in Plymouth Church, on 
 the occasion of a collection for the Congregational Union. 
 
 " Congregationalism is an independency of local churches. It 
 asserts, as its prime idea, that each particular church is a perfect 
 church, and that, so far as discipline and government are concerned, 
 it stands without necessary allegiance or subjection, either to any 
 neighboring church or to any collection of churches. Congrega- 
 tionalism organizes itself just as a family organizes itself, each 
 family standing on its own proper independent basis. 
 
 "But then, as all families find themselves strengthened and 
 comforted by instituting a relation of good neighborhood with 
 near families, so Congregational churches enter into alliance 
 with neighboring churches, and accept and render kind voluntary 
 offices. 
 
 " There is no ecclesiastical government between church and 
 church. If a church needs counsel, it asks it ; if it does not want 
 counsel, it does not ask it. Every church is understood to be com- 
 petent to the jurisdiction of its own affairs. If it be not, it goes 
 for help where it thinks it can best get it. 
 
 " I think the Congregational form is the best, though other forms 
 are good. It is more in accordance with the Anglo-Saxon spirit, 
 and with our political institutions, than any other form. Congre- 
 gationalism is very much like our household independency. 
 
 We Congregationalists, because our churches are independent 
 and separate, need, more than any others, to have voluntaiy fel- 
 lowship ; and therefore we call Conventions from time to time. 
 These Conventions, however, have no authority : they simply have 
 influence. We believe in influence, but not in authority, in such 
 matters." 
 
THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL OF 1874. 
 
 OPENING SESSION — MARCH 24. 
 
 Pursuant to Letters-Missive from the Church of the Pil- 
 grims and the Chnton Avenue Congregational Church, Brook- 
 lyn, N.Y., the Council of pastors and delegates from Congre- 
 gational churches, called to consider certain questions relating 
 to church discipline and fellowship, was convened at the Clin- 
 ton Avenue Congregational Church, in the city of Brooklyn, 
 on the twenty-fourth day of March, 1874, at 7, p.m. 
 
 The Council was called to order by Rev. Dr. Budington, 
 pastor of Chnton Avenue Congregational Church, who said, — 
 
 Brethren of the Council, — I am told that it is proper 
 for me to open the sessions of this Council, by bidding you 
 welcome, as I do most heartily, to the duties that convene you 
 at this time. I am exceedingly happy to recognize so large an 
 attendance, — unexampled, I believe, in the history of such 
 Councils in this country ; and I am the more glad to bid you 
 welcome, because I am persuaded that it is an impartial 
 Council ; as I am sure it is one which we have endeavored to 
 assemble on the most impartial principles possible. No cor- 
 respondence has taken place, on our part, with any church here 
 represented ; and we are therefore the better pleased to see 
 you here, in the belief that your decisions will be impartial, 
 and that they will be representative of the sentiments of all 
 our churches. We had intended to invite you to a Mutual 
 Council, had that been possible ; but our designs in that 
 regard were not accomplished. We have therefore assembled 
 you in accordance with the directions and principles of our 
 polity, to advise us, — the churches who need your advice in 
 52 
 
TEMPORARY ORGANIZATION. 
 
 53 
 
 the premises ; and we ask you, dear brethren, to place your- 
 selves in our place, so far as you can, through the statements 
 that shall be made to you, and then to give us your best 
 advice under the circumstances. And I pray Him whose 
 pleasure it is to be in the midst of his servants, to be in 
 the midst of us, and to imbue your hearts with the spirit of 
 wisdom and of understanding. May this Council be over- 
 shadowed by the Holy Spirit, that the results to which it 
 shall come, shall be for the furtherance of the kingdom of 
 our Redeemer, and for the conservation of those principles 
 which we have inherited from our fathers, which we would 
 conserve for generations yet to come. It has been suggested 
 that it will be promotive of business, and the orderly trans- 
 action of it, if we first effect a temporary organization ; and, 
 if no objection is made to the suggestion, I will wait for the 
 nomination of a temporary Chairman. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Henry M. Dexter, of Boston, Mass., nominated 
 Rev. Dr. William A. Stearns, of Amherst College, Mass., as 
 temporary Chairman. The nomination, being seconded, was 
 carried. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stearns, on taking the chair, said, — 
 
 I have no objection to serve you, until the Council is or- 
 ganized ; but only with the understanding that it is all the 
 service which I shall be called upon to perform in this con- 
 nection. 
 
 Rev. G. B. WiLLCox, of Jersey City, N.J., nominated Rev. 
 Dr. Alonzo H. Quint, of New Bedford, Mass., as temporary 
 Scribe. The nomination was seconded, and carried. The 
 temporary Scribe read the list of churches which had been 
 invited to send delegates ; and forty-eight churches answered 
 to their names. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Cushing, of Boston, Mass., stated that many dele- 
 gates were upon the train which left Boston at ten o'clock, a.m., 
 who were not present, but who were in the city, and would 
 soon be at the church. 
 
 The Chairman inquired if the list of names should be read 
 over at present, or whether it should be deferred until other 
 members had arrived. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Leonard Bacon, of New Haven, Conn. : The ques- 
 
54 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 tion is, whether the Roll of the Council shall be made out 
 now, or after the organization is completed. If it is to be 
 made out now, I think Rev. Dr. Quint should have the assist- 
 ance of another Scribe. 
 
 The Rev. Edward Taylor, D.D., of Binghamton, N.Y., 
 moved that the names be now read ; which was agreed to. 
 
 The Scribe requested pastors and delegates to hand in their 
 names ; and the following members appeared as present, the 
 Roll of Council being here printed, as finally perfected : — 
 
 From the First Church, Brunswick, Me., Rev. E. H. Bying- 
 
 ton, Pastor. 
 From the Second Parish Church, Portland, Me., Rev. J. M. 
 
 Palmer, Delegate. 
 From High Street Church, Portland, Me., Bro. J. M. Libby, 
 
 Delegate. 
 From State Street Church, Portland, Me., Rev. E. Y. 
 
 Hincks, Pastor ; Bro. T. R. Hayes, Delegate. 
 From Winter Street Church, Bath, Me., Rev. J. O. Fiske, 
 
 D.D., Pastor. 
 From Central Church, Bangor, Me., Bro. J. S. Wheelwright, 
 
 Delegate. 
 From Bangor, Me., Rev. W. M. Barbour, D.D. 
 From First Church, Portsmouth, N.H., Rev. Carlos Martyn, 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. J. S. Rand, Delegate. 
 From South Church, Concord, N.H., Rev. S. L. Blake, Pastor; 
 
 Bro. J. McQuestin, Delegate. 
 From Franklin Street Church, Manchester, N.H., Rev. W. J. 
 
 Tucker, Pastor; Bro. A. H. Daniels, Delegate. 
 From First Church, Rutland, Vt., Rev. J. G. Johnson, Pastor. 
 From First Church, Burlington, Vt., Rev. L. O. Brastow, 
 
 Pastor. 
 From First Church, Montpelier, Vt., Rev. W. H. Lord, D.D., 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. J. C. Emery, Delegate. 
 From Second Church, St. Johnsbury, Vt., Rev. C. M. South- 
 gate, Pastor ; Bro. C. M. Stone, Delegate. 
 From First Church, Cambridge, Mass., Rev. A. McKenzie, 
 
 D.D., Pastor. 
 From Old South Church, Boston, Mass., Rev. J. M. Manning, 
 
 D.D., Pastor; Bro. Avery Plummer, Delegate. 
 
ROLL OF COUNCIL. 55 
 
 From Union Church, Boston, Mass., Rev. H. M. Parsons, 
 
 D.D., Associate Pastor; Bro. A. Kingman, Delegate. 
 From Phillips Church, Boston, Mass., Bro. Choate Burnham, 
 
 Delegate. 
 From Eliot Church, Boston, Mass., Rev. A. C. Thompson, 
 
 D.D., Senior Pastor; Bro. J. Russell Bradford, Delegate. 
 From Central Church, Boston, Mass., Rev. John De Witt, 
 
 Pastor; Bro. T. H. Russell, Delegate. 
 From Shawmut Church, Boston, Mass., Rev. E. B, Webb, D.D., 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. Charles Demond, Delegate. 
 From First Church, Northampton, Mass., Rev. W. S. Leavitt, 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. S. T. Spaulding, Delegate. 
 From Edwards Church, Northampton, Mass., Rev. Gordon 
 
 Hall, D.D., Pastor; Bro. W. H. Stoddard, Delegate. 
 From First Church, Westfield, Mass., Rev. A. J. Titsworth, 
 
 Pastor. 
 From First Church, Pittsfield, Mass., Rev. E. O. Bartlett, 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. Thomas Colt, Delegate. 
 From North Church, New Bedford, Mass., Rev. A. H. Quint, 
 
 D.D., Pastor ; Bro. J. Hastings, Delegate. 
 From Calvinist Church, Worcester, Mass., Bro. Henry M. 
 
 Wheeler, Delegate. 
 From Union Church, Worcester, Mass., Rev. E. Cutler, D.D., 
 
 Pastor; Bro. P. L. Moen, Delegate. 
 From College Church, Amherst, Mass., Rev. W. A. Stearns, 
 
 D.D., Pastor; Rev. W. S. Tyler, D.D., Delegate. 
 From First Church, Cambridgeport, Mass., Rev. W. S. Karr, 
 
 Pastor; Rev. C. Cushing, D.D., Delegate. 
 From South Church, Springfield, Mass., Rev. S. G. Bucking- 
 ham, D.D., Pastor ; Bro. D. L. Harris, Delegate. 
 From North Church, Springfield, Mass., Rev. R. G. Greene, 
 
 Pastor; Bro. T. M. Brown, Delegate. 
 From High Street Church, Lowell, Mass., Rev. Owen Street, 
 
 D.D., Pastor ; Bro. Nathan Crosby, Delegate. 
 From Church in Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass., 
 
 Rev. J. L. Taylor, D.D., Acting Pastor ; Rev. E. C. Smyth, 
 
 D.D., Delegate. 
 From Boston, Mass., Rev. H. M. Dexter, D.D. 
 From Rowley, Mass., Rev. John Pike, D.D. 
 From Beneficent Church, Providence, R.I., Rev. J. G. Vose, 
 
 Pastor; Bro. R. B. Chambers, Delegate. 
 
56 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 From Central Church, Providence, R.I., Rev. George Har- 
 ris, jun.. Pastor ; Bro. F. W. Carpenter, Delegate. 
 From Union Church, Providence, P.. I., Rev, K. Twining, 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. A. C. Barstow, Delegate. 
 From First Church, Hartford, Conn., Rev. E. H. Richardson, 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. Calvin Day, Delegate. 
 From Park Church, Hartford, Conn., Rev. N. J. Burton, 
 
 D.D., Pastor; Bro. T. W. Russell, Delegate. 
 From First Church, New Haven. Conn., Rev. Leonard Bacon, 
 
 D.D., Pastor Emeritus ; Bro. H. C. Kingsley, Delegate. 
 From North Church, New Haven, Conn., Rev. Edward Hawes, 
 
 D.D., Pastor; Bro. H. N. Day, Delegate. 
 From First Church, New London, Conn., Rev. T. P. Field, 
 
 D.D., Pastor ; Bro. Samuel Dennis, Delegate. 
 From Second Church, New London Conn., Rev. O. E. Dag- 
 gett, D.D., Pastor. 
 From First Church, Fairfield, Conn., Rev. E. E. Rankin, 
 
 D.D., Pastor; Bro. H. F. Curtis, Delegate. 
 From First Church, Bridgeport, Conn. Rev. C. R. Palmer, 
 
 Pastor; Bro. D. F. Atwater, Delegate. 
 From Second Church, Bridgeport, Conn., Rev. Edwin Johnson, 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. E. Sterling, Delegate. 
 From Broadway Church, Norwich, Conn., Rev. D. Merriman, 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. A. S. BoUes, Delegate. 
 From New Haven, Conn., Rev. Samuel Harris, D.D. 
 From First Church, Homer, N.Y., Rev. W. A. Robinson, /'a j/^r,- 
 
 Bro. M. Hobart, Delegate. 
 From First Church, Fairport, N.Y., Rev. J. Butler, Acting 
 
 Pastor. 
 From First Church, Binghamton, N.Y., Rev. E. Taylor, D.D., 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. W. B. Edwards, Delegate. 
 From Broadway Tabernacle Church, New York City, Rev. 
 
 W. M. Taylor, D.D., Pastor; Bro. W. H. Smith, Delegate. 
 From Harlem Church, New York City, Rev. S. H. Virgin, 
 
 Pastor; Bro. E. F. Brown, Delegate. 
 From First Church, Albany, N.Y., Rev. W. S. Smart, D.D., 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. Bradford R. Wood, Delegate. 
 Frojni South Church, Brooklyn, N.Y., Rev. A. J. Lyman, Acting 
 
 Pastor; Rev. H. M. Storrs, D.D., Delegate. 
 From Elm Place Church, Brooklyn, N.Y., Rev. Isaac Clark, 
 
 Pastor; Bro. H. H. Van V>^V&,- Delegate. 
 
ROLL OF COUNCIL. 57 
 
 From Central Church, Brooklyn, N.Y., Rev. H. M. Scudder, 
 
 D.D., Pastor; Bro. D. M. Stone, Delegate. 
 From New England Church, Brooklyn, N.Y., (E. D.), Rev. 
 
 J. H. Lockwood, Pastor; Rev. S. S. Jocelyn, Delegate. 
 From State Street Church, Brooklyn, N.Y., Rev. I. C. 
 
 Meserve, Pastor ; Bro. L. L. Robbins, Delegate. 
 From Puritan Church, Brooklyn, N.Y., Rev. C. H. Everest, 
 
 Pastor; Bro. S. B. Terry, Delegate. 
 From Lee Avenue Church, Brooklyn, N.Y., (E. D.), Rev. T, 
 
 J. Holmes, Pastor ; Bro. H. C, Hodgdon, Delegate. 
 From Plymouth Church, Syracuse, N.Y., Rev. A. F. Beard, 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. Peter Burns, Delegate. 
 From New York City, Rev. Ray Palmer, D.D. 
 From New York City, Rev. D. B. Coe, D.D. 
 From First Church, Newark, N.J., Rev. W. B. Brown, D.D., 
 
 Pastor ; Rev. George Brown, Delegate. 
 From Belleville Avenue Church, Newark, N.J., Rev. G. M. 
 
 Boynton, Pastor ; Bro. J. H. Denison, Delegate. 
 From First Church, Jersey City, N.J., Rev. G. B. Willcox, 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. J. Dixon, Delegate. 
 From First Church, Orange Valley, N.J., Bro. John Wiley, 
 
 Delegate. 
 From Trinity Church, Orange, N.J., Rev. G. E. Adams, D.D., 
 
 Acting Pastor. 
 From First Church, Montclair, N.J., Rev. A. H. Bradford, 
 
 Pastor; Rev. H. Q. Butterfield, D.D., Delegate. 
 From First Church, Washington, D.C, Rev. J. E. Rankin, 
 
 D.D., Pastor; Bro. A. L. Barber, Delegate. 
 From First Church, Columbus, O., Rev. R. G. Hutchins, Pastor; 
 
 Bro. B. D. Hills, Delegate. 
 From Second Church, Oberlin, O., Rev. Hiram Mead, D.D., 
 
 Acting Pastor ; Rev. Henry Cowles, D.D., Delegate. 
 From Oberlin, O., Rev. J. H. Fairchild, D.D. 
 From First Church, Detroit, Mich., Bro. C. I. Walker, Delegate. 
 From Second Church, Detroit, Mich., Rev. S. M. Freeland, 
 
 Pastor ; Bro. E. Palmer, Delegate. 
 From First Church, Chicago, III., Rev. E. P. Goodwin, D.D., 
 
 Pastor; Rev. W. W. Patton, D.D., Delegate. 
 From New England Church, Chicago, III., Bro. C. G. Ham- 
 mond, Delegate. 
 From Chicago, III., Rev. G. N. Boardman, D.D. 
 
58 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 From Spring Street Church, Milwaukee, Wis., Rev. George 
 
 T. Lacld, Pastor. 
 From Beloit, Wis., Rev. A. L. Chapin, D.D. 
 From Ripon, Wis., Rev. W. E. Merriman, D.D. 
 From First Church, St. Louis, Mo., Rev. T. M. Post, D.D., 
 
 Fastor. 
 
 The Scribe reported that the Orange Valley Church, in 
 New Jersey, had sent two delegates, the pastor not being able 
 to attend. 
 
 Rev. Dr. J. M. Manning, of Boston, Mass. : That does not 
 seem to be in accordance with the Letter-Missive, which 
 says, " pastor and delegate." 
 
 Rev. Dr. George E. Adams of Orange, N.J. : I hope the 
 question will be cleared up, and settled, whether a church is at 
 liberty to send two delegates, in the absence of the pastor, 
 or when the pastor is not able to attend. It is a practical 
 question to a number of us. There are several of us, here, 
 whose names have been read as pastors, who are really act- 
 ing-pastors. If it is settled that such a church may send two 
 delegates, as I trust it will be, in accordance with common 
 sense, then those who are acting-pastors will know how they 
 can be provided for ; for in these cases the church can send 
 their acting-pastor and a lay brother as a delegate ; for I 
 conceive that " delegate " means " layman." I perceive that 
 we Congregationalists do not understand, apparently, that 
 pastors represent churches, and are delegates from churches, 
 and nothing else. " Delegate " means " representative ," — one 
 deputed to act in behalf of another. 
 
 At the suggestion of the temporary Scribe, the question 
 was reserved, until after the reading of the Letter-Missive. 
 
 The Chairman requested members to prepare their ballots 
 for a Permanent Moderator. 
 
 Rev. N. J. Burton, D.D., Hartford, Conn. : In order that we 
 may focus ourselves, a little, when we come to cast our ballots, 
 I beg leave to nominate, as Moderator of this organization. 
 Rev. Dr. Leonard Bacon, of New Haven, Connecticut. 
 
 Hon. Charles I. Walker, of Detroit, Mich., nominated 
 President Fairchild, of Oberlin College, Ohio. 
 
THE PERMANENT ORGANIZATION. 59 
 
 Rev. Dr. Manning, of Boston, nominated the Hon. Lafav- 
 ETTE S. Foster, of Connecticut. 
 
 Rev. Henry M. Dexter, D.D., of Boston : I move that 
 the Council choose two Moderators. The Council is very 
 large, and the sessions may be very arduous ; and as, in olden 
 time, it was customary in the large Councils of New England 
 to have more than one Moderator, I would suggest that we 
 can divide the honors between the East and West, the clergy 
 and the laity ; in that way having two Moderators, as in the 
 Boston Council in 1865, who can relieve each other during 
 the sessions. 
 
 The motion was seconded by the Rev. Dr. Bacon, and 
 was agreed to. 
 
 Rev. Dr. John O. Fiske, of Bath, Me., nominated Hon. 
 Bradford R, Wood, of Albany, New York, as one of the 
 Moderators. 
 
 Rev. George Harris, junior, of Providence, R.I., and Rev. 
 Charles R. Palmer, of Bridgeport, Conn., were appointed 
 tellers to collect and count the ballots ; and they subsequently 
 reported as follows : — 
 
 Whole number of votes cast 119; 
 
 Necessary to a choice 60 ; 
 
 Rev. Dr. Leonard Bacon, of New Haven, Conn., has 60. 
 
 He was therefore declared elected Permanent Moderator. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Bacon, on taking the chair, said : If I wanted to 
 sway this body by personal influence, or by speech, I should 
 ask you to excuse me entirely from this place ; but, inasmuch 
 as I rejoice in the opportunity of being relieved from respon- 
 sibility in regard to the action and decision of this Council, I 
 thank you for placing me here. 
 
 Hon. Charles I. Walker: I renew the nomination of 
 President Fairchild, of Oberlin, Ohio, for the Second Mod- 
 erator. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Parsons, of Boston, Mass. : The suggestion has 
 been made, that the Associate Moderator should be from the 
 laity, and also be from the West. I beg leave, therefore, to 
 nominate Hon. Charles I. Walker, of Detroit, Mich., for that 
 office. 
 
6o THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Fiske, of Bath, Me. : I would renew the nomination 
 of Hon. Bradford R. Wood, of Albany, New York. 
 
 The tellers, having collected the ballots, reported as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 Whole number of votes cast 119; 
 
 Necessary to a choice 60 ; 
 
 For Hon. Charles I. Walker .....' 81. 
 
 He was accordingly declared to be elected Associate 
 Moderator. 
 
 The Council proceeded to the election of a Permanent 
 Scribe. 
 
 Rev. William B. Brown, D.D., of Newark, N.J., nomi- 
 nated Rev. Dr. Alonzo H. Quint, of New Bedford, Mass. 
 
 The nomination was seconded by Rev. Dr. Fiske, of Bath, 
 Me., and was unanimously agreed to. 
 
 Rev. E. C. Smyth, D.D., of Andover, Mass., nominated 
 Rev. I. C. Meserve, of the State Street Congregational 
 Church of Brooklyn, N.Y., as Assistant Scribe. 
 
 The nomination was seconded, and was agreed to. 
 
 The Moderator announced that the first business in order 
 would be the reading of the Letter-Missive, after which the 
 meeting would be opened with prayer. 
 
 Rev. Dr. W, H. Lord, of Montpelier, Vt., moved that 
 the reading of the Letter-Missive be dispensed with. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 The Moderator then led the Council in prayer ; after 
 which Hon. Amos Barstow, of Providence, R.L, said : I have 
 not seen the Letter-Missive, and I should be glad to hear so 
 much of the Letter read, as names the points on which the 
 churches are requested to act ; and, also, such other parts as 
 may open the door to make this a Mutual Council. 
 
 The Moderator : You hear the suggestion. One of 
 our brethren is not satisfied with undertaking to proceed to 
 business, without having a statement of what the business is. 
 I never knew a Council, before, to take the responsibility of 
 refusing to hear the Letter read by which it was convened, 
 and which was the charter of its existence. (Applause.) 
 
 I beg leave to say that this Council is not to be influenced, 
 nor to be disturbed, by any indications of approval or disapproval 
 
THE INVITATION TO PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 6i 
 
 on the part of the audience ; and I shall demand protection, 
 on behalf of the Council, against all such interference. 
 
 Mr. Dixon, of Jersey City, N.J., moved that the Letter- 
 Missive be read. 
 
 The Scribe stated that a motion had already been agreed 
 to, that its reading be dispensed with. 
 
 Mr. Dixon moved that that vote be reconsidered. 
 
 The motion to reconsider was agreed to ; and the motion to 
 dispense with the reading was rejected. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Dixon, the Letter-Missive was then 
 ordered to be read, and was read by the Scribe, as it appears 
 on pages 1-4 of this volume. 
 
 Professor E. C. Smyth, D.D., of Andover, Mass : I suppose, 
 as we have come up to this Council, from different parts of the 
 land, there has been one question uppermost in all our minds ; 
 and that is, — What is the relation which this Council is to sus- 
 tain, in its action, to one of the churches in this city, prominent 
 in the discussions that have taken place, but which is not rep- 
 resented here to-night .'' As the Letter-Missive has been read, 
 I suppose every one of us has been impressed anew with the 
 distinctness of the statement of that Letter, that this Council 
 is called to advise the churches summoning it, and not the 
 Plymouth Church ; and I suppose, that as we have heard 
 those specific, definite statements, contained in what the Mod- 
 erator has so distinctly and emphatically stated to be the char- 
 ter of this Council, the question has arisen, — What, under such 
 a Letter, can we do, to express the feelings of our hearts towards 
 the Plymouth Church } and especially, our desire, that, in this 
 discussion, there should be the utmost manifestation of the 
 spirit of charity and of kindness toward that church, and of 
 our desire, above all things, to be magnanimous and fair, from 
 the beginning to the end t 
 
 Now, in reading the Letter, and considering how we can 
 carry out such a purpose as that, we are, of course, in the first 
 place, governed — I suppose we should all admit — strictly, 
 by the terms of the Letter-Missive. The whole question that 
 comes before us is, then, what we can accomplish under this 
 Letter. It has seemed to me, that we might properly and 
 fairly, without going over in the least, the boundaries fixed by 
 
62 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 the Letter, invite that church to sustain a relation to this 
 Council, equivalent, substantially, to the relation sustained by 
 the churches that have called it ; while, at the same time, we 
 avoid technical embarrassments, which at once arise if we con- 
 sider this as an ex parte Council, and proceed to make over- 
 tures to the Plymouth Church to unite with us in a technical 
 Mutual Council. 
 
 We are not called to advise them, as we should do immedi- 
 ately, and directly, if we sought to transform this Council into 
 a Mutual Council ; but we are called to consider a great prin- 
 ciple, in which, as a matter of fact, there are parties : and, if 
 an ex parte Council means, simply, that we have to do with 
 questions in respect to which there are parties, there will be 
 no difference of opinion among us. But we have to do with a 
 controversy to which there are parties, on the basis of a Letter 
 which summons us to advise one of the parties, and not the 
 other. There is precisely where we stand. 
 
 Now, I have been in consultation with a few brethren since 
 I have come in, simply that I might not come forward as an 
 individual, to express the thoughts of my own mind and heart ; 
 and I have here, in writing, a Resolution, which I should like to 
 propose for the consideration of the Council, and which seems 
 to me to accomplish precisely the object, as to substance, which 
 we must all desire, of gaining all the light which we could have 
 as a Mutual Council, while it avoids the embarrassments to 
 which I have referred. With the permission of the Council, 
 I will read this Resolution, and it may then be submitted, with- 
 out further remarks of mine. 
 
 " Resolved, That the Plymouth Church be invited, with the consent 
 of the committees of the churches [the churches, of course, calling 
 this Council], to present its views, orally, before the Council, on the 
 questions presented in the Letter-Missive, by its pastor and such 
 committee as it may appoint ; and, by the same committee [of course 
 including the pastor], to furnish such information concerning the 
 action referred to in these questions, as the Council may request." 
 
 The substance of this Resolution is not hastily entertained 
 or submitted. The object is, that we may, in the beginning 
 of our discussion, put ourselves in a relation to that church, 
 
IS THE COUNCIL EX PARTE? 63 
 
 through which they may appear here, to make their state- 
 ments, in the same way as the brethren who have called this 
 Council will appear to make their statements ; so that we may 
 thereafter come to a result with all the light which can be shed 
 on the questions before us. 
 
 Rev. Carlos Martyn, of Portsmouth, N.H. : I rise to a 
 point of order, which touches a question prior to the question 
 raised in the Resolution. I hold in my hand a work by our 
 honored brother. Dr. Dexter, on Congregationalism. Opening 
 at page 64, under the head of Cowicils, I find these words : — 
 
 " A Mutual Council is one, in the calling of which, all par- 
 ties to the difficulty or perplexity concerning which relief is 
 sought, unite. An ex parte Council is one which is called by 
 one of those parties after every proper effort to induce all in- 
 terested to call a Mutual Council has failed ; and no ex parte 
 Council has a right to proceed to the consideration of the case 
 before it, until it has satisfied itself that every reasonable en- 
 deavor to secure a Mutual Council has been tried and failed, 
 and until it has offered itself as a Mutual Council to all par- 
 ties, and has been rejected as such." 
 
 I also hold in my hand, a Resolution passed on Friday even- 
 ing, in Plymouth Church, to this effect : — 
 
 " Resolved, That the calling of this ex parte Council, to consider the 
 affairs of a church which has not declined a Mutual Council, is the 
 consummation of a course," &c. 
 
 My point of order is, as to whether we have any right to pro- 
 ceed, at all, until we are satisfied that Plymouth Church has 
 declined a Mutual Council. Upon that point I, for one, am not 
 clear, and I ask for further light. 
 
 Rev. Dr. N. J. Burton, of Hartford, Conn., suggested that 
 after the word " orally," in Prof. Smyth's resolution, the words 
 " or otherwise " be inserted. 
 
 The Moderator : The point of order was suggested by Rev. 
 Mr. Martyn, whether the Council can proceed to do any thing, 
 without first disposing of the question whether this is an ex 
 parte Council ; and whether all reasonable efforts have been 
 made to induce Plymouth Church to unite in calling it. That 
 seems to me to be a question of fact, rather than a question of 
 
64 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 order. It opens large inquiries, and I do not feel myself com- 
 petent to decide it. 
 
 Rev. Mr. De Witt, of Boston, Mass. : I rise to submit to 
 Brother Burton, whether his object would not be attained if 
 the word "orally" were stricken out from the Resolution. 
 
 Dr. Burton : Yes. 
 
 Rev. Prof. Smyth : A word of explanation. The object is, 
 that the representatives of Plymouth Church may be here, in the 
 same way in which the representatives of the churches which 
 have convened the Council, are present. We want to see these 
 brethren ; we want to learn from them, not simply what may 
 be present to their minds, and may be conveyed by writing, 
 but we may wish to obtain information also by our own ques- 
 tions. What I wish, is, that all these churches may be here, 
 in that respect, in precisely the same way. That seems to 
 me the fair way to bring the subject fully before us ; and, 
 therefore, the word "orally" is important, as regards the 
 object in view. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Twining, of Providence, R.I. : I would like to inquire 
 whether the character of this Council, as an ex parte Council, or 
 as a Mutual Council, is indelibly fixed upon it by the Letter- 
 Missive .'' I wish to inquire whether there is not a body of 
 Congregational precedent, and of common law, which would, in 
 a measure, dictate the proceedings of the Council, and the 
 principles by which we are to proceed ; and whether those 
 principles do not require us, in case we are summoned under 
 a Letter which looks toward an ex parte Council, to use all 
 means, in our power, to make it a Mutual Council ; and 
 whether, according to the proceedings of past centuries, an 
 ex parte Council is not regarded as a misfortune, which is to 
 be averted by every means in our power ; and whether, after 
 our assembling, we have not the right to do all that we can to 
 put the Council on another basis .'' And I desire, furthermore, 
 to state that it has seemed to me, after a perusal and examina- 
 tion of this Letter-Missive, that all pains were taken by its 
 authors to avoid giving this Council the character of an ex 
 parte Council ; and I expressly and particularly wish to call 
 attention to some words on the last page. After the seventh 
 point which is to be laid before the Council, occur these words : — 
 
75 THE COUNCIL EX PARTE? 65 
 
 "We ask you, dear brethren, to meet in Council, by your pas- 
 tor and delegate, at the Clinton Avenue Church in this city, on the 
 24th of March, 1874, at 7, p.m., to consider these questions, or such 
 of them as the Council may deem it wise to consider, and to give us 
 the light of your wisdom upon them." 
 
 Now, I beg leave to submit that that clause, of itself, gives 
 the Council a certain liberty. And, if there were no such thing 
 as a Congregational common law to give us this right, I beg 
 leave to submit, that, in my understanding of the document 
 itself, we should get it there. And with this view, until I can 
 see the matter in a different light, I shall certainly oppose 
 the resolution of Prof. Smyth ; because, although I think the 
 animus of it is right, — though I think it is dictated by a 
 desire to bring the Plymouth brethren in, — I think it would 
 fix upon this Council, from the start, a character which it is 
 very unfortunate for it to bear ; and that it would preclude us 
 from taking those steps which, heretofore, ex parte Councils 
 have always taken, and which, I believe, always ought to be 
 taken. 
 
 The Moderator : On the point of order raised, I desire to 
 say, that an ex parte Council is a Council called by a party in a 
 church. There is no other ex parte Council. This is a Council 
 called by a church ; not by a church only, but by two churches ; 
 to advise them : and it is a misnomer to call it an ex pai'te Coun- 
 cil, in the technical sense of that word. All the rules and pre- 
 cedents about ex parte Councils are rules and precedents which 
 will apply to a Council called by a party in a church, which is 
 not itself a church. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Brown, of Newark, N.J., inquired whether our stan- 
 dards recognized any other than either Mutual Councils or ex 
 parte Councils. 
 
 The Moderator : Yes ; they do. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Brown : I should like to see that in our books. 
 
 The Moderator : Were you ever ordained by a Council, 
 brother } 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin, of Washington, D.C., moved to amend 
 the Resolution offered by Professor Smyth, by substituting 
 the following: — 
 
66 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Whereas^ This Council, convened at the instance of two of our 
 most important and influential churches, presided over by two of 
 our ablest, wisest, and most respected pastors, though technically 
 ex parte, is in no proper sense partisan ; and, — 
 
 Whereas, The questions to be submitted to its decision relate to 
 the administration of discipline in another of our churches, no less 
 important and influential, and presided over by a pastor whose 
 reputation and influence are dear to all the churches, and to true 
 Christians the world over; and, — 
 
 Whereas, The Council is desirous of discovering some method 
 of removing all misunderstanding and prejudice between our 
 brethren, as well as correcting errors in discipline, if such exist; 
 therefore, — 
 
 Resolved, That we cordially invite the pastor and members of 
 the Plymouth Church to accept the Council now convened, as 
 Mutual, and to submit all differences between themselves and the 
 Clinton Avenue Church, and the Church of the Pilgrims, of this 
 city, to its advice and determination ; promising, so far as possible, 
 to extend to them all the rights and privileges of original parties 
 in the calling of this Council ; also, — 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to convey these 
 resolutions to the Plymouth Church, and to kindly urge the accept- 
 ance of the same ; and that, when the Council adjourns, it be to 
 eleven o'clock to-morrow morning, to await the report of the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin said : I do not know that this is wise ; 
 but in thinking the matter over, with a great deal of solici- 
 tude, and conversing with some of the brethren, on the cars, 
 respecting it, it seemed to me that this was the first step for 
 us to take. I do not know which of these venerable and 
 noble men I love most or best. I love them, — all these 
 pastors ; and I feel that I have at heart the interests of all 
 these churches. It seems to me there are -misunderstandings 
 between these pastors and churches, which may be adjusted ; 
 and it certainly is evident, from the little I have seen of the 
 correspondence between the pastors, that we ought to have 
 something more than we are likely to have submitted to us ; 
 that we ought to have something more from the pastor of the 
 Plymouth Church, or the church itself ; and, therefore, I move 
 this substitute. 
 
 The motion was seconded. 
 
 It was stated that the question was upon the adoption of 
 the substitute, offered by Rev, Dr. Rankin. 
 
 Mr. Dixon, of Jersey City, N.J. : It seems to me that this 
 
WHAT IS THE COUNCIL? G-j 
 
 Preamble and Resolution are, in their expressions, directly in 
 the teeth of the ruling of the Moderator, in reference to the 
 character of this Council. The preamble to this Resolution 
 declares the Council to be technically ex parte. I understand 
 the ruling of the Moderator to be that it is not an ex parte 
 Council, but a Mutual Council, in the sense that it is called to 
 advise the churches that have called it. 
 
 The Moderator : No, sir ; not a Mutual Council, but sim- 
 ply an Advisory Council, called by two churches. Not 
 Mutual, not technically ex paitc. 
 
 The Scribe : Are we to understand that the Moderator's 
 ruling has any binding force upon the Council, or is it simply 
 his opinion in regard to the case ^ 
 
 The Moderator : It has not. It is my opinion. 
 
 Mr. Dixon : I supposed it was a ruling, on a question of 
 order raised, and would be binding on the Council, until ap- 
 pealed from in a regular way, and reversed ; and therefore, as 
 yet, it stands binding upon the Council, in reference to that 
 question of order. It struck me, too, that there was a great 
 deal of force in the suggestion that this is not an e.x- parte 
 Council, even technically. We are called, it is true, by par- 
 ties who are, to some extent, parties to wdiat seems to be a 
 controversy ; but we are called to advise the churches that 
 call us, and the Letter-Missive expressly repudiates the idea 
 that this Council is summoned for the purpose of advising 
 Plymouth Church ; and, therefore, it seems to me, that, as we 
 are only to advise the churches that have called us, it is not 
 ex parte, in the sense in which Councils are called ex parte. 
 It strikes me, further, that the Resolutions which are proposed 
 as a substitute for the Resolution offered by Professor Smyth 
 are of such a character that this Council cannot properly 
 adopt them. The charter of this Council, as I understand it, 
 and as it has been stated by the Moderator, is its Letter- 
 Missive. Is it competent for this Council, when convened, to 
 change its character from the character indicated by the 
 Letter-Missive, and to become another sort of a Council, which 
 shall be summoned, not by the two churches that have sum- 
 moned it, but by those churches in conjunction with another 
 church } Have we the power to give to Plymouth Church the 
 
68 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 exact position, on this floor, that it would have had, in case it 
 had joined in the call ? It seems to me, that, if the Letter- 
 Missive be the charter of the Council, we have not the author- 
 ity to do that thing. We are a Council called by these two 
 churches ; and that sort of a Council we must remain. 
 
 I shall oppose the substitution of these Preambles and 
 Resolutions, also, because of the phraseology of a portion 
 of the Preamble in reference to the character of the churches 
 and pastors concerned. It seems to me that we ought not to 
 cast such a reflection upon the other churches belonging to 
 the Congregational denomination, as to undertake to compli- 
 ment, in any such terms, the churches which have called 
 this Council. We stand on the same footing. We are none 
 ablest, none wisest. They have called us to advise them. I 
 can see clearly that it is a part of the province of this Council 
 to ask Plymouth Church to give us light. We are asked to 
 consider questions ; and it is one of the very first principles in 
 the consideration of any question, — " audi alteram partem" — 
 " hear both sides." And if there be possibly any sides to 
 this controversy, it will be proper, and necessary perhaps, that 
 we should have the Plymouth Church represented on the floor 
 of this Council, just as fully as it is possible to have it ; and 
 therefore I am in favor of the Resolution, as proposed by Pro- 
 fessor Smyth. Perhaps I would make it a little broader. My 
 own notion would be to invite Plymouth Church to stand upon 
 the floor of this Council, by its pastor and delegates, just as 
 the delegates who are here stand, except in the right to vote ; 
 so that upon all questions that may arise they may be heard, 
 in reference to their own views. But it seems to me that 
 the Resolution of Professor Smyth sufficiently meets that ; and 
 therefore I shall favor his Resolution, and oppose the substitute, 
 I therefore move to lay the substitute upon the table. 
 
 The Moderator stated that that motion would carry the 
 original Resolution with it. 
 
 Mr. Dixon then withdrew his motion. 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs, pastor of the Church of The Pil- 
 grims, Brooklyn, N.Y. : I wish to say a very few words 
 in regard to this subject, as to the impression under which 
 the Letter-Missive was prepared and sent out. We under- 
 
VIEW OF THE INVITING CHURCHES. 69 
 
 stand that there are four kinds of Councils recognized in 
 the Platform : — a Mutual Council, where two parties, having a 
 difference, agree to refer the whole subject to a Council, as a 
 common tribunal ; an ex parte Council, where one of the par- 
 ties in the controversy, the other party having refused to 
 unite in such a reference, refers the same subject to a Coun- 
 cil called by itself alone. In that case, the same questions 
 must be presented to the ex parte which it had been proposed 
 to present to the Mutual Council. An ex parte Council has 
 no right to exist until a Mutual Council has been distinctly 
 declined. A third Council is what is called, in a specific 
 sense, an Ecclesiastical Council ; convened simply for the per- 
 formance of some public ecclesiastical action, such as the 
 ordaining of a minister, the installing of a minister, the insti- 
 tution of a church, or the recognition of it. An Advisory 
 Council is a different Council from either. It is a Council 
 with which we are very familiar, here. A church wishes help, 
 advice, counsel, in regard to pecuniary affairs ; in regard to 
 the removal of its church edifice ; in regard to any questions 
 which have arisen within it, upon which it needs the guid- 
 ance, the correction, or the confirmation of its judgment, — 
 to employ the terms which the Platform expressly uses. We 
 intended to call this not as a Mutual Council, not as an ex parte 
 Council, not as a specific Ecclesiastical Council, for common 
 ecclesiastical action, but, precisely as we style it, and have 
 styled it always, as an Advisory Council ; to advise us, as to 
 whether what we have done in the past is proper, and as to 
 how we should order our affairs in time to come. And we have 
 said expressly, in the Letter-Missive, that after you have heard 
 our statements, and have got all the light you can, if there 
 are any of these questions on which you cannot give us your 
 advice, you are at liberty to be silent. We lay the matters 
 before you ; we tell you our difficulties ; we give you all the 
 information, and all the conceptions of principles, which we 
 have ; and then you will, by yourselves, after the full discus- 
 sion of the subject, give us the benefit of your wisdom, we hope, 
 on all the questions, — on every one. But, if you find, when 
 you come to consider the matters laid before you, that, in your 
 judgment, the answer to any question impinges upon another 
 
7° 
 
 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 church, more sharply than you are wilhng to have it, it is in 
 your discretion to decHne to give us there any advice. But 
 we desire your advice, and ask for it ; and we need it, on all 
 the questions. 
 
 This is an Advisory Council, or it is no Council at all. If it 
 is an ex parte Council, it has no existence. For we have ex- 
 pressly said in the statement accompanying our Letter-Missive, 
 that we have obtained no decisive answer to our requests for 
 a Mutual Council ; and we are not so young in our Congrega- 
 tionalism as not to know that before we call an ex parte Coun- 
 cil we have got to have a precedent declinature of a Mutual 
 Council. Therefore we called no ex parte Council. 
 
 Therefore the Questions submitted to you are not the same 
 Questions which were submitted to the Plymouth Church, on 
 which we desired a Mutual Council. They are distinctly differ- 
 ent. We asked them, for example, to join in calhng a Mutual 
 Council to decide whether their action — not as presented in 
 public documents merely, but as obtained from an investiga- 
 tion of their records, as obtained from oral testimony — was 
 not injurious to the Christian reputation and influence of that 
 church, and did not involve a failure to give timely vindica- 
 tion to the name of the pastor. We have asked you no such 
 question. Our questions to you are thus not the same which we 
 proposed to them, as furnishing the occasion for a Mutual 
 Council ; but all these questions concern ourselves, — the past 
 action, and the future action, of these churches. Of course 
 they concern ourselves in regard to another church ; and we 
 appreciate and feel, with you, all the delicacy of the situation. 
 But suppose we had been in fellowship with another church 
 which had omitted from its Articles of Faith the doctrine of 
 the inspiration of the Scriptures, or the doctrine of the divin- 
 ity of our Lord, and we had said to them : " Will you join us 
 in a Mutual Council to consider whether this is proper, in the 
 relations we sustain to each other, and whether our fellowship 
 should continue .'' " and we had got no answer to that question : 
 would it not be our right to ask our neighbor churches to 
 come in and advise us, as to whether we ought to continue in 
 that fellowship } Are we to be forever debarred from seeking 
 the advice of sister churches when a church, concerning 
 
VIEW OF THE INVITING CHURCHES. 71 
 
 which we wish advice, as to our action toward it, not as to 
 its action, by delay, or by faikire to reply positively either one 
 way or the other, leaves us without any proper resort to an 
 ex parte Council ? 
 
 Our conception of the thing is this, — let me sum it up in 
 a word : This is not a Mutual Council, not an ex paj'te Council, 
 not a specific Ecclesiastical Council, for the performance of 
 common and public ecclesiastical functions ; but it is strictly 
 and absolutely an Advisory Council : called under that provision 
 in the Platform which says, in so many words, that when a 
 church needs advice for the guidance or correction or con- 
 firmation of its own judgment, it has a right to ask the advice 
 of its sister churches. And we adhere to that Letter-Missive. 
 We desire that you shall have all the light you can get, from 
 every quarter. We have not the least disposition in the 
 world to shut out a ray, a gleam, a glimmer, but we would 
 gather all the light we can, from every side ; and we welcome, 
 — I speak for myself, and have no doubt that I speak for the 
 entire committees, — we welcome a7iy opportunity that you 
 may give to the Plymouth Church to represent its views here, 
 on the floor of this Council, by its pastor and committee ; 
 giving it precisely as much opportunity to do that as we have 
 ourselves, in all your public sessions. But we do not want you 
 to change the Letter-Missive, and we do not want you to say 
 that this is an ex parte Council ; for then it is not a Council 
 at all. It is an Advisory Council, as we meant it to be, as we 
 have expressly called it from the beginning. And if, after you 
 have heard all our views, and gathered all the light you can 
 from every side, there are any questions which you do not feel 
 like giving us an opinion about, let them alone. 
 
 Judge C. L Walker of Detroit, Mich : This question of juris- 
 diction is a preliminary one, and^one of very great importance ; 
 and for myself, little versed in law of this sort, I desire all 
 the light I can obtain. I have listened to the suggestions 
 that have been made, and especially to the very clear and able 
 presentation, by Dr. Storrs, of the questions presented to the 
 Council ; but I have one trouble in my mind in relation to the 
 character of this Council. And first I will say, in relation to 
 an ex parte Council, Is it true that there can be no ex parte 
 
72 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Council until the adversary party has absolutely refused to join 
 in a Mutual Council ? I do not know but it is. I have no 
 learning upon that subject. That is an inquiry I desire to 
 make. If we all agree with what Dr. Storrs has said upon 
 that subject, that there must be an absolute refusal before 
 there can be an ex parte Council, then, of course, this can- 
 not be considered an ex parte Council. But suppose there is 
 evasion ; suppose there is neglect ; suppose there is unreason- 
 able delay ; may not then the aggrieved party then call an ex 
 parte Council } That is a question for those learned in this 
 law to determine : I cannot determine it. If we all agree 
 with Dr. Storrs, then, of course, this cannot be an ex parte 
 Council. 
 
 Unquestionably there are Ecclesiastical Councils. I don't 
 know so much about this question of Advisory Councils. 
 Unquestionably they exist in the church ; but is it possible 
 that they can relate to a trouble between two churches, where 
 the church implicated is not brought before the Council 1 Is 
 not the proceeding, in its nature, adversary .? Can you pass 
 upon such questions without passing upon the conduct of the 
 church that is complained of } Are there any such Councils 
 known to the Congregational body .'' If that is so, that there 
 are Councils that may consider matters which, in their very 
 nature, are controversial, then it is well to have it settled. 
 These questions that are presented here, if passed upon in a 
 certain way, do necessarily implicate another church. Have 
 we a right to pass upon their conduct by a mere Advisory 
 Council } I make these inquiries because I am unlearned on 
 the subject. It seems to me there ought to be no such Coun- 
 cils. It seems to me that a church ought not to be con- 
 demned, without having an opportunity to be heard. That, as 
 a common-law lawyer, seems to me their just right. But is it 
 true that this may not be virtually, if not technically, an ex 
 parte Council .'' That is a question of fact, to be considered. 
 If it belongs in this fourth class, and it is true that we may 
 thus pass upon the doings of a church that is not before us, 
 that is not invited before us, as a party to the proceedings, 
 if there is such a class of Councils, then, of course, we may 
 go on as an Advisory Council. These are questions upon 
 
CAN THE COUNCIL BE ADVISORY? 73 
 
 which I desire li2:ht. I submit that the Rcsokition offered 
 by Professor Smyth is one that seems to cover the ground. 
 But whether this is technically an ex parte Council or not, it 
 seems to me, in its nature, to be an ex parte Council, and 
 that we may go forward and invite the other party whose con- 
 duct is implicated, the other church, into this Council, to be 
 heard as we hear these churches that have called this Council. 
 It is hardly worth while that we should waste a great deal of 
 time on a mere technicality ; but can we act as an Advisory 
 Council, thus implicating a party that is in no way before us ? 
 
 Rev. Carlos Martyn : The great trouble in inviting 
 Plymouth Church before us is, that if Plymouth Church 
 has not been invited to unite in the call for a Mutual Coun- 
 cil, or if, that call having been given, it has been withdrawn, 
 then to ask Plymouth Church to unite with us, on the basis 
 of a Mutual Council, is to ask Plymouth Church to unite with 
 us without having had any voice in saying who shall constitute 
 that Mutual Council ; which to me seems to be exceedingly 
 unfair. Moreover, on our dear brother Storrs' showing, I 
 cannot conceive how there can be any difference whatever 
 between an ex parte Council and an Advisory Council. When- 
 ever it becomes essential, or seemingly necessary, that a 
 church should deny that it is calling an ex parte Council, it 
 may hide its action under the admirable and convenient 
 phrase of an Advisory Council, and so avoid all stigma. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : I did not introduce the epithets by way of 
 complimenting any church, but to state the truth with regard 
 to the churches. The presumption is, that, having been called 
 by these churches, there is some ground for the call. But 
 then, on the other hand, this church that is also involved, 
 indirectly, is a very important church ; and we cannot do 
 any thing to injure that church, or its pastor, with our eyes 
 closed. We want to know the facts of the case. I have no 
 preference for the Resolutions which I presented ; but it did not 
 seem to me that the Resolution of Professor Smyth was quite 
 broad enough in the invitation which it extended, and per- 
 haps not quite warm enough ; and for that reason I moved the 
 substitute. 
 
 The Moderator : You will observe that there is no dis- 
 
74' THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 senting voice, in the debate, about the propriety of inviting 
 the Plymouth Church to be present here, to be heard on all the 
 questions submitted to this Council. There is no debate on 
 that point. And the only question is on substituting Dr. 
 Rankin's Resolutions for the Resolution proposed by Professor 
 Smyth. Are you ready for that question } 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin withdrew his Resolutions. 
 
 Rev. Dr. H. M. Storrs, of Brooklyn, N.Y. : I will move the 
 adoption of a Resolution, most of the language of which will 
 be found in the Letter-Missive, on page 3* : — 
 
 Resolved^ That a committee be appointed to notify the Plymouth 
 Church of our assembling, and to convey to them our desire and 
 hope that they will be present with us, at the sessions of the 
 Council, by their pastor and a committee, to correct any state- 
 ments of fact which may seem to them erroneous, and to furnish 
 any further information or statements which may be of use to the 
 Council in reaching its decision. 
 
 This invitation was communicated by these two churches 
 which have called the Council. It was not communicated by 
 the Council itself. The force of the invitation lies in the 
 person that gives it, in the party that proposes it, more than 
 it does in the language which conveys it. I take it that that 
 is an accepted fact : the same words, precisely, from two dif- 
 ferent persons or parties, affect us very differently. It has 
 been stated through the pubhc press, that Plymouth Church, 
 at least some portions of it, very highly respect this Council. 
 We have seen that statement in the public press. I choose 
 this language, thinking that it is the language which will most 
 adequately express the sentiments of the committees of the 
 churches, who had drafted this Letter-Missive and sent it 
 forth. They said, we purpose to do a certain thing. I take 
 it they have done it. Suppose Plymouth Church has declined 
 that invitation, — I don't know whether it has ; but suppose 
 that it has declined that invitation, as addressed to it by these 
 two churches. We want to address to that church an invita- 
 tion. This language is certainly broad enough, as I have pre- 
 sented it, — it seems so at least to some gentlemen sitting by 
 me, — broad enough to cover what may be desired on the part 
 
 * Page 3, of this Volume. 
 
INVITATION TO PLYMOUTH CHURCH DEFINED. 
 
 75 
 
 of Plymouth Church. It is courteous to these churches that 
 have called us, and it is courteous to that church ; it will 
 express cordially the sentiments of this Council, in language 
 that seems fitly chosen to convey such an invitation ; and 
 therefore I offer it, desiring to combine in the invitation, 
 in language which has evidently been chosen with care, the 
 cordial desire of this Council to greet that church here, and 
 to receive such aid and information as it can give. 
 
 There are two or three points of difference between the 
 two Resolutions : one of them I think, is in the closing 
 phrase of the Resolution of Professor Smyth, — " such infor- 
 mation as the Council may request." It seemed to me unad- 
 visable that, if they wished to say any thing, they should first 
 be called upon to get a request from the Council that they 
 should say it. They might feel hampered, by such a phrase 
 as that. As I understand from our brother who addressed 
 us a few minutes ago, it is the desire of these committees, 
 who are present, that that church should be represented, and 
 should take as free a part in stating matters here as themselves. 
 Then, let us put it a little broader, and not say merely " such 
 information as the Council may request." 
 
 The Moderator : Let me read the first part of the original 
 Resolution, — "to present its views, orally, before the Council 
 on the questions presented in the Letter-Missive, by its pastor 
 and such committee as it may appoint." By that they are to 
 come, and tell their own story, and give their own views ; and, 
 after giving such a statement, they are to " furnish such infor- 
 mation concerning the action referred to in these questions 
 as the Council may request." 
 
 Mr. Dixon : PerhajDS " presenting their views," may pos- 
 sibly not include a statement of the facts. And I therefore 
 would move to amend the Resolution of Professor Smyth by 
 adding, at the close of it, the words, " or as may seem advis- 
 able to Plymouth Chftrch," — that is, such information as the 
 Council may request, or as may seem advisable to them. 
 
 Hon. Bradford R. Wood, of Albany, renewed his motion 
 to strike out the word " orally," saying : They may choose to 
 present their case, here, not orally ; and, as the object is to 
 give them perfect liberty to present the case as they please, I 
 move that the word be stricken out. 
 
76 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : If you will allow me, I would ask 
 if the Council would be content in our case, in the case of our 
 Committees, with our sending in to them written statements, 
 which might be read, in their hearing, without the presence of 
 the Committees ? In the course of the statements which we 
 have to make, there will be some things referred to, as a matter 
 of course, concerning which the Council may wish to ask us 
 questions, — concerning which they may wish to have evidence 
 particularly presented by us. We shall make affirmations of 
 fact, which we expect to be questioned about, — for which we 
 expect to furnish our evidence, if it is required. We desire 
 that the Plymouth Church shall have every right and privilege, 
 with regard to the expression of its views, which we ourselves 
 have ; but we should like, unless that seems objectionable 
 for some reason not apparent to the Committees, that the 
 Plymouth Church Committee should be here precisely as we 
 expect to be here ; so that their declarations of fact may be 
 inquired about, and evidence may be requested from them, if 
 any thing is doubted ; and that there may not be extended 
 statements sent in by parties to whom no question can be 
 addressed in regard to the meaning or the evidence of those 
 statements. Not that I mean to imply that they would affirm 
 any thing with intentional untruth, — not in the least : but that 
 as facts are viewed from different points, they wear different 
 aspects. And as we expect to be here, to be questioned, we 
 should like to have the Committee of Plymouth Church on 
 the ground also, to present their statements as we present 
 ours, and to be subjected to the same inquiries from the 
 Council, to which we expect, and are ready, to be subjected. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Wood : It has been stated, here, that there is a 
 strong desire to give this church the opportunity to place 
 itself upon the record, as they wish to be placed on the 
 record. Now, it is perfectly evident to every one that a 
 written statement cannot be misrepresented, whereas a 
 verbal one may be ; and that is the reason why I move to 
 place this church, in the situation in which it may choose 
 to be placed, and not in that in which we may choose to place 
 it. 
 
 The Moderator : The word " orally " does not exclude a 
 
THE DEBATE CONTINUED. 77 
 
 written statement. Most of the ministers in this Council 
 preach "orally," though they read every word they preach. 
 " Oral " means that they shall not send us a letter through 
 the post-office. It means that they shall not send a letter 
 which our Scribe is to read ; it means that they shall come, if 
 they come at all. and be heard, by the hearing of the ear, on 
 their views. I take it that that is the meaning of the word. 
 
 Mr. KiNGSLEV, of New Haven, Conn. : I desire to second the 
 motion of the Honorable Mr. Wood, to strike out the word 
 " orally," for the following reason : We are invited here to 
 answer questions relating to the action of Plymouth Church. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Twining raised the point of order, that there was 
 another question before the house, — the question upon the 
 substitute. 
 
 Mr. Wood withdrew his amendment. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Leavitt, of Northampton, Mass. : I am not pre- 
 pared to vote upon either of these Resolutions to-night. I 
 hope that the vote will be postponed until to-morrow morn- 
 ing ; and I therefore move that we adjourn until to-morrow 
 morning. 
 
 Several Members : No ! no ! 
 
 The motion to adjourn was not seconded. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Fiske : It was suggested by Rev. Dr. Storrs that 
 there will be private sessions, to which these Committees are 
 not to be invited ; and if we should move to go into a private 
 session, and should invite the Plymouth Church to act with 
 the Council, without qualifying it by introducing the word 
 " public," they would go with us into private session. 
 
 Rev. Dr. H. M. Storrs modified his Resolution, by introdu- 
 cing the word " open." 
 
 The question was stated to be upon substituting the resolu- 
 tion offered by Rev. Dr. H. M. Storrs, for that ofiered by Pro- 
 fessor Smyth. 
 
 Mr. Kingsley : I am opposed to the resolution of Rev. Dr. 
 Storrs, for the following reason : We are invited here to 
 answer certain questions relating to the action of Plymouth 
 Church ; and, in reading the letters upon this subject, I find 
 a great difference between the action of Plymouth Church and 
 the statements of the members of that church. I prefer, there- 
 
78 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 fore, to take the action of the church which we are called to 
 consider, as the basis of our action, rather than the statements 
 of the church, or of any committee of the church. Further- 
 more, I find in the documents which have been placed in our 
 hands, that Plymouth Church claims to act as a democracy, 
 and not by a Committee. Therefore I think it better that we 
 should ask them to make such representations, to us, as they 
 choose, in the way that they choose, in accordance with the 
 motion made by Professor Smyth, amended by Rev. Dr. 
 Burton. 
 
 The question was taken upon the substitute offered by Rev. 
 Dr. H. M. Stores ; and it was rejected. 
 
 The question recurred upon the adoption of the Resolution 
 offered by Prof. Smyth. 
 
 Rev. Dr. George E. Adams moved to strike out the words 
 "with the consent of the Committees of the churches," and 
 said : — 
 
 We come here from New York, Chicago, and other places, 
 without asking leave of Plymouth Church. 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : Is it not just to the Committees, if 
 the Committees consent, as they do, that they should appear to 
 consent } Ought it to be recorded as if it were an action of 
 the Council, overriding the wish of the Committees, when these 
 Committees have expressed their entire assent, in the strong- 
 est terms possible .? It cannot invalidate the action, to recog- 
 nize the fact that we welcome it. It cannot operate as a bar, to 
 make the action ineffectual. Why not, then, retain the lan- 
 guage } 
 
 Dr. Adams : I feel a difficulty about that, that the language 
 implies that we are to ask leave. 
 
 The Moderator : It does not imply that. 
 
 Mr. David M. Stone, of Brooklyn, N.Y. : I was about to 
 make the same motion. We all desire to see Plymouth 
 Church here, represented in its own way, and to express its 
 own views. The Committees had already invited it. We knew 
 the Committees favored their coming. Their offer was de- 
 clined ; and I thought that the expression in the invitation, 
 that they were to come by consent of the Committees, might 
 possibly be offensive. I therefore arose to make the same 
 motion. 
 
THE DEBATE CONTINUED. 
 
 79 
 
 Rev. Isaac Clark, Brooklyn, N.Y., suggested the substi- 
 tution of the phrase, "the Committees having freely con- 
 sented." 
 
 A Delegate : Might it not be amended further, making it 
 a little more truthful, recognizing the fact that the Committees 
 have extended the invitation, and have repeated the expression 
 of their desire here. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : I would not twit the Plymouth Church 
 with that. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Boardman, of Chicago, 111. : The Letter-Missive 
 records that the Committees asked the Plymouth Church to 
 be represented, and we are informed that they have been 
 invited. Why should we re-enact what is a necessary part of 
 the platform on which we stand .-' I think it is desirable that 
 it should be understood that we assent to, and cordially ap- 
 prove of, the action of the Committees in what they did. 
 
 The question was taken on the amendment ; and it was 
 rejected. 
 
 Mr. Dlxon moved to amend by adding to the Resolution 
 the words, " or, as may seem to the Committee advisable ; " 
 so that they may not be hampered in their statement of facts, 
 or by the request for facts, but may state such facts as they 
 may desire. 
 
 The Moderator : That is all covered by the anterior part 
 of the Resolution. 
 
 Mr. Dlxon : The anterior part of the Resolution, as I under- 
 stand it, covers a simple statement of their views. That 
 seems to be rather an expression of opinions, and not a state- 
 ment of facts. If it be covered by that, the latter part of the 
 Resolution is entirely unnecessary. 
 
 The Moderator : The former part of the Resolution pro- 
 poses that they should come and tell us what they think and 
 know, and the latter part that they should submit answers to 
 our questions. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Twining moved to strike out the word " orally." 
 
 The motion was not agreed to. 
 
 The question Avas stated to be upon the amendment to add 
 the words, " as to them may seem advisable." 
 
 The amendment was rejected. 
 
8o THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 The question recurred upon the adoption of the Resolution 
 offered by Professor Smyth. 
 
 Hon. Nathan Crosby, of Lowell, Mass. : As I propose to 
 vote against that Resolution, I wish to make a single remark 
 with regard to it. We come here to act under a charter. 
 These churches have invited us to come and advise them, in 
 certain particulars. I hold that we are bound by the charter, 
 and cannot go out of it ; that we must confine ourselves, out of 
 respect to the churches which have called us, to the questions 
 put to us, and we cannot dictate others ; that we cannot ask 
 them to change this, or to make a new Letter-Missive for us, 
 but we are to go by the Letter-Missive which we have received, 
 and which we are here to answer. They say to us that they 
 have asked the Plymouth Church, by their Committee, to come 
 here : they were satisfied to do that. They notify us that they 
 asked them ; and I contend that, in due respect to the Com- 
 mittees that have called us, in due respect to ourselves, we 
 should simply send a Committee to the Plymouth Church, and 
 say that this Council is now ready to hear any thing which 
 they have to say in answer to the invitation of the churches 
 calling us here, and not put ourselves before them to be snub- 
 bed, if you will allow me to use that expression, for I know it 
 is not a dignified one. Suppose they say, "Who are you.? 
 We don't acknowledge you."' The Committees calHng us 
 here, have told us that they have invited them. I hope this 
 Council will only send a Committee to them to say : " Gentle- 
 men, we are now ready to hear you, if you have any thing to 
 say, under the request made by the churches which have 
 called us here." 
 
 The question was taken on the resolution offered by Pro- 
 fessor Smyth, and it was agreed to. 
 
 Rev. Henry M. Dexter, D.D., of Boston, offered the fol- 
 lowing Resolution, which was seconded, with the understand- 
 ing that it lie upon the table, to be taken up, the first thing in 
 the morning: — 
 
 Resolved, That it is the opinion and judgment of this body 
 that this is neither an ex parte Council, nor a Mutual Council, but 
 a Council for advice, only ; called regularly, according to the pro- 
 
RESOLUTION AS TO NATURE OF COUNCIL. 8i 
 
 visions of the Boston Platform of 1865, and in the exact line of 
 Congregational principle and precedent ; and as such, we are ready 
 to proceed to the hearing, on the questions presented before us in 
 the Letter-Missive. 
 
 Hon. C. I. Walker moved that Professor Smyth, together 
 with the Scribe of the Council, Rev. Dr. A. H. Quint, be a 
 committee to present the Resolution of Professor Smyth, 
 adopted by the Council, at the earliest opportunity, to the 
 Plymouth Church, 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 After an announcement by Rev. Dr. Budington, with re- 
 gard to the entertainment of members, the Council adjourned 
 to 9 a.m., Wednesday, March 25. 
 
SECOND SESSION — MARCH 25- 
 
 Council convened at g.30, a.m., the Moderator in the 
 Chair, and was opened by singing. Rev. Dr. J. L. Taylor, 
 of Andover, Mass., led the Council in prayer ; after which 
 Rev. Dr. Budington said : Would it be improper that I 
 should make a suggestion at this moment .'' It occurs to me, 
 that, in sympathy with the prayer in which we have just 
 united for the blessing of God upon us, we should ask, Mr. 
 Moderator, some brother to continue our supplications, with 
 especial reference to the request authorized last evening by 
 the Council, and being presented just now, by two of our 
 brethren, to Plymouth Church, that it would please God so to 
 guide that church in answer to the request, that the issue of 
 this Council shall be for the glory of our common Lord, and 
 for the honor of his visible Kingdom upon earth. I express, in 
 this remark, my own feelings, awakened by the tender prayeV 
 of our brother ; and I think I may presume enough to say, that, 
 in making this suggestion, I speak in behalf of the committees 
 of the churches that convened this Council. 
 
 By request of the Moderator, Rev. Dr. Cowles, of Oberlin, 
 Ohio, followed in prayer ; and then the Moderator announced 
 that the minutes of the meeting of March 24th not being 
 present (the Scribe being absent with the committee appointed 
 on that day), the Roll of members would be read by the 
 Assistant Scribe. 
 
 The Roll was accordingly read. 
 
 The Moderator : Probably there are delegates and pastors 
 present who have arrived since the close of the last evening's 
 session. They are requested to communicate their names and 
 credentials to the Scribes, that they may be entered upon the 
 Roll. 
 
 82 
 
MAY ACTING PASTORS AND INDIVIDUALS, SIT? 83 
 
 I will observe that the Scribe has made a pretty liberal use 
 of academic titles in making out the Roll ; but I recognize 
 some cases where the title was due, but not duly credited. 
 That is a matter of little consequence, but I make the remark 
 because I shall be liable to make the same mistake myself ; 
 and I hope no offense will be taken by any brother who hap- 
 pens to be a Professor or a Doctor, should these dignities be 
 overlooked. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Twining, of Providence, R.I. : I should like to 
 ask a question in regard to that Roll. Last evening I under- 
 stood that there were some points of regularity brought up, 
 with regard to certain names. I should like to know how 
 those questions have been settled. It seems to me that it 
 would be well to have the credentials examined by a com- 
 mittee ; and I move that a committee of two be appointed to 
 act with the Scribes, to examine the question of credentials. 
 
 The Moderator : There are two questions involved. 
 One is : Whether anybody shall be recognized as a pastor who 
 is known not to have been placed in that office by the consent 
 of the neighboring churches and a Council ; in other words, 
 whether a man who comes here and calls himself acting- 
 pastor shall be installed by this Council .? And the other 
 is : Whether a church not represented by a pastor may be 
 represented by two delegates .? Those will be the two ques- 
 tions that I understood Mr. Twining wants to have con- 
 sidered. The question is on the appointment of such a com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Barstow of Providence: I will ask whether 
 there may not be another question : Whether it is proper for 
 the individuals invited by these two churches to have places 
 in the Council .? 
 
 The Moderator : The Hon. Mr. Barstow raises the 
 question whether individuals invited by the inviting churches 
 have a right to places in the Council. I will give a ruling 
 officially on that question, which the Council will of course 
 overrule if it sees fit. It is, that the churches inviting this 
 Council having invited these individual brethren, and the 
 churches sending their messengers to the Council having 
 recognized the fact that those individual brethren were to sit 
 
84 BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 in the Council, this Council has no right to consider the 
 question at all, since it has been settled by the action of 
 the churches that sent us hither. They said to us " Go, 
 and sit with Dr. Harris, with President Merriman, with 
 President Fairchild of Oberlin, with each and all of these 
 individuals, — go, and sit as our representatives." We have 
 no right, being thus sent, to alter the basis on which we were 
 sent. 
 
 The motion of Rev. Mr. Twining was agreed to ; and Rev. 
 Mr. Twining, of Providence, and Rev. Dr. Lord, of Mont- 
 pelier, Vt., were nominated and appointed as the committee 
 to act with the Scribes. 
 
 The question was stated to be upon the Resolution offered 
 by the Rev. Dr. Dexter, of Boston, Mass. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Dexter suggested that it would be well, first, to 
 fix the hours of meeting, for the convenience of the families 
 by whose hospitalities members were entertained. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Budington stated that that convenience would 
 probably be best subser\^ed by an adjournment for dinner or 
 lunch, between one and three, p.m. ; the fmal adjournment for 
 the day to take place at five or six o'clock, unless it should be 
 concluded to have an evening session. 
 
 It was thereupon ordered that a recess should be taken at 
 one o'clock. 
 
 The resolution offered by Rev, Dr. Dexter was read, as 
 follows : — 
 
 Resolved, That, in the judgment of this body, this is neither an 
 ex parte Council nor a Mutual Council, but an Advisory Council, 
 regularly called, in accordance with the Platform of the Boston 
 Council of 1865, and in the exact line of Congregational law and 
 precedent ; and as such is legally competent for, and is now ready 
 to proceed with, the work which is presented to it in the provisions 
 of the Letter-Missive. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Dexter then spoke to the Resolution as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
ARGUMENT OF REV. DR. HENRY A/. DEXTER. 85 
 
 The objection has been taken in advance against this Coun- 
 cil that it is ex parte ; and being such has been improperly 
 called, and cannot, therefore, under the Congregational system, 
 be fairly competent to the functionrs to which it has been 
 summoned. It surely becomes, then, Mr. Moderator, our 
 first duty, whether we regard the clearing for ourselves of our 
 own path toward right action, or the pre-establishment in the 
 public mind, and particularly in that portion of the public 
 mind which is reasonably familiar with Congregational prin- 
 ciples, and equitably disposed toward them, of such a substra- 
 tum of general confidence in our right to be and to act as 
 must be indispensable to that moral effect to be desired for 
 our decision, whatever it may prove, — it becomes, I say, our 
 first duty to settle this matter for now and for ever, that we may 
 know, and that those who have disfavored the assembling of 
 this Council may know, and that the whole world may know, 
 whether we are rightfully assembled, and Congregationally 
 competent to our work, or illegitimately, and so ineffectually, 
 here. 
 
 For one, Mr. Moderator, I am certainly disposed to look 
 with utmost leniency upon the confusion of thought which 
 has prevailed in regard to this matter, and which has afflicted 
 with incertitude some minds usually clear-sighted in such 
 studies, on the ground that the precise point involved happens 
 to be, perhaps, the only one practical to the working of our 
 polity which has never been thought out, and — speaking of 
 legislation in the Congregational sense — legislated through, 
 to its last and completest issues. That polity, as I have no 
 need to remind the experts whom I address, has been of grad- 
 ual growth. That is to say, starting with a few rational and 
 scriptural principles, it has from time to time applied them 
 more and more widely to the exigencies of ecclesiastical life, as 
 occasion has presented itself. Thus its law is largely a law 
 of precedents, having force, not in themselves, and because 
 our honored fathers took the views which they took, but be- 
 cause our fundamental Biblical principles are unchangeable, 
 and the first good men who were called upon to apply them to 
 
86 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 any particular condition of affairs were presumably led under 
 the guidance of the Holy Spirit to a right decision ; and 
 there is necessarily a strong probability, that whenever other 
 good men are called, under the same guidance, to apply those 
 identical principles to a similar condition of affairs, they ought 
 to reach, and will reach, substantially the same results. 
 
 It is a part of the law of such gradual growth as this, that 
 new checks and balancings and equipoisings shall from time 
 to time suggest themselves, until, by their combined action 
 and counteraction, if not ideal perfection, at least practical 
 excellence, has been reached. 
 
 The ex parte Council was one of the later expedients Provi- 
 dentially suggested as needed to round out Congregationalism 
 to its necessary fullness ; and the time — I think I may accu- 
 rately say — has before this never come to demand final judg- 
 ment upon all that it is and is not, and as to what are the exact 
 limits within which it may properly act. And, Mr. Modera- 
 tor, if this Council were to do nothing else than to apply the 
 great force of its calm and deliberate judgment to the settle- 
 ment of this matter, I think we could all agree that it would 
 not have been summoned over these long distances, from the 
 East and from the West, in vain. 
 
 Now, then, sir, I respectfully ask the attention of the Coun- 
 cil to this proposition, which, with permission, I shall under- 
 take to prove, viz. : — 
 
 A Congregational Council ex parte is always, and of the 
 fixed necessity of its own being, a Council called within the 
 local church, growing out of conflicts of opinion there arising, 
 and consequent processes of judgmient therein ultimated, from 
 whose conclusiveness there is provided no other appeal ; and 
 the very philosophy which underlies and justifies such a Coun- 
 cil, when such final action within a local church has become 
 to any member morally insupportable, condemns the notion of 
 its existence outside the local church, and between such 
 churches, as an absurdity and an impossibility. 
 
 We may, perhaps, approach the subject most intelligently 
 from its historic side. 
 
 We shall get no light, however, upon it from our excellent 
 brethren over sea. The Congregationalism of the mother 
 
EX PARTE COUNCIL ALWAYS IN LOCAL CHURCH. 87 
 
 country, after living at a disadvantage without them for 
 two hundred and fifty years, is just now bestirring itself 
 determinately in the direction of something like our Ecclesi- 
 astical Councils, — if haply it may feel after them and find 
 them. 
 
 The first suggestion of any thing like the ex parte Council 
 in our New England history appears to have been in connec- 
 tion with a difficulty arising in the Church of Weymouth, in 
 the year 1646. A woman had been cast out "for some dis- 
 tempered speeches," by a major party (the ruling elder and a 
 minor party being unsatisfied therein), whereupon complaint 
 was made to the elders of the neighboring churches, and 
 request that they would come to Weymouth, and mediate a 
 reconciliation. Those elders laid it before their ^ churches. 
 Some " scrupled the warrantableness of the course, seeing the 
 major party of the church did not send to the churches for 
 advice. It was answered that it was not expected that the 
 major party would complain of their own act ; and if the 
 minor party, or the party grieved, should not be heard, then 
 God should have left no means of redress in such a case ; 
 which could not be " [Winthrop, ii. 277]. Some of the 
 churches approved of their elders going ; the rest permitted 
 it. So they went, and all ended happily in the Weymouth 
 church's consenting to make the Council mutual ; where- 
 upon some failing was found in both parties, and confession 
 and right action oa both sides followed. 
 
 We get one or two glimpses only of the recognition of the 
 principle which here seems to have found its first enunciation, — 
 that, " if the grieved party should not be heard, then God should 
 have left no means of redress in such a case ; which could not 
 be," — in the next twenty-three years (notably in an ex paiie 
 council at Barnstable, June 4, 1662), — when, in 1669, we reach 
 the most celebrated, and perhaps the most influential, ^.r/^r/^ 
 Council ever held in New England ; which at once gave distinct- 
 ness of form, if not something of respectability, to an expedient 
 which up to that time had been clearly little known, — that 
 Council which authorized and aided in the formation of the 
 Old South Church in Boston. A considerable number of 
 members of the First Church, dissatisfied with the settlement 
 
88 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 of John Davenport in the place of John Norton, had asked 
 for " an amicable dismission in order to the propagation of 
 another church ; " but the church, though advised to do so by 
 a Mutual Council, to whom the question was submitted, per- 
 sistently declined to accede to their request. The disaffected 
 brethren called an ex parte Council, among others inviting 
 the church in Salem. The Salem Church inquired of the 
 First Church whether they consented to the measure ; and 
 got for answer that they would have nothing to do with it 
 whatever. The Salem Church then put on record their judg- 
 ment, " That there was, and ought to be, relief against miscar- 
 riages in particular churches in the Congregational way," and, 
 hazily discerning that such relief might possibly come 
 through tbis new expedient, cautiously sent their elder and a 
 messenger, " not as members of the Council, and to vote therein, 
 but to be present, and do what good they could " [Judge 
 White's New Eng. Cong., p. 'j6\. Fourteen churches were rep- 
 resented, besides this qualified presence from Salem ; and the 
 aged and illustrious Richard Mather, then in his last month 
 of life, — in fact, going straight from the Moderator's chair to 
 his death-bed in Dorchester, — gave to the body the weighty 
 sanction of his presence and presidency. The First Church 
 continued obdurate ; rudely shut indeed (on the ground of 
 declining to hold intercourse with a body so " irregular ") the 
 door of their meeting-house in the face of the venerable Mod- 
 erator himself, when, with sundry others, he sought to wait 
 upon them as a committee of persuasion ; so, after days of 
 debate, they advised the dissenting brethren that " they might 
 take their liberty seasonably to be a church of themselves, as 
 if they had had a formal dismission " to that end ; which was 
 done. 
 
 During the half century that followed, the ex parte Council 
 appears to have been in occasional use, but to have encoun- 
 tered the not unnatural fear that it would tend to unsettle 
 church government, and weaken the rightful force of all 
 council decisions, by putting it always into the power of the 
 dissatisfied party to obtain a new hearing. Cotton Mather, 
 in his Ratio Disciplines (in 1726), after describing the ex 
 patte Council, adds a further suggestion in the same line, 
 
EX PARTE COUNCIL THE BEST EXPEDIENT. 89 
 
 clearly intended to provide a less hazardous manner of reach- 
 ing the same end : " It has been thought an aggrieved party 
 is allowed by the New-English Platform, to apply unto one 
 single church in the vicinity ; who by their delegates may, 
 after due preliminaries, come to the church complained of, and 
 ask some account of their proceedings. And if they cannot 
 put into joint what was out of it, this church which had been 
 applied unto may then pray a competent number of other 
 churches to unite their delegates with them in a larger Coun- 
 cil, to use further endeavors for the rectifying of what is out 
 of order" (p. 162). And when, twelve years later (1738), 
 Cotton Mather's son Samuel published his " Apology for the 
 Liberties of the Churches in New England," he sets forth this 
 last without so much as mentioning the other : " If this dis- 
 ciplinary method be not carefully observed, these churches 
 have no remedy at all against maladministrations in particular 
 churches ; for I cannot find, that, by the constitution of these 
 churches, the power of calling Councils belongs to any par- 
 ticular persons in them, but to the churches themselves. So 
 that, according to this constitution, if there be maladminis- 
 tration in any particular church, the aggrieved members of 
 it may not convoke such assemblies. But they should desire 
 the advice and assistance of a neighbor church ; and unless 
 one particular church interfere in this state of things, and 
 inquire into the case, in the way of communion by admoni- 
 tion, particular churches may remain at eternal variance within 
 themselves, without showing our dislike of their proceedings. 
 For there is no other process that we know of in the published 
 order of our churches by which we can testify against them, 
 but in this disciplinary method " (p. 130). 
 
 Time and experience, however, gradually demonstrated that 
 it must always practically prove very difficult for a single 
 aggrieved person to succeed in interesting even the working 
 majority of a neighboring church in his grievance sufficiently to 
 overcome its natural inertia, and persuade it to enter upon un- 
 gracious action on his behalf. So that, in point of fact, the good 
 sense of New England Congregationalism gradually settled 
 back upon the ex patte Council, as being, on the whole, the best 
 expedient to meet the occasional need in that direction. Not, 
 
90 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 indeed, without much hesitancy and many protests was this 
 done. A venerable Council at Hopkinton, in 1735 (19th Septem- 
 ber), censured such Councils as " a way, we think, not agreeable 
 to the Congregational constitution " [" Congregational Quar- 
 terly," 1863, p. 344]. And nearly all those Congregationalists 
 who appear to have been fore-ordained from before the foun- 
 dation of things to be Presbyterians, but who got somehow 
 mixed, if not misplaced, to the frustration of the divine decree, 
 when they came into the ecclesiastical world, have nearly 
 always had many fears concerning them ; have often declined to 
 take part in them, and have generally done what they could to 
 discountenance them. Nevertheless, Councils ex parte have 
 sturdily held their own ; have fought their way into the man- 
 uals, and into the law-books of the courts ; and now hold, upon 
 the Boston Platform of 1865, as legitimate and honorable a 
 place — for their own peculiar use — as any other form of 
 Council whatsoever. 
 
 But what are the fundamental ideas which experience has 
 developed as their root-principles } They are simply these 
 two, viz. : — 
 
 I. There must be proper ground for calling such a Council. 
 That is (i), the subject matter to which it relates must be 
 within the legitimate sphere of consideration and advice by a 
 Council ; and (2) ultimate action must have been reached upon 
 it by the church, so that no possibility is apparent of getting 
 what is felt to be wrong righted, without such external help. 
 Thus the Boston Platform of 1865 says distinctly [Part III. 
 Chap. ii. Sec. 7 (4)] : " A refusal on the part of a church to 
 call a Council before trial does not give any occasion for an 
 ex parte Council." This is because, until the normal processes 
 of church action have been carried as far as they can be car- 
 ried, and its last possible stage has been reached, and an 
 authoritative decision pronounced, there can be no certainty 
 that justice will not be done ; it ought, in Christian charity, 
 to be- presumed that justice will be done, in whatever action 
 remains ; in which case no Council will be needful : and no 
 Council can have legitimate life except as an expedient of ab- 
 solute necessity. Nee concilium intersit, nisi dignus vindice 
 nodus incident. 
 
ROOT PRINCIPLES IN EX PARTE COUNCILS. 91 
 
 2. The matter involved being suitable to the advice of a 
 Council, and final action having been taken in regard to it by 
 the normal tribunal, with the result to leave one party in what 
 it conceives to be a condition of wrong and of oppression, for 
 which no relief can be hoped from any other source than a 
 review of the procedure by Council, it is further necessary 
 to the legitimacy of an ex parte Council, that a Mutual Council, 
 reasonably requested, shall have been unreasonably refused. 
 It must be reasonably requested ; that is, deliberately, dis- 
 tinctly, and, to use the apt language of a Massachusetts judge 
 in the case of Thompson vs. Rehoboth [7 Pickering, 159], 
 " substantially set forth," so that the party appealed to " may 
 exercise his judgment whether to unite in a Council or not." 
 And it must be unreasonably refused ; that is, unreasonably 
 in the judgment of the aggrieved, fortified by that of candid 
 and impartial third persons — inasmuch as the party refusing 
 is not to be expected to stultify itself by conceding its own 
 unreason, and so no unanimous judgment of that character 
 can rightly be demanded. 
 
 On the basis of these two conditions, if fairly called, of im- 
 partial churches, an ex parte Council has now a recognized 
 and reputable right to be. But on no other. So declares the 
 Boston Platform. So say all our approved manuals. 
 
 In other words, our denomination has settled down upon 
 the judgment that the only possible basis on which an 
 ex parte Council can be Congregationally called together, is 
 that of a difference between parties in a local church, finally 
 decided by that church as against one of them, where this 
 ultimate decision of the normal tribunal is felt by that party 
 to be intolerable ; in which case, to add another safeguard 
 against unjust feeling and unchristian action, this particular 
 method of review, unconstitutional under all other circumstan- 
 ces whatsoever, becomes legitimate ; because without it " God 
 should have left no means of redress in such a case ; which 
 could not be ! " 
 
 It follows from all this, especially, that there can be no 
 such thing as an ex parte Council where there is no 
 supreme tribunal holding ultimate jurisdiction ; which, acting 
 according to its legitimate function, but, in the judgment of 
 
92 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 aggrieved parties, reaching wrong and oppressive results in so 
 doing, has come to a decision which must be final, unless this 
 opportunity of revision be afforded. 
 
 Bear in mind the express language of the Boston Platform 
 already cited, that a refusal on the part of a church to call a 
 Council before trial does not give any occasion for an ex pai'te 
 Council, and it will be seen to follow inevitably, that the very 
 idea of an ex parte Council between churches, under any cir- 
 cumstances, or for any reason whatsoever, becomes impossible 
 and absurd ; because there is, and there can be, no Congrega- 
 tional tribunal over churches, which, though associated, are 
 independent, before which trial can be had, and by which final 
 judgment can be rendered, in any such manner as to furnish 
 what we have seen to be the one indispensable pre-requisite 
 to the legitimacy of an ex parte Council. 
 
 Let us illustrate this. Here is a church which includes a 
 member, A B, who is in good and regular, but by no means 
 high standing ; concerning whom nothing is really known 
 which makes against his Christian character, but who has come 
 somehow to be unfavorably regarded. A business difficulty 
 arises between him and an influential member, C D, which 
 gets to be notorious and scandalous. Both are good quarrel- 
 ers. The church directs a committee to see the parties, and 
 endeavor to heal the breach. That committee, after some 
 labor had with both, at an ordinary church-meeting, when no 
 previous notice has been given that the subject is to come up, 
 and from which A B is absent, declare that they have looked 
 into the subject, and think both are to be blamed ; but recom- 
 mend that A B be hereby suspended from church privileges 
 for the space of six months, closing their written report with 
 a Resolution to that effect. The church at once adopt that 
 report, with its rider, and the clerk the next day notifies 
 brother A B that he has been suspended for one-half year ! 
 He is naturally surprised and indignant, and at the next meet- 
 ing protests against such a summary process, without cita- 
 tion, charge, or hearing, and asks that the vote be recon- 
 sidered, and that they at least give him a fair trial. The 
 church respond by passing another vote that he be excommu- 
 nicated on the spot ! 
 
NO EX PARTE COUNCILS BETWEEN CHURCHES. 93 
 
 He beseeches them to right this greater wrong, in vain. His 
 friends plead with them ; they answer that they don't hke him ; 
 and that even if he be not guilty of any thing worthy of stripes 
 in this particular case, they are convinced that he is generally 
 unworthy and discreditable, and deserves all that he has got. 
 He asks for a Mutual Council, and it is refused. What shall 
 he do ? Here he is summarily and peremptorily put outside 
 of that church, and of all churches ; denied everywhere 
 Christian ordinances ; a heathen man and a publican. He 
 thinks he don't deserve it ; and he knows he don't like it ; 
 and he knows, too, that the grossest injustice — an injus- 
 tice impossible to any secular tribunal in the civilized world 
 — has been done to him in his summary exclusion. There 
 can be no possible doubt, that, under these circumstances, 
 he has the right to call an ex parte Council, and that 
 that Council would have the right and the duty — the 
 church continuing obdurate — to do him the service of at 
 least certifying that nothing has been proved against his 
 Christian character ; that rude violence has been done him ; 
 and that, so far as those votes of suspension and excommuni- 
 cation are concerned, they were Congregationally so illegal in 
 their origin and process as to be void, and therefore to justify 
 sister churches in regarding and treating him as still uncen- 
 sured, and, as of right, in as regular standing as he had been 
 before their passage. Such a result puts a new face upon his 
 affairs. Its moral weight may work him redress in his own 
 community ; at any rate, it will enable him to sit down at the 
 table of the Lord with some other church, and so it gains 
 him a redress impossible to be gained in any other manner. 
 Punchard well styles ex parte Councils, in this view of their 
 use, "courts of errors, to which the humblest member of a 
 Congregational church may appeal" [View, p. 124]. 
 
 Suppose another case. Here are two Congregational 
 churches, side by side, in the same community. Like in 
 faith, they are unlike in spirit and works. One is conserva- 
 tive and respectable ; the other radical and plebeian. The 
 tide of incongeniality at length rises so high as to float them 
 into collision ; and the one refuses to dismiss members to the 
 other, and indulges in various kindred unfraternal acts, ending 
 
94 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 in general charges of heresy and infidehty. Correspondence 
 follows, making bad matters worse. All ends, at last, in the 
 endeavor on the part of the grieved church to get the whole 
 subject of their differences referred to a Council. But the 
 regnant spirit which inflicted the wound prompts to keeping 
 the surgeon at a distance, and all effort in that direction fails. 
 What is to be done here .-' Things are unpleasant, — that is 
 clear ; they are disgracefully damaging to the cause of Christ, 
 — that is even more sadly clear. But is there a case for an 
 ex parte Council } Clearly not. There is no such irremedi- 
 able hardship as to justify that. These people are not with- 
 out regular ordinances. They are not without their own 
 fraternity. They are as really a church as the other. There 
 is no judicatory over them which has passed snap judg- 
 ment upon them, leaving them helpless until some friendly 
 hand be stretched out to their relief. The only tribunal which 
 is above them, lower than the throne of God and the Lamb, 
 is that of the general judgment of their fellows of the church 
 and of the world ; and that has not yet been ultimated — can- 
 not be, until all the elements which are bound up in events 
 yet partly future shall have been made apparent. So, then, 
 there is no similarity between the two cases whatsoever. 
 The vital element which legitimated an ex parte Council in 
 the case between the church and the aggrieved individual, 
 comes into that between church and church to render an ex 
 parte Council inapt and irrational. 
 
 Nor ought we to forget, in this connection, the obvious fact, 
 that — if I may be pardoned a metaphor from our plain- 
 spoken fathers — the plaster of an ex parte Council could never 
 cover the sore of a difficulty between churches : so that, as it 
 may not in such cases lawfully be held, it could not offer heal- 
 ing even if it were held. Rightly called, as in the matter of 
 the unjustly excommunicated man to whom I have just 
 referred, such a Council offers two things: (i.) Access, with 
 some moral authority, to the public ear, as an individual can- 
 not enjoy it. (2.) The practical restoration in some degree of 
 forfeited rights, in furnishing a ground on which other 
 churches may lawfully restore such an one to church privi- 
 leges. But where two churches are at variance, were an 
 
NO EX PARTE COUNCILS BETWEEN CHURCHES. 95 
 
 ex parte Council a possible alternative to one of them, its 
 result could scarcely give to the church any appreciable 
 heightening of the moral authority with which, as a church, 
 it was, without it, able to appeal to the general moral sense ; 
 while there has been no forfeiting of rights, no loss of ordi- 
 nances, and no rupture of any sort in the regular ongoing of that 
 church's affairs, which such a result could offer itself to repair, 
 
 A church situated as I have supposed may do well to call a 
 Council in the interests of light and peace ; but it would not be 
 technically a Mutual Council if the other church were to con- 
 sent to join in it, as it cannot be an ex parte Council if it con- 
 tinue to decline. In either case, and in any case, such a 
 Council, arising outside of the local church, and relating to 
 questions of comity and fellowship between local churches, is 
 a third thing, — a totally different species of the same genus ; 
 the kind of Council which Thomas Hooker had in mind, whose 
 function is, as he says, " to discover and determine of doubt- 
 ful cases, either in doctrine or practise, according to the truth" 
 [Survey, Part IV., p. 45], or, to take the good old phrase of 
 the fathers, called " for light and peace." 
 
 So, then, we Congregationalists have within the local 
 churches two kinds of Councils, — mutual, or ex parte, as the 
 case may be ; and we have outside of the churches a species of 
 Council neither mutual nor ex parte, but an Advisory Council, as 
 the Boston Platform calls it [Part III., chap. 2, sec. 7 (3)] ; 
 that is a simple calling together of churches,by their messengers, 
 to consult for light and peace. 
 
 In order partly to reach the simplest analysis, but mainly 
 for the purpose of emphasizing the never-to-be-forgotten fact, 
 that the only power which can be reached in the case of the 
 result of any Council is that it is advisory, and " hath so much 
 force as there be force in the reason of it," I class together 
 the last two forms of Council referred to last evening by my 
 learned and eloquent brother, the pastor of the Church of the 
 Pilgrims, as (his third form) " ecclesiastical," — for settling pas- 
 tors, &c., — and (his fourth form) " advisory " Councils. I call 
 them all Councils for advice, with the two subdivisions: i. 
 Councils on questions of fellowship ; 2. Councils on questions 
 of light and peace. 
 
96 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Perhaps a body of believers propose to confederate into a 
 church estate, and desire the approval in so doing of sister 
 churches ; perhaps some one church, under stress of adverse 
 providences, feels its need of advice from those who have the 
 common cause at heart, and can impartially survey the 
 ground, whether it should remove or disband ; perhaps some 
 question of fellowship with another church is agitating one or 
 many churches of a neighborhood ; — whatever the exigency, or 
 its cause, need of fraternal counsel and sympathy being felt, 
 the church, or the churches, feeling it, can call a Council to the 
 end of obtaining it, and will be quite right in doing so. 
 There are no two parties in the case ; or, if there be, the dis- 
 tinctions and terms appropriate concerning Councils called 
 inside the local church will not apply. Such a Council will be 
 neither mutual nor ex parte, but a Council, simply. The 
 authorities recognize and emphasize this general classification, 
 not as distinctly as I have tried to do, indeed, because, as I 
 have suggested, the exigency never arose before to demand 
 it. Upham [Ratio Dis., pp. 179-204] treats first of Councils, 
 and the obligations of churches sometimes to seek advice 
 through them ; second, of Mutual Councils, " called only in 
 case of doubt and difficulty ; " and ex parte Councils " called in 
 doubt and difficulty by one of the parties, without the concur- 
 rent action of the other." The Maine Manual divides Councils 
 into three classes, — mutual, ex parte, and " those called by 
 bodies of Christians " [p. 66\. And the Boston Platform says, 
 " Councils are called (i) by a church desiring light or help ; (2) 
 by a church and pastor (or other member or members) in case 
 of differences, when it is styled a Mutual Council ; or (3) by 
 either of these parties when the other unreasonably refuses to 
 unite, when it is styled an ex patte Council " [Debates, Nat. 
 Council, p. 132]. 
 
 What we need is, that hereafter it shall be left in no 
 manner of doubt that the terms " mutual " and " ex 
 parte " apply strictly and only to Councils in cases of diffi- 
 culty arising within local churches, called concurrently by all 
 parties, or (under just safeguards) by one of them ; and that all 
 other assemblings of the sort be known as a terthim quid, 
 under the simple name of Council, or, perhaps better, under 
 
THE THIRD CLASS — COUNCILS FOR ADVICE. 97 
 
 that name under which our English brethren have been lately 
 debating them, — Councils of Advice. 
 
 To apply this reasoning to the case in hand : I submit, Mr. 
 Moderator, that, inasmuch as an ex parte Council can never 
 be justified — and so can never be rightly called — between 
 different Congregational churches, because there exists no 
 tribunal under heaven over them which can render final de- 
 cision against any party in interest in such manner that an 
 ex parte Council becomes the only expedient possible for re- 
 lief : this, under no conceivable circumstances, could have 
 been an ex parte Council. I submit, therefore, that while it 
 would have been a much more grateful thing, and one preg- 
 nant with brighter hopes for best results, if the Plymouth 
 Church had thought it well to have stood side by side with 
 its sister churches in asking the Congregational churches of 
 the land to come hither, to seek to show them the way of 
 light and peace ; still, as their consenting to do so would not 
 have made it a Mutual Council, in the technical sense, so their 
 declining to do so cannot make it an ex parte Council in any 
 sense. I submit, further, that this view of the case precludes 
 all necessity of inquiry as to any minor and subordinate steps 
 and events ; as to what specifically may have been asked, and 
 what refused, by either church. Interesting in itself, and hav- 
 ing its own importance as revealing the animus of the parties, 
 such an inquiry could offer no result to impair the right of 
 this body to assemble and to act. That right is found in the 
 invitation of the Church of the Pilgrims, and of this on 
 Clinton Avenue, and in the action of the churches invited by 
 it, in response to the same. So that, as a quorum of the body 
 has reported itself, this Council has, by Congregational princi- 
 ple and usage, a fixed, incontestable, and perfectly legitimate 
 existence, and is ready at once to advance to the work before 
 it, as set forth in the points of the Letter-Missive which has 
 created and which raust control it. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Barstow of Providence : I rise to move an 
 amendment to this Resolution, — to strike out so much of the 
 
98 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Resolution as declares that the Council is neither a Mutual 
 nor an ex parte Council ; so as to make the Resolution read : — 
 
 Resolved, That, in the judgment of this body, this is an Advising 
 Council, regularly called, in accordance with the provisions of the 
 Boston Council of 1865, and in the exact line of Congregational 
 law and precedent, and, as such, is legally competent for, and is 
 now ready to proceed with, the work which is presented to it. 
 
 I make the motion for these reasons : first, that the Resolu^ 
 tion is unusual and unnecessary. The usual course, after the 
 Council is organized, is, for the Moderator to declare that the 
 Council is organized, and is ready to proceed to business. It 
 is not usual to adopt a Resolution declaratory of this ; and 
 we have no authority to pass this Resolution. It has been 
 well intimated, if not expressed in words, that the Letter- 
 Missive is our fundamental law. Indeed, it is our only law in 
 this Council. These churches invited our churches to con- 
 vene, and advise them upon certain points ; and our churches 
 consented to meet these churches, and advise them upon those 
 points. These delegates are authorized to give advice upon 
 these points ; and are not authorized to give advice upon any 
 other points, nor to make any declarations of principles out- 
 side of these. It has been said by Dr. Dexter, that we want 
 to settle this question at once and forever. We have no au- 
 thority to settle any question at once and forever. I do not 
 know that we can settle any question forever. I am quite sure 
 that we cannot settle any question outside of the Letter-Missive ; 
 and my feeling is, that we have no right to introduce it here. 
 
 Another reason for my motion is, that it is inexpedient, and 
 that we have no authority in the case. The questions pre- 
 sented in the Letter-Missive are delicate enough, certainly, 
 and are numerous enough to keep us here quite as long as we 
 shall want to stay ; are delicate enough in themselves, with- 
 out increasing their number. Now, we come here to try to 
 make peace between neighboring churches. We shall not be 
 able to accomplish that unless we have peace and harmony 
 among ourselves. A question like this cannot be introduced 
 and attempted to be decided here, outside of the Letter-Mis- 
 sive and harmony be preserved among ourselves. 
 
 My next reason is, that the Resolution itself is not true. 
 
DEBATE ON REV. DR. DEXTER' S RESOLUTION. 
 
 99 
 
 That is my opinion about it. My opinion is, that this is an 
 ex paite Council. I am sorry to differ with reverend gen- 
 tlemen whom I so highly esteem as I do the pastors of the 
 churches calling the Council, and the Moderator of the Coun- 
 cil, for I have an esteem for these men amounting almost to 
 veneration ; and yet I do differ with them, upon this point. 
 
 It is said that this is an Advisory Council. All Councils are 
 advisory. Some go so far as to say that a Council can only 
 advise. I cannot take that position. I suppose that a Coun- 
 cil can do what it is invited to do by the Letter-Missive ; that 
 questions may be submitted to the Council for decision ; and 
 in that case, that the result which they reach is declaratory, 
 and in a sense judicial. But when called for advice, all they 
 can do is to give advice. As to this being a Mutual Council, 
 it was supposed that a Council could be mutual between these 
 parties if they invited a Mutual Council ; but, if there can be 
 a Mutual Council called by churches, then there can be an 
 ex patte Council called by a church. It seems to me that the 
 one proposition proves the truth of the other. 
 
 It is said that an ex parte Council can only exist as growing 
 out of grievances of individual members in a local church. 
 What is a church but a congregation of individuals .-' And if 
 a church has a difference with a sister church, and one desires, 
 and the other declines, a Mutual Council, why cannot that 
 church, or those churches, call an ex parte Council, to advise 
 them in this matter of difference } It is said, because it can 
 have no power or authority. Neither has any other Council 
 any power or authority. It is merely called to give advice : 
 the only power is to give advice, and just the advice asked. 
 
 For these reasons, I should prefer that the whole Resolution 
 should fail ; but I desire very much that this part of it shall 
 be dropped. If the mover is willing to drop out of it so much 
 of it as declares that this is not an ex parte Council, I shall be 
 content ; but, if not, I hope the Resolution itself will be lost, 
 for I see no reason for our attempting to decide a great ques- 
 tion not submitted to us. One fear I had on the assembling 
 of the Council was, that some attempt might be made to create 
 some canon of ecclesiastical law. I believe that all power 
 resides in the local church ; that all the power in the church 
 
lOO THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 of Christ resides there ; that Councils are simply agents of the 
 churches, and that they have no authority over the churches, — 
 no authority to create law for the churches, for that is outside of 
 our power, and we would better hesitate before we attempt it. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint moved that the subject lie upon the table, 
 in order to afford an opportunity to the committee appointed 
 to communicate with Plymouth Church to make a report. 
 
 The motion was asrreed to. 
 
 Prof. Smyth : The committee report that this morning we 
 went to Plymouth Church, and were received, in accordance, 
 as I understand, with a vote of the church, by its pastor, and 
 were conducted at once to the church assembled, and were 
 invited upon the platform, and requested to present our com- 
 munication, and to address the church. We presented the 
 Resolution adopted here last night, and accompanied it with a 
 few words expressive of the sentiment expressed, I believe, 
 universally, here last evening, by all the members of the Coun- 
 cil who took any part in this discussion, and by our votes. 
 We were listened to with courtesy ; and, immediately upon the 
 conclusion of our communication, a motion was introduced by 
 the pastor of Plymouth Church, which was passed, and is now 
 in the hands of the Scribe of this Council, who will communi- 
 cate it. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : I hold in my hand a copy of the com- 
 munication made on the part of Plymouth Church, which 
 was accompanied with verbal assurances of kind feelings to- 
 wards the Council. It is this : — 
 
 Resolution of Plymouth Church, in answer to the Committee of the 
 Council, now convened in Clinton Avenue Congregational Church. 
 
 Resolved, That our thanks are expressed to the gentlemen who 
 have so courteously presented us with the Resolution of the Coun- 
 cil, and that this church will, without delay, instantly reply. 
 
 This Resolution was offered by the Chairman. When we 
 left, the committee was already in session considering the 
 draft of the reply, which will probably be here before long. 
 They have promised to send it to us at a very early hour. 
 
DEBATE ON REV. DR. DEXTER' S RESOLUTION. loi 
 
 I now move that we take up from the table the matter under 
 discussion. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Bartlett, Pittsfield, Mass. : It is very important to 
 determine the character of this Council. It is necessary that 
 we understand its nature, in order that we may proceed intelli- 
 gently. I have listened with very great interest to the learned 
 Dr. Dexter ; and still, I think, he has not followed out these 
 Councils to their end. I am willing to admit that there is a 
 difference between an ex parte Council and an Advisory Coun- 
 cil, though all Congregational Councils are advisory, and noth- 
 ing more. An ex parte Council is advisory, an ecclesiastical 
 Council is advisory, and has no authority except to advise. 
 There is a difference between the occasion of this Council 
 and that which usually calls an ex parte Council. But there 
 were back of it two parties ; on the one side, Plymouth 
 Church ; on the other, the two churches calling this Council. 
 There were these two parties, and they failed to agree upon 
 calling a Mutual Council. One of these parties then calls a 
 Council. An ex parte Council is a Council called by one party. 
 The judgment of Dr. Dexter, that it refers simply to the local 
 church, and not to churches, in my judgment, and I submit it 
 with all modesty, is simply arbitrary. It is a new addition to 
 his own work. He states that a Mutual Council is one in the 
 calling of which all parties to the difficulty or perplexity con- 
 cerning which relief is sought, unite ; an ex parte Council is 
 one called by one of those parties. These two churches are 
 one of the parties. They call the Council ; and, if we may go 
 further, in order to designate the difference between this 
 Council and one which should have been called by these three 
 churches, we might call it an r,r/(^;'/^ Advisory Council if you 
 choose. There certainly is a distinction between this Council, 
 called by one party, and the Council which might have been 
 called by these three churches. If, then, we decide that there is 
 this difference, existing because of there being two parties, and 
 one party only calling us, we must get some term that will desig- 
 nate us. We are a different body than if we had been called 
 by these three churches. We have been called by one par'.y. 
 
I02 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 We are, therefore, an ex parte Advisory Council. I am not par- 
 ticular about the name : I am only particular about the fact. 
 Now, it seems to me that we have had a little too much of the 
 tradition of the church. Dr. Dexter, in his valuable work, tells 
 us that Congregationalism grows out of the Bible and common 
 sense. We are told the same in this Platform of 1865, — that 
 the Holy Scriptures, and especially the Scriptures of the New 
 Testament, are the only authoritative rule for the constitution 
 and administration of church government. We are not de- 
 pendent upon the former Councils and Manuals. We are tc 
 go back to the Bible and common sense. Common sense tells 
 us that there are two parties, and only one party has called 
 this Council. It is therefore an ex parte Council ; or, if you 
 choose to distinguish it from that which would be called by a 
 party in a church, it is an ex parte Advisory Council. 
 
 The Moderator: There is an ambiguity in the phrase ex 
 parte. An ex parte Council is a technical phrase in the usage 
 of the Congregational churches, and of the Manuals of Congre- 
 gational church polity. Dr. Dexter has defined the meaning of 
 the phrase, in that technical use. Ex parte is a phrase used 
 in law : it is used continually. A man wants a deposition to 
 be used in a suit ; and if he cannot get the other party to be 
 present in person, or by attorney, when the deposition is taken, 
 that becomes an ex parte proceeding on his part. The word 
 is constantly thus used ; and, in that vague or loose sense of it, 
 of course this is ex parte. All this proceeding is ex parte. But, 
 in the technical sense in which the rules as laid down in the 
 platforms apply to ex parte Councils, this is not an ex parte 
 Council, I apprehend. I suggest that for the benefit of the 
 brother, and the Council. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Bartlett : I would like to ask what is the dis- 
 tinction made between a Council that is called mutually of three 
 churches, or by the two parties, and one that is called, like this, 
 by one party } If the Moderator will enable us to distinguish 
 between these two, I think I can move along with more light. 
 
 The Moderator : The brother has made it very distinct 
 indeed ; and he may give to it what name he pleases : only 
 do not let us, in calling this ex parte, undertake to apply to it the 
 rules and precedents that belong to a different kind of Council. 
 
DEBATE ON REV. DR. DEXTER' S RESOLUTION. i 
 
 03 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin of Washington : It seems to me that 
 the suggestions of the last brother are worthy of considera- 
 tion, and have a good deal of weight. It was implied, in the 
 proposition that there be a Mutual Council respecting these 
 matters, that there was power to call that Mutual Council ; 
 and I think that involved the power to call an ex parte QoxmzW., 
 if the proposition to call a Mutual Council failed. An Advi- 
 sory Council, that is not ex parte, must be antecedent to the 
 consideration qf the questions of difference. For example, if 
 these brethren, before calling upon Plymouth Church in any 
 manner, had called this Council, it seems to me it would have 
 properly been called an Advisory Council : but they have gone 
 further with these matters of difference; and now our decision 
 must be in some sense, and will be in some sense, accounted 
 an ex parte decision. Our churches will so regard it, 
 because the difference has begun : they have moved in the 
 matter. Our decision has some relation to this other church. 
 In coming here, it seems to me we cannot but regard ourselves 
 as ex parte, unless this other church be represented here. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Taylor, Binghamton, N.Y, : It seems to me it takes 
 a great while to baptize this child ! Here it is a quarter 
 past eleven o'clock, and we are asking what we are. Now, I 
 know what I am. I know I am called here from Bingham- 
 ton for a certain purpose, — to give the best answer I can to 
 seven questions. That is just it. That is what I. came for. 
 Let us go to work, and take up the questions, and answer 
 them, and not spend half the day on the question what we 
 shall call ourselves. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pike, of Rowley, Mass. : Perhaps I may call the 
 attention of the Council to the fact that you, Mr. Moderator, 
 decided the question last evening, that this is not an ex 
 parte Council. I supposed that that decision removed this 
 subject from all further discussion, until an appeal was taken 
 from your decision to the body here assembled ; and I take 
 it, if a motion had been offered here, expressly stating that 
 this is an ex patte Council, you would have ruled it out, 
 instantly. You have allowed this motion of Dr. Dexter, 
 because it was a repetition of your own decision ; and the 
 importance that was attached to the motion was, because we 
 
I04 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 could have, from the highest authority among us, the discus- 
 sion of this subject ; and, furthermore, because there was 
 included in the motion this idea, at the least, that we were to 
 go about the proper business for which we were assembled 
 here. Now, I sympathize very strongly with some of the 
 measures last evening, for this reason, that I wish that we 
 may appear to have acted with honor, and with the highest 
 Christian principle, toward each of the parties in this contro- 
 versy ; and I think we have shown that honar, and that ac- 
 cordance with Christian principle. 
 
 Now, it was delicately insinuated, though not directly ex- 
 pressed, last evening, by the chairman of one of the commit- 
 tees, that it seemed to be appropriate that a Council assembled 
 for a special purpose should give their attention, first, to all 
 of the facts, as they would be presented by the committees 
 that had called them ; and therefore I sympathize with this 
 proposition to go now immediately to the parties that have 
 called us, and hear their statement of the facts. We do not 
 know how long we are to be detained, before Plymouth Church 
 shall send us its answer ; and, certainly, they could not expect 
 us to wait here all the day before we received that answer. 
 On the last evening we delayed ourselves on preparatory 
 questions, and we are going through the same work all day 
 to-day. Now the night is past, the day has come, and we 
 should go to work upon the proper business for which we 
 were called here ; and my impression is, that, if we cannot go 
 about this work soon, we shall hear the rising voice around us, 
 " What doest thou here, Elijah t " and be in the position of 
 some legislative bodies, that spend so much of their time on 
 preparatory steps, on the threshold of their work, that they 
 never get about their work, until it is time for them to go 
 home. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Dexter : I ask permission of the Council to ac- 
 cept the amendment of Mr. Barstow. I think it might facili- 
 tate business. I am not in the slightest degree anxious to have 
 the first part of the Resolution passed. It is within the 
 knowledge of all of us, that this Council has been stig- 
 matized as an ex parte Council, which had no business to be 
 here. That is in the papers. I want the Council to declare 
 
DEBATE ON REV. DR. DEXTER' S RESOLUTION. 105 
 
 itself so far as to stand somewhere. If it declares itself to be 
 an Advisory Council, properly called, that is all I ask. I accept 
 the amendment, with pleasure. 
 
 No objection being offered, the Resolution was accordingly 
 amended. 
 
 On motion of Dr. Chapix, of Beloit, the discussion was sus- 
 pended, for the purpose of hearing the minutes of the last 
 evening read, the Scribe having returned. 
 
 The minutes were accordingly read, and approved. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Bartlett moved to lay the Resolution of Dr. 
 Dexter upon the table, and immediately proceed to hear the 
 statements of the committee, and to the regular business. 
 
 The question being taken upon laying the Resolution upon 
 the table, it was not agreed to. 
 
 Rev. T. ]\I. Post, D.D., of St. Louis, Mo. : I am unwi-iling 
 to take up the time of this body ; but I believe we are 
 standing at a point of very great consequence, of \^ast im- 
 portance, both as regards the effect of this Council, and 
 the history of our denomination in this country. There 
 is danger, unless we treat this question before us with the 
 utmost fairness, a fairness that approves itself to the public 
 mind, — there is danger that you will fret this difference into 
 a schism, and that it will go through all the States ; certainly 
 through the State from which I come. It is a very important 
 question before us. I do not think we shall settle it by special 
 pleading. I believe that it must be settled upon great, catho- 
 lic. Christian principles. I believe, further, in order to settle 
 difficulties ofttimes, the more delicate they are the more 
 it is necessary to adhere to certain established usages. Now, 
 it matters very little to my mind whether you call this an Ad- 
 visory Council, or an ex parte Council. It matters very little 
 what you term it. It is the effect and intention of it that we 
 have to do with. And the same principles that would regu- 
 late in part the calling of an ex parte Council, if not in prece- 
 dent, I think in Christian reason, apply to this; and also if we 
 consider the effect and the weight which this Council is ulti- 
 mately to have in its decision. As I understand it, a Mutual 
 
Io6 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Council must be asked before an ex parte Council can be 
 called, in order that both parties may be represented in call- 
 ing a Council, that they may be equally privileged in securing 
 the judges, and in order that the decision of that Council 
 may have weight and force with the public, and not represent 
 a party. If one church calls a Council of its own, and the 
 other church goes and selects its own judges, you have Council 
 against Council, and you have a schism in the body, I therefore 
 regard it as very desirable, — I regard it as quite as desirable as 
 in any case that I can suppose, — that these churches should 
 have united in calling a Council ; and that, until it was found 
 that such effort was unavailing, it was in the interest of Chris- 
 tian unity, and of the permanent settlement of this question, 
 that the effort should have been prosecuted ; for the reason 
 that when a Council met it should be considered as represent- 
 ing all the interests of all the churches that were implicated. 
 
 Now, by the questions that have been proposed to us, we do 
 virtually put on trial a church that is not a party to the Coun- 
 cil. We advise, to be sure, our brethren how they shall treat 
 that church. That, of course, involves a question of facts. 
 We have to examine facts, and determine them, and then 
 apply the rule of Christian reason to those facts, in the case 
 of a church that says that it has had no opportunity, at least 
 that it has had no voice, in selecting the Council, or the mem- 
 bers of the Council, who are thus trying it. I do not wish to 
 have that state of things go before the public. I think if we 
 settle these things rightly, and I believe we shall — I have 
 great trust in the Christian integrity and the Christian intel- 
 ligence of this body of men ; I rely upon them, — but I do not 
 wish to have it go before the Christian public, that here a 
 church is put upon trial, and has not had any voice in select- 
 ing those that are to try it ; for we are trying that church in 
 advising the other churches, — that is very obvious. It is on 
 this question that I hesitate, somewhat, in adopting the Resolu- 
 tion which would command my respect from the learned char- 
 acter of the brother who has presented it, and my general con- 
 fidence in the correctness of his judgment in ecclesiastical 
 masters, as well as in the judgment that I see has been already 
 pronounced in anticipation by other members of this body. 
 
DEBATE ON REV. DR. DEXTER' S RESOLUTION. 107 
 
 In coming here I left a church in the midst of a revival. I 
 have been traveling two days and two nights in order to be 
 here, because I wished to aid in restoring Christian peace and 
 harmony among the friends of my youth, from whom we are 
 so far removed that we have not been drawn into sympathy 
 with the questions which have agitated you here. But this 
 question strikes further. It will strike to the Pacific sea. It 
 is necessary not only that we do the right thing, but that we 
 be understood to do it in the right manner. Some of you 
 will say. What shall we do t Why have I come here at all } 
 I was in hopes that the Plymouth Church would have accepted 
 the offer to come here, and adopt us as a Council in common. 
 But, if not, there are still questions for us to act upon. We 
 are competent, as a law court, you may say, to settle great 
 questions of law ; but to go into the trial of a special church, 
 to investigate certain facts with regard to that church, and 
 then pronounce upon it, it strikes me we are hardly competent 
 to that. I had it in mind rather to divide the questions be- 
 fore us. Upon some I hope we shall testify, and testify clearly. 
 Upon the other questions, where we have to find a decision of 
 facts with regard to another church, and where I see in the 
 letters written by that church in response to those addressed 
 to it by the other churches, it expressly denies the statement 
 of facts and allegations of principles contained in them, I think 
 our decision, if it goes forth in the face of these denials, with- 
 out a trial on an issue with that church properly represented, 
 will not carry the weight that we wish it to carry with it. 
 The published documents on one side lead to a construction 
 which is directly contradicted by the other side ; and so with 
 regard to the Resolutions presented, upon which we are invited 
 to act, in these letters. Different constructions will be put 
 upon them, by the different parties. 
 
 Now, Brethren, I am hardly ready to adopt this Resolution 
 in full. I think that this is, perhaps, the point that it is best 
 for us now to determine. I am satisfied you are doing some- 
 thing, now, that is going to reach much further than you are 
 aware of ; and that it is important that in all these things we 
 be guided by those principles that will approve themselves to 
 those who are far removed from the immediate sympathies of 
 
lo8 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 the interests, passions, or prejudices that are moving in this 
 city, or in this part of the country. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : The remarks of Dr. Post have brought 
 the matter to a point where I wish to propose an amendment 
 which I had before written. The Resolution closes thus : 
 " and as such (Council) is legally competent for, and is now 
 ready to proceed with, the work which is presented to it in the 
 provisions of the Letter-Missive." I move to add, " so far as 
 they do not involve censure on any church which is not actu- 
 ally, or constructively, a party to this Council." 
 
 The Moderator : Is there any objection to the acceptance 
 of the amendment } If no objection be made, it will be added 
 to the Resolution. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : I object to the word "constructively." 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : To avoid any doubt whatever, I will 
 say that where a body ought to be a party to a Council, but 
 will not consent to be, it is constructively a party to that 
 Council. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Boardman : I object to that amendment. It is 
 something we do not come here to-day to do. We need the 
 facts first. It is prejudging the whole case ; and I object to 
 the amendment. 
 
 The Moderator : The amendment is objected to ; and there- 
 fore it is before the house as an amendment, and not as a part 
 of the Resolution. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Samuel Harris, of New Haven : It seems to me, 
 Mr. Moderator, that this is a question which it is necessary 
 that this Council should settle ; but that, in its whole breadth, 
 this is not the proper time to settle it. We are here as a 
 Council ; and the pastors and delegates are sent here by the 
 churches, and authorized by the churches, to take the matters 
 submitted to them into consideration. On that point there 
 can be no doubt. But the question whether the subject- 
 matter submitted to us is all of it matter upon which, as a 
 Council, called as we are, we can properly determine, is a 
 question which we cannot properly decide until the whole 
 case is before us ; and it seems to me that the decision of that 
 part of the question should be postponed until we have heard 
 the whole case, and retire by ourselves. Then the question 
 
DEBATE ON REV. DR. DEXTER' S RESOLUTION. 109 
 
 will be, — how much of this matter is legitimately within the 
 sphere of this Council, and how much is not ? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stearns, of Amherst : It seems to me, sir, that, 
 whatever view we may take of the technical name of this 
 Council, it comes at last to the same thing. We are called to 
 give advice : there is no question on that point. The Letter- 
 Missive calls us to give advice. We are called by that letter 
 to advise two churches : that is what we are called for. The 
 committee of those two churches stated, last evening, that 
 that was the interpretation which they put upon the words 
 of the Letter-Missive, — that this Council was called to ad- 
 vise them. Whatever name you call it, Mutual, ex parte, 
 or what not, it is a Council to give advice to two churches ; 
 that is the object for which we have come together. In doing 
 it, if another church be in any way implicated, or in any way 
 especially interested, whether we call ourselves ex parte, Mu- 
 tual, or Advisory, we are bound to show them proper respect 
 and courtesy. If I understand the action of this Council last 
 evening, we presented to that church an invitation to appear 
 in this body, and to represent their views on all the questions 
 which may here be presented, just as fully, just as freely, and 
 with no more limitation than is put upon the committees of 
 the two churches which have called us here. What could we 
 do more } If the Council were ex parte, if we were called ex 
 parte, all we could do in that case would be to send to the 
 Plymouth Church, and invite them freely, in Christian love, 
 to meet with us, and present their own views, in their own 
 way. This we do out of love to that church ; not to put that 
 church on trial at all : that is a question which does not come 
 up now, if it ever shall come up ; but our position is, that we 
 invite that church. We have invited that church to appear in 
 this body, and to stand on an equality with the committees of 
 the other churches, in presenting their own views, of their own 
 case, and of the whole case. Well, under these circumstances, 
 what can we do better than to proceed to hear the reasons 
 why we are called to give advice ; and if the Plymouth Church 
 appears, — and we have no reason to say that they will not 
 appear, — we shall give them an opportunity, in Christian 
 courtesy and in Christian love, to say all they care to say, — to 
 
no THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 make as full statement of facts as they please to make, and 
 such representations, in every particular, as they please to 
 make. Why not, therefore, acknowledge that we are an 
 Advisory Council, whatever other name anybody may wish to 
 put upon us ? For we certainly are an Advisory Council ; and 
 we shall act in this Advisory Council very nearly as we should 
 do if we were an ex parte Council. We are certainly, by the 
 terms of our Letter-Missive, and by the interpretation of the 
 committee, an Advisory Council ; and as such we invite an- 
 other church to be heard, so that we may give advice more 
 properly. I am, therefore, in favor of saying at once, and 
 settling the whole business, so far as this is concerned, that, 
 whatever else we are, we are a Council called to give advice, — 
 a Council for light, and for peace, in the way of advice. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Butler, of Fairport, N.Y. : I have but a word to 
 say, Mr. Moderator, as to this question ; and it is this : that if 
 this amendment of Dr. Quint, with the construction that I give 
 it, passes, it seems to me we might as well have stayed at home. 
 Now, we have come to advise these two churches ; and the 
 point most essential in the whole advice is, whether or not a 
 case of discipline, if it were carried out by either of these 
 churches in the manner that it has been carried out by other 
 churches, would be good, sound, Congregational discipline. If, 
 therefore, we advise them on every thing else, and run around 
 this, because it must some way seem to censure another church, 
 then it impresses me that we might as well have stayed at 
 home. I think the thing we want to settle, more than any 
 thing else, is precisely the point that comes in here ; and it 
 seems to me that we need not necessarily censure any church, 
 nor mention any church. It is this that they desire to have 
 settled ; it is this that we desire to settle for them : and if I had 
 my preference in this matter, I would have this whole matter 
 laid upon the table. We are debating this Resolution, not for 
 any bearing it has on this gathering, but simply to satisfy the 
 gabble of newspapers ; and when we have debated it half a 
 day, they will take more advantage of it than if we had not 
 debated it at all. I think the quicker we get about our busi- 
 ness, the sounder we shall be. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : As I introduced this, and gave no rea- 
 
DEBATE ON REV. DR. DEXTER'S RESOLUTION. iii 
 
 sons for it, I would like to say a few words. I do not agree 
 with the last brother on this matter. The object of the 
 amendment is not to satisfy the gabble of newspapers, as he 
 called it : it is to satisfy the instinctive sense of justice that 
 there is throughout the denomination, and throughout all 
 Christian churches. Unless we can strike the average com- 
 mon-sense idea of churches, we had better not have come. 
 Now we have come to a rather new phase in Congregationalism, 
 and the precedents are extremely difficult to find. That is, 
 there are precedents for what is called an Advisory Council ; 
 but I know of no precedent, for the last one hundred and 
 twenty-five years, of an Advisory Council called to censure 
 another church ; and there is our difficulty, that this is so far 
 beyond the memory of the most venerable of the Fathers here 
 present, that it does not seem to be a precedent. Now, the 
 Resolution says that this is an Advisory Council, and can go 
 on ; but it goes on to say that it is legally competent to con- 
 sider the questions that have been brought before it, and to 
 proceed to advise. I say " legally competent," and " ready to 
 advise," provided you limit it to an Advisory Council distinc- 
 tively so called ; provided it is not called to censure a church 
 which is not a party to this Council. There is the limitation. 
 If it is called simply to advise two churches, that is one thing ; 
 if it is called to advise two churches, and in advising two 
 churches to pass judgment and express an exact opinion upon 
 the exact case presented, whether another church did right or 
 wrong, that is trying that church ; and there is no dodging it 
 before the common sense of the community. Now, these Let- 
 ters-Missive, for example, — I merely quote, not stating how 
 I shall vote on the whole question, — ask, " Was the action 
 of the Plymouth Church in the case of discipline issued by 
 it Oct. 31, 1873, as presented in the public documents, in 
 accordance with the order and usage of Congregational 
 churches } or was it an apparent departure from these, tend- 
 ing, in the circumstances, to injure and offend other churches 
 in fellowship, and warranting apprehension and remonstrance 
 on our part .? " That is a square question, on which to try 
 Plymouth Church, and you cannot»avoid the look of it. 
 The Moderator: "As presented in certain documents :" we 
 
112 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 are not called upon to affirm the veracity of those documents. 
 It is a hypothetical case that we are to act upon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : I presume that this decision of our re- 
 spected Moderator is not his official decision as Moderator, 
 but merely the expression of his opinion ; and therefore 
 I have great respect for it. If it were the opinion of the 
 Moderator, as Moderator, I should object to this decision from 
 the chair. IE it be discussion, of course some other brother is 
 in the chair ; and, if it be, I shall address my remarks to the 
 Associate Moderator. 
 
 The point to which we have come, is this : Here are two 
 churches, who find a difficulty on account of the alleged action 
 of another church. That is a matter of record. The records, 
 however, are supposed ; and we must ascertain whether they 
 represent the facts. If those facts exist, — if certain acts were 
 done, — the church, of course, which committed those acts may 
 be able to explain them, be able to justify them. We will 
 say then, We will give them an opportunity to be heard. 
 Suppose they say, " We don't acknowledge the tribunal," 
 what have we got to say } In an ordinary case you can have 
 a certain kind of tribunal, — that is, a Mutual or ex parte Coun- 
 cil ; because, if a party will not join in a Mutual Council, you 
 can call an ex parte one ; but, if this principle prevails, without 
 this limitation of powers, it is simply saying this : Whenever 
 any one or two churches throughout the country, anywhere 
 in the country, wish to object to the conduct of a third church, 
 complain of something that has been done by it, they can go 
 and call any Council they please, to pass judgment upon that 
 third church, with or without its being present. In this case 
 it is notified, but all of this is involved. Now, the question 
 comes to-day, whether, with that construction, we are willing to 
 say that any one or two churches can call a Council of their 
 own motion, call it Advisory, and avoid the point of the Mutual 
 Council which they first tried to get here, and avoid being called 
 an ex paj'te Council, by saying, "We are willing you should 
 be heard ; " but yet try the question by a Council of their 
 own choosing } We had better have it understood, that when 
 you try a third or second church, the first one must have 
 given that church a fair opportunity to take part ; that it must 
 
DEBATE ON REV. DR. DEXTER' S RESOLUTION. 113 
 
 have a sufficient notice, and then, that failing, call one in the na- 
 ture of an ex parte Council ; because that will not only give an 
 appearance of right, but will give it actually. If you adopt the 
 first part of this resolution, and make it simply an Advisory 
 Council to those that have asked advice, we are not warranted 
 in going beyond the line which separates two churches, the 
 one from the other, and in any way passing judgment that 
 involves censure upon that third church. Whether they have 
 an opportunity to be heard or not, makes no difference. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Butler : I want to ask this : — If, in a settlement 
 of any difference, between churches or individuals, the decision 
 of it on the one side does not somehow imply a fault or mis- 
 take on the other } 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : Any tribunal competent to pass, can pass 
 such censure ; but a tribunal not competent to decide cannot. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Butler : Are we not just as likely to censure 
 these two churches .' If we say the other is right, will we 
 not do so } 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : Well, they have called us. I wish to say 
 only one thing more : before we drop this matter, and go on 
 and take up the questions, it seems to me we had better have 
 some principle in the thing, so as to decide whether we shall 
 act upon it or not, simply by this principle. 
 
 Judge Walker, of Detroit : Mr. Moderator, it seems to me 
 that the time is not misspent this morning ; that we should 
 be in no haste to get at our action. The first question is. 
 What have we before us } The question of jurisdiction — of 
 its own jurisdiction — must always be settled by every tribunal 
 that is called upon to act. Has it jurisdiction of the subject- 
 matter } Hais it jurisdiction of the parties .? That is a pre- 
 liminary question, which, in the first instance, every tribunal, 
 whether inferior or superior, must settle for itself. If there 
 be an appellate power — and are the churches here an appel- 
 late power } — that decision may be reversed. But, in the 
 first instance, it must be settled by the tribunal that attempts 
 to act. What is its power.? — what its extent .-' — and what 
 its limits } Now, I think this question is one of exceeding 
 importance ; and one that depends somewhat upon the nature 
 of this Council, and its object and purpose. I have been very 
 
114 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 much instructed by the very learned discussion by Dr. Dexter, 
 and have been profited by it ; and I am led to the conclusion, 
 by what he says, and by what our Moderator, learned in these 
 questions, says, that this is not technically an ex parte Council, 
 and, clearly, it is not a Mutual Council. What, then, is it } It 
 may be well enough to call it an Advisory Council. But then 
 comes the question. What is an Advisory Council, and what its 
 powers .-* what the limits of its power, and what may it do .'' 
 Now, I can easily conceive that there is a very large class of 
 questions that may arise, where a church may call a Council 
 for advice, and that advice may be given without restraint, 
 because the nature of the question is such that there is no 
 adverse party ; there it is right that they should go on and act. 
 But when the questions presented for consideration involve 
 the conduct of a third party, which may properly come before 
 the tribunal, whatever you call the Council, should it not pro- 
 ceed in analogy to the principles that govern Mutual and ex 
 parte Councils t Must not those principles apply .^ If there 
 can be no ex parte Councils between churches, technically, 
 after all, must not the principles that govern ex parte Councils 
 govern the action when the proceeding is, in its nature, ad- 
 versary .■" Now, here, the proceeding is, in its nature, adver- 
 sary. This is a question whether the Plymouth Church has 
 conducted properly ; whether these churches that have called 
 us have conducted properly in relation to that church. Now, 
 can there be any question but that, in some sense, before this 
 Council, and before the country, the Plymouth Church is on 
 trial } I submit not. Their conduct is up before us for ex- 
 amination, and that we may pass our judgment upon it. Then, 
 it seems to me, that the only question remaining is : Will the 
 Plymouth Church come here, as we have invited them to 
 come } If they do come, then we can proceed in analogy to 
 a Mutual Council, or to an ex parte Council when the party 
 complained of appears. Suppose they do not come. Then, 
 is not the question this : In analogy to the rule applicable to 
 ex parte Councils, has every thing, that ought fairly to be done, 
 been done, to get them here .-' Now, if there has been, even if 
 this is not governed by the technical rules that govern ex 
 parte Councils, I submit, in analogy to those rules, if these 
 
DEBATE ON REV. DR. DEXTER 'S RESOLUTION. 115 
 
 two churches have done all that they could fairly do to get the 
 Plymouth Church here, and it refuses to come, — refuses to come 
 now, in answer to the invitation of this Council, — that then 
 we may proceed, in analogy to the rule applicable to ex 'parte 
 Councils, and pass upon these questions. Then this becomes 
 a question of fact. Has every thing been fairly done to get 
 them to come before the Council, and submit these questions .-' 
 Or have they acted in such a spirit, — in such a way, — as so 
 utterly to discourage any further advances toward them, that 
 these churches were justified in calling this Council .'' It seems 
 to me that this is the question of fact which we have got to 
 determine. Have these brethren, and these churches, acted 
 with a reasonable Christian spirit, in seeking to submit their 
 mutual differences to a Council ^ and is not this Council now 
 fairly justified in going forward and acting, if they do not 
 choose to appear } 
 
 Hon. Charles Demond, of Boston : It seems to me that 
 we are ready for something now besides this. We all agree, 
 I think, that we are a Council assembled for some purpose ; 
 and I think there is force in the suggestion that we had better 
 hear the parties, before we decide questions even as important 
 as this. If the parties who have called us present their case, 
 there may circumstances come out which will throw light 
 upon our minds in regard to the very questions at issue here ; 
 and, at the close of the hearing, retiring, we may come to 
 decisions upon all these questions, — what kind of a Council we 
 are, what are our duties and powers, and what result we should 
 come to. Perhaps, we shall come to a decision that may be 
 wiser than if we undertake to decide this question now. We 
 all agree that we are a Council to hear these brethren ; and, 
 therefore, I shall move, in a moment, to lay this question upon 
 the table, for the purpose of moving that we proceed to hear 
 the parties. I should vote for the Resolution, if I were called 
 upon to vote now ; for I believe what the Resolution says : 
 but my opinion may be altered when I hear all the facts ; and 
 I prefer, if we are to come to a decision, that we come to it 
 after hearing all we can about it. I therefore move that it be 
 laid upon the table. 
 
 The motion to lay upon the table was seconded, and agreed to. 
 
Il6 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Hon. C. Demond : I move that we now proceed to hear the 
 parties who have called us, and the other parties, of course, 
 if they come in. 
 
 The motion was seconded. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : I would simply ask whether it is courteous 
 to proceed with that until we hear from Plymouth Church ? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Webb : I was about to suggest the same thing, — 
 whether, having sent a message to this church, it is proper for 
 us to proceed without having a reply .-• I have been highly 
 edified and instructed by this discussion, and was greatly in 
 hopes that it would have gone on until a reply was received. 
 I do not think we could do better than to have kept the Resolu- 
 tion where it was yesterday, and discussed it until the other 
 matter was settled. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Richard S. Storrs : I merely wish to say this, on 
 behalf of the committees, and of the churches which they rep- 
 resent : that our main apprehension, so far as we have had 
 any apprehension in regard to the action of this Council, 
 and its deliberations, has been, that so much time might be 
 occupied in preliminary discussions, on questions naturally 
 arising, and then afterwards so much time occupied in the 
 presentation of the facts and the views of principles which 
 it is our desire to present, if the Council will hear us, which 
 we have asked you to come from points two thousand miles 
 apart that you might weigh, and concerning which we have 
 desired, and do desire, your advice, — so much time might 
 be thus occupied, that the final and private sessions of the 
 Council, into which we shall not be admitted, but in which 
 these subjects will be discussed by you personally, and where 
 your result will be moulded and arrived at, woukl be, in the 
 nature of the case, hasty ; the time would be so limited that 
 the mind of the Council would not be fully and adequately ex- 
 pressed on the subject. That has been our apprehension, and we^ 
 have had no other ; for this is your business as much as ours. 
 You are as much interested in Congregationalism as we are. 
 If it goes to pieces, we are not to be the sufferers alone. But 
 we do very much desire, that so much time may be given for 
 the Council to be by itself, when, after hearing whatever we 
 have to say, it considers the questions, and considers whether 
 
DEBATE ON REV. DR. DEXTER' S RESOLUTION. 117 
 
 to give us advice about the questions, — we desire that so much 
 time may be spent in that, that your conclusions will be 
 arrived at deliberately and wisely. Now, if you can stay 
 indefinitely, all right : we will take care of you as long as you 
 stay ; and we shall be glad to have the preliminary discussion 
 protracted as long as you please. We do not wish, certainly, 
 to make any suggestion that looks toward a termination of it, 
 until you are perfectly satisfied to have that termination. But 
 do remember this : that you will need many hours for private 
 discussion. I have been in a Council where we terminated 
 public discussion on Thursday at noon, and reached our result 
 on Saturday morning at two o'clock. You will want all the 
 time you can get ; and if it seems proper, if it is according to 
 your mind, we shall be very glad to make our statements 
 as early as we may, that you may have them distinctly before 
 you. If it be desirable to wait for the Plymouth Church to 
 appear, possibly it might not seem improper to the Council 
 that some preliminary things, which may be said before 
 approaching the discussion of the principal questions, may be 
 permitted now to be said. 
 
 The Moderator announced that a committee from the 
 Plymouth Church had just arrived, and was in waiting, with a 
 communication from that church. 
 
 On motion, the, Scribe was requested to invite the Commit- 
 tee of the Plymouth Church to appear before the Council. 
 
 The Scribe conducted the committee, consisting of Rev. 
 Dr. ED\rARD Beecher, Mr. Henry W. Sage, and Prof. 
 Robert R. Raymond, into the church ; and seats were as- 
 signed them to the left of the Moderator's desk. 
 
 The Moderator : I am very happy to present to you, 
 Brethren, the brethren who are here as a committee from the 
 Plymouth Church, among whom I recognize the Rev. Dr. 
 Edward Beecher. The other members of the committee are 
 personally unknown to me ; but I beg leave to assure the 
 members of that committee, that, with whatever message 
 they are charged, this Council receives them in Christian 
 affection and confidence ; that this Council is, as relates to 
 the questions on which it has been convened, impartial, and 
 uncommitted ; that, so far as any expressions of opinion have 
 
1X8 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 been uttered, in the Council itself, or in the intercourse which 
 I have had with members of it, if there are any whose pre- 
 judices are in favor of the inviting churches, there are as many 
 whose prejudices, pre-judgments, or sympathies, are in favor 
 of the Plymouth Church ; and that, as I estimate the aver- 
 age of the Council, it is as impartial in reference to the 
 questions at issue as any Council could be. We shall be very 
 happy to hear from the committee. 
 Rev. Dr. Beecher then said, — 
 
 The authority under which we act will appear by reading 
 the following vote : — 
 
 At a meeting of Plymouth Church, held March 25, 1874, it was 
 unanimously resolved that Edward Beecher, Henry W. Sage, and 
 Robert R. Raymond be appointed, as the messengers of this 
 church, to convey the reply of Plymouth Chuixh to the Council 
 now assembled in the Clinton Avenue Congregational Church ; 
 and that, upon delivering said reply, they take no further action in 
 behalf of this church. 
 
 Attest : 
 
 Thomas G. Shearman, Clerk. 
 Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, March 25, 1874. 
 
 As Professor Robert R. Raymond is more familiar with the 
 document, I will request that he read it to the Council. 
 
 Professor Raymond then read the reply of the Plymouth 
 Church, as follows : — 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 To THE Council of Congregational Churches, now sitting 
 IN THE City of Brooklyn, Plymouth Church sendeth 
 Greeting : 
 
 Reverend and Beloved Brethren and Fathers in God. 
 
 Having been notified by the Church of the Pilgrims, and the 
 Clinton Avenue Congregational Church, of your assemblage, under 
 their call, for purposes specified in their Letters-Missive, and 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 
 
 119 
 
 having received from those churches an invitation to appear 
 before you by our pastor and a committee, simply for the purposes 
 of correcting any statements of fact which might seem to us 
 erroneous, and furnishing any further and specific information 
 which you might request ; and having declined this invitation on 
 the ground that these churches thus called us before a Council in 
 the convening of which we had been permitted to take no part, in 
 which we had never been offered the rights of equal members, and 
 in which it was not proposed now to give us the rights even of 
 ordinary defendants, we nevertheless desire, out of our respect 
 and love for you, beloved brethren and venerable fathers, to make 
 a brief statement of our position, and to lay this our solemn 
 Protest before you. 
 
 It is not against your convening or organizing as a Council that 
 we desire to remonstrate. So far as the Letters-Missive under 
 which you have assembled state matters which do not relate to 
 any other church than the two churches issuing those letters, we 
 make no complaint. We do not even object to the consideration 
 in your body of the question whether those two churches have 
 made a mistake in their manner of approaching us, and therefore 
 owe us an apology, instead of our owing them an explanation. 
 Although this is a question in which we, as a church, have some 
 interest, yet an ex parte discussion of that point, for the sole 
 enlightenment of those brethren, may be of great profit to them, 
 and cannot seriously encroach upon the rights of Congregational 
 churches at large. 
 
 Neither do we object to the consideration of the abstract ques- 
 tions submitted to your body. Bearing, as these questions doubt- 
 less do, upon the internal economy of the two churches which have 
 called you, it is for you to decide whether there are difficulties 
 arising, or likely to arise, within those churches, of sufficient im- 
 portance to justify their asking for advice upon those points, in 
 the light of which they may judge of their own past acts, and 
 guide their future course. We are bound to presume that such is 
 the case. 
 
 But when they call upon you to examine into our action for their 
 edification, a far different issue is presented. You have been 
 called to determine whether the action of Plymouth Church, in a 
 specified case, was justifiable, whether our pastor's name was left 
 without proper vindication, and whether we are to be retained in 
 the fellowship of Congregational churches. 
 
 Brethren, we approach this part of your duties, if we know any 
 
X20 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 thing of our own hearts, in a spirit free from all personal motives. 
 We will not pretend, that, at all times past, we have felt uncon- 
 cerned for ourselves as a church, or for that member of our 
 church who, by reason of long and faithful service, and of his 
 signal success in bringing home to our hearts a living and ever- 
 present Saviour, has become to us the best beloved of men. But 
 these things are of the past. The Lord hath given us peace and 
 strength ; and we rest in him, with absolute confidence and abso- 
 lute content. 
 
 But we still owe a duty to our weaker brethren. Not every 
 church could pass through such a storm in safety. Not every 
 church could withstand the decrees of a Council so worthy of 
 respect as yours, even though the Council were known to have 
 been called ex parte, and informed erroneously. Lest, therefore, 
 our silence should leave the way open for the oppression of other 
 churches, less powerful and less united than our own, we speak. 
 
 In the name of our Congregational polity, in the name of our 
 feebler brethren, in the name of justice, even as administered by 
 those who know not God, but, above all, in the name of that 
 God whose throne is seated in justice and judgment, we protest 
 against any action whatever by this Council, upon any issue relating 
 to Plymouth Church. 
 
 And this we do for the reasons following, as well as for others, 
 to set forth which, time would fail. 
 
 First. This is an ex parte Council, convened without any regular 
 and sufficient steps to obtain a Mutual Council, — without any 
 refusal upon our part to join in such a Council, — called to con- 
 sider our affairs for the sole instruction of two other churches, and 
 carefully fettered, so as to make it impossible by the terms of its 
 call for the council to alter itself into a Mutual Council. Yet it is a 
 well-known and fundamental rule of Congregational polity, that no 
 ex parte QowncA can be called until a Mutual Council has been dis- 
 tinctly offered and clearly refused, and that every ex parte Council 
 should be at liberty, and should offer, to make itself a Mutual one. 
 
 Second. If it is claimed that one or more churches, acting on 
 the pretext that they are not in controversy with a sister church, 
 and desire instruction only for themselves, may call a Council to 
 instruct them as to their relations with that church, free from the 
 rules governing the call of ordinary ex parte Councils, this claim 
 appears to us subversive of the whole system of Mutual Councils. 
 If this Council has been regularly called, and is competent to 
 advise the churches calling it as to their duty toward us, then our 
 
REASONS FOR PROTEST BY PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 121 
 
 pastor can call a Council, without consulting us, to advise him pub- 
 licly what is his duty toward his church. We have inquired in 
 vain for a precedent of this kind, and have every reason to believe 
 that none can be found. The present case is a most dangerous 
 innovation, which, if sanctioned by the churches, will do more to 
 disorganize Congregational polity than all the alleged errors of 
 Plymouth Church could do, if ten times repeated. 
 
 Third. This Council is summoned to advise, precisely as we were 
 originally summoned to take advice, under distinct menace and 
 moral coercion. Just as Plymouth Church was in one breath re- 
 quested to explain the facts, and informed that it must be cut off 
 unless the facts had been misreported, so this Council is called 
 upon to advise whether the action of Plymouth Church has been 
 conformable to Congregational usage, and is at the same moment 
 informed, that, if such is indeed Congregational usage, the two 
 churches " cannot sustain such a position ; " that it would be 
 " entirely unreasonable to expect it from " them ; that, " even if they 
 could continue to hold it in view of the past, they should feel it 
 indispensable to be extricated from it in forecast of what may 
 occur in the future ; " that " such a position is simply insupport- 
 able ; " and that, " if this is to be Congregational practice, many 
 churches [clearly meaning their own] will certainly prefer to iden- 
 tify themselves with some other communion." 
 
 While we do not for a moment assume that such threats will 
 intimidate you, any more than the threats which for nearly a year 
 past have been uttered from the same quarter intimidated us, yet 
 we conceive it possible in the future that a combination of large 
 and powerful churches might select a Council of weak and depend- 
 ent ones for the purpose of crushing one still weaker ; and, in such 
 a case, menaces like these would have a controlling and disastrous 
 effect. We resist them Jiow, when they seem to us idle and vain, 
 lest they should be left by our silence to be drawn into a precedent 
 fatal to the liberty of other churches. 
 
 Fourth. Officers of the great institutions to which Congregation- 
 alists have been accustomed to contribute most liberally, — the 
 Home Missionary Society, the Congregational Union, the Board 
 of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, and others, — having been 
 invited to attend this Council, in which their wisdom, experience, 
 and devotion to the great work of the church make them distin- 
 guished and valuable members, are singled out for special and 
 almost personal dictation, and are warned in most pointed lan- 
 guage that the callers of this Council do not intend to contribute 
 
122 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 any more funds to the support of these Christian enterprises, if 
 their theories of Congregational fellowship and discipline are not 
 indorsed by this Council. 
 
 This attempt to pervert great missionary organizations into 
 engines of ecclesiastical power, to stop the fountains of Christian 
 benevolence, and to overawe members of Councils by appeals to 
 their fears for the special branch of the Lord's work in their 
 charge, tends to destroy the moral force of all Councils, and consti- 
 tutes an assault on the independence of both the churches and the 
 societies, entirely without parallel in the history of Congregation- 
 alism. 
 
 Fifth. In so far as this Council is called to consider the points 
 of conflict between Plymouth Church and neighboring churches, 
 the whole frame of the Council, in its widespread constituency and 
 national character (so appropriate and admirable, if called only to 
 deal with large and general questions) is directly in opposition to 
 the genius of Congregational polity, — one great aim of which is 
 to confine local troubles to their own locality, and to settle them 
 in the neighborhood, by the aid of neighboring churches, without 
 spreading the tale of local dissensions over the whole land. 
 
 Sixth. The charges brought against this church are partly based 
 upon the reported speeches of its pastor, although it is well known 
 that Plymouth Church, with the hearty concurrence of its pastor, 
 has from the beginning of its history delared that no man, however 
 beloved and revered, may usurp the rights of the brotherhood, and 
 has always insisted, and does now insist, that by its own acts and 
 declarations, and by these only, it will be judged. And the main- 
 tenance of this rule with respect to all churches, we hold to be an 
 essential part of Congregational polity. 
 
 Seventh. It is proposed virtually to arraign this church for alleged 
 violations of Congregational usage. But Congregational usage 
 itself derives its sole authority from the Word of God ; and no 
 Council may call to account a Congregational church for the alleged 
 violation of principles not declared by the Word of God. 
 
 Nor can we assent to any action by which the tradition of the 
 elders shall be placed upon even equal grounds with the command- 
 ment of God, nor agree to receive for doctrines the commandments 
 of men. And we therefore protest against any attempt to formu- 
 late the usage of churches into a code of ecclesiastical law, to be 
 placed on an equality with the Word of God, as binding upon the 
 conscience of the churches. 
 
 In the presentation of the case to you, it happens naturally 
 
REASONS FOR PROTEST BY PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 123 
 
 enough, from the fundamental error of the whole proceeding, that 
 our views and practice in cases of discipline are not correctly 
 stated. We shall not correct these errors of detail. Nevertheless, 
 for the purpose of informing you frankly, as brethren beloved in 
 the Lord, what are our views and practice concerning church disci- 
 pline, although not recognizing your power to act upon this subject, 
 we append to this paper our past and present rules of discipline, 
 and a declaration of our practice under them, adopted unanimously 
 by this church, and representing not merely the course we have 
 marked out for the future, but that which has been followed in the 
 past. 
 
 Our doctrine of church fellowship is in like manner gravely 
 misinterpreted. We have never claimed (as asserted) that " fel- 
 lowship binds to silence the churches which have pledged it." We 
 have never denied the right of churches to offer to each other 
 advice in a Christian spirit, nor the duty of churches to receive 
 such an offer in the spirit of brotherhood. We have asserted the 
 right of every church, acting in the like spirit of fraternal love, 
 while receiving the offer, to decline the advice, and to judge for 
 itself, when, according to the laws of Christ, an occasion has arisen 
 for exercising this right. And, having received an offer of advice 
 which seemed to us to be tendered in a spirit not according to the 
 mind of Christ, we did decisively exercise our right, by declining 
 to listen to advice conceived in such a spirit. Nor can we ever 
 assent to any doctrine of church fellowship which shall be destruc- 
 tive of the liberty of the local church, or which shall convert that 
 which the Lord ordained as a safeguard and an instrument of sym- 
 pathy, into an irritating espionage, and an instrument of oppression. 
 
 But we rejoice 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. In asserting that this church was not 
 responsible for the doctrine, order, or discipline of other churches, 
 we never for a moment intended to cut ourselves off from relation- 
 ship to them. There is a certain vague and general sense in which 
 all Christians are responsible for one another. But this is not the 
 sense in which the word is generally used. The responsibility of 
 members of the same church for one another is the mildest form 
 in which the word is commonly understood. And it was just that 
 degree of responsibility between churches which we meant, and 
 still mean to deny. Members of a church can put each other on 
 
124 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 trial before the church : we deny the right of any church to put 
 another church upon trial, before any ecclesiastical body whatever. 
 
 Yet we cheerfully admit, that whenever any church shall openly 
 and avowedly change the essential conditions upon which it was 
 publicly received into the fellowship 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 council, to withdraw their fellowship. 
 
 We hold that, preceding disfellowship, in all such cases, there 
 should be 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 to diminish. 
 
 It was with this meaning, and reasoning from this point of view, 
 that we used the word " responsibility." We do maintain that we 
 are responsible for no other church, and to no other church. But 
 we use these words in their ordinary and popular sense, and not 
 with reference to all those shadowy grades of meaning which may 
 possibly be attached to them. In short, we used this language for 
 the purpose of repelling dictation, and relieving the conscience of 
 other churches from a sense of any such responsibility as necessa- 
 rily implied the right to dictate. The responsibility of affection 
 we gladly accept : the responsibility of authority, even in its 
 lightest touch, we utterly repudiate. 
 
 We pray for the divine blessing upon you and your deliberations. 
 We commit you and ourselves to the care of the great Master, in 
 whose service we are all united here, and who will, out of perplexi- 
 ties, conflicts, and doubts, bring us all into an eternal unity of love, 
 and through love to peace. 
 
 Thus much, brethren and fathers, it was in our mind to say to 
 you, before receiving any other invitation than that of the two 
 churches. But having now received your invitation to appear 
 before you by our pastor and a committee, we are constrained to 
 decline it, lest by our acceptance we should seem to renounce our 
 conscientious convictions, and to withdraw our solemn testimony 
 against the violations of Christian liberty, courtesy, and equity 
 which have 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 encouraging irregular and unwar- 
 
PRINCIPLES OF PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 125 
 
 rantable proceedings on the part of strong churches, which the 
 weaker party might afterward, by the force of our example, be 
 compelled to condone. We are not responsible for the errors 
 which have been committed in the treatment of this church, and 
 in the calling of this Council ; and we are not willing to cover 
 them with our consent. 
 
 By order of 
 
 PLYMOUTH CHURCH, 
 
 Thomas G. Shearman, Clerk. 
 F, M. Edgerton, Moderator. 
 Brooklyn, March 25, 1874. 
 
 Resolved, That Edward Beecher, H. W. Sage, and Robert R. Raymond be 
 appointed as the messengers of this church to convey the reply of Plymouth 
 Church to the Council now assembled in the Clinton Avenue Congregational 
 Church, and that upon delivering the said reply they take no further action in 
 behalf of this church. 
 
 DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES. 
 
 Plymouth Church, believing that care in the admission of members is of 
 more value, in maintaining the purity of the church, than severity in dealing with 
 them after admission, attaches great importance to the evidence given by candi- 
 dates for membership of vita! faith in Christ and of spiritual life begun. The 
 Examining Committee must be satisfied upon these points before recommending 
 the candidate to the church ; and letters from other churches are not accepted as 
 substitutes for personal examination. All persons who enter Plymouth Church 
 are, in effect, admitted upon profession of their faith. 
 
 The active membership, numbering about 2,300 souls, is so organized that a 
 systematic watch and care is extended over all, in the form of visitation, in- 
 quir)-, fraternal advice, encouragement, and assistance, and, in the case of non- 
 resident members, by regular correspondence. We recognize it also as our 
 privilege and duty to reprove and admonish one another with all fidelity, pro- 
 vided it be in love ; and all these duties, while not neglected by the members of 
 the church as individuals, are moreover laid upon special ofticers of the church, 
 and so distributed and discharged that no single member is omittod from this 
 fraternal vigilance. 
 
 By the assiduous use of personal, social, and spiritual influences, by prevent- 
 ing or healing disputes and reclaiming wanderers, we seek to avoid the necessity 
 of judicial discipline ; and this we hold to be not only wise policy, but Christian 
 obligation. Nevertheless, when these means fail, the discipline of this church 
 is express and energetic. If any member of our body brings dishonor upon the 
 Christian profession, we hold it our duty to reclaim him if possible, with all 
 long-suffering and patience, but, if unsuccessful in this, to make it known that 
 we are no longer responsible for the dishonor which he has brought or may 
 biing upon the name of Christ. 
 
126 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 If any one desires no longer to be known as a member of this church, or as a 
 professed follower of Christ, we hold that, while we cannot release him from the 
 special obligations to Christ which he has assumed by the public profession of 
 his faith, we may, and should, after having endeavored to change his purpose, 
 release ourselves from our responsibility to and for him, in whatever method the 
 circumstances of the case may require, regard being had to the best good of the 
 individual, the well-being of the church, and the honor of the Master. 
 
 While we are ready at all times to receive suitable inquiry, and to give to sister 
 churches every reasonable explanation, concerning our action in cases of public 
 interest, we hold that it is our right, and may be our duty, to avoid the evils inci- 
 dent to a public explanation or a public trial ; and that such an exercise of our 
 discretion furnishes no good ground for the interference of other churches 
 provided we neither retain within our fellowship, nor dismiss by letter as in 
 regular standing, persons who bring open dishonor upon the Christian name. 
 
 RULES OF DISCIPLINE. 
 I. 
 
 AS ADOPTED APRIL, 1848. 
 
 Rule 5. No member can be deprived of church privileges, except by regular 
 process. The presentation of complaints may be first made to the Examining 
 Committee, who shall, upon sufficient cause, prefer charges to the whole church, 
 or the complainant may present his complaint in person to the church. When 
 a member is accused, he shall be seasonably furnished with a copy of the com- 
 plaint, and shall have a full hearing. 
 
 Rule 6. — The censures which may be inflicted on offending members are, 
 according to the aggravation of the offense, either (i) private reproof, (2) pub- 
 lic admonition, (3) suspension, or (4) excommunication. In cases of excom- 
 munication, notice thereof must be given from the pulpit on the sabbath. 
 
 II. 
 
 AS AMENDED IN 1865. 
 Rule 4. Discipline. — Members cannot be censured by the church, except by 
 the process herein stated. A complaint may be made either to the Examining 
 Committee or to the whole church. In the former case the clerk of the 
 committee, and in the latter case the clerk of the church, must reduce the com- 
 plaint to writing, if it is entertained, and must use due diligence to forward a 
 copy to the accused, and to give him personal notice of the time and place of 
 hearing. The accused must have a full opportunity to be heard in his own de- 
 fense. An accusation presented to the church must always be heard, either by 
 the church or by the Examining Committee, unless the application for a hearing 
 is rejected at a meeting of the church by a three-fourths vote. 
 , Rule 5. — [Same as Rule 6 above.] 
 
 Rule 7. [Adopted, 1859: amended, 1871.] — Members may be dropped from 
 the roll of the church, with or without notice to them, as may be deemed just, 
 by a two-thirds vote of the church, upon the recommendation of the Examining 
 Committee, either upon their own application, or, in case they have abandoned 
 their connection with the church by prolonged absence or otherwise, upon the 
 application of any other person. 
 
DISCIPLINE OF PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 127 
 
 III. 
 
 AS AMENDED IN 1874. 
 Rule 4. Discipline. — Members cannot be censured except by the process, 
 herein stated. 
 
 1. Complaints must be made in writing, either to the Examining Committee 
 or the whole Church. 
 
 2. If the complaint is made to the Examining Committee, the facts must first 
 be investigated by it, so far as to determine whether there is reasonable proba- 
 bility that the charges can be sustained by proof. 
 
 3. If the complaint is made to the church, it may order a similar investigation 
 by the Examining Committee, or by a special committee, before deciding to 
 proceed. 
 
 4. If the Examining Committee or the church decides to proceed with the 
 case, the clerk of the church must use due diligence to fonvard a copy of the 
 complaint to the accused, and, if practicable, to give him personal notice of 
 the time and place of hearing. 
 
 5. The accused must in all cases, when a trial is had, have a full opportunity 
 to be heard in his own defense. 
 
 6. The church may refer any case of discipline to a committee, to hear the 
 evidence, and report its opinion on the whole case, or any part thereof. 
 
 7. When a complaint is made to the Examining Committee, the accused, at 
 his first appearance, may require the committee to submit to the church the 
 question, whether the complaint shall be taken out of the committee for trial ; 
 and the committee cannot proceed meantime. 
 
 8. Proceedings before the Examining Committee shall be kept private until 
 otherwise ordered by the church ; and the committee, unless the complaint is 
 sustained, or unless it desires instructions, or unless a report is ordered by vote 
 of the church, shall make no report upon the case. 
 
 9. No member of a committee can vote upon its final report in case of disci- 
 pline, unless he has heard or read the evidence and arguments in the case, 
 except by consent of both the complainant and the accused. 
 
 10. If the evidence has been taken by a committee, the church is not bound to 
 hear evidence on either side. 
 
 11. Final censure can be inflicted only by the church, and by the concurrence 
 of two-thirds of all present and voting. 
 
 Rules 5 and 7 unchanged. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Beeciier : On retiring from this Council, I desire 
 to reciprocate the kind feelings expressed by the Moderator, 
 and to say, that with, the utmost cordiality, and with the 
 utmost Christian affection, we reciprocate all of these kind 
 feelings expressed toward us, and toward the church with 
 which we are connected. 
 
 The committee then retired. 
 
 The Moderator : The communication is now before the 
 Council. 
 
 I 
 
128 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL, 
 
 Mr. E. F. Brown, of Harlem, N. Y. : I suppose it is proper to 
 receive this communication. I move that it be received, and 
 placed upon the files of the Council. 
 
 Hon. A. C. Barstow : I will move, as an amendment, that 
 it be placed on the records of the Council. 
 
 Mr. Brown : I will accept the amendment. 
 
 Hon. C. G. Hammond : I would rather that the motion 
 should be divided. 
 
 Mr. Brown, with the consent of Mr. Barstow, then with- 
 drew his motion. 
 
 Hon. C. Demond : I now move that we proceed to hear the 
 committees of the churches. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Dexter : I move, as an amendment, that the hear- 
 ing of the committees of the inviting churches be the order 
 of the day on the re-assembling of the Council after recess, 
 at three o'clock. 
 
 The amendment was accepted by Mr. Demond, and the 
 motion, as amended, agreed to. 
 
 The Council then took a recess, until three o'clock, p.m. 
 
THIRD SESSION — MARCH 25. 
 
 Council convened at 3:30 p.m. 
 
 The Moderator : The Council will now hear the state- 
 ments to be presented by the Committees of the churches 
 which have called it together. The members of the Council 
 will please give their attention to Dr. R. S. Storrs. 
 
 Rev. G. B. WiLLCOX of Jersey City, N.J. : Mr. Moderator, 
 before Dr. Storrs begins, I would like to say that, as it 
 will probably be desirable to have an evening session, it may 
 be well for the Council to fix now upon an hour for our ad- 
 journment this afternoon. I move, therefore, that the Coun- 
 cil adjourn at half-past five, to meet again in the evening. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Storrs : Mr. Moderator, I hope Mr. Willcox will 
 not press his motion. I do not know how much time I shall 
 occupy in what I have to say. It may be that I shall be 
 wholly through with my remarks by the time he has men- 
 tioned. But if I should not be, I should much prefer to finish 
 what I have to say before the adjournment, instead of leaving 
 a part of it to go over to the evening. I will get through by 
 six o'clock, and as much earlier as I can. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : There is one item of business, which will 
 only occupy a moment, before Dr. Storrs begins. The Com- 
 mittee on Credentials wish to report, with the consent of the 
 Council, that, the church in Orange Valley, New Jersey, hav- 
 ing sent two delegates to the Council, the Committee recom- 
 mend that the delegates should decide between themselves 
 which one shall act in representing the church, the other 
 retiring. 
 
 The Committee report, also, that, in four cases, acting- 
 pastors have been sent to the Council by churches invited, 
 and recommend that these be received as members. 
 
 The Report was accepted, and adopted. 
 
 The Moderator : The brethren of the Council will now 
 give attention to Dr. Storrs. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Storrs addressed the Council, as follows : — 
 
 Fathers, and Brethren : — I am quite aware of the seri- 
 ousness of this occasion, and of the seriousness which attaches 
 9 129 
 
130 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 to the remarks which I am to make ; not merely in view of 
 the fact that they are to be addressed to so large and influen- 
 tial an assembly, but also of the fact that they are to go forth, 
 through the fingers of the reporters and the types of the 
 press, ev^erywhere, to-morrow. I desire to speak very simply, 
 and very seriously ; and I pray the Spirit of God to help me, 
 and to guide me, — not that I may be detained from saying 
 any thing untruly, beyond the truth or against the truth ; or 
 any thing maliciously ; or any thing with a secret sting be- 
 neath it : for I am certain that my own heart would revolt 
 from either of these, instantly, vehemently : but that I may 
 be kept from saying any thing hastily, inadvertently, as one 
 may in the freedom of remark ; any thing the import and the 
 relations of which may be other and wider than I, in speaking, 
 may be aware of. I pray the Divine Spirit to keep my mind 
 under His influence, that I may be preserved from that peril, 
 which cannot be altogether guarded against. And I am en- 
 couraged in the hope that this prayer will be answered, by the 
 letters which have come to me within a day or two, from dis- 
 tant points, and from men whose faces I have never seen, 
 telling me that prayer was there being offered for a Divine 
 blessing upon the deliberations and the results of this Coun- 
 cil. 
 
 We, of the committees, greatly regret that we are prevented 
 in the providence of God from having the aid, on which we 
 had largely reckoned, of one of our most eminent and able 
 laymen, a member of the committee from the Church of the 
 Pilgrims, the Hon. Joshua M. Van Cott ; known in this city, 
 in the State, and in the country, as an eminent lawyer and 
 jurist ; fully informed concerning the principles at issue here, 
 and the discussions through which we have come to the pres- 
 ent point ; intensely interested in them ; and upon whose 
 ability to present the matter, upon whose experience in delib- 
 erative assemblies — far surpassing that which either of us 
 possesses — we had based large expectations. To his regret 
 as to ours, but to ours more than it can be to his, he, by a 
 painful accident, has been confined to his house, and pinned 
 to his bed, for six weeks past, and is unable to be here. We 
 have to do what we can without him. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE COUNCIL. 131 
 
 The committees have requested me to present for them, 
 after some preUminary remarks, the views which are common 
 to our churches on our first five Questions. You will see, 
 therefore, that, in order to do this with any completeness, I 
 shall have to trespass largely upon your patience. But I pray 
 you to hear me with all the measure of patience which you 
 can bring to it, remembering that this burden which you now 
 take up, for a little, we have been carrying for months ; and 
 that my remarks, so far as they shall help to illustrate the 
 state of mind prevalent in our churches, concerning this 
 subject which has brought you together, may be helpful 
 to you. 
 
 I need not say that we are glad at last to have an assembly, 
 before which we can freely speak our minds. We have been 
 subject to measureless misrepresentations, during the months 
 that are closed ; misrepresentations not altogether willful or 
 intentional, perhaps not in the larger part so ; arising often 
 from entire misconception of the facts themselves, and of the 
 principles involved in the facts : misrepresentations, however, 
 which have constituted, in the aggregate, a formidable power 
 against us, the energy of which, and the ubiquity oL which, 
 we have never had hidden from our eyes. To such misrepre- 
 sentations we, of these committees of our churches, have 
 answered never a word. I am not aware that any single 
 member of either committee has ever written a line in answer. 
 If any one has done so, he has done it as his private privi- 
 lege, and on his private responsibility, without any communi- 
 cation with the committees on the subject. For we have felt. 
 Brethren and Fathers, that some time or other our opportunity 
 would come, when we could state the facts under the influence 
 of which we had been acting, and the principles which 
 seemed to us involved in them. And, if it never came, person- 
 ally to us it did not matter ; for we thought we were right, 
 and we knew we were honest ; and God knew it ; and under 
 our responsibility to Him we have done what we have done, and 
 have waited for this occasion. But we are glad it has come. 
 
 A word as to the constitution of this Council. It has been 
 said to be a " picked " Council. And it is picked ; as the gen- 
 erals of an army are picked, for their courage, and soldierly 
 
132 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 qualities, and strategic skill ; picked, as the members of the ju- 
 diciary are picked, for their acquaintance with the law, and for 
 the spirit of equity which rules within them ; picked, as re- 
 porters and editors are picked, — men of intelligence and skill, 
 quickness of insight and discernment, and of power to repre- 
 sent fact and thought to the public mind. 
 
 We intended to have the most wise, and weighty, and im- 
 partial Council that we could obtain. We took churches from 
 the West, and churches from the East, — ancient churches 
 with eminent pastors, ancient churches with recent pastors, 
 recent churches with younger pastors, that it might not be 
 felt by any one that we were overlooking the modern spirit, 
 and the temper of the time. We took men from the head of 
 great institutions of learning, and of great societies for mis- 
 sionary and beneficent purposes ; because we wanted the 
 judgment of the ablest men whom we could assemble, on the 
 questions which we have presented, as looked at in the light 
 of the facts and arguments which we have to exhibit. And 
 we should have taken more, but that we could not depopulate 
 the covmtry of its most eminent ministers and laymen in 
 order to settle a matter even so grave and important as this. 
 And having started with the intention of having forty 
 churches, and finally reached eighty, as we supposed, — through 
 a mistake in the count it turned out to be seventy-nine, at last, 
 — we there stopped. It is a picked Council, in the sense that 
 we intended it to be : — the best, and most absolutely impar- 
 tial, and, so far as advice can go, the most authoritative Council 
 that we could convene. 
 
 It has been said, however, to be a " packed " Council. You 
 know how that is : you have shown how that is. You have 
 heard this morning, before we who called you together had 
 opened our lips on the subject, the views presented at length, 
 presented ably, presented in a paper prepared beforehand, of 
 Plymouth Church, which is not a party before this Council, as 
 it insists, and which, after presenting those views, contrary to 
 your invitation given explicitly last evening, retreated from all 
 the questions which, being answered, would have shed much 
 light upon the paper. We do not complain of this in the 
 least. We called you together because we confided in your 
 
THE COUNCIL, HOW CALLED. 
 
 133 
 
 wisdom. We accept this as an illustration of your wisdom ; 
 but we are sure that this shows, at least, that this is not a 
 packed Council. 
 
 We may well insist upon it, that in allowing your minds to 
 be colored and moulded, before we had said a word, by the 
 formal and elaborate presentation of the views and alleged 
 facts on the part of another party, not appearing here to give 
 evidence before you concerning matters on which further in- 
 quiry would to us have been important, you have shown at 
 any rate that you are not a " packed " Council. And for our 
 vindication I wish to say, further, that the statements which 
 have" been made, that we corresponded with individuals to 
 know their opinions beforehand, as a condition precedent to 
 inviting them, are simply and abgolutely without foundation. 
 
 Here are seventy-five churches represented. If we corre- 
 sponded with a single pastor, to know what his opinion was 
 beforehand, he can rise and state it, and put us to an open 
 shame. If we engineered the election of a single delegate, in 
 a single church, that we might obtain one friendly to our 
 views, in distinction from one whose sympathies were on the 
 other side, he can rise and state that, and bring us to confu- 
 sion. We did absolutely neither, and nothing of the kind. 
 Our own brethren in the city, living near to us, we did not 
 speak with ; holding ourselves aloof from them on this subject 
 with a reserve which we felt and showed on no other possible 
 question ; until we ourselves felt that they might think we 
 were uncommunicative and repellent, — because we did not wish 
 to prejudice their minds beforehand. And the only informa- 
 tion we ever received concerning these brethren in the city, in 
 regard to their opinions on this subject, we received through 
 the report of a newspaper in this city, which has been furi- 
 ously and foolishly hostile to us from the beginning. It sent 
 out one of its interviewers, those indefatigable Paul Prys of 
 the modern civilization, to find out what these brethren 
 thought ; and it reported what purported to be the substance 
 of their replies, — whether correctly or not we never in- 
 quired. 
 
 Some of them were favorable to us, and some were not. 
 The names of some of them were on our list ; the names of 
 
134 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Others were not. The list had not been sent out, but was 
 completely in our hands. Not a name was added ; and not a 
 name was dropped. Now, if any man hereafter asserts that 
 this is a " packed " Council, in the face of this declaration of 
 mine, on behalf of these committees, I say that either he or 
 we have a deliberate lie to give account for. 
 
 It has been said, furthermore, that we called it by trickery ; 
 as one paper, with characteristic courtesy, expressed it, by " a 
 barefaced ecclesiastical trick." Well, I shall not use harsh 
 language. I will simply say, therefore, that this is an utter 
 and irredeemable untruth. We are not as wise as our critics, 
 undoubtedly ; but we are not absolute fools : and we should 
 not have called eighty churches together, with eminent divines 
 from all parts of the country, to detect us in a trick. Here 
 we are, Brethren, in your hands. We have said that we 
 accept and solicit your admonition, if you find that we have 
 acted wrongly ; and, if you find that we have acted in any 
 spirit of trickery, toward you or anybody else, you may put 
 the lash on as hard as you like, and as long as you like. We 
 will not complain, and we will not flinch. 
 
 What trickery can there be .'' A and B have a difference 
 in business, and A desires B to unite with him in submitting 
 it to a referee for adjudication ; but B declines, or does not 
 accept ; till at last A, weary of waiting, goes himself to some 
 disinterested person, wholly impartial, wise, experienced in 
 business, friendly to both parties : he does not ask him to 
 investigate B's accounts, or to call B up to answer to any 
 charge ; but he asks his advice as to the propriety of the 
 course which he, A, has followed heretofore, and what he had 
 better do in time to come. Certainly, if that is a trick, it is 
 a great pity there are not more tricks in this world. They 
 would tend to amity and to honesty among men. 
 
 Let me clear away one or two other misconceptions, which 
 may possibly be present in the minds of some of the Council. 
 It has been said, not unfrequently, that we have been animated 
 by a secret hostility to Mr. Beecher. The assertion has not 
 a particle of fact, as large as a grain of dust, to rest upon. 
 These two pastors who are before you, at the head of these 
 committees, had been the true and tried friends of Mr. 
 
IMPORT OF THE CASE. 135 
 
 Beecher for many years ; one of them from the time he set his 
 foot in this city. Wc were the two men whom he selected, 
 from the entire range of his ministerial acquaintance, to be 
 with him in the crowning festival of his life, — his Silver 
 Wedding with his church. What has occurred, since then, 
 within us, suddenly to change the sweetness of that affection 
 into an acid hatred 1 What has occurred, within us, to change 
 the admiration and the pride we felt into jealousy and envy .-' 
 Brethren, it is with the profoundest sadness we have known, 
 that we feel that we could not stand in the same relations, on 
 the same platform, with him, now, which we occupied then. 
 But the change has not been in us, through any deterioration 
 of character, through any such sudden revulsion from friendly 
 feeling toward a friend. 
 
 It has been said, not unfrequently, that we are actuated by 
 some secret jealousy of Plymouth Church. I am almost tired 
 of repeating words of denial ; but certainly that has not the 
 smallest possible basis to rest upon, except the meanness of 
 the mind that utters it. Why should we be jealous of Ply- 
 mouth Church .'' It in no way interferes with us. We have 
 been proud of it, for a quarter of a century ; and no voices 
 have been more ready and eager than ours in rendering it the 
 heartiest meed of praise, in all the past. Are we jealous of 
 other churches.'' — jealous of the Tabernacle congregation, in 
 New York, with its immense assembly, filling its superb build- 
 ing, under the fruitful and magnificent ministry of our friend, 
 Dr. Taylor.^ Are we jealous of the Central Church, with its 
 beautiful audience room, and the great multitude which crowds 
 that room, to hear the vivid and powerful appeals of our 
 Brother Scudder.-* We should as soon think of being jealous 
 of Yale College, as of being jealous of Plymouth Church. 
 When it works as a Congregational church ought to, it works 
 for the benefit and blessing of every church and of every citi- 
 zen ; and we most heartily rejoice in it. 
 
 It has been said — and this is one of the most intolerable 
 things — that we have desired to investigate a scandal which 
 has passed away. I will not suffer myself to speak of that 
 imputation as it deserves. But if we remember that it has 
 been impossible, in the nature of things, to investigate that, 
 
136 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 ecclesiastically, since the 31st of October of last year, — the 
 church which had primary cognizance of it, and sole cognizance, 
 having ended and excluded the case, and made it impossible 
 to bring it up again ; and if it be remembered, further, that 
 we had no desire, or wish, or willingness whatever, under any 
 circumstances, to touch a pitch which it did not belong to us 
 to handle, — I think ultimately that story will stop. Plymouth 
 Church itself could not now investigate it, if it wished to. It 
 cannot call back into itself the member charged with having 
 circulated scandals, whom it has put beyond its jurisdiction. It 
 might as well undertake to investigate, and this Council might 
 far better undertake to investigate, any scandals concerning 
 any former occupant of the mayor's chair in New York, or 
 concerning the late James Fisk. It is a business with which 
 we have never had any opportunity to meddle ; and, most cer- 
 tainly, we have never desired any. 
 
 There is another misconception, which perhaps it is more 
 worth while to answer. It is the feeling which some have 
 that we have been magnifying, tremendously, a single case ; 
 that we have lost perspective. We have " got a bee in the 
 bonnet," as the Scotch say. We have failed to distinguish 
 the larger from the less ; and we are making a prodigious ado, 
 and calling together a great Council from all parts of the 
 country, on a question which is really simple, concerning a 
 single case, and upon the whole insignificant. Well, of course, 
 it does not seem so to us. 
 
 Here are two churches, large in numbers, and, to a degree 
 certainly, intelligent and cultivated, in general information and 
 in the Christian graces, which have been for five months 
 steadily at work trying to bring light upon the questions 
 which have now come before you. Stormed at by the inces- 
 sant rain of opposition, thundered at and lightened at, laughed 
 at and scoffed at, and treated with all derision and contempt, 
 they have marched, as soldiers march through the rainstorm, 
 not breaking ranks because of the rain. Of course they have 
 felt the case, and the principles involved in it, to be impor- 
 tant. Here are Committees. Who are they .'* Hot-headed 
 youngsters, that take fire at a spark, and go out as quickly .? 
 To a large extent they are the wisest, the most experienced, 
 
THE CASE INVOLVES PRINCIPLES. 
 
 137 
 
 able, sober-minded men we have. Some of them are younger, 
 most of them are the older members of our churches. And it 
 would be just as possible to ignite yonder pavement by draw- 
 ing on it the end of an extinguished match as it would be to 
 stir these committees, the committee of my church or of the 
 other, to any undue excitement, by the mere appeal of passion. 
 You might as well set the granite walls of my church-edifice 
 to dancing hornpipes. 
 
 Look at the case itself. Is it insignificant .^ Is it not one 
 of the most startling, bewildering cases which have oc- 
 curred in ecclesiastical history, anywhere .-• Here is a man of 
 brilliant and popular powers, widely known, and widely wel- 
 come, in the lecture-room, and on the political platform ; 
 wielding large influence in the country ; formerly editor of 
 one of the leading religious newspapers of the country ; for 
 seventeen years a member of the church ; converted under 
 the ministry of the pastor of that church ; active, and promi- 
 nent, and enthusiastic in it ; I beheve, but I won't affirm, once 
 superintendent of its Sunday School. Suddenly he ceases 
 attending. Living in the city, passing it every day, he never 
 crosses its threshold. Rumors arise attributing to him scan- 
 dalous allegations concerning the pastor of the church. He 
 is charged with the offense. He is called up before the 
 church, — before the Committee through which that church 
 exercises its power of inquiring into the action and character 
 of its accused members. He makes no answer, either way, to 
 the specific charge. But he himself appears at last, in the 
 church-assembly, in what looks like any thing but a mood of 
 repentance or confession, in what seems to be a mood of 
 defiance ; and he is as tenderly sent forth from thence, so far as 
 appears to us, as if he had been the Israelite indeed, in whom 
 there was no guile. Is it not a startling case, — most impres- 
 sive in itself, in its history, in its incidents ">. well adapted to 
 attract attention .-• a volcanic case among common cases 1 If 
 Bald Mountain in North Carolina, after its long rumbling and 
 thundering, were to fling off its crest of pine, — if it has one, 
 — and burst into an American ^Etna, I do not believe the 
 surrounding population would be more startled and amazed 
 than we were. 
 
X38 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 But then, while the case itself was remarkable, and not to be 
 minimized into a trifling affair, — any more than the tumbling 
 torrents of Niagara can be interpreted into an ordinary cas- 
 cade, or the gleam of the meteor bursting in the air can be 
 made to be nothing but the flash of a firebug's wing, — the 
 principles involved in it are more remarkable still. For it is 
 the peculiarity of such cases that they involve principles ; and 
 you cannot escape the principles, no matter how simple the case 
 may be. Hampden's ship-money was twenty shillings. It 
 involved the right of the king to lay taxes without the assent 
 of Parliament ; and, for less than a guinea, England went to 
 war, and the stately head of Charles the First fell in front of 
 Whitehall, while England became a Commonwealth. Our 
 fathers refused their three-pence a pound duty on tea. Lord 
 North always said that it was nonsense, because they abso- 
 lutely made nine-pence on every pound, since there was a 
 drawback, in England, of a shilling a pound duty on tea 
 exported to the colonies. No matter. More or less, they felt 
 that that involved the right of taxation without representa- 
 tion ; and the war that followed was no three-penny affair, 
 but a new empire emerged into the world in consequence 
 of it. 
 
 Principles therefore, as connected with cases, make the cases 
 noble in significance and relations, while they dwarf them in 
 their incidents. When the negro Somerset was brought before 
 Lord Mansfield, the only question at issue was : Can an Eng- 
 lish master compel a slave to leave England without his own 
 consent 1 Lord Mansfield decided that slavery was an institu- 
 tion so odious that it could only be suffered to be supported 
 by positive law, and that the law of England did not accept or 
 allow that case. And slavery was swept from the British Em- 
 pire by the principles emerging from that single case. There- 
 fore, even if this case had not been so startling in itself, 
 it would have compelled our serious and continuing atten- 
 tion by the principles involved in it. For principles are pow- 
 erful. 
 
 I learned from you. Sir, [turning to the presiding Moderator, 
 Rev. Dr. Bacon], many years ago, when we were both younger 
 than now, that " tendencies are stronger than men." It rang in 
 
FIRST QUESTION CONSIDERED. 139 
 
 my ear, has been a watchword in my life, from that time to this. 
 And tendencies come with principles. Principles are power- 
 ful. If they are evil, they work mischief beyond the genera- 
 tion by which they are accepted, and by which they are ap- 
 plied ; and, if they are good, they have an immortal life upon 
 the earth, denied to men. They are powerful ; and they admit 
 of no compromise, as our fathers have taught us. You may not 
 shape them, and trim them, to meet an exigency ; but, if they 
 are borne in upon you as connected with an action, evil in its 
 nature or good in its nature, you may not shrink from the 
 acceptance of such principles, or from their service. 
 
 And principles are all that Congregationalism has. It has 
 no ritual, venerable with the memories of the past, and beauti- 
 ful in the rhythm and cadence of its majestic sentences. It 
 has no hierarchy, transmitting a succession from the apostles 
 onward. It has no elaborate and extended system of minute 
 rules. It has a few great and vital principles, of church-mem- 
 bership and of church-fellowship ; and these are all. The life 
 of the system is in its principles, as the life of the animal is 
 in the blood ; and, if you stab and shatter those principles, 
 there is an invisible and silent hemorrhage that destroys the 
 life itself. 
 
 So we felt. So we feel. And, in our deliberate conviction, 
 if the principles applied by the Plymouth Church are to be ac- 
 cepted as the principles of Congregationalism in this country, 
 the system has already gone to pieces. That which our 
 fathers knew, and loved, and honored, no more exists. There- 
 fore we took up this discussion, when it came to us, in the 
 providence of God. Therefore we have gone on with it as God 
 seemed to require that we should. Therefore we have stood 
 in our lot, and have learned what it is to bear burdens and 
 carry crosses, and to fight what seemed to us the good fight 
 of the faith and of the fathers. The fact that Congregation- 
 alism is spreading so widely in the country seemed to us to 
 make the duty more commanding ; and the fact that it was a 
 duty which we disliked to perform, from which our hearts 
 instinctively drew back, only made it more imperative upon 
 us, when God had sent it. 
 
 So, then, I have aimed to set aside, at the beginning, some 
 
140 
 
 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 of the misconceptions which may have been silently present 
 in the minds of members of the Council, and which certainly 
 have been present widely in the newspaper press, and in the 
 public mind so far as that press affects it. I wish it might 
 be understood, as it ought to be understood, that as to my 
 dear brother and myself, as to the members of these commit- 
 tees, each in his especial relations, this has been one of the 
 most painful passages in our personal experience ; — in our 
 ministerial life the most painful which has hitherto met us. I 
 wish it might be understood that we are too old to be fickle ; 
 and, while I say it modestly, concerning ourselves, I will say 
 it frankly and energetically, remembering our churches, we 
 are too strong to be jealous. We have no personal end to 
 answer ; no personal grudge to gratify ; no spark of malice 
 or bitterness in our hearts toward the pastor of Plymouth 
 Church. And upon the occasion, at last, of addressing this 
 Council, we hope to say nothing that any one will regret ; we 
 mean to say nothing that we shall regret, here or hereafter. 
 Now, Brethren, for the Letter-missive, and the Questions. 
 
 First : Is it in accordance with the order and usage of Congre- 
 gationalism that a member may terminate his membership in a 
 church by absenting himself from its services and communion ? 
 Or is a corporate and consenting action on the part of the church 
 necessary to such termination of membership ? 
 
 We hope the Council will give an answer to this, not only 
 prompt, but very emphatic. Let us state our conception of 
 the matter, as this is and has been, that we may interchange 
 our minds with yours on the subject ; since that is the object 
 of this conference with you. 
 
 By universal consent, and universal custom, the man who 
 enters a Congregational church, enters it by the consent of the 
 body, expressed by a vote, conditioned upon his acceptance of 
 certain Articles of Faith, and a Covenant. That has been the 
 custom and rule of Congregational churches since there were 
 churches of that sort in the land. It is the distinctive 
 peculiarity of Congregationalism. Lito the Anglican Church, 
 out of which our fathers came, a man is born, a birth-right 
 member. He comes to church-membership, as he comes to 
 
RELEASE BY VOLITION, IMPOSSIBLE. 141 
 
 citizenship, through the accidents of birth and physical growth. 
 The Congregational churches were founded upon the idea of 
 gathering out from the community around them those who 
 had personal faith in the Son of God, and a personal conse- 
 cration to him, and uniting them together, in the vital and 
 enduring bond of a covenant ; a personal covenant, accepted 
 by each man for himself. Then he becomes a member of the 
 church, and not before. He enters into reciprocal obligations 
 with the church, — obligations which are more or less fully 
 recognized and manifested in this covenant which he accepts. 
 
 The question before us, then, is a very simple one : Can the 
 man who has entered into these reciprocal obligations with 
 the church terminate those reciprocal obligations by his own 
 action } Not by his own positive action, even ; by his own 
 negative action, with no notification made to any ofificer, 
 with no public and declarative act, by a mere absence from 
 the service, by an unexpressed change in his own state of 
 mind, — can he thus terminate his reciprocal obligations to the 
 church } It seems to us that to ask the question is to 
 answer it. 
 
 There is some definite point of time where his membership 
 ceases. It is not like water gradually leaking out from a pail, 
 — more to-day, and less to-morrow. A man is not a complete 
 member of this Clinton Avenue Church to-day, and next week 
 nine-tenths of a member, and the next week four-fifths, the 
 next two-thirds, and, by and by, a half, then a quarter, then a 
 fifth, until finally a vanishing point has been reached, and his 
 membership has gone into the air. There is some definite 
 point of time where his membership terminates ; and, having 
 continued entire up to that point, it ceases entirely beyond 
 that point. 
 
 Where is that point of time } We say it is where the 
 member, having expressed his desire to be released from the 
 church, is released from it, by the church's action. It is said, 
 upon the other hand, that that point is found where the mem- 
 ber himself, by his own volition, without declarative action, 
 even, without express notification, chooses to terminate his 
 membership. It seems to us that this is a dangerous, and 
 most eminently an absurd proposition 
 
142 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 It wholly makes void the Covenant of the church. You 
 see that in a moment. The covenant of the church reads 
 how .'' Merely for illustration, I will read the covenant of the 
 Plymouth Church. [Rev. Dr. Burton, of Hartford, Conn : Is 
 it the last edition T\ It is the last that has been published, 
 given to me by the Clerk of the church, and so, I presume, 
 authentic : — 
 
 Do you solemnly covenant and agree to study the peace, purity, 
 and liberty of this church ? to love and watch over its members as 
 your brethren ? to receive from them all needful care and admoni- 
 tion ? Will you labor together with us in the maintenance of its 
 public worship and ordinances, submit to necessary discipline, 
 and avoid all causes of scandal and offense, so long as in the 
 providence of God you shall continue among us ? 
 
 Now, there is a sense, no doubt, in which that expression, — 
 " the providence of God, " — as representing the divine super- 
 intendence over the creation, includes Satan himself ; includes 
 the worst choices of the worst men ; but, as the expression is 
 ordinarily used, it represents the chances and changes of our 
 life, external to our own choices, as the things by which our 
 life is shaped and governed. And, if it is not used in that 
 sense here, it would apparently have been more appropriate to 
 say : " so long as in the providence of your own mind, you do 
 not elect to absent yourself from our services." A man who 
 has entered into the covenant, on this hypothesis, may terminate 
 his membership in that church, five minutes after he has pub- 
 licly assented to this agreement. He may terminate it at the 
 end of his first communion. He may have entered the church, 
 and been solemnly received, and go out from it, with no more 
 relation to it for all time to come ; and nobody would be the 
 wiser about it until four years had passed away. 
 
 What is a Covenant .'' Not a legal contract, of course, where 
 it concerns moral and spiritual interests, and is based upon no 
 pecuniary consideration ; but it is a mutual agreement, for 
 moral and spiritual ends. It is, at any rate, a solemn promise, 
 on the part of the man who enters into it ; and a promise is a 
 declaration of something which he will do, or will forbear, on 
 conditions : of which promise or declaration the other party 
 has a right to claim the fulfillment. Now, if you say that any 
 
DISCIPLINE DESTROYED AND CHURCH DISSOLVED. 143 
 
 man may terminate these reciprocal obligations, expressed in 
 the covenant, at any moment after that expression, by his own 
 imuttered volition, certainly you make the covenant of no effect 
 or value afterward ; and no church, in our judgment, that was 
 self-respectful, would long continue to maintain it. It could 
 not stand up in its great assembly, and welcome a man into 
 solemn reciprocal obligations with itself, who was at liberty to 
 wholly terminate those obligations, by his own inward choice, 
 the moment he walked from out its doorway. 
 
 Such a theory makes all Discipline impossible ; the very 
 suggestion of Discipline becomes absurd. If a man's volition 
 is every thing that keeps him in the church of Christ, how are 
 you ever to reach him for any offense .'' You may take the 
 most extreme offense you please. We have all heard of Sher- 
 idan, how, when he was found drunk in the gutter, and a 
 watchman shook him and said, "What is your name.''" he 
 said, in reply, in his drunken wit, " William Wilberforce." 
 Now, I suppose the case of a deacon in the church, who, after 
 a communion at which he has officiated, goes to his home, and 
 is found there in the evening drunk, — not dead drunk, raving 
 drunk, beating his wife and children, threatening them with 
 lethal weapons, uttering profane, foul, and licentious lan- 
 guage, with the very spirit of the Devil flagrant in him, and 
 no more of the spirit of Christ. He is found in this very state 
 and act by the Pastor, and the entire Examining Committee ; 
 and he looks up at them and says, " Gentlemen, I am not a mem- 
 ber of your church. I left it at the end of the communion 
 this afternoon." And there is not a thing to be done to him ; 
 and there is not a word to be said to him ; and the church can- 
 not even put on record an expression of censure against that 
 man ; — for, if he is out of its jurisdiction, it has no more right 
 to pass censure on him, than it has on the Shah of Persia. 
 
 Discipline is farcical, the very idea of it is preposterous, if 
 you accept this principle. A picnic party might just as well 
 undertake to erect itself into a tribunal for the trial of offenses 
 against the State, as a church of Christ, no matter how large, 
 how intelligent, or how powerful, to make itself a tribunal, on 
 a basis of this sort, for the trial of an offender against the 
 most sacred and solemn laws of God and man. 
 
144 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 The principle dissolves the Church, as an organized body, 
 and reduces it, at once, to a mere casual and incoherent assem- 
 bly, in attendance upon a particular ministry. For the same 
 principle applies everywhere, if it is admitted as proper any- 
 where. If it is merely a man's volition that holds him to the 
 church, and the covenant has no binding force upon him 
 after he has refused to be bound by it, in his own unexpressed 
 state of mind, what is there left to organize that church } The 
 church cannot retreat from its obligation to the individual 
 without a vote ; but he can retreat from his obligation to the 
 church without a word. Inclosing such a church from the 
 world would be just as easy and wise a thing as undertaking 
 to inclose a field by building a fence along one side of it, and 
 leaving all the rest an open common. That is precisely what 
 the Church of Christ is, on such a theory of church-member- 
 ship. 
 
 The same principle applies, instantly, to every officer. 
 They have applied it, in one of the churches of this city, in 
 the case of a Deacon who resigned after years of as faithful 
 service as I believe has often occurred in that church ; and it 
 was ruled, and voted by the assembly, that his resignation 
 made the vacancy, and there was no occasion whatever for 
 accepting the resignation on the part of the church, the 
 vacancy occurring, and being complete, at the instant the 
 resignation was resolved upon. They might have gone still 
 further, and affirmed that the moment he absented himself 
 from his duties in the diaconate, without any notice, those duties 
 had no longer any claim on his attention : the office was vacant, 
 and the vacancy was complete. And precisely the same princi- 
 ple applies to the Pastor of the church ; so that no man can 
 tell, unless he can enter into the interior state of mind of the 
 eminent Pastor of the Plymouth Church, when he goes out 
 of the door at night, after the Sunday service, whether that 
 church has a Pastor or not, or whether he continues a member 
 of it. 
 
 If that principle is to be recognized and allowed, — that the 
 membership ceases when a man's state of mind in regard to it 
 changes, — it would dissolve human society itself, if the princi- 
 ple should be carried out. For human society stands upon 
 
CONGREGATIONALISM A HISTORIC SYSTEM. 145 
 
 covenants, upon contracts, and upon the power to enforce them. 
 That is the office of government. That is the office of the 
 courts. And while, as I have said, the covenant which a man 
 enters into with a Congregational church, when he becomes a 
 member of it, is not for secular purposes, or upon pecuniary 
 conditions, and therefore is not a contract of which the law 
 can take cognizance, and to the fulfillment of which it can 
 hold him, it is as binding as any, in the forum of conscience. 
 If, then, a man can relieve himself from the obligations of 
 that covenant, so solemn, so public, so formal, with a large 
 assembly, by a mere change in his inner purpose, why should 
 he not be at liberty to release himself, in the same way, and 
 with equal facility, from every covenant .' As a citizen he 
 cannot be thus released. Society says he shall not be. But 
 as a being responsible to God, if I can terminate my relation 
 with the Church of the Pilgrims, this instant, by determining 
 not to go inside its doors any more, I can terminate my rela- 
 tions in human life to any party with whom I am in reciprocal 
 obligations. You carry out that principle, and you inevitably 
 disintegrate human society. 
 
 There was a prodigious noise made in this city a year ago, or 
 somewhere thereabouts, — I don't remember the exact time, — 
 when it was said that a member of one of the churches of 
 the city had violated his covenant not to repeat certain state- 
 ments, which were included in a certain important private 
 paper. Why on earth had he not a right to violate it, if he 
 had chosen to .' If a man may terminate obligations by his 
 own change of mind, at any time, with the church of Christ, 
 who is to quarrel with one who does that, outside of the 
 church, which he is permitted and authorized to do within 
 it.' 
 
 Brethren, I speak within bounds on this subject when I say 
 that if you admit this principle, then a bridge of air is a solid 
 structure in comparison with a Congregational church. It 
 seems like arguing that the earth is solid, and not a gas, — 
 like arguing that the sunshine casts light and not shadow, — to 
 argue the principle. But we have to argue it, because the 
 opposite has been affirmed. 
 
 And now a word about a matter incidental. 
 
146 ' THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 It has been said that we were offered a Mutual Council on 
 this question, on condition that we would make it read : " Does 
 the Word of God, and the usage of the Congregational 
 churches," and so on. The statement is not precisely correct, 
 although, undoubtedly, in intention it was so. We were not 
 offered a Mutual Council ; but the pastor of the Plymouth 
 Church offered to use his influence with that church, to in- 
 duce it to unite with our churches in calling such a Council, on 
 that one point, provided that change should be made. He did 
 not agree, however, to do the same thing in regard to two 
 other subjects, which were to us of grave and essential im- 
 portance ; so that this became a minor matter. But we were 
 not able to assent to even this modification ; and possibly we 
 may have been criticised for it. We were honest in our judg- 
 ment about it, and I will state the reason of that judgment. 
 
 Congregationalism, as we understand it, is a definite, actual, 
 historical system, which has its rules, and usages, and laws ; 
 which is supposed, believed, by those who live in it and love 
 it, to be based upon and in accordance with the Word of 
 God. It is the function of a Council to come together and 
 testify what Congregationalism is ; not to testify what Con- 
 gregationalism ought to be. That is a question never pre- 
 sented, within my knowledge, to a Congregational Council. 
 It may testify what the customs and rules are ; but it cannot 
 interpret the Word of God, to show that those customs and 
 rules ought to be changed. That is a function which belongs 
 to Councils in the Roman Catholic Church, if anywhere, and 
 not among us. That is a prerogative which threatens the 
 right of private judgment, of individual churches and persons, 
 if Councils shall ever assume it. And when they undertake to 
 enter on the performance of it, the field opened will be found 
 illimitable. 
 
 Suppose, for example, that the Plymouth Church, in this city, 
 were to vote hereafter to hold its services on the seventh day, 
 instead of the first, and to baptize everybody by immersion, 
 as it now baptizes a number, — in other words, were to con- 
 nect itself with the Seventh-day Baptists. It would be legiti- 
 mate to call a Council to ask whether that is in accordance 
 with the order and usage of Congregational churches. But 
 
THE SECOXD QUESTION. 147 
 
 would any Council come together to consider and decide the 
 question whether the views of the Seventh-day Baptists are 
 scriptural and Divine ? 
 
 Suppose an eminent Congregational divine should come to 
 the conclusion, through much study, that when the Lord spoke 
 of everlasting punishment in the Gospel of Matthew he did 
 not mean a punishment " everlasting," in the ordinary sense of 
 that word, but a punishment which, whether it be longer or 
 less, belongs to the life to come ; and that, after preaching in 
 Universalist pulpits for some time, he at last should receive a 
 call from a Universalist society. It would be legitimate to 
 call a Council to consider whether it is in accordance with the 
 order of Congregational churches to install such a minister 
 over such a society ; but would a Council come together to 
 determine the question whether that interpretation of the 
 Lord's word is in harmony with the teachings of Scripture, and 
 with the teachings of the Fathers ? and whether that is sound 
 or unsound which has been written on the subject in modern 
 times ? If it did, it had better bid farewell to its homes and 
 churches ; for it would take its punishment in this life, and 
 that punishment would be as nearly eternal as any thing in 
 this world ever will be. 
 
 We aflEirm, then, that the Question, as presented by us. is the 
 proper question here to be considered ; and that it must be 
 decided by the Council, absolutely, that a member does not 
 terminate his membership by simply absenting himself from 
 the services of the church, into which he was received by a 
 formal covenant, and with which he entered into reciprocal 
 obligations. Unless our whole conception of the matter is 
 untrue, — radically, thoroughly, completely untrue, — that 
 must be decided thus. 
 
 So we come, then, to the second Question : — 
 
 Second: During the voluntary absence of a member from the 
 ordinances, if specific charges, of grossly unchristian conduct, are 
 presented against him by a brother in the church, to which charges 
 he declines to answer, is it in accordance with the order and usage 
 of Congregationalism that the church shall withhold inquiry as to 
 the alleged wickedness, and, in face of such public assertion of his 
 offenses, shall treat him as if still unaccused, dropping his name 
 from its roll "without reflection upon him "? 
 
148 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 You observe, Brethren, that the question is very specific. 
 " During the vohmtary absence of a member : " not when he 
 is out of the country, and cannot appear ; not when he is deadly 
 sick, and cannot appear ; while he is a voluntary absentee. 
 " If specific charges : " not general intimations. " Of grossly 
 unchristian conduct : " not of venial offenses, peccadillos, im- 
 proprieties of manner, occasional lapses ; " grossly unchris- 
 tian conduct : " — acts that show the absence of the spirit of 
 Christ, and the presence of the opposite ; acts which may be 
 criminal even in the eye of human law. "Are presented 
 against him by a brother in the church : " not by public rumor ; 
 not by one outside of the church, and so not responsible to it ; 
 but by a brother in the church. " To which charges he de- 
 clines to answer : " neither affirming nor denying. " Is it in 
 accordance with the order and usage of Congregationalism," 
 then, that the church shall treat him as if not accused, and 
 shall drop his name from its roll without censure .? 
 
 It seems to us a strange thing that this question should need 
 to be asked, and need to be answered, at this day, after so long 
 a development of Congregationalism, in its purity, in the land. 
 But it does require such an answer ; and we trust that you will 
 give this also with emphasis, — will give it, as they say in the 
 French Assembly, " with effusion." 
 
 Of course, neither of our authorized Platforms knows any 
 thing of such a practice. The Cambridge Platform knows 
 nothing of absentees, even : they did not, I suppose, exist in 
 that time. The Boston Platform speaks of the matter in 
 these words : 
 
 " A church-member, removing his residence to another place, 
 does not thereby throw off his responsibility to the church with 
 which he is in covenant. If his removal is permanent, he ought to 
 seek, and unless he is liable to some just censure, — in which case 
 he must be dealt with as an offender, — he has a right to receive, 
 a letter of dismission." 
 
 In one of our letters we copied from a former Manual of 
 Plymouth Church, of 1854. I do not quote it now to show 
 what is the present practice of Plymouth Church, I quote it to 
 show what its views then were, as expressed in its careful and 
 large Manual, seven years after it was organized as a church. 
 
THE SECOxVD, A DISTIXCT QUESTION. 149 
 
 It says that in all large churches, especially in all city churches, 
 where the membership is perpetually changing, it comes to 
 pass, in the course of years, that there are numerous absentees 
 enrolled upon the list of members, whose names are entirely 
 unknown to the active members of the church. 
 
 " It is proper, therefore, that the church from time to time ap- 
 point Committees of Inquiry upon the cases of absentees, or of 
 members who, though residing in our vicinity, are supposed to be 
 living in the neglect of Covenant obligations. ... If, in tlie 
 course of their investigations, the}- find matters worthy of disci- 
 pline, they should act precisely as it is proper for church-members 
 to act in any case where facts requiring the discipline of the 
 church are brought to their knowledge."' 
 
 We suppose that to be the early, the ancient, the general, 
 and the proper conduct of the matter. 
 
 Observe carefully the distinction between this question and 
 any other, and do not let it become confused with any other, 
 in your minds. We do not ask : What shall be done with a 
 man who has been a member of the Congregational Church, 
 who has become converted to the Roman Catholic opinion, 
 and has connected himself with the Roman Catholic Church, 
 but in whom we still discern the spirit of Christ.'^ We do 
 not ask : What shall be done with one who has become a Uni- 
 tarian, and joined a society with which we are not in inter- 
 communion and public fellowship, but in whom we recognize 
 yet the spirit and temper of the Master t We do not ask, 
 even : What shall be done with a man who has become honestly 
 convinced that he entered the church under a mistake, and 
 has never been a regenerated person } We have no quarrel, 
 we raise no issue, with the provision, for example, in the man- 
 ual of the Plymouth Church of Chicago, — achurch which we 
 invited and desired to be present to-day ; whose brilliant pas- 
 tor, and some delegate from whose very earnest membership, 
 we wanted to welcome, representing views sympathetic with 
 those which we oppose, so far as we understand them. We 
 wanted every church ; but most of all we wanted, if there was 
 any distinction, those which were probably opposed to us. We 
 do not, I say, make any issue with this provision : — 
 
 " If any member be convinced that he is not truly regenerated, 
 
150 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 but that he professed religion under self-deception, and shall 
 request a dissolution of his connection with this church, if there 
 be no scandal in his life requiring discipline, his request shall be 
 granted, he having first been duly labored with, by a simple vote 
 declarative of the facts ; which vote shall be publicly announced at 
 the next succeeding Communion season." 
 
 I suppose that that principle may be, to some of you, unfa- 
 miliar, at any rate ; but here, in our question, we raise no issue 
 concerning a case of that kind. We limit it to the case where 
 there is scandal in his life, requiring investigation, and, if it be 
 found that the charge is justified, requiring discipline : can 
 he then be treated as if unaccused } 
 
 We never saw the Manual that allowed it. The only in- 
 strument that has ever been referred to as giving any sanction 
 whatever to such a thing is what is called the " Heads of 
 Agreement," famihar to you, I suppose, which was quoted, 
 with a ludicrous incorrectness, in one of the principal meetings 
 of the Plymouth Church in this city : — 
 
 " It may sometimes come to pass that a church-member, not 
 otherwise scandalous, may sinfully withdraw and divide himself 
 from the communion of the church to which he belongeth ; in 
 which case, when all due means for the reducing him prove ineffect- 
 tual, he having thereby cut himself off from that church's com- 
 munion, the church may justly esteem and declare itself dis- 
 charged of any further inspection over him." 
 
 He must be " not otherwise scandalous." His withdrawing 
 is sinful. " All due means " must have been used to reclaim 
 him. Only when these have proved " ineffectual," can the 
 church declare itself discharged of further inspection over 
 him. And this is included under the head of " Censures." 
 And this is contained in an instrument which never had any 
 general authority among Congregational churches ! To justify 
 such a practice by such a rule — misquoting it, after all — is 
 Uke founding a title to real estate upon an incorrect copy of 
 an insufficient conveyance ; and you can tell us, Mr. Mod- 
 erator [turning to the Associate Moderator] of how much 
 value such an instrument would be. 
 
 It is a dangerous thing, as well as unknown to Congrega- 
 tionalism ; — dangerous, because the man is either innocent or 
 
DISCIPLINE DESIGNED TO EDUCATE. 
 
 151 
 
 guilty. If he be innocent, being still within the jurisdiction 
 of the church, it is the business of the church to investigate 
 the facts, and, finding him innocent, to give him its verdict 
 and vindication, and send him out with no spot upon his name, 
 with his banner high uplifted, and unspotted in the air. And 
 if, on the other hand, he be guilty, it is the business of the 
 church to find that out, and to use all possible means for re- 
 claiming him. For it seems to be strangely forgotten, some- 
 times, that the office of discipline is remedial ; the end of it 
 is reformation, the re-establishment of the offender in his re- 
 lations, not with the church merely, but with God, whose 
 Spirit speaks and works in the church. And the church is 
 false to its duty to the man, derelict to the obligations it sol- 
 emnly took upon itself, unless it find out whether he be 
 guilty, and, if it find him thus, make strenuous and continued 
 effort to reclaim and restore him. 
 
 Whether he is a brilliant and powerful man, or whether he 
 is the humblest man, that is no matter. The soul is that 
 which Christ loved and sought, and suffered for, and the soul 
 is that which the church ought to work for ; and, if it find 
 that its member is guilty, and cannot be reclaimed, after all fit 
 means are earnestly used, then it is to send him out with a 
 verdict of censure on him, — which he has deserved, which he 
 has properly incurred, which he has brought upon himself by 
 his violation of the obligations he was under to the church, 
 and the obligations he was under to God. 
 
 This is for the education of the church. A man is not so 
 much educated by what he hears, as by what he does. It is 
 character revealed in action that trains a man. A church is 
 not educated by hearing splendid sermons. It is educated by 
 working those sermons into practice, and by incorporating 
 them in its life ; by setting itself to hard work, to difficult du- 
 ties, and not shirking things because they are disagreeable. 
 
 It is necessary for the vindication of the church before the 
 world. This Platform says properly, that though vice be tol- 
 erated and even honored in the public community, it may not 
 be tolerated in the Church of Christ. A church has its power 
 by manifestation of its zeal for righteousness ; by showing 
 that the distinction between truth and falsehood, between pu- 
 
152 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 rity and unchastity, between fraud and honesty, is some- 
 thing which it recognizes as important and Divine. So, if it 
 has a guilty member within it, it must try to reclaim him ; 
 finally, failing in that, it must exclude him, with censure, as 
 unrepentant ; for its own training, for its own vindication of 
 its name before the public, and for the honor of Christ, — 
 who taught Timothy to keep himself pure, and not to be par- 
 taker of other men's sin ; who said, by James, that the wisdom 
 which Cometh from above is first pure, then peaceable ; and 
 who, by Paul, commanded the Corinthians to cast out from 
 among them the wicked person. 
 
 We hold that when a man, no matter though he be volun- 
 tarily absent, not having yet sundered his connection with the 
 church, the church not having consented to any such ter- 
 mination of his membership, is accused of specific and gross 
 offenses, by a brother in the church, himself responsible to it 
 if he fails to prove his charges, the church has no right to 
 drop that man " without reflection upon him." It must 
 investigate, to be true to its trust, true to its obligations, to 
 the man, and to the Master. 
 
 And I wish to say one word more ; because there have 
 been rumors stealthily and widely circulated in regard to our 
 churches, — the church of which I am the pastor, and of which 
 I have had the honor and happiness to be the pastor for almost 
 twenty-eight years, — that this has been a common practice 
 with us ; certainly that cases similar to this have occurred 
 among us. I therefore say, here and now, on my responsi- 
 bility as a Christian man and minister, knowing whereof I 
 affirm, and appealing to every member of the church to verify 
 or correct the statement, that no such case has ever occurred 
 among us ; and that no such case, with the rules under which 
 we have lived all these years, ever could occur. 
 
 I suppose it is the experience of every pastor that now and 
 then there come to him intimations concerning and against 
 the Christian character of some of his church-members ; 
 intimations which, in our commercial communities, are very 
 often connected with a man's business affairs. He is unsuc- 
 cessful, has been caught in the grip of some sudden panic, and 
 his property has been wrested from him. Other people feel 
 
DISCIPLINE IN OTHER CHURCHES. 
 
 153 
 
 that he has deceived them, as to his means, resources, credit ; 
 that he has obtained from them more than they would have 
 given had they known the exact facts. Therefore, they are 
 moved to feel that he has been intentionally dishonest ; and 
 they say so. Or, sometimes, such intimations come through 
 family disagreements, or social entanglements, of one sort or 
 another. I have invariably said one thing, in substance : 
 Vague intimations I cannot receive. They pass me as the 
 wind does. I may hear of such some time about you, and I 
 shall not suffer myself to be prejudiced by them against you. 
 If you have any knowledge of facts, which you will put in a 
 specific form, giving dates and names, with facts and witnesses, 
 and present them to me as charges which you are willing to 
 be responsible for to the church, they shall come before the 
 Committee, without a day's delay. They shall be prosecuted 
 to their issue, without fear or favor of any man. 
 
 That has not once failed to be done ; until it came either 
 to excommunication, on the one hand, or to acquittal and vin- 
 dication, on the other. We have no power to drop a man 
 " without reflection upon him." He goes out excommuni- 
 cated ; or he goes out with honorable and affectionate letters 
 of commendation ; or he goes out by withdrawal of watch 
 and discipline, which is a censure of the church, only less 
 than excommunication, but the infliction of which implies no 
 moral blame, no scandalous offense, on the part of him against 
 whom it is issued. A man has sometimes gone to a religious 
 society with which we were not in fellowship, — as has hap- 
 pened in two cases, — for whose character we had respect, in 
 whose character we had a degree of confidence, but who did 
 not go, through change of opinion, into any church with which 
 we were in communion. In one case, where a man went to 
 another church, joining it without giving us notice, without 
 applying for any letter, in a spirit of sudden anger and 
 half-insane hostility against some of the church-members, we 
 did the same thing. Where they have been honest and up- 
 right, and no accusation has been preferred against them, we 
 have simply withdrawn from them watch and discipline ; there 
 being no charge whatever against their moral character. 
 
 I make this statement emphatic. I cover with it the entire 
 
154 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 history of the church. I have no doubt Dr. Budington 
 would make as emphatic a statement in regard to this 
 church. But, after all, this is comparatively unimportant. 
 Even if we had done this thing, which we certainly have not, 
 with our earnest convictions we should ask you to condemn 
 us. And we ask you for an answer to this second Question, 
 which shall be explicit and decisive. 
 
 We come, then, to the third Question : — 
 
 Third : When such a member is charged with having "circulated 
 and promoted scandals derogatory to the Christian integrity of the 
 Pastor, and injurious to the reputation of the church," if he be pub- 
 licly released, by the church which he confronts, without examina- 
 tion of the facts and without censure, from all further responsibility 
 to it, has the rule of Christ in the xviiith chapter of Matthew, con- 
 cerning the treatment of a trespassing brother, as commonly 
 administered in Congregational churches, been maintained .? or is 
 it distinctly disregarded, in a case which called for its careful ob- 
 servance ? " 
 
 In this question you observe a specific offense is pointed 
 out, that we may know from you your judgment as to whether 
 that particular offense is one that ought to come under the 
 cognizance, and, if it be proved, under the condemnation, of 
 the Church of Christ. 
 
 It has been sometimes said that, while it would be admitted 
 that a member of the church who should assail another with 
 personal slanders ought to be brought before the tribunal for 
 investigation, and for the adjudication of the case, when a 
 member of the church makes statements concerning the 
 pastor of the church itself, it is the business of the pastor 
 alone to make any complaint, and no member of the church 
 has a right to interpose if the pastor does not take up the 
 case ; that it is not a personal offense, in any proper sense, 
 in any such sense as brings it within the ordinary administra- 
 tion of church discipline. And that is the question which 
 you are asked to consider. 
 
 We hold that it is ; that it is not merely an offense, that it 
 is one of the gravest of offenses, to utter statements scandal- 
 ous in their nature, and having no justification, against the 
 character of a minister in Christ, who is established in the 
 
SLAiVDEHS AGAINST PA.', rOA' DEMAND DISCIPLINE. 155 
 
 pastorate of a numerous congregation. It is to strike at the 
 life of the Gospel there. It is to put a hand upon its influ- 
 ence, to limit it. It is to put a hand upon infidelity there, to 
 invigorate it. It is to lay its hand upon Christ himself, so far 
 as He is represented in his ministers, and to hold Him back 
 from his kingly march along the earth. 
 
 We hold it to be one of the gravest of all possible offenses, — 
 an offense which shows, if it be committed, one of the worst 
 of tempers ; an offense which works more widely for mischief 
 than almost any other that can be committed by any member 
 of any church. We hold that, as concerning the humblest 
 pastor of the humblest congregation, where men meet to- 
 gether to worship God ; for the usefulness of that pastor 
 depends upon his character, and upon their confidence in his 
 character. If that confidence be diminished, or destroyed, his 
 influence for good is thereby checked or killed. The ermine 
 is said to die if its fur be soiled, with a stain which sticks to 
 it. The minister's usefulness dies, if his name be clouded 
 with a suspicion, started by the scandal which some one has 
 circulated, and which is not afterward and utterly thrown off. 
 And the most transcendent abilities, the most eminent genias, 
 cannot accomplish the work of usefulness and of divine ser- 
 vice which is due from them, and glorious to them, if there 
 be any ultimate suspicion left upon the name. 
 
 And if those statements be made concerning one so 
 eminent in the pulpit that his words go everywhere, on the 
 wings of the press ; are read everywhere with admiring love 
 and with responsive enthusiasm, — by the invalid in the sick- 
 chamber, by the merchant in his counting-room, by the opera- 
 tives in the factory, by the legislators in the halls of Congress, 
 by the gatherings of men upon the remote frontier, — then we 
 count that offense, the circulating of scandals unjustified 
 against such a name, an offense against every invalid, and 
 every merchant, and every frontiersman, to whom the unblem- 
 ished name and fame of that minister are dear, and to whose 
 welcoming hearts his words bring their ministry of consola- 
 tion and of strength. 
 
 If his name be known wherever the English tongue is 
 spoken, it is an offense against Christendom. It is the crime 
 
156 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 de Lhe-maJesU ; an offense against sovereign abilities and 
 renown. It is an offense that strikes more directly at the 
 life of the Gospel in the world than any other which it comes 
 within man's reach to commit. It is a public offense ; and 
 the humblest member of the church in which it has been 
 committed has right not only, but is under the highest pos- 
 sible obligation, to complain, to formulate charges, to urge 
 charges, to prosecute charges, and to demand that the church 
 which has the jurisdiction of the case shall not let the offender 
 go beyond its reach until he has shown himself innocent, or 
 has repented in dust and ashes. 
 
 Brethren, it is more than setting the torch to the Ephesian 
 dome. It is striking at the essential soul-life of multitudes of 
 men and women throughout Christendom. And if that is 
 not an offense of which church-members may complain, — if 
 that is not an offense of which the church should take cog- 
 nizance, — then the member who deliberately shoots his min- 
 ister dead at the communion-table may as well be sent out 
 " without reflection upon him ! " 
 
 The fourth Question is : — 
 
 Fourth : Was the action of the Plj-mouth Church, in the case of 
 discipline issued by it Oct. 31, 1873, as presented in the published 
 documents, in accordance with the order and usage of Congrega- 
 tional churches .-' Or was it an apparent departure from these, 
 tending, in the circumstances, to injure and offend other churches 
 in fellowship, and warranting apprehension and remonstrance on 
 our part ? 
 
 What was that action .-• The published documents which 
 are referred to will be found in the pamphlet, from pages 22 to 
 26.* You observe that we do not ask you for a final judicial 
 judgment concerning the Plymouth Church. We ask whether 
 there was so much appearance of a departure from the ordi- 
 nary custom and rule of Congregational churches as, under the 
 circumstances, justified us in remonstrating ; and that is all 
 that we ask. What was the action, then, as it appears in these 
 documents .^ 
 
 The first of these was published, you will notice, by the 
 member himself, accused of the offenses, in the paper which 
 
 * Pp. 23 to 26, of this volume. 
 
NATURE OF THE ACTION, IN PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 
 
 Kl 
 
 he edits and owns. The second of them was pubHshed by 
 the pastor, in the paper which he edits and controls. The 
 third is the card of the Clerk of Plymouth Church, published 
 in the New York Sun. We have evidence, if it be needful, 
 that these are the authentic and exact documents. The action, 
 then, will be found in the final Resolution adopted by the 
 church, on the 25th page: "Resolved, That this Committee 
 
 recommend to the church that the name of be dropped 
 
 from the roll of membership of the church, as provided by 
 Rule No. 7 of the Manual." Rule No. 7 is quoted in the next 
 document, and is quoted correctly : — 
 
 " Members may be dropped from the roll of the church, with or 
 without notice to them, as may be deemed just, by a two-thirds 
 vote of the church, upon the recommendation of the Examining 
 Committee, either upon their own application, or, in case they 
 have abandoned their connection with the church by prolonged 
 absence or otherwise, upon the application of any other person." 
 
 It does not appear from the report of the Examining Com- 
 mittee that any application had been made by the member 
 referred to, to be dropped, or that any application had been 
 made on his behalf, by any other person, to the same effect. 
 But this may have been. It would, at any rate, be only a for- 
 mal departure from the rule. It does appear, from the Report 
 which precedes this Resolution, and upon which the Resolu- 
 tion is founded, that charges had been made against this gen- 
 tleman, by a brother in the church, — the charge itself showing, 
 in the expression " a member of this church," that he who 
 presented it, as well as he against whom it was brought, was 
 within the membership. It appears that these charges had 
 been sent to the member accused, on the 6th of October ; that 
 he had replied that he did not consider himself a member of 
 the church, and had not been for nearly four years an attend- 
 ant of it, that the pastor did not consider him a member, and 
 that he did not hold himself amenable to its jurisdiction ; that 
 the Examining Committee did not receive that reply as a bar 
 to further proceedings, and a sufficient answer, but again sent 
 to him the charges, in writing, with a notification of the time 
 at which they desired that he should make answer to the 
 same ; that he did make such answer, repeating what he had 
 
IS8 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 said before, — that it was nearly or about four years since he 
 had terminated his connection with the church, and, therefore, 
 the document addressed to him as a church-member he could 
 not receive. 
 
 Then it appears that, without further investigation of these 
 charges, and without any subsequent communication with 
 him, so far as is here shown, the Committee recommended, 
 and the church adopted that recommendation by a two-thirds 
 vote, that he be dropped from the roll. 
 
 It further appears, from the charge itself, which is upon the 
 23d page,* that it alleged his "having circulated and promoted 
 scandals, derogatory to the Christian integrity of the pastor, 
 and injurious to the reputation of the church." They were 
 statements not as to the pastor's manner, not as to his modes 
 of speech, not as to any thing concerning the externals of his 
 life, but as to his " Christian integrity," and, therefore, " in- 
 jurious to the reputation of the church." It appears that 
 these alleged statements were such that the member control- 
 ling the paper in which the charge was printed, did not feel at 
 liberty to give, from motives of proper delicacy, any currency 
 to the specifications. 
 
 These things appear in the published documents ; and we 
 are not dependent upon other evidence, or upon newspaper 
 report, for any of these facts. Then it appears, from the card 
 of the Clerk, — an official card, written the next day, and pub- 
 hshed two days afterward, — that the name of the member so 
 specifically and so seriously accused, was, " in accordance with 
 the facts, with the rule, and without reflection upon him, taken 
 from the roll." 
 
 These are the facts, which plainly, and in their successive 
 order, appear, from these widely published documents : that 
 a member of the church, absent from its services, but not as 
 yet released from his connection with it by the church, was 
 accused by another member of having committed this grave 
 offense ; that he neither afl!irmed nor denied in regard to it ; 
 that, when called upon finally to answer to the charges, he still 
 neither denied nor affirmed ; and that at last his name was 
 
 * P. 23, of this volume. 
 
THE ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES. 
 
 '59 
 
 dropped from the roll, under the rule as it is said, by a two- 
 thirds vote, and " without reflection upon him." 
 
 We were startled and surprised by these extraordinary 
 facts. It seemed to us that the case came properly under 
 the legitimate and necessary operation of those principles 
 which I have already been discussing, and our conception con- 
 cerning which I have aimed freely, frankly, simply, fully, to 
 set before you. It seemed to us, that, if the member accused 
 was innocent, it should be made to appear, and his name be 
 freed from all complication or suspicion of the offense. If 
 he was guilt}-, it should be equally made to appear ; and if he 
 could be reclaimed, and brought to repentance, he should be 
 thus restored to fellowship with the church, and with the 
 Master ; and, if he could not be, he should be shown not to 
 be worthy of a place in the Church of Christ, against which 
 he had been sinning, if what was alleged was true, so seri- 
 ously, so certainly, and so long. This was the way it seemed 
 to us ; and that the very last and worst thing to be done was 
 to drop his name without any reflection upon him, in the face 
 of these charges, not withdrawn, not explained, and not even 
 denied. 
 
 If the Committee had said, "The charges are frivolous," 
 that would have been right. If the Committee had said, 
 " The charges are not proven," that would have been right ; 
 provided the facts were so, the action based on them would 
 have been right. If they had said, " We cannot get evi- 
 dence ; " if they had said, " The man is insane ; " that would 
 have been right. But they received the charges, sent them to 
 him, heard his answer, sent them back, requiring a further an- 
 swer ; received his repetition of his former reply ; and then ter- 
 minated the case by their Report adopted by the church : — 
 leaving the accused without vindication ; leaving, as we 
 thought, the honor of the church in danger of being deeply 
 stained. 
 
 In the circumstances, this seemed to us to warrant appre- 
 hension and remonstrance on our part. What were the cir- 
 cumstances } I shall not refer at all to any matters of private 
 scandal and personal gossip which went on in the streets, and 
 on the ferry-boats, and over the country, as I suppose and 
 
l6o THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 have been told, and which makes our passage through a good 
 many months, preceding that 31st of October, to be remem- 
 bered as one might remember a journey through a valley full 
 of grinning skulls and horrid stenches. I shall not refer to 
 that. I banish it from recollection ; and have only to speak 
 of circumstances which are as patent as the highway, as indis- 
 putable as the earth. 
 
 The first of them is, that a long, circumstantial, defamatory 
 statement, concerning the pastor of the Plymouth Church, 
 was published in a certain newspaper in New York, in Novem- 
 ber of 1872 ; the authority for the statements therein con- 
 tained being attributed to this member of Plymouth Church. 
 I accept the statements as absolutely false. What I affirm 
 before you is the fact of their publication ; and nothing else. 
 
 The second circumstance is, that no denial of his authority 
 having been given for these statements was made by the mem- 
 ber to whom reference had been made. Such a denial would 
 have ended the matter, instantaneously. 
 
 The third circumstance is, that two months after, there came 
 from him a letter, published in the newspapers, in which he 
 spoke of the necessity of telling the true story, if he should 
 deny the false, and adding that when the truth was a sword, 
 God's mercy commanded it to be sheathed ; with other 
 remarks to the same effect, which I will not quote. 
 
 The fourth circumstance is, that out of this preceding train 
 of events there arose wide concern and alarm among the 
 multitudes of fervent, enthusiastic admirers of him whose 
 genius had so long made the pulpit of that church famous, 
 and whose influence had been so great a power for the further- 
 ance of the truth and of liberty, in this land and in others ; 
 an alarm which was represented by articles in leading papers ; 
 particularly, perhaps, by articles in the leading religious paper 
 of the "West, of our denomination, published in Chicago, to 
 which I will not further refer. 
 
 The question arose in many minds : What can all this 
 mean } It was perhaps still further urged upon many by the 
 appearance of an article in the newspaper owned and edited 
 by this member of Plymouth Church, in the month of April 
 of last year, in which it was said of Mr. Beecher : — 
 
THE CHARGES PRESENTED. l6i 
 
 " He is an instance of a man who, seeking to save his life, is losing 
 it. Long acknowlegecl as the most brilliant popular preacher in the 
 country, a compliment which nobody not in any sect begrudges him, 
 but cheerfully pays, he is, nevertheless, year by year, declining 
 in moral weight, not only with the church, but in the community 
 at large. To think one thing and say another, to hold one philoso- 
 phy in public and another in private, to offer one morality to the 
 multitude and keep another for one's self, is a degradation to no 
 man so much as to a minister, and a blot upon nothing so much 
 as upon religion." 
 
 I do not know whose pen traced the lines. I know that 
 they appeared, as I have stated ; and I know that the impres- 
 sion made by them was sharp and painful. 
 
 What did it all mean } That it did not mean that Mr. 
 Beecher was guilty of the offenses charged against him, in the 
 original scandalous statement, was made plainly to appear by 
 a card from him, published in a Brooklyn newspaper, widely 
 circulated, on the 30th of June of last year, in which he pro- 
 nounced the stories that had been circulating concerning him 
 grossly untrue, and stamped them as utterly false, and with- 
 out foundation. I may not have given the words exactly ; 
 but that is not important. That was the substance of his 
 statement ; which carried relief, unquestionably, to multitudes 
 of minds, and which brought him into direct antagonism with 
 all these stories which had been circulating concerning him ; 
 which afhrmed the circulation of these stories, now stamped 
 by him whom they concerned as utterly and absolutely false, 
 a crime against the truth, of the grossest kind, as well as a 
 crime against the purity of manners and of speech. 
 
 After that card, these charges were presented to the church ; 
 by a member of the church, who professed to be moved by so 
 strong an impulse that he felt it was from the Spirit of God. 
 He must vindicate his pastor ; he must vindicate his church. 
 He asked no advice ; he would take no advice to the con- 
 trary, from anybody. A respectable member of the church, 
 formerly one of its officers, of unblemished character himself, 
 he was moved to this office by that strong inward impulse, 
 without suggestion from any one else. 
 
 This train of circumstances, then, had preceded ; and now 
 we advance to the action of the Committee, sending the 
 
1 62 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 charges ; then to the fact that the member who was accused 
 of this offense had been recognized up to that time as a mem- 
 ber of the church — I will speak of that more at length in a 
 moment ; then to the fact that he was present himself in the 
 final church-meeting, and offered to answer to any charge, 
 not of having circulated scandalous statements, but of having 
 slandered the pastor. 
 
 All these circumstances together, coming one after another, 
 seemed to us to make that action not only contrary to the 
 usual custom and rule of Congregational churches, but such 
 an action as would be fruitful of mischief, as we felt, to the 
 church itself, to the pastor, who had declared his innocence, 
 and to all the churches neighboring and in fellowship. 
 
 But here the question arises : Was the member dropped } 
 or was it a mere clerical correction of the roll, recognizing 
 the termination of a membership which had absolutely 
 terminated four years before .? Of course much light will 
 be shed upon this question by the answer which you shall give 
 to the first of those which we have presented in our Letter- 
 Missive. 
 
 In our particular answer to it, all that we need say, or 
 nearly all, is derived from the Manual of the church itself. 
 Its Covenant seems to contemplate a more permanent relation- 
 ship of the member than would be one terminable by his own 
 volition, expressed by nothing but his absence. Its rule in 
 regard to the Dismission of members is this : " It is expected 
 that members, on removing from the city, or to other churches 
 in the city" — will what.? — will notify the clerk that their 
 membership with us has ceased t — " will ask for letters of 
 dismission and recommendation ; " as members, of course. 
 " A request for such a letter may be announced at the weekly 
 prayer meeting. If no objection is made to the clerk, he 
 must issue a letter accordingly, and strike the name of the 
 member dismissed from the roll of the church." Dismissed 
 when the letter is issued ; but not before. " If objection is 
 made, the matter must be submitted to the Examining Com- 
 mittee." Why ? If- the member, in consequence of his re- 
 moval from the city, perhaps months before, is out of their 
 jurisdiction, what have they to do with him } Clearly, in the 
 
THE ACCUSED A MEMBER OF PLYMOUTH CHURCH. 163 
 
 contemplation of this Rule, in spite of his removal, he is within 
 the jurisdiction still. 
 
 Observe, also, Rule 7 : " Members may be dropped." Mem- 
 bers may be dropped ! Not, " members terminating their 
 membership, by absence, may have their names erased from 
 the roll." " Members may be dropped, with or without notice, 
 by a two-thirds vote of the church." Suppose it is only a 
 majority vote.' — they continue Members, not dropped. 
 
 It seemed palpable, to us inevitable, that in the contempla- 
 tion of this Manual, in the contemplation of the Examining 
 Committee, who had once and again sent these charges, in the 
 contemplation of all the precedents and principles of Congre- 
 gationalism, this member, accused of having circulated these 
 statements, which the pastor, over his own signature, had de- 
 nounced as utterly, grossly untrue, and stamped as false, was 
 still a member of that church. 
 
 And there was a witness concerning it which appeared en- 
 tirely unimpeachable. It was the witness of the pastor him- 
 self, who, writing in April, 1872, concerning two gentlemen, 
 members of that church, of whom this was one, said : " If I 
 have said any thing injurious to the reputation of either, or 
 have detracted from their standing and fame as Christian 
 gentlemen, and members of my church, I revoke it all." That 
 was written in April, 1872. If this membership had terminated 
 at all, until the church terminated it, it had terminated four 
 years before, at the end of 1 869 ; and the testimony of the 
 Pastor should certainly be received as showing, at least, his 
 personal conviction at that subsequent point of time. 
 
 It was represented to us as well, — we will present, if it is 
 wished, evidence for the truth of the representation, to the 
 Council, — that two years after this member had withdrawn 
 from Plymouth Church, and ceased to cross its threshold, the 
 Examining Committee had sent a sub-committee to him, to 
 confer with him about the continuance of his relations ; that 
 three years aftei*, they had sent another. They treated him as 
 a member to the very last ; and we felt that he was a member, 
 accused of as grave an offense as could well be alleged against 
 any man, brought, properly, as a member, before the jurisdic- 
 tion of that church, and then left to depart from it, without 
 
1 64 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 investigation, and without censure. And it seemed to us, 
 that, by such extraordinary action as that, all the ends of dis- 
 cipline were sacrificed. 
 
 There was one thing shown, and that was all. And that 
 was noble, that was superb. It was the magnificent loyalty of 
 that church to its pastor, — a loyalty which he had deserved 
 by twenty-five years of faithful service, splendid ancf eminent, 
 in it, and in the land ; a loyalty that was most honorable to it, 
 for the affectionate and chivalrous qualities from which it 
 sprang, and which it revealed. That was shown. I honored 
 the church before. I honored it for its great and noble Chris- 
 tian work, in many departments and many directions of Chris- 
 tian effort. I honored it for the sweet and saintly souls that 
 are within it. I honored and I loved it, for the friends of my 
 own, friends of almost thirty years, who are members of it, 
 who now look on me, no doubt, with disfavor, perhaps with a 
 hostility which I in no degree reciprocate ; from whom I will 
 not be divided, by any change within myself, while life con- 
 tinues. But I never honored the church so much as for that 
 splendid outburst of loyalty to its pastor. But that was all 
 that was shown. 
 
 It has been said that the minister had vindicated his own 
 name fully, perfectly, already. Let it be admitted that that 
 had been done, for all fair and sympathetic minds. It would 
 have done no harm, after that, to have had the further and 
 final vindication of a judicial verdict from the church, against 
 the member who was alleged, and provided he was proved, to 
 have uttered the calumnies. It would have saved the pastor 
 from assaults and stings which come against him now, when- 
 ever a paper in the interest of the liquor-seller, in the interest 
 of a political party opposed to him, feels itself moved to strike 
 him with its stab. It would have done that, though it were 
 not needful for fair minds, certainly for sympathetic minds. 
 It would have done no harm ; and would have gone into history 
 forever, with honor to the church 
 
 But every thing else was sacrificed. The ascertainment of 
 innocence or guilt, the apportionment of blame, the reclamav 
 tion of the sinful, the punishment of the guilty, the assertion 
 by the church of the governing authority of righteousness 
 
THE FIFTH QUESTION. 165 
 
 and truth, the vindication of the honor of the Master, — all 
 were sacrificed. We felt that a stigma had come upon the 
 name of Congregationalism itself. We felt that our churches 
 would be considered as in the habit of adopting the same 
 principles, and applying them in like manner, in their own 
 practice. We felt that the great interests of purity and truth 
 in the world were not maintained and advanced, but were 
 lowered and hindered, by that action. And, therefore, we 
 remonstrated. Our question with you is, whether we were 
 not justified in remonstrating.? 
 
 We wrote earnestly, because we felt strongly. We wrote 
 earnestly, because we thought our constant Christian friend- 
 ship, of so many years, gave us a right to write with earnest- 
 ness. Were we not justified in remonstrating against action 
 like this, involving principles like these .'' If you decide that 
 we were not, tell us so frankly, and we will do the best we can 
 to take back our fault. If you decide that we were not, we 
 shall know, at any rate, what privileges Congregational 
 churches do not possess. And if you say, that in front of that 
 case, signal as it was, prominent, startling, involving all these 
 principles, throwing this shadow on ourselves, threatening 
 the fame of every similar church in the city, we had no right 
 to make remonstrance and protest, because we were in fellow- 
 ship with that church, — then I knov/ this : that never again, 
 so long as life continues, shall I give the Right Hand of Fel- 
 lowship to any church, or be in a Council which gives the 
 Right Hand of Fellowship to any church, till I have been 
 permitted to share the omniscience of God Himself as to 
 what that church will do, to the end of my life on earth, 
 and as long as the church which I represent continues to 
 exist ! 
 
 We come now to the fifth and last Question on which I am 
 to speak. 
 
 Fifth : In view of the aforesaid action of Plymouth Church, 
 and of the fact that this is maintained as in accordance with its 
 customary policy, what is the duty, concerning that church, of the 
 churches calling this Council ? P>specially, what is their duty in 
 regard to continuing in their fellowship with it ? 
 
 It is so maintained, as you will observe, as in accordance 
 
1 66 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 with their customary policy. It is said to have occurred in the 
 orderly, proper, customary operation and administration of 
 Rule No. 7, of the Church. That is distinctly afhrmed in 
 the card of the Clerk, which follows the report of the Com- 
 mittee, and the action of the church. The case has never 
 been referred to in any document which I have seen, represent- 
 ing the mind of the members of Plymouth Church, as in any 
 degree an exceptional case. If such representation has been 
 made, I am not aware of it. The arguments which were pre- 
 sented in the church-meetings, at which the action was 
 adopted and was afterward defended, all contemplated it as 
 natural, normal, a customary incident of the administration 
 of the usual rule and law of the church. 
 
 The same principle has been subsequently applied, as I 
 have said, in the case of the resignation of one of the Dea- 
 cons, an honored and useful officer of the church. Plymouth 
 Church, I believe, takes the ground that this is the right and 
 proper thing for it to do, in accordance with its own sense of 
 Christian propriety and duty ; in accordance with its own rule ; 
 and that there was nothing whatever unusual or exceptional 
 in this case which has been brought before us. It simply 
 exhibits the preferred and permanent policy of the church. 
 
 Now the question is as to continuing, what is our duty as 
 to continuing, in our fellowship with it .'' — not the fellowship 
 which we have with Baptists and Methodists, excellent Chris- 
 tian brethren, whom we respect, and with whom we are in kindly 
 relations, of common work and common hope, but who are in 
 no sense responsible for us, and for whom we are in no sense 
 responsible. Our peculiar fellowship with Plymouth Church 
 is one, as we understand it, of denominational alliance ; of 
 mutual responsibility ; of common responsibility before the 
 public. It is that more intimate fellowship which is referred 
 to in the Platform, as the more intimate communion exercised 
 in asking and giving counsel, in giving and receiving admoni- 
 tion, and in other related offices. What is our duty in regard 
 to continuing in this peculiar, denominational, intimate, respon- 
 sible fellowship with Plymouth Church ">. 
 
 We feel, Brethren, that, unless we have the right to remon- 
 strate against what seems to us wrong in that church, we 
 
CONGREGA TIONALISM CONDEMNED, WITHOUT AD VICE. 167 
 
 must in some way be extricated from our relations of mutual 
 responsibility to it, and with it, before the public. We have 
 not the least desire to cloud its reputation, or hinder its use- 
 fulness, or diminish its numbers. Let it go on and build 
 larger structures, and gather in more numerous audiences, — 
 more admiring and attentive it cannot gather. Let it break 
 forth and spread on every side. But when it does an act like 
 this, adopts a policy destructive as this, we feel that we, dwell- 
 ing near it, in this public fellowship and intimate communion, 
 must be released from all the responsibility. Our churches 
 have been steadily, for five months, working toward that 
 result. We shall wish this church God-speed ; we shall 
 heartily rejoice in their prosperity. But we cannot be, as we 
 feel now, in public and permanent fellowship with them, and 
 be liable at the same time to have every remonstrance urged 
 by us, on behalf of principles which to us are vital and organ- 
 ific, resented as an intermeddling and an offense. 
 
 Therefore we have asked you, from different and distant 
 parts of the land, to meet us here, and hear our case, and then 
 to advise us what to do. We are sorry that that advice should 
 imply, in the mind of anybody, censure upon Plymouth Church. 
 We can't help that. We do not ask you for that censure. 
 We ask you for advice to iis ; and we ask for that advice upon 
 a presentation of the facts which we are able to make but very 
 imperfectly, which we could have made far more perfectly if 
 we had had the opportunity to ask some questions of the 
 representatives of that church, on the floor of this Council. In 
 some way or other, it seems to us we must be extricated, — 
 extricated speedily, easily, and without any further vehement 
 and protracted contest. We have not time enough to carry 
 on such a contest. The Master summons us to work while 
 the day lasts ; and as the day now drawing to its end is dark- 
 ening on the earth, the other day, we know, is darkening over 
 some of us. We have not other months and years to give to 
 such a discussion as this, strenuous, prolonged, painful, tear- 
 ing our very hearts asunder, sometimes. We must be able to 
 to be out of this more easily. 
 
 If not, Congregationalism is condemned. If not, men will 
 say this Congregational fellowship is the strangest force on 
 
1 68 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 earth ! It does not hinder a ipan from preaching what he 
 likes, whether it be the Calvinism of his fathers, or its exact 
 opposite. It does not hinder a man from inviting to his com- 
 munion Universahsts, Unitarians, Quakers, and CathoHcs. 
 But when any church desires to be extricated from it, any 
 church which had never shown any thing but friendship up to 
 that point, the reflections thrown upon that church are like 
 the pelting of ice-pellets in a winter hail-storm. A member 
 accused of gravest offenses against the pastor, against the 
 church, goes out of that church, whose reputation he is alleged 
 to have injured, whose tenderest feelings to have outraged, 
 " without reflection upon him." We, who had never uttered 
 an insinuation against that pastor, whose lips would have been 
 blistered if it had passed them, standing afterward to main tain 
 principles which to us are vital, have " reflections " raining 
 upon us thick as snow-flakes, and stinging as Indian arrows. 
 Luckily our armor is steel-plated, and they have neither stung 
 nor hurt. But we must be out of this. Why, it is like Victor 
 Hugo's devil-fish, — cold, but clinging; and it sucks a man 
 down, and holds him fast, and pulls him in, whether he will or 
 no. 
 
 Brethren, we were said, here this morning, by the accom- 
 plished reader of the document from Plymouth Church, to 
 hav« threatened you. Exactly as much as we threatened our- 
 selves ! We said we were afraid that missionary societies 
 would suffer ; they are our societies, as much as yours. We 
 were afraid that churches would leave our communion. We 
 were afraid for our own sakes ; and we did not threaten you, 
 or anybody. We were afraid for the Congregationalism which 
 our fathers brought hither. 
 
 We have heard much of the power of the Plymouth Church. 
 It is a great, energetic, wealthy, powerful, resolute society, 
 with immense force in the city and in the land ; which has 
 used its force for the most part nobly, for the country and for 
 the Lord. We have heard much of the great services of Mr. 
 Beecher, to the cause of the land, and the dearer and grander 
 . cause of Christ. We feel it all, Brethren. I think of that 
 church as I have loved it, and my heart bleeds as I ask you to 
 show me what my church shall now and henceforth do con- 
 
LET THE SYSTEM BE RE-AFFIRMED. 169 
 
 cerning it. I think of him whom I loved so long, who buried 
 my child, whose children I have helped to bury, — of all the 
 fond love and admiration of the vanished years, — and I vow 
 within myself, with a vow that shall not be broken, that if my 
 hand shall ever add, intentionally and of malice, any sorrow to 
 that whitening head as it journeys toward the grave, that hand 
 may wither at my side ! 
 
 But there comes before me another form, grander and 
 mightier than that of Plymouth Church, clothed upon with 
 more consecrated memories than its minister. It is the 
 august and venerated form of that Congregationalism which our 
 fathers brought hither ; which our ancestors preached, and 
 loved, and served, two centuries and a half ago ; which my per- 
 sonal ancestors in this country have preached and served for 
 two hundred and forty years upon these shores, since Richard 
 Mather left the English Church to become the pastor of the 
 Congregational church in Dorchester. It has spread across 
 the land. Its hands have everywhere been clad with might, 
 and brimmed with blessing. It has made the wildernesses 
 blossom into Christian commonwealths. I carried to the 
 grave, last summer, the form of one who for sixty years had 
 loved it, preached it, and maintained it, and who had taught it 
 unto me, — from whom my life had come. Its power to him 
 was in its purity ; its glory to him was in its discipline within 
 the church, and in its fellowship of the churches. Let us 
 maintain the glory, and vindicate the purity, of that venerated 
 form of Congregational polity, if it be, as I believe it, living 
 still. If, like him from whom I learned it, it has fallen feeble, 
 and finally lifeless, let us carry it to its grave, and carry it 
 here, — we never shall have a grander funeral assembly ! — and 
 bury it, with tearful eyes and aching hearts. But if it be 
 living and strong as ever, ancient as the Gospel, living as the 
 Master, mighty as the Truth, let us here declare and re-affirm 
 it, and give it new impulse for its mighty advance, across the 
 land, around the world ! 
 
 Council adjourned until 8 p.m. 
 
FOURTH SESSION — MARCH 25. 
 
 Council convened at 8 p.m., and was opened by singing. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stearns of Amherst College, Mass., offered prayer. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Budington addressed the Council, as follows : — 
 
 Fathers and Brethren : — I do not know that I ever rose 
 to address my fellow Christians and my fellow ministers, 
 under circumstances that at all compare with these, as to the 
 power they have to awaken my sense of responsibility. I 
 commend myself in Christian faith to the guidance of Him, 
 who we trust is in the midst of us to-night. I remember the 
 somewhat similar circumstances in which I was placed some 
 months ago, when it was given me to follow the brother who 
 has preceded me, to-day, in addressing you. On that occasion, 
 he gave utterance to the feelings of his heart, and the gathered 
 memories of many years, in the admiration, and love he 
 bore to his friend of a quarter of a century, the son of the 
 friend of his own revered father ; and when that magnificent 
 tribute of Christian and ministerial friendship was ended, I 
 remember how impossible it was to proceed : and now I can- 
 not but think how impossible it would have been for me to 
 obey your mandate, had the Resolution passed, summoning me 
 to. address you at the close of that speech. I thank you for 
 sparing me the trial which would then have befallen me. 
 
 And now that I rise to speak, I beg you to bear in mind, 
 what has been repeated more than once, the delicacy of the 
 subjects upon which we are called to speak ; and I ask you, 
 brethren, to relieve me from anxiety with regard to the words 
 I shall employ. Once for all, I commit myself to your charita- 
 ble construction, assuring you that I have nothing to keep 
 back, and nothing whatever to communicate having any per- 
 sonal bearing. I have nothing to do with the guilt or inno- 
 cence of any person whose name has come before you in 
 connection with church discipline. I am only concerned for 
 those principles which are involved in that history ; and I 
 stand here to-night in behalf of them, identifying myself with 
 them if I may do so, and asking you to receive what I say, 
 as bearing singly and alone upon the exposition of the princi- 
 
THE SIXTH QUESTION. 171 
 
 pies underlying the practices of which we are to speak. 
 Indeed, Brethren, if we, of these churches, have not been iden- 
 tifying ourselves with Congregationalism, then the advice 
 that we ask from you must be a censure ; for we have 
 felt from the beginning that we had no mission whatsoever 
 in this matter, unless we were sent for the conservation 
 of principles underlying the constitution of the Christian 
 Church, and inseparable from its triumph in ages to come. I 
 will not deny, that, when we began this history, we were fore- 
 warned that we must expect opposition and misrepresentation ; 
 we were even told that we must expect schism and alienation 
 in the midst of our own churches ; and we have found it so. 
 Had I known at the outset all that I know now, I will not say 
 that my fortitude, as I confronted the difficulties of my posi- 
 tion, would have been adequate ; but to-night I give thanks 
 to God that I did not know the future, that I ventured into 
 it under the guidance alone of loyalty to Christ, and adherence 
 to the principles I have received from Christ through the 
 fathers that have gone before me. 
 
 I shall endeavor, in presenting what remains of the case, to 
 be as brief as I possibly can be ; and I will therefore proceed 
 at once to ask your attention to the next Question, — the sixth 
 in order, upon which we ask your advice. This Question 
 reads as follows : — 
 
 Sixth : In view of the Resolution adopted by the Plymouth 
 Church, Dec. 5, 1873, in which its rules are interpreted publicly, and 
 with authority, " as relieving all other churches from responsibility 
 for the Doctrine, Order, and Discipline of this church, and this 
 church, from all responsibility for those of other churches," what 
 is the duty, concerning that church, of the churches calling this 
 Council ? Especially, what action, if any, should they take to 
 release themselves from the mutually responsible connection with 
 it, in which they have stood before the Christian public ? 
 
 You know where to find these Resolutions. They were 
 referred to this afternoon, and they are two in number. The 
 first of them reiterates the principles contained in Rules i 
 and 2 of the Manual, and affirms the fundamental principles 
 of the Congregational polity, which are these two, — so funda- 
 mental that they may be called the two poles upon which the 
 
172 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 system revolves, — the independence of the local church and 
 the fellowship of the churches with one another. These prin- 
 ciples are common to all our churches ; and the language in 
 which they are expressed is, in this instance, almost identical 
 with the language you will find currently used in all our Man- 
 uals. The independence does not exclude the fellowship ; nor, 
 again, the fellowship the independence. Independence denies 
 authority, outside of the local church, to govern and call to 
 account ; it does not share constitutional self-government 
 with any body of men outside of those who constitute the 
 local church ; and in this respect the Congregational churches 
 differ from those under the Presbyterian and Episcopal gov- 
 ernment. The fellowship of the churches, on the other hand, 
 is as real and absolute in its sphere, which is distinct from, 
 and in perfect accordance with, the independence of the local 
 church, being absolutely voluntary, prescribing simply the 
 way in which the churches use their liberty, and in no sense 
 an abridgment, much less a transference of liberty. There 
 is, therefore, no objection to the language of these Resolutions 
 referred to in this sixth question, so far as the reiteration of 
 Rules I and 2 of the Plymouth Manual is concerned. 
 
 But when we come to the second part of these Resolutions, 
 — that which afftrms an interpretation of them, — we at once 
 reach another language, and we find that interpretation putting 
 a sense upon these rules which utterly destroys the fellowship 
 of our churches, and changes Congregationalism into an 
 Independency that disowns and repels fellowship. You will 
 remember that this Resolution was passed in connection with 
 the reception of our letter of admonition. It was passed 
 specifically, to use the language of the Preamble, " that the 
 relations of Plymouth Church with other churches should be 
 clearly understood." It is, therefore, a public and authoritative 
 interpretation of the principles of Plymouth Church in regard 
 to their relations to other churches in respect of independency ; 
 and the language used is definite and exclusive. It relieves 
 all other churches from responsibility for the Doctrine, Order, 
 and Discipline of the Plymouth Church ; or, in the language 
 of the pastor at the preceding meeting, which found its for- 
 mulation in this Resolution : " Our ecclesiastical basis," he 
 
INDEPENDENCY HITHERTO DISOWNED. 173 
 
 says, " puts us on precisely the same relations with Baptist, 
 Methodist, and Presbyterian churches, that it does with Con- 
 gregational churches." But those denominations, — the Bap- 
 tist, Methodist, and Presbyterian, — as you know, never as- 
 sumed, and never were understood to assume, responsibility 
 for the Doctrine, Order, and Discipline of the Plymouth 
 Church. The Congregational churches, on the other hand, 
 did assume such responsibility. They were present, as in the 
 case of the formation of all the other Congregational churches 
 of Brooklyn; and they publicly received the Plymouth Church 
 into the fellowship of our fraternity of churches, giving them 
 our name, and assuming a spiritual responsibility with regard 
 to their Doctrine, Order, and Discipline. Now, however, 
 these churches which have thus entered into public and 
 responsible fellowship with that church, are, by this interpre- 
 tation of their rules, relieved from all responsibility. Their 
 doctrine may be changed to any extent. It may become Uni- 
 tarian, Universalist. It may go to any extent in derogation 
 of the faith received from our fathers. They may surrender 
 discipline ; they may revolutionize their order ; and we, who 
 have given our common name to them, — and given it pubhcly, 
 — have no recourse, in the way of withdrawing it, but are to 
 be held to the fellowship pledged to them at the outset, when 
 they submitted their principles to a fellowshiping Council. 
 Those principles were found, at that time, to be in accord 
 with the well-known ancestral principles of our churches. 
 To make it still stronger, the rrew interpretation asserts the 
 right, on their part, to judge, in every case, what fellowship or 
 advice may be offered or received. Instead of being a recip- 
 rocal right, it is, by this interpretation, their exclusive right ; 
 and however great their aberration may have been, or may 
 hereafter be, the only right to judge with regard to fellowship 
 resides in that church. What can be more positive and defini- 
 tive than this, — the declaration of an absolute surrender of 
 their relation to the Congregational churches, in the way of 
 fellowship, and the institution of an Independency which ab- 
 sorbs and annihilates the fellowship hitherto recognized 
 
 among us 
 
 Now, we maintain that this interpretation destroys, m a 
 
174 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 vital and essential point, the fellowship of our fathers, and 
 substitutes another thing in the place of it. That new thing, 
 we hold, should bear a new name, that it may not be mistaken, 
 and that other principles may not be confounded with ours. 
 Independency, we have from the very beginning, for two 
 hundred and fifty years, pointedly, systematically, and uni- 
 formly disowned. 
 
 I need not multiply instances of this. The Cambridge 
 Platform, and the Platform of the Boston Council, in 1865, 
 maintained the same language in regard to it ; and that lan- 
 guage is unmistakable. Indeed, the Plymouth Church 
 Manual, which was quoted this afternoon, issued seven years 
 after the institution of that church, is in itself a sufficient 
 testimony to the fact that this Independency, instead of being 
 consistent with Congregationalism, is antagonistic. A com- 
 mon name imports common principles. Congregationalism is 
 as well known where Congregational churches prevail, as 
 Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches are ; 
 and the principles that belong to our name are as uniformly 
 recognized, where that name is spoken, as the principles of 
 any other denomination of Christians. These common prin- 
 ciples, inhering in the name Congregational, are three : First, 
 the orthodox interpretation of Christianity. Our fathers, 
 when they came here, came together, as they expressly said, 
 for the purpose of giving their consent and adherence to 
 the principles of the orthodox faith affirmed by their brethren 
 on the other side of the water ; and they affirmed in almost the 
 same words the faith which had been set forth by the West- 
 minster Confession and by the Savoy Confession ; and when, 
 in the earlier part of this century, a portion of our Congrega- 
 tional churches departed from the orthodox platform, they 
 adopted, righteously adopted, necessarily adopted, another 
 name, and left us ours, so that the Unitarian denomination, 
 coming out from the midst of us, was not and could not be 
 popularly confounded with the Congregational. 
 
 A second principle, inhering in this common name of ours, 
 is the great and fundamental one, which characterizes our 
 history more than any thing else, namely, the covenanting of 
 believers together in mutual watchfulness, and the main ten- 
 
CHURCHES WATCH OVER EACH OTHER. 
 
 17s 
 
 ance of an orderly discipline. Perhaps, historically speaking, 
 this more than any thing else characterized the Congrega- 
 tional churches of our country, as they started upon their 
 history under the forming hand of our fathers in the faith. 
 There is no conception of the Christian church, grander, more 
 Divine, and more sacred, than that which the Puritans had. 
 The Bible was only a silent testimony to the truth of God ; 
 but they believed that the Church of God was a living wit- 
 ness to the truth of God ; that a renewed man was the doctrine 
 of regeneration set up in a human life ; that the doctrine of 
 sanctification was a history drawn out into a human life ; and 
 that the Church of God, in their love for one another, and in 
 their common loyalty to their Moral Governor, was a state 
 within a state, a kingdom within a kingdom, which had the 
 sublimest mission on earth, the work of redeeming the world 
 to Christ. Now, to ignore this Puritan idea of the Covenant 
 of the Christian Church is to dishonor Puritan history, and 
 to make all their sacrifices, to which we owe our country 
 and our churches, a mistake and a crime. 
 
 The third and last element, belonging to this common name, 
 is the carrying out of this idea of covenanting between Chris- 
 tians in the local church, so that neighboring churches shall 
 be bound together in the bonds of a similar covenant, to watch 
 over one another, in the Lord. I need not call your atten- 
 tion to the evidence of this. It is beautifully expressed in the 
 Platform of 1865. You will find it on the forty-first page of 
 that Platform. It is a covenanting between churches ; not at 
 all in the way of rule and domination, but a voluntary and 
 spiritual fellowship ; an agreeing together to exercise their 
 acknowledged liberties within these voluntary bounds ; a con- 
 senting together in the owning of the same faith, and a walk- 
 ing together in conformity with the rules of the same Chris- 
 tian discipline. It is voluntary, and voluntary on both sides. 
 Each local church is voluntary in entering into the fellowship, 
 and the churches around are voluntary in the extension of 
 fellowship. 
 
 Now, we say that a change in any of these fundamental 
 principles should be expressed by some change of name. It 
 is a mere matter of honesty, — honesty on the part of those 
 
176 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL 
 
 who have changed, and honest deahng on the part of those 
 who have not changed. And this is not only honest, but 
 necessary to the proper Hfe and action of our churches ; for, 
 Brethren, common principles are the only enduring basis upon 
 which common Christian work can be done. The work of 
 Christ, which he has given us to do, — to publish his Gospel 
 over the earth, and gather behevers into churches, — can be 
 accomplished only upon the basis of common principles, and 
 the assurance that these common principles will be per- 
 petuated. 
 
 It is upon this basis that our home missions are prosecuted ; 
 it is upon this that foreign missions rest. For the Gospel 
 is a definite system of faith ; the church is the Gospel in the 
 form of an institution ; and this fellowship of the churches, 
 by which they promise to watch over one another in the Lord, 
 is the only method of determining whether the faith once 
 delivered to the saints is really maintained, and whether the 
 life which Christ requires is really lived. Why, Brethren, 
 it does not matter what the doctrine is, whether orthodox 
 or heterodox : it must be formulated and adhered to, or mis- 
 sions, the evangelization of the world in any sense, is at an 
 end. Our Unitarian friends, who left us a generation ago, in 
 leaving behind them the orthodox faith, left also behind them 
 this responsible fellowship and communion of the churches ; 
 and what to-day is the testimony from that class of Unitarian 
 ministers and churches who bear the name, and fitly bear it, 
 of Evangelical Unitarians, — what but just this.? that the 
 Independency into which they launched themselves when they 
 departed from the faith of our and their fathers, has made the 
 future of Unitarianism discouraging from weakness of organ- 
 ization. Fellowship has been lost through extreme Independ- 
 ency ; and, losing this, they have lost unity, life, growth. They 
 have no means of keeping in their pulpits the gospel they 
 own, and of keeping otU the infidelity they disown. So,too, 
 our English brethren are less called Congregationalists, than 
 Independents ; not that they disown in theory the fellow- 
 ship of Congregationalism ; but that this part of our polity has, 
 in England, been paralyzed, until, as we hear, they are now 
 driven to the study of our American Congregationalism, in 
 
/S CONGREGATIONALISM INDEPENDENCY? 177 
 
 order to save themselves and secure their development. That 
 body of Christians, as you well know, is highly intelligent and 
 devout. It is a missionary body. We love them and honor 
 them ; and when their distinguished ministers came over here, 
 a few months ago, to the Evangelical Alliance, we were heartily 
 glad to see them ; and I believe they were glad to see us, and 
 especially the fellowship we maintain by our system of Coun- 
 cils. They have been engaged, of late, in gathering funds for 
 the support of superannuated ministers, and widows and chil- 
 dren of deceased pastors. They have found no difficulty in 
 gathering moneys for this sacred end ; but they have found 
 their work embarrassed, and, I believe, seriously interrupted, 
 by such an Independency of their churches, as prevents them 
 from defining what a Congregational minister is. Without 
 the protection afforded by a Council of neighboring churches, 
 unfit ministers, not only unsound in doctrine, but stained in 
 life, may work their way into churches. So, Brethren, our 
 churches in the West, under the fostering care of our Home 
 Missionary Societies, and the churches now spreading over the 
 Turkish Empire and other fields of the American Board, if 
 this theory is to prevail, will be thrown into confusion among 
 themselves, and be disowned by those under whose patronage 
 they have sprung into existence. 
 
 Now, this Independency has been claimed, not as a new 
 departure, but as genuine Congregationalism. As a new 
 departure, we are free to say, we should have no quarrel with 
 it. It was competent for our friends of the Plymouth Church 
 to declare themselves Independent. Their reserved rights 
 included this right, and we at first supposed this was their 
 real intention. In that case, we intended only to recognize 
 and record it in some orderly way. A Council might not 
 have been needed. If a Council was needed, instead of being 
 a National Council like this, a local and small Council would 
 have been adequate for the purpose. To the import of this 
 action of theirs we called special attention, in the Letter, as 
 you will bear witness. At first the Pastor seemed disposed to 
 take this view of it, and accept the position. "It would be 
 an infinite relief," he said, " if I could stand on a platform 
 where no man on earth was responsible but myself for the 
 
178 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 things I said. I do not think it fair," he said, " to put such a 
 responsibility on my brethren." These were generous words, 
 and generously spoken ; and all we wished was to ascertain 
 whether the Plymouth Church meant what the Pastor did, 
 and then to deal with them as fairly as we could. But, 
 in their last letter, the Plymouth Church claimed their inter- 
 pretation to be the true Congregationalism. In their last let- 
 ter, you find them saying that, " Congregationalism is the 
 conduct of the affairs of the church by the whole brother- 
 hood, not embarrassed by the unasked interference of other 
 churches." Mark it. " It is the conduct of their business by 
 the whole brotherhood, not embarrassed by the tmasked inter- 
 ference of other chiaxhes." Again, " the position of Plymouth 
 Church, deliberately taken at the beginning, and Jiever changed, 
 is Congregationalism as we understand it, hold it, and are 
 determined to maintain it." " We have no desire to interfere 
 with the churches you represent, in any course they may feel 
 constrained to take. If they choose to withdraw from a truly 
 Congregational fellowship, it is their right : we have not with- 
 drawn, and we will not withdraw," 
 
 Now, Brethren, we ask you, in the advice you give us, 
 to determine this question : Is this Congregationalism "i To 
 hold us in unwilling fellowship, not to say with such actual 
 departures, but with the possibilities wrapped up in this inter- 
 pretation, is, I solemnly believe, injustice and tyranny. It 
 makes us contradict our convictions. Not to be able to leave 
 and withdraw ourselves from a fellowship we freely gave, 
 after the conditions of that fellowship are changed, is to do 
 injustice to the deepest convictions of our consciences ; and 
 we ask how this can be made to harmonize with the doctrine 
 which gives to each individual member of the local church 
 the right to withdraw on his silent volition from that church, 
 while we, as churches, are to be held to fellowship whether we 
 will or no ? We are forced by the continuance of such fellow- 
 ship to give currency to principles our consciences oppose. 
 And it is a tyranny as well ; for, my brethren, in withdrawing 
 from a church, we exercise no authority over that church. 
 Not in the least degree do we put a restraint upon their liber- 
 ties, when we ask to be released, from a fellowship which now 
 
THE QUESTION MUST BE DETERMINED. 179 
 
 does not represent our convictions and our feelings. As fel- 
 lowship, when exercised, does not invade the liberty of a local 
 church, so, when withdrawn, it does not impair that liberty. 
 But when, under such circumstances, we are held to fellow- 
 ship, our dearest, most sacred, and inalienable rights are taken 
 from us. Under our polity, it seems to me absolutely pre- 
 posterous to talk of tyrannizing by withholding a fellowship 
 which has ceased to correspond to the truth of underlying 
 facts. The only possible tyranny in the communion of 
 churches, is to make that communion survive its terms, and 
 outlive its voluntariness. 
 
 So, Brethren, we come to the practical inquiry, what action 
 shall we take to release ourselves from the mutually responsible 
 fellowship with the Plymouth Church, in which we have stood 
 before the public ? There are two ways; As individual 
 churches, we may withdraw, by the acts of our local churches, 
 from fellowship. But this would be a violation of the prin- 
 ciples of our denomination. Our platform lays down a speci- 
 fic course for us to pursue ; and, as law-abiding Congregation- 
 alists, we are bound to take the course prescribed. It would 
 also be assuming, in us, to act without counsel, on so important 
 a subject. We did not wish to act hastily. Nay, we did not 
 wish to act at all, unless it was necessary, and the safety of 
 our communion was imperiled. It would also be ineffectual, 
 to take separate church action. The controversy would only 
 be continued ; nay, more, become interminable, spread from 
 church to church, and enfeeble every church that was in- 
 volved in the. discussion. It would be schism; it would be 
 anarchy ; it would waste us away ; it would give up our name, 
 or, at least, share our name with any body choosing to adopt 
 it, and to claim fellowship, however unlike, and however antag- 
 onistic their principles. 
 
 There must, then, be some public and orderly determination 
 of the question. This is by a Council capable of affirming 
 what Congregationalism is, and, as representing the mind of 
 the churches upon the subject, authorized to declare their 
 principles ; so that, in obedience to such declaration, we may 
 keep along in the path of the fathers, and have an opportunity 
 to affirm the distinctive principles of our polity, while we 
 
l8o THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 withdraw, in an orderly way, from churches that have departed 
 from such principles. 
 
 There are, as was said this afternoon, two sorts of fellow- 
 ship ; one is of a non-responsible nature, which connects dif- 
 ferent denominations together, in mutual respect, and in the 
 interchange of certain offices of Christian confidence. The 
 Platform of the Boston Council recognizes this relation. We 
 hold communion with all parts of the church universal. We 
 recognize believers who come together in the affirmation of the 
 common faith, and give evidence of fidelity to the common 
 Head ; we hold occasional communion with them ; we have 
 more or less intimate relations with them, according as their 
 differences are more or less fundamental. But the relations 
 we sustain to Congregational churches are more intimate. 
 We give and receive fellowship in the way of organizing 
 churches, recognizing pastors, and ordaining ministers. We 
 give and receive admonition ; and we bind ourselves to sym- 
 pathy, and acts of helpfulness, toward those needing sympathy 
 and help. When we are released from this mutually respon- 
 sible relation of churches, bearing a common name ; when the 
 tie of common principles no longer exists, — and is no longer 
 understood to exist, — the more generic and non-responsible 
 communion is exercised, and this without embarrassment, 
 and to the advantage of all parties. 
 
 Now, Brethren, we ask you to advise us in this matter, both 
 as to the relation of Congregationalism to Independency, and 
 as to the methods in which we shall release ourselves from a 
 church which has substituted Independency for Congrega- 
 tionalism. Give us, we pray you, a deliverance on the subject 
 of Congregationalism, which shall release us from a fellowship 
 which has become misrepresenting to us, and therefore pain- 
 ful. Give us a deliverance which shall save the younger and 
 weaker churches — whether at home or abroad — from mis- 
 conception. Give us our natural and inalienable Congrega- 
 tional liberty. We have a right to march shoulder to shoulder 
 with those who believe with us, and who act with us. We are 
 not under the necessity of marching with those who do not 
 believe with us, and who do not act with us. So much. 
 Brethren, for this Sixth Question ; and now I ask your atten- 
 tion to the Seventh, and last 
 
THE SEVEA^TH QUESTION. l8l 
 
 Snjenth: Have the churches calling this Council acted, in its 
 judgment, in substantial accordance with the principles of Con- 
 gregationalism, as set forth in our authorized Platforms of Polity, 
 in the remonstrances and requests addressed by them to the Ply- 
 mouth Church ? Or in what respect, if any, have they erred 
 toward that church, and departed from these principles, in the 
 representations they have made ? 
 
 I beg you to notice the exact import of this Question. 
 Observe that the Question respects the remoiistrances and 
 requests we have addressed to Plymouth Church. We do not 
 ask you to give us advice on the methods of church action. 
 In making such remonstrances, different methods are within 
 the liberty of local churches. They are matters of internal 
 administration. We do not ask you to advise us as to the 
 way in which the churches took action, — whether by a meeting 
 publicly called, with the business stated from the pulpit ; or 
 whether it were better to perform that duty at the regular 
 meetings for worship, at the same hour, and beneath the same 
 sacred influence under which we offered our prayers and held 
 communion with the great Head of the Church. We do not 
 ask you to tell us whether the business would better be done 
 by Committees, or by the whole brotherhood assembled to- 
 gether. We say these are matters of local usage and right. 
 But the question is specific. It asks if our remonstrances and 
 requests have been in accordance with Congregational prin- 
 ciples. You will find these remonstrances and requests in 
 the first letter. Was that letter, as a whole, in accordance 
 with our polity .'' That letter contains two prominent features, 
 inasmuch as it has two parts, distinct in matter and unlike in 
 language : that part which respects the question whether 
 the Plymouth Church is charged justly or not with the prac- 
 tice and principles set forth in the letter ; and then the part 
 which deals with the character and tendency of the practice 
 and principles in themselves considered. 
 
 In regard to the first part of the letter, we strove, earnestly 
 and prayerfully, to make our address to the church as cautious, 
 as hypothetical, if you please, as we could make it. We ex- 
 pressed, in the first place, the hope that the action complained 
 of was not what had been reported ; and we asked to be 
 
l82 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 informed as to the reasons for it, in the hope that when we 
 knew them, we should look differently upon what they had 
 done. Again, we hoped that they would see reason to modify 
 their views, when we gave them our views. It was on these 
 grounds that we asked a conference. We assured them that 
 any new light would be most welcome to us. We disavowed 
 the slightest authority. The right we exercised we claimed 
 simply in a fraternal sense, as involved in fraternaV obligation. 
 If we had duties to perform toward them, we held, as a matter 
 of course, that we had rights ; and, as we had the duty of 
 Christian watchfulness to exercise, we had the right to make 
 this request for a conference with them. We did it, in the 
 language of that letter, " in absolute kindness of spirit, but 
 under the deepest convictions of duty." We founded our 
 admonition upon a public report uncontradicted ; and so far 
 from expressing, as we were charged with doing, a settled 
 conviction that they were in the wrong, we suggested the 
 possibility of misapprehension, and hoped for the removal 
 of it. 
 
 Now, I ask, is it a Christian offense, in dealing with a 
 Christian church, to express watchfulness and solicitude, as 
 regards a report uncontradicted } If so, times have greatly 
 changed since the apostle Paul exercised this duty toward the 
 Corinthian church. " It is commonly reported," said the 
 apostle in his first letter to the Corinthians, that there exists 
 among you a crime which " is not so much as named among 
 the Gentiles ;" and this common report was the basis not only 
 of a mention in that letter, but the basis as well for the judg- 
 ment he pronounced : " For I verily, as absent from the body, 
 but present in the spirit, have judged already as though I 
 were present, concerning him that hath done this deed." 
 
 But, my brethren, coming to the second part of that letter, 
 I ask if the vigor, the severity if you will, of that part which 
 describes the novel, unscriptural, and injurious nature of the 
 practice in question, was excessive and unchristian .-* — was that 
 practice unjustly characterized in its bearing upon the purity 
 of the Church of God, and upon the reputation and usefulness 
 of ministers } Consider, my brethren, that when we were ex- 
 pressing our feelings on this subject, we felt that we were 
 
 i 
 
THE TWO CHURCHES HELD ACCOUNTABLE. 183 
 
 speaking not for ourselves, but for Christ, — we were expressing 
 our zeal for the honor of our common Lord. And suppose 
 the language were too severe : I ask, is nothing due to Christian 
 jealousy for the truth and the honor of Christ ? Were we 
 bound to act as in a court, not of equity, but of written law, 
 where verbal objections are to be taken, technical difficulties 
 availed of, and mistakes noted, however unintentional ? 
 
 Well, Brethren, in a subsequent letter, this charge wholly 
 falls to the ground. It is confessedly given up : we studied to 
 express ourselves in the least objectionable form possible ; we 
 avoided words which could give offense ; we expressed regret 
 that we had inadvertently used them ; said we should not 
 have used them if we had supposed them capable of such an 
 interpretation. But sending this second and unobjectionable 
 letter, did we make progress ? At that meeting you will bear 
 in mind, the non-fellowshiping Resolutions were passed. So 
 much, then, for our letter as a whole. 
 
 Look next at the details. Consider the remonstrances we 
 made. Were we warranted, in remonstrating against the 
 dropping from the roll of a member's name on the 31st of Oc- 
 tober, under the circumstances as described .'' 
 
 I am not under the necessity of discussing this subject. It 
 has been done already. The answer to the question, evidently 
 depends upon this other question, whether that person was a 
 member of the church. This point has been, it seems to me, 
 satisfactorily settled. Besides, it was made, by the rules of 
 the Plymouth Church, incumbent upon the complainant that 
 he bring his complaint before the Examining Committee. This 
 was done in obedience to that imperative rule ; by it, that 
 complainant acquired rights ; he was entitled to have the ac- 
 cusation heard, either by the Examining Committee or by the 
 church, unless the application was rejected at a meeting of 
 the church by a three-fourths vote. Were those rules re- 
 garded } Was he allowed so much as to mention the subject .'' 
 And is it not in accordance with Congregational usage that we 
 should have remonstrated as we did } Were we warranted, 
 again, in remonstrating against the refusal of the church to 
 examine charges against this member, because possibly they 
 might ultimate in charfres aGrainst the Pastor 1 Remember 
 
l84 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL, 
 
 the circumstances in which we were placed. For a whole 
 year, our city, and the churches throughout the land, were agi- 
 tated by the question ; and we were appealed to not only, as 
 you know, Mr. Moderator, from within the bounds of our own 
 body, but by other Christian bodies, to know whether the Con- 
 gregational polity did not prescribe some method of determin- 
 ing the truth or falsehood of such grave charges .'' We were 
 told, that we who were next to him, longest associated with 
 him, were held by our brethren accountable to them, that our 
 common name should not suffer through indifference or neg- 
 lect on our part. Our reply was : " No one who under- 
 stands the Congregational polity can hold us responsible for 
 non-action, under present circumstances. Plymouth Church 
 is a large, intelligent body, with multitudes of excellent people 
 in it. It is only common Christian courtesy to believe that 
 they will discharge their duty ; that they will take up the case 
 when it comes regularly before them, and that they will give 
 it an orderly issuing." Were we right in waiting a whole year 
 in this deference to the rights of that church } Ought we to 
 have brought any complaint in the Ministerial Association } 
 But an Association is a voluntary body, and no minister is 
 under obligation to belong to it. Was our delay in the first 
 instance, and then the promptitude with which we acted after 
 our hopes were disappointed, and the issue was had on the 
 31st of October, — was our delay in the first instance, and our 
 promptitude in the second, warranted ? 
 
 Then, Brethren, was our remonstrance just, that absentee- 
 ism, instead of being regarded as a distinct offense, should be 
 made an excuse for not investigating charges, regularly 
 brought .'* But, in this instance, absenteeism was simply a 
 form of emphatic accusation. Were we warranted in remon- 
 strating, also, against the injury done to our common name.-' 
 But we found that we could not retain our own members in 
 our churches, if we were silent on the subject. Nor could 
 we release ourselves, in the forum of our own consciences, 
 from the duty that devolved upon us as next neighbors to the 
 church. So much for the remonstrances. 
 
 Our requests were two : first, for a conference, in hopes of 
 finding the facts otherwise than what they had been reported, 
 or that they might be changed. 
 
MUTUAL COUNCIL, HOW FAR URGED. 185 
 
 Should a single church have begun this investigation ? 
 The Cambridge Platform of 1648 said that a single church 
 ought to begin it ; but the Platform of 1865 modifies the rule, 
 and apparently for good reasons. The maxim holds that the 
 law endures, as long as the reason for it does. The reason for 
 the law given in the xviiith of Matthew is, " that every word 
 may be established ; " that is, that legal testimony may be 
 furnished ; but this is not needed in a case like this. 
 
 Should we have approached the officers of the church, in 
 the first instance 1 But it was church action that we com- 
 plained of, and those officers would naturally, and ought in 
 justice to, have referred us to the church ; and from the his- 
 tory that has transpired, it is now most evident that our 
 decision was right, since it would have been more offensive 
 than we supposed, at the outset, had we gone to them, instead 
 of going directly to the church. 
 
 Again, should we have asked for a conference in few and 
 simple words .'' But we felt that we had 2l privia-facie case to 
 make out ; that it would be unjust to our convictions, and 
 misguiding to them, to go before them with any thing less 
 than a full, explicit, and earnest statement of all we felt and 
 believed on the subject. 
 
 Well, Brethren, when we came to the request for a Council, 
 was that a threat t Did we do wrong in suggesting an appeal 
 to a Council } But what was the Council that we asked them 
 to unite with us in calling ">. A MiiUial Council. Is there 
 any thing threatening, in asking brethren to meet us on com- 
 mon grounds, before a common tribunal, elected by them as by 
 us ? The idea of a threat never occurred to us ; and when it 
 was imputed to us, it seemed the most inapt and preposter- 
 ous objection conceivable. 
 
 Again, was our request for a Mutual Council so treated that 
 we were released from the obligation to press it any further } 
 I beg your special attention to this point. Consider, then, 
 that a conference was a necessary step to a Council, and that 
 the declinature of a conference carried with it the declinature 
 of a Council. Were we not authorized to conclude, that, when 
 they refused to meet us for fraternal conference, they refused 
 a fortiori, to meet us in a Council } Such a conference being 
 
1 86 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 necessary as a preliminary to a Council, we could not have a 
 Council without it ; and had we gone to them to ask for a 
 Council, it was asking for a conference over again, and in a 
 form sure to be refused. Nevertheless, we did distinctly 
 ask the question in our letter of Dec. 5 ; and they replied 
 on Dec. 6, " We are not aware, on our part, of any ques- 
 tion requiring the advice of a Council." They asked us, in- 
 deed, to state the points we proposed to submit, and they 
 promised a prompt reply in answer. We stated the points ; 
 and then, on the ground of an inference drawn from another 
 part of our letter, they declined to tell us how they regarded 
 the points they had solicited, and upon which they had prom- 
 ised us a prompt reply. At the same time they voted them- 
 selves an independent church, with no obligation of fellow- 
 ship ; and this we understood to be a denial, not of one Cous- 
 cil, but of all Councils growing out of a fellowship they dis- 
 owned. 
 
 Their definition of Congregationalism, also, as " the conduct 
 of the affairs of the church by the whole brotherhood not em- 
 barrassed by the unasked interference of other churches," 
 seemed to us to forbid approach, and we were shut out from 
 interposing until asked to do so. Then, you remember, they 
 expounded the differences between them and New-England 
 Congregationalism, showing that at the outset they had 
 refused to allow a Council to organize them, and that from 
 the very beginning they had dissented from the Congrega- 
 tionalism of the fathers. Then, again, they made it impossible 
 for us to ask them for a Council, when they said : " documents 
 are to be accompanied by proof of the authority of the whole 
 brotherhood of your churches, regularly and deliberately con- 
 ferred." They declined also to receive in any case, either 
 from the whole brotherhood, or from us, the Committees of 
 the whole brotherhood, letters, containing covert insinuations 
 against the character of any of the members of Plymouth 
 Church. Covert insinuations ! What was this but a refusal 
 to refer any matters of disagreement, upon which we could 
 found admonition, to a Council .'' For, if there be ground of 
 admonition, may not that ground assume the aspect of covert 
 accusation against somebody } Then, Brethren, it seemed to 
 
POSITION OF THE TWO CHURCHES, IMPERATIVE. 187 
 
 be a disingenuous and baffling reply, that, notwithstanding all 
 these forms of refusal, we found inserted in the midst of their 
 letter this sentence : " we do not decline to join in calling a 
 Mutual Council. It is you who seem to us to have first offered 
 an invitation under dubious authority, and then withdrawn it." 
 Were we not authorized in the conclusion to which we came, 
 that we were wasting time in renewing such offers } Was it 
 not obvious that no Mutual Council would ever have been 
 accepted } And that, too, for the reason that no action would 
 ever be permitted to take place growing out of the scandals, 
 or by any possibility associated with them, because it was 
 unalterably fixed that those scandals should never be investi- 
 gated, or even mentioned. 
 
 Brethren, I will now relieve your attention. We ask your 
 judgment upon the questions submitted to you this afternoon 
 and evening. I will say again, what I said at the outset of 
 these remarks, that if we know any thing about ourselves, we 
 are standing here not more for ourselves, than for you ; and 
 if the principles of our Congregational polity have not war- 
 ranted the interposition we have made, then are we wholly 
 indefensible in the course we have taken. We have striven 
 to divest ourselves of any personal feeling. Personal consid- 
 erations were all against the course we have taken : they were 
 so at the beginning, when with united prayer and mutual con- 
 sultation, the sixteen representatives of the two churches met 
 together. God has given us one conviction : we have felt 
 that we were standing for you, standing for our fathers before 
 us, as their representatives, conserving the interests of our 
 children that are to come after us. In these days of moral 
 declension, when corruption has seated itself on the judge's 
 bench, in halls of legislation, and in municipal bodies, when 
 our hearts within us have been trembling for our country's 
 institutions, we have said to ourselves, " Except we can have 
 purity in the pulpit, and purity in the church, then indeed, is 
 our American civilization to pass away." We have stood for 
 God, and for the Church of God, in the feeling that we were 
 likewise standing for our country, and we could not do other- 
 wise than as we have done. 
 
 Relatively, I have added very little to the wisdom of the 
 
1 88 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 body with which I have had the honor to be connected ; but 
 I am very thankful that I have entered into the fellowship of 
 their sufferings. As it is the highest glory of the Christian 
 to enter into the fellowship of the sufferings of Christ, so I 
 esteem it a distinguished honor to enter into the fellowship of 
 a true, faithful minister of Christ. As I have stood by my 
 brother Storrs, and seen how his heart has ached, how like 
 parting with his heart's blood it has been to part with the 
 precious memories of by-gone and happy years, I have thanked 
 God that it was my privilege to stand by his side, and in the 
 humblest offices help him in the work to which he has been 
 called. God grant that it be not too great a work for that 
 frame, in years past overtaxed, and now again put to the 
 strain, through the past winter, as he has carried upon his 
 mind and heart, alike your interests and ours. 
 
 The Moderator : What order will the Council take 
 upon the case that has been presented by the Committees of 
 the churches that have called us here .-• I will suggest, at this 
 time, that, to whatever hour we adjourn to-morrow, the first 
 half-hour of the session be spent in prayer-meeting ; and, if 
 there is no objection, I will request Rev. Dr. Webb of Boston, 
 Mass., to conduct that service. I will take that to be the 
 sense of the Council, unless objection is made. 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : Mr. Moderator, it has occurred 
 to me, that, as a great many facts have been stated in the 
 course of our representation of things to day, it may be de- 
 sired by members of the Council that they should have an 
 opportunity to ask questions of us — representing the Com- 
 mittees — to-morrow, as to the evidence of the things which 
 we have stated, or as to the meaning of things which we 
 have stated. I would simply say, — of course I have no right 
 to make any motion, but I make it as a suggestion merely, — 
 that if it be agreeable and desirable, and so appears to the 
 minds of the Council, we shall be very glad to be here, to- 
 morrow morning, and to spend as much time as may be de- 
 sired, in answering any questions which may be addressed to 
 us. 
 
 The Moderator : Of course it is desirable, and expected, 
 that the representatives of the inviting churches and these 
 
THE QUESTION OF PRIVATE SESSIONS. 189 
 
 Committees, will be present with the Council, until the Council 
 shall decide to withdraw for its own private consultation ; and, 
 unless you, this evening, determine to be by yourselves in your 
 session to-morrow morning, these brethren will be present, as 
 a matter of course. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Lord, of Montpelier, Vt. : I would like to ask 
 if the Committee desire to present any more statements of 
 facts to the Council .-• 
 
 The Moderator : The Committee have announced that 
 they have presented the case, and have nothing more to offer 
 unless questions are asked. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Storrs : I should be very glad, without having 
 had opportunity to confer with Dr. Budington, that it might 
 be understood that, provided new matters should occur to us 
 after reflecting a little upon what has been said to-day, if we 
 should desire to present some other things to-morrow, we may 
 have the opportunity. 
 
 The Moderator : There is no objection to that under- 
 standing. That opportunity will be given, of course. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Fiske, of Bath, Me. : Is it, then, to be under- 
 stood that the Council is to go into private session to-morrow, 
 the Committees of the churches being in a convenient position 
 to be called in to answer questions ; and the gentlemen of the 
 Committees being permitted to add any thing which occurs to 
 them, though not requested to do it } With that understand- 
 ing, if it be in order, I would move that our sessions to-mor- 
 row be private sessions. 
 
 The question was stated, to be upon the motion that the 
 sessions, to-morrow, be private sessions, with the understand- 
 ing, that, before going into private session, the Committees 
 should have an opportunity to add any thing they may have 
 omitted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Palmer, of New York: It occurs to me that 
 it would be better that the motion should be put in the shape 
 in which Dr. Fiske offered it ; because we should be more 
 likely, after we have begun our discussion, to think of matters 
 upon which we desire information ; and, on the other hand, they 
 will have an opportunity to confer together, and can make 
 communications to us. I think if we begin in the morning, 
 
igo 
 
 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 in an open session, we shall fritter away a portion of the time 
 which is very valuable to us. I think we should vote now to 
 have private sessions in the morning, with the distinct under- 
 standing that our brethren are to be at hand, that we may 
 call upon them, or they may send to us, should occasion re- 
 quire. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : It seems to me it would be better not to 
 vote, to-night, to have the session private to-morrow, entirely, or 
 to begin so. We have heard the statements made by the Com- 
 mittees. We have asked no questions, — not a single question. 
 We have heard no other statement, if anybody wishes to make 
 one ; and the chances are that to-morrow morning these gentle- 
 men will recollect something that has been omitted ; and it is far 
 better that any further statement, or development, that is to be 
 made, should be made here, where the public may come and 
 hear it. The less we do in private, the better. The less 
 statements come to us, in private, the better. The more public 
 the better. We cannot make the whole thing more public than 
 it is already. Inasmuch, as upon reflection, many of us will think 
 of points upon which we desire more light, it will be far better 
 to begin with an open session, and then everybody will know 
 what statements are made to us ; especially as these things 
 must, to a very great extent, affect another church not here 
 represented. 
 
 The Moderator : I wish, as Moderator, to say that there 
 ought to be nothing brought into the private session, before the 
 Council, for consideration, that has not been presented before 
 this whole assembly ; that we are not to go into private session 
 for the sake of receiving further information on which we are 
 to act ; and let me say that members of the Council are not 
 to come in, each one with his own little budget of what he has 
 heard elsewhere, as sometimes happens. 
 
 Hon. A. C. Barstow, of Providence, R. I. : I think it would 
 be difficult to detain many members in session longer than 
 the close of a long day, to-morrow ; and I hope we shall be 
 able to complete our consultation upon the whole case, by 
 using as many hours as need be, before midnight to-morrow 
 night. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Webb, of Boston, moved that th-e Council adjourn 
 
CLOSE OF THE SESSION. 
 
 191 
 
 to meet at 9 a.m., March 26, the first half-hour to be spent in a 
 prayer-meeting. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 Council thereupon adjourned. 
 
FIFTH SESSION — MARCH 26. 
 
 The members of Council assembled at 9, a.m., agreeably 
 to the vote at the close of the last Evening Session, for the. 
 purpose of prayer for the Divine guidance. The services 
 were conducted by the Rev. E. B. Weijb, D.D., of Boston, 
 who, after the singing of a hymn, offered prayer, and read a 
 portion of the vth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. Prayer 
 was also offered by President Chapin, by Rev. H. M. Storrs, 
 D.D., Rev. George E. Adams, D.D., Rev. H. M. Parsons, Rev. 
 John O. Fiske, D.D., and Rev. William M. Taylor, D.D. 
 
 The Council was called to order by the Moderator at a 
 quarter to ten o'clock. 
 
 The Scribe read the minutes of yesterday's sessions ; and 
 on motion, they were approved. 
 
 In the case of the Orange Valley Church, in New Jersey, 
 it was reported by the Committee that Deacon John Wiley 
 would sit as delegate from that church, the other delegate sent 
 by the church having withdrawn. 
 
 The Moderator : It was expected that the Committees of 
 the inviting churches would be present this morning, and 
 would have the opportunity to make any additional communi- 
 cation which might seem to them important, and to answer 
 any questions which the Council might desire to address to 
 them. I believe that is the business immediately before us. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Palmer of New York : As I understand the 
 Scribe, there is a motion before the Council which was pend- 
 ing at the time of adjournment. I would like to inquire if 
 that is so. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : The motion was made that the sessions 
 of to-day should be private. It did not come to a vote, and I 
 suppose it has lapsed. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Brown of Newark, N.J. : Would it be in order to 
 present a motion or resolution now ? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : The Committee wish to make further 
 statements, and will be present soon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Brown : If I were to make the motion, I should 
 like to make a few remarks upon it. 
 
DOUBT CONCERNING POWER OF THE COUNCIL. 193 
 
 The Moderator : The brother might proceed, if his motion 
 is in order, while we are waiting for the Committees. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Brown : I have a motion in my hand that I should 
 like to make, because I am perfectly clear in my own mind as 
 to what course the Council should take in the great matter 
 which lies before it ; and, in my own thoughts, I have been 
 clear in regard to it for the last ten days. I do not suppose 
 that my views will agree with those of all the members of this 
 Council, by any manner of means ; nor do I suppose that the 
 Resolution which I am about to present will be adopted, in the 
 form in which I present it ; and yet I do most sincerely hope 
 that, if it shall be discussed for a few moments, it will have 
 some sort of influence in making up the Result of this Coun- 
 cil. I ought, Mr. President, to premise yet another sentence 
 or two. When these papers came into my hands, — the papers 
 calling the Council, — some ten days ago, I devoted one or 
 two days to careful study, and I reached my own conclusion ; 
 and that has only been confirmed by every step of progress 
 and discussion thus far. I premise further, that, when I lis- 
 tened to that magnificent speech of Dr. Storrs, yesterday after- 
 noon, I agreed with him on almost every point ; and, if this 
 were a Mutual Council, I should vote in accordance with his 
 views, on every point, so far as they were presented yesterday. 
 
 Rev. Dr. H. M. Storrs : May I interrupt the brother one 
 moment, to put an inquiry to the Moderator .-' Are we to 
 understand that we are now to discuss the merits of the case 
 before us } 
 
 The Moderator : No, sir. 
 
 Rev. Dr. H. M. Storrs : If this bears upon the merits of 
 the case, is it in order } 
 
 The Moderator : It would not be in order ; for we are 
 supposed not yet to have had the case entirely presented. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Brown : That is the reason I raised the question 
 at the commencement, whether it was in order to present a 
 Resolution which touches the merits of the case. I will read 
 the Resolution: — 
 
 Resolved., That inasmuch as this Council is, in point of fact, 
 though not so styled, an ex parte Council, and as such was irregu- 
 larly called, therefore, for it to give any advice that can rightly be 
 31 
 
194 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 construed as adverse to the Plymouth Church would be to violate 
 the very principles of Congregationalism which we are here con- 
 vened to vindicate. 
 
 It is on that Resolution, Sir, that I desire to speak. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : I object, as the special agreement was 
 that the Committees should have the floor, first. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Brown : I have no objection to its being deferred ; 
 but I shall re-present it at the proper time. I move this Reso- 
 lution ; and that it come up for discussion after the Commit- 
 tees shall have completed their statements. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Quint : As the special assignment and under- 
 standing was that the Committees should have precedence, I 
 object to its consideration at all, at this time. 
 
 The Moderator : It is not now in order. It will be 
 moved, according to Dr. Brown's statement, the first time it 
 comes in order. We are now ready to hear any further state- 
 ment from the Committees of the inviting churches. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Budington said : It escaped my mind yester- 
 day to add a word with regard to the charges which have been 
 made against our two churches, — that in the administration 
 of discipline in these churches we have over and over again 
 acted upon the same principles that we complain of in our 
 correspondence with Plymouth Church. You have listened 
 to the answer made by the Church of the Pilgrims, so far as 
 the administration of discipline in that church is concerned. 
 I will not occupy your time with any thing in detail. I will 
 simply say, that, during the nineteen years of my ministry, 
 there has never been any thing approximating to the principles 
 of the case issued October 31, in Plymouth Church. Noth- 
 ing of the kind. 
 
 I would like also to say a word with regard to the protest 
 which was presented, in answer to the invitation given by the 
 Council, to Plymouth Church, to be present here, to make 
 statements of facts, and to present their views, putting them 
 before you on precisely the foundation that we occupy in our 
 addresses to you. That protest, I am sure, will enable you, in 
 some measure, to understand the feelings we have had when, 
 time and time again, we have approached them, as the published 
 documents in your hands will show, with earnest entreaty 
 
PRO TEST BY PL YMOUTH CHURCH, ILL USTRA TIVE. 
 
 ^95 
 
 I may say, that they would meet us, and meet us frankly and 
 squarely, with regard to the subject-matters that were lying 
 on our consciences. The protest that you have received 
 indicates the disposition which we have met again and again. 
 You have asked them earnestly, respectfully, to give you facts. 
 We have done the same, and have received as little in reply as 
 you did. 
 
 It has occurred to me this morning, however, that perhaps 
 the language of that protest, re-interpreting again their action 
 — in which they define their sense of what Congregationalism 
 is, in respect to Independency, and as ignoring Fellowship, — 
 may possibly be regarded by some minds, in the Council, as 
 withdrawing the subject-matter of our complaint. With 
 reference to this thought, I wish to say this : we made up a 
 case for you, presenting to you the action of that church, the 
 view we took of it, and the reasons we had to take the view of it 
 we did. We have presented to you the action of that church ; 
 and we have asked from you a deliverance on the vital ques- 
 tion, — whether that action was or was not in accordance with 
 the fundamental principles of our polity. That case remains 
 the same : it is upon that action, under the circumstances, 
 that we ask you to give us your deliverance. The necessity 
 for a deliverance and testimony on the part of the Council is 
 as perfect with regard to the action taken by that church, up 
 to the time of our issuing our Letter-Missive, as it could be 
 under any circumstances whatever ; and the intermingling of 
 fresh action, taken yesterday, does not alter the matter, or the 
 manner, or the spirit of the action we have been complain- 
 ing of. 
 
 Give us, then, your sense of the propriety, and the accord- 
 ance with Congregationalism, of the action which has led to 
 the calling of this Council. Give it to us explicitly. Enable 
 us to understand it. Brethren, all we want to know, in the 
 name of our common Master, in the name of God over us all, 
 in the name of the children that are to come after us. is just 
 this : are the principles upon which we have acted, the prin- 
 ciples you accept.? Are they the principles that represent 
 the inheritance we have received from our fathers .' Are you 
 disposed to stand with us upon that platform } Or have cir- 
 
196 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 cumstances so changed, that in the time to come, there is a 
 change needed in the exposition of the principles of our 
 poUty ? Do we need a new departure ? Is Fellowship less 
 important ? Was that movement of our churches which led 
 to the National Council an unwise movement ? Was the 
 eagerness with which the weaker and newer churches of the 
 West sprang forward to embrace that movement an insig- 
 nificant indication ? Do our churches cling to the principles 
 of Fellowship which we have received from our fathers, as 
 vital to our existence, and to our influence in time to come ; 
 or can we part with them ? Can we become Independents ? 
 
 Well, Brethren, it will be said that this protest re-interprets 
 the interpretation of independence given on the 5th of De- 
 cember. Very well, Brethren, what I have to say about that 
 is just this, and only this : If, after they gave us an interpreta- 
 tion which under the circumstances made it inevitable that we 
 should understand just what we did understand, and which I 
 endeavored to express to you last night ; if, after that, they 
 come forward with a new interpretation, and tell us that this 
 second edition of their interpretation was the original one 
 intended, — then I ask you what reflection it casts upon the 
 spirit and principles of that church ? In our dealings with 
 it, as God is my witness, I say for myself and for the brethren 
 with whom I am associated, we have endeavored to act as 
 Christian men ; to explain ourselves as fully as the English 
 language would enable us to express ourselves ; and succes- 
 sively, time after time, we have been baffled. Contradiction 
 has come upon contradiction ; and this protest, when joined 
 to the other documents, reads the same lesson. Y.ou can 
 draw the inference from it which I draw ; you are as able to 
 understand what light it casts upon the troubles we have been 
 going through with, as I am. You can judge of this as well 
 as I. 
 
 Does it indicate that the policy of that church has been 
 presided over, and actuated, by principles of administration 
 hitherto unknown in the management of churches } I will 
 not answer that. It is a question I wish you to answer. But, 
 with regard to that protest, I say two things. In the first 
 place, whatever that protest now presents to your minds, for 
 
PROTEST B Y PL YMOUTH CHURCH, ILL USTRA TIVE. 197 
 
 consideration, is not part and parcel of the action which 
 convened you, and upon which we asked the deUverance of 
 your testimony ; and, furthermore, if that protest is to be 
 accepted as part of the action which you are to give a dehver- 
 ance upon, as in certain respects no doubt it ought to be, — if 
 it is to intermingle itself with the principles of the 5th of 
 December, — you have an illustration of that flickering policy, 
 that bandying of words for temporary purposes, which met 
 our plain, uniform, unbroken, and unvarying request, and which 
 will enable you to understand with what spirit we have been 
 contending ; and how utterly impossible it has been, in our 
 judgment, frankly to meet a spirit which has used such 
 methods, and by them has confounded us again and again. 
 I beg of you. Brethren, whatever action you choose to take 
 with regard to that protest, give us a deliverance with regard 
 to the action which was completed when the Letter-Missive 
 was issued ; and tell us if that action is consistent with the 
 fellowship of Congregational churches. 
 
 I have only one thing more to say. Brethren. I beseech of 
 you, deal with us as frankly as we have endeavored to deal 
 with you. We have rolled off from our shoulders a burden 
 that we had taken upon ourselves, and which had been rolled 
 upon us by the great Head of the Church. We put it now 
 upon your shoulders ; and, under your responsibility to the 
 Master, give us an answer which shall not be misunderstood. 
 I ask it in behalf of the membership of these two churches. 
 Give us an advice which is clear-toned, unambiguous, and 
 self-consistent. Give us a result which Plymouth Church 
 shall understand, without any mistake ; and do not leave the 
 public round about us, and do not leave the greater public 
 that is to follow in these churches of ours, to any ambiguity 
 with regard to the sentiment of this Council, on the principles 
 on which we ask your testimony. 
 
 I have just come in ; and deeply interested as I was by the 
 proceedings of yesterday in common with yourselves, all day 
 long, lifted up as I was by that tender flood of feeling which 
 carried you all up at the close of the afternoon session, and 
 then coming in the evening, as well as I could, to make deliv- 
 erance to you of my thought on this subject, — I have been 
 
1 98 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 unable to give any thought to the questions which I have now 
 attempted to answer, other than has occurred since I entered 
 yonder door. Brethren, I have done. I have no doubt that 
 my Brother Storrs has other thoughts in mind. Perhaps he 
 has had more moments at his command than I have, — at 
 least, I trust he has ; and I will give way to him to express 
 any thing that may have occurred to him since the adjourn- 
 ment last night. 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : One or two of the members of the 
 Council have intimated to me that they wish to ask me some 
 questions, in regard to some things which I said yesterday. I 
 should a little prefer that the questions should be asked before 
 I make any remarks ; because my remarks might afterward 
 bear on them more directly. 
 
 The Moderator : Any member who desires any informa- 
 tion or further suggestion from Dr. Storrs, can propose his 
 questions now. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin of Washington, D.C. : I have some ques- 
 tions that I desire to put, on the general subject, if they are 
 in order now. I made a minute of some few questions, since 
 the deliberations of yesterday morning, that I desire to ask. 
 My questions are these : — 
 
 Are these Committees satisfied that, in their approaches to Mr. 
 Beecher and the Plymouth Church, they pursued the method re- 
 commended by our Saviour in the xviiith chapter of Matthew? — I 
 mean, in spirit. 
 
 Did any personal interviews with Mr. Beecher on the subject- 
 matter of these two letters ever take place ? 
 
 Was any effort made to secure such interviews.? and, if so, 
 what ? 
 
 What defined duty and authority have the Standing Committees 
 in the churches calling this Council ? 
 
 Do these duties relate to the fellowship of the churches ? 
 
 Could these Committees authorize a Letter-Missive to the 
 churches ? 
 
 Could they initiate any measures where questions of church fel- 
 lowship were involved ? 
 
 Were the letters written to Mr. Beecher by these Committees 
 first submitted to the two churches calling this Council ? 
 
 Was the expediency of this method of approach ever a matter 
 of church discussion before sending them ? 
 
 What evidence have the Committees calling this Council that 
 
QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. 199 
 
 the case of discipline in the Plymouth Church was not regarded 
 and treated as an extreme and exceptional one ? 
 
 Were these Committees acquainted with other instances of the 
 kind ? 
 
 The Moderator : Does anybody object to the putting of 
 any of these questions ? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Chapin of Beloit, Wis. : It seems to me that a 
 portion of these questions should, no doubt, be put ; but I 
 have my doubts as to some of them. 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : As some of the questions seem to 
 me to overlap one another, I would rather make a compre- 
 hensive statement, in regard to the whole subject referred to 
 in them. . I shall, perhaps, answer them in that way more 
 rapidly and satisfactorily than by taking them up seriatim. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : The series of questions is topical. The 
 first few relate to the same topic. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Webb : Suppose we take the suggestion of Dr. 
 Storrs, and hear his general statement ; then, if we wish to 
 repeat any of the questions, let them be repeated, and answered 
 further. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : I have no objection to any method the 
 Council sees fit to adopt. 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : As these questions are wholly fresh 
 to me, — not having been aware of the nature of those which 
 Dr. Rankin or other members of the Council intended asking, 
 but only that they had some to propose, — and as others to 
 follow may be equally unforeseen, may I suggest that all the 
 questions to be put to me be put now } I may, perhaps, then 
 cover them all in one general reply, and so save the time of 
 the Council. 
 
 Rev. Professor Smyth : I had prepared very much the same 
 questions as brother Rankin, and therefore I will not repeat 
 those. But there is one question, which he did not touch upon, 
 that I would like to have Dr. Storrs answer, if it seems expe- 
 dient to him. In his remarks, yesterday, he spoke of the ad- 
 vantage, in this community, of a vindication by Plymouth 
 Church of the good name of its pastor. He said the vindica- 
 tion of Mr. Beecher's card was amply sufficient for fair or 
 sympathetic minds ; but that, since then, as I understood him. 
 
200 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Mr. Beecher had been made a target, and that it would have 
 been for his repute, and for the interests of rehgion in this 
 community, that the church also, by its action, should have 
 vindicated his name. I should like to have him, if he deem it 
 wise, explain a httle further what was, in his judgment, the 
 occasion and necessity for such action on the part of Plymouth 
 Church. 
 
 Rev. G. B. WiLLCOX .: I would like to inquire whether every 
 question that is offered here, unless protest is entered, is to be 
 urged } If so, I would like to object, decidedly, to the ques- 
 tion of Professor Smyth. He has touched one of the most 
 delicate and sensitive points in the whole controversy. It is 
 a point which I know will awaken more feeling in Plymouth 
 Church than any other that could be raised. I hope, there- 
 fore, that if it be possible to avoid that point, it may be allowed 
 to pass in silence. I take it that we are not called to investi- 
 gate the character of Mr. Beecher, or his reputation, or the 
 danger of his reputation suffering, at our hands, or at the hands 
 of his church. 
 
 Rev. Professor Smyth: I have not raised the question 
 of Mr. Beecher's character. We are not called upon to in- 
 vestigate that. But statements have been made publicly, and 
 are in print, on an important point which will come before the 
 Council for its action. It is a part of the res gestce ; it is also 
 a part of the documents which are submitted to us for con- 
 sideration ; and I should be glad if Dr. Storrs would shed any 
 further light that he may have upon it. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Bartlett : I suggest that this question is ex- 
 cluded by the Letter-Missive. I hope your decision, Mr. 
 Moderator, may be given on this point. My point is, that this 
 question is excluded by the Letter-Missive. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Palmer of New York : I have heard some state- 
 ments in regard to what Dr. Storrs said yesterday, on a certain 
 point, and I would therefore like to have an answer to this 
 question : did Dr. Storrs say that, in case the deliverance of 
 this Council should not satisfy the churches calling it, he 
 would never hereafter hold fellowship with any Congregational 
 church } or did he say that he never would give the right 
 hand of fellowship to another new Congregational church, 
 just organized .'* 
 
QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. 201 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : Let me answer that, right off, for it is 
 wholly unconnected with the preceding questions, stands by 
 itself, and need not wait to be answered with them. What I said, 
 as I believe, what I designed to say, was precisely this : that if our 
 doctrine of fellowship in the Congregational churches connects 
 us with other Congregational churches which have a right to 
 do precisely what they like, — in respect to doctrine, giving it 
 up ; in respect to order, becoming Methodists ; in respect to 
 discipline, making the church, as was said in the letter from 
 Plymouth Church yesterday, a covert for immorality, — and 
 we are held to be bound to silence by the obligations of fellow- 
 ship, and to have no right to remonstrate without its being 
 deemed an intrusion and an offense, — then I will never give 
 the right hand of fellowship to another such church, till God 
 tells me what that church will do during its continuance. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Palmer : You did not mean that you would with- 
 draw the right hand of fellowship which you had already given .? 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : I did not touch that subject at all. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Chapin : I have one or two questions to put, 
 merely in regard to a fact. I do not wish, but quite the 
 contrary, to open the delicate matter referred to in another 
 question. But to some of us, who have studied this matter 
 only at a distance, the correspondence between the churches 
 calling the Council and the Plymouth Church seems to start 
 with a set judgment and feeling, and seems to be met with a 
 set judgment and feeling, which may have come in conse- 
 quence of things that had preceded it. I would, therefore, 
 like to ask, simply as a matter of fact : first, whether in the 
 movement in the Plymouth Church, of bringing charges 
 against the member referred to in the Letter-Missive, there 
 is any reason to believe that there had been any consultation 
 by the member bringing those charges with any of this Com- 
 mittee, or with members outside ; in other words, whether 
 there had been a pressure from these neighboring churches at 
 all affecting the urging of those charges .'' I have my own 
 judgment. I think we should say No. But I should like an 
 explicit answer to that question. 
 
 And, secondly, whether, as preliminary or antecedent to any 
 of these proceedings, there had been any private conference, 
 
202 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 or correspondence, between the pastors of these two churches 
 and the pastor of Plymouth Church, with reference to the 
 matters which seemed to impHcate the character of the pastor 
 of Plymouth Church ? I ask only for the fact, whether any 
 thing passing in that way, previous to the formal correspond- 
 ence, will account for what seems to some of us the strong, 
 perhaps the over-strong and over-vigorous putting of the 
 case, with which the correspondence, as it comes before us, 
 begins. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Byington, of Brunswick, Me. : In the last letter of 
 Plymouth Church, which is in this published pamphlet, they 
 say that they understand the offer of a Council to have been 
 withdrawn by the churches which had first invited them ; and 
 I would like to inquire of the Committees whether that was 
 their understanding, and whether, in their last letter, they 
 intended to withdraw that offer ? 
 
 Rev. Mr. Blake, of Concord, N, H. : On the 33d page* 
 there is a sentence in a Resolution of Plymouth Church, begin- 
 ning " In accordance with these her immemorial declarations," 
 and ending with " admonition and censure : " I should like to 
 know how the Committee understands that } and whether it is 
 true that before any correspondence between the three 
 churches, any of the Committee who are represented as call- 
 ing this Council threatened any of the clerks of the church 
 with the excommunication of Plymouth Church, as something 
 inevitable in the future. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Storrs : Not to my knowledge. I never heard of 
 any such remark, by anybody, or from anybody ; and I have no 
 reason whatever to suppose that any such remark was ever 
 made. If this brother will bring up before his mind sixteen 
 gentlemen, some of them living in his own town of Concord, 
 and some of them outside of it, and then will contemplate the 
 proposal to him to be answerable for all their remarks in the 
 course of six months, he will perhaps understand the difficulty 
 which I should experience in making an absolutely negative 
 reply to a question of that comprehensive sort. But, from 
 what I know of the gentlemen of the Committee, I am per- 
 fectly sure that no such remark was ever made, by any one of 
 
 * P. 33, of this Volume. 
 
QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. 203 
 
 them ; as I absolutely know that no such remark was ever 
 made by me. 
 
 Now, I am afraid I shall forget some of these questions, 
 after all. President Chapin's strike me as important, and I 
 wish he would repeat them. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Chapin : First, as to the fact whether the movement 
 in the Plymouth Church, bringing these charges, was made 
 under any outside pressure } Second, whether there had been 
 private conference, or correspondence, between the pastors of 
 these two churches and the pastor of the Plymouth Church, 
 respecting the reflections upon character that were involved 
 in the matter t I ask merely for the matter of fact, not at all 
 to bring up that question. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Bartlett : I am requested to ask, in addition, 
 whether all of the pamphlet furnished to the members is 
 official ; and particularly whether the card of the Clerk of the 
 church, on the 25th page,* was an official declaration, or simply 
 a personal one, upon the responsibility of Mr. Halliday 1 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : In reply to that, I have to say that the 
 card, as printed here, is copied exactly, with typographical accu- 
 racy, from the paper in which it appeared ; and that in that 
 paper, and at the foot of the card as there published, the Rev. 
 Mr. Halliday signed himself as Clerk of Plymouth Church. That 
 was not inserted by anybody else. It was inserted by himself ; 
 and it has the same official stamp which the letter from Ply- 
 mouth Church, addressed to us on Nov. 28th, on the 33d page 
 has — " S. B. Halliday, Clerk of Plymouth Church." If we do 
 not know that the first was official, we do not know that the 
 last was official ; and we could have no proof of either com- 
 munication, as having been official, unless we have it in each 
 case equally. 
 
 I will now reply to Dr. Chapin. I am glad he asked the 
 question which he did. I thought I had touched upon it 
 yesterday afternoon. 
 
 The gentleman who made these charges, — I am not aware 
 whether he is present now, as he was yesterday ; but if he 
 were present, he would testify to this : that I had never ex- 
 changed a word with him ; that I did not know his name ; 
 
 * P. 25, of this volume. 
 
204 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 that I did not know that he was living in the city, or was a 
 member of the Plymouth Church, until he came to me to ask 
 me a question as to how he should present a certain matter, 
 which was heavily on his mind. And when he told me what 
 it was, I found that it was this matter. 
 
 He told me that he desired no advice from me concerning 
 it ; that he had had it borne in upon him, as a Divine impres- 
 sion, that it was the duty of some member, and, if of any mem- 
 ber, his duty, to bring this matter before the Committee of the 
 church ; that his soul was pierced and weighed down with the 
 impression resting on him that the church was suffering ; that 
 the name of the pastor was suffering ; that the minds of the 
 congregation hearing the pastor were suffering, through the ab- 
 sence of an investigation ; that he asked no counsel concern- 
 ing it ; that he had conferred with the pastor of the Plymouth 
 Church, and felt that he approved of it ; and the only question 
 which he asked was, whether a particular form was technically 
 correct, so that it could not be objected to as technically 
 irregular, and he be prevented from getting any hearing on the 
 merits of the case. 
 
 I told him it was a delicate matter. On the one hand, 
 I did not feel at Hberty to refuse counsel, in regard to a minor 
 matter, to a man who seemed to me to be standing in some- 
 what difficult circumstances, under a serious sense of responsi- 
 bility, and with a strong conviction of duty. On the other 
 hand, I was reluctant to give him any suggestion. I told him 
 if he would see some other minister, and we two could meet 
 him, we might give him such advice as he desired on that one 
 point, but that on the general subject we should give none. 
 We had systematically refrained from interposing, in any way, 
 through any member, by any influence, to bring it up ; and 
 from that course we should not depart. 
 
 He repeated again, before two of us, his declaration that he 
 needed no counsel, asked no counsel, would take no counsel, 
 concerning his general purpose and endeavor ; but concern- 
 ing the technical regularity of the way in which to present 
 the charge, and to prosecute his endeavor, he did desire some 
 advice ; which we gave him, kindly, wisely, I think, tenderly 
 toward him, as a man oppressed with a heavy sense of great 
 
QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. 205 
 
 responsibility, in a spirit of perfect brotlierly love and fellow- 
 ship toward the church. 
 
 That we are responsible for the introduction of the matter 
 into the Plymouth Church, is absolutely untrue, to the very 
 roots, and to the topmost branch. 
 
 Now, sir, in regard to this other matter, of personal confer- 
 ence with Mr. Beecher, I will speak for myself. I had no 
 conference with Mr. Beecher concerning this subject ; because 
 I felt that it had been made impossible by him. I do not 
 know that I desire, or should be willing, to add any thing 
 beyond that, or that it is needful. I felt that, in consequence 
 of what had previously happened, it was not within my privilege 
 to confer with him. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : I do not know that it is proper for Dr. 
 Storrs to proceed any further in this direction ; but the direc- 
 tions of our Saviour are that we go to a brother and tell him 
 his fault, and, if we do not succeed, take another brother. It 
 seems to me, there must be some movement toward that, before 
 any one can say he is estopped from moving on that point. 
 If it is not improper, I should like some further light upon it. 
 
 Rev. Professor Smyth : I hope Dr. Storrs will not answer 
 that question, under the feeling that the Council calls for it. 
 That is a question which goes, simply and solely, into Dr. Storrs's 
 personal relations with Mr. Beecher, and not to his relation 
 with him as representing a church. We are dealing with the 
 transactions between these churches, and between these pastors 
 as representatives of their churches. If Dr. Storrs desires to 
 bring before this Council his past relations, personal and pri- 
 vate, with Mr. Beecher, I certainly ought not to interpose any 
 difficulty in the way ; but I hope he will not answer the ques- 
 tion simply under the feeling that the Council asks for it 
 unanimously. I can only speak for myself. For one, I do 
 not ask for it. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : It strikes me that our relations to the 
 Lord Jesus, and to our Christian brethren, are individual ; and, 
 unless there was an attempt to make progress in that direction, 
 it seems to me, we cannot say that we have done every thing 
 to heal a breach before we have made it public. 
 
 The Moderator : We are not here to investigate the per- 
 
206 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 sonal relations of Dr. Storrs and Mr. Beecher. We are here 
 only to inquire concerning a certain correspondence between 
 the inviting churches and the Plymouth Church ; and the 
 whole raising of this issue, about what happened between the 
 pastors of these churches before the commencement of this 
 correspondence, seems to me to be irrelevant. I submit that 
 to your judgment. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : I appeal from the judgment of the Chair. 
 I would like the judgment of the Council upon that point. 
 
 Rev. Dr. George E. Adams : Dr. Storrs has told us, on 
 his honor, that he was shut out, as I understand it, from any 
 personal approach to Mr. Beecher. That satisfies me ; and I 
 do not see that we need to go into an investigation of the 
 case, as to his truthfulness, or as to his good judgment in 
 relation to it. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Chapin : Having raised the question, I am satis- 
 fied to leave it where Dr. Storrs has left it. My object was 
 to get what light could be secured upon the aspect of the corre- 
 spondence as it begins ; and I do not wish to press the matter 
 into private relations at all. 
 
 Now that I am on my feet, I beg to make a suggestion in 
 regard to this whole matter of asking questions. These mat- 
 ters, that are coming up here, are delicate matters ; and for 
 one, I think — and I presume I speak also for all members of 
 the Council, when I say it — that it is very desirable that the 
 galleries shall not express, in any form, approval or disapproval. 
 It is embarrassing, exceedingly ; and I hope that the intima- 
 tion will be taken kindly by those who are in the galleries, 
 and that we may depend upon their readiness to further us in 
 arriving at a free and unbiased judgmen*- 
 
 The Moderator : I gave that suggestion to the audience 
 in the beginning ; but I must add that if I am required to 
 demand from them an abstinence from demonstrations of 
 applause, I must require it also of the Council. [Laughter and 
 applause.] 
 
 The Moderator : Silence ! 
 
 Rev. Dr. H. M. Storrs : I would like to say a word here, — 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : Mr. Moderator, I am perfectly willing 
 to yield the floor ; but unless I get an opportunity, before 
 
QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. 207 
 
 long, to reply to these questions which have been rapidly put 
 to me, I am afraid some of them will have passed from my 
 memory. 
 
 Rev. Dr. H. M. Storrs : I rise for the purpose of asking, 
 simply, if it would not answer the purpose of Dr. Rankin's 
 question to omit personal matters entirely } He raises an in- 
 quiry as to whether there had been any communication with 
 Plymouth Church, on the part of the other churches, antecedent 
 to the published letter. That is the real thing we want to 
 get at. It is not the private relations of brethren, — brother 
 Beecher's private dealings with brothers Storrs and Buding- 
 ton. We are here to inquire as to the relations of churches, 
 not as to the private relations of pastors ; and what he evi- 
 dently wanted to get at was this : whether there had been any 
 approaches to Plymouth Church, in any shape, antecedent to 
 that first letter, with such strong feeling and such settled 
 views as seem to be expressed by it, and to be retorted in the 
 letter of reply. I think that is what brother Rankin really 
 wants to know. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : Shall I read it, as I put it } 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : It is of no use. I shall not further 
 answer it. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin: Dr. Storrs has said that he had been 
 estopped from making personal approaches to Mr. Beecher. 
 If I understand the decision of the chair to be that this ques- 
 tion is out of order, I want to appeal to the Council as to 
 whether it be out of order. 
 
 The Moderator : What is the question } 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : This is the question : — Are these com- 
 mittees satisfied that in their approaches to Mr. Beecher, and 
 to Plymouth Church, they pursued in spirit the method recom- 
 mended by our Saviour in the xviii. chapter of Matthew. 
 
 The Moderator : That is not irrelevant, if the phrase 
 " Mr. Beecher " signifies his official position as Pastor. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : Of course. 
 
 The Moderator : The personal relation between these 
 brethren and Mr. Beecher is one thing ; the official relation 
 of the pastors of these churches to each other is another 
 thing ; and so far as the question relates to official intercourse 
 
2C8 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 between the bishop of one church, and the bishop of another, 
 it is relevant. But if you come to the personal relations 
 between these brethren, it is irrelevant. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : Are we to suppose that in their relations 
 as bishops of churches they have different relations to what 
 they have as brethren in Christ .'' 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : I should like to know if I am ex- 
 pected to answer that question .'' 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : No : that is for the Moderator. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : I hope we may now be permitted to hear 
 from Dr. Storrs. 
 
 The Moderator : We will now hear Dr. Storrs. 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : Brethren, it is simply because it 
 seems to me altogether according to the proprieties of the occa- 
 sion, and of the matter, and because I would say nothing that 
 might seem to Mr. Beecher, or to any of his friends, as in any 
 way, or in any degree, intended to reflect upon him, without 
 my intending it, that I stopped with the answer which I gave 
 when the question was suggested before. My personal relations 
 with Mr. Beecher had been long, and intimate, and most affec- 
 tionate ; but at the same time, at the time when this letter 
 was sent, I did not feel at liberty to confer with him, person- 
 ally and confidentially, in regard to the matter. 
 
 As the pastor of a church Mr. Beecher is perhaps the 
 bishop of his church, in a sense in which I am not the bishop 
 of the Church of the Pilgrims. I observed that yesterday, in 
 their letter, the committee of the Plymouth Church addressed 
 the Council as " Reverend Fathers in God.". Well, that is an 
 expression which is applied in the Episcopal Church to the 
 Episcopal bishops ; but it is the first time in my life that I 
 ever heard it applied to Congregational pastors, assembled in 
 a Council, And it may possibly represent on the part of the 
 Plymouth Church an idea of the dignity and authority of the 
 pastor, which has never prevailed in the Church of the Pil- 
 grims, and which, if I were to insist upon it there, would very 
 likely produce a revolution. No : I am not " Reverend Father 
 in God" to the Church of the Pilgrims ; but I am an officer of 
 that church, by its consent and acceptance, and as such have 
 a certain degree of official responsibility, and of public as well 
 
BEGINNING OF REMONSTRANCE. 209 
 
 as personal influence. But it would not have become me, in a 
 case of this kind — I do not mean in this case merely, but in 
 any case of the kind — to take any action as pastor of the 
 Church of the Pilgrims which had not been specifically 
 authorized by the church. 
 
 Suppose that any of the churches in the vicinity — any one 
 of them — were to accept a doctrine antagonistic to the Evan- 
 gelical faith, and destructive of it. My relation to them would 
 be through the cognizance of that action, and the remonstrance 
 against it, on the part of my church ; and I should act simply 
 as its representative. I do not pull the church, any more than 
 the bowsprit pulls the ship. I do not push the church. In 
 all this matter, I have not pushed either church or committee. 
 We have not pushed one another. We have walked abreast ; 
 and nobody has had any more occasion or power to pull 
 another than one blade of a propeller has to pull the rest. We 
 have worked together, in constant harmony. 
 
 I do not know how far this Council would decide that the 
 specific rule of discipline. in the xviiith chapter of Matthew, 
 where the offense is between individuals, applies to a case in 
 which one church remonstrates with another. We did not 
 treat this as a case of discipline, precisely. We did not treat 
 it as matter of personal difference, between ourselves and Mr. 
 Beecher. Our complaint was against a church, not against a 
 person. We had been in fellowship with the Plymouth Church 
 for many years, in peace, and brotherly love, and co-operation 
 in good works ; and we saw them doing what seemed to us a 
 fearful thing, fatal to discipline, bringing a stigma on all our 
 churches, tending to work as a principle of mischief in every 
 church in which it should be afterward introduced, — a principle 
 of disease, and active as such ; a zymotic principle, fermenting 
 as it worked. We saw that, and we felt that necessity was 
 laid upon us to make remonstrance. It was a delicate thing 
 to do. How did we do it .'' 
 
 First, the pastors, meeting together, found that they felt 
 precisely alike, on the subject suddenly opened before them. 
 Secondly, they asked another pastor, wise and kind, and not 
 connected with the incipient movement, what he thought 
 concerning it ; and found his mind in harmony with theirs. 
 
2IO THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Thirdly, they called a meeting, perfectly private, of all the 
 officers of both their churches, taking them not as individuals, 
 but as officers, — I mean not selecting persons by reason of any 
 personal preference, but taking those who had been previously 
 selected by the churches as office-bearers in the churches, — 
 and asked them what they thought ; and found that every mind 
 among them agreed upon the dangerous nature of the action, 
 and upon the injury to be brought on all our churches if it 
 should go unchallenged. 
 
 Then it was brought up in the church-meeting, as a ques- 
 tion to be discussed and decided, whether action should be 
 taken, and to what extent, — in a church meeting regularly 
 called ; that is to say, in the Church of the Pilgrims, called 
 precisely as every meeting which we have held for special 
 business has been called since I have been the pastor of it, 
 until the meeting which called this Council ; called at the end 
 of a prayer meeting, — a prayer-meeting which holds oftentimes 
 from two to three hundred persons in it ; a prayer-meeting in 
 which the piety of the church, its intelligence, its wisdom, are 
 supposed to be, and in point of fact are, more fully and ener- 
 getically represented than in any meeting called merely for 
 the transaction of business. At the end of such a prayer- 
 meeting we are accustomed to do our business, when 
 any business has arisen specially requiring to be done. At 
 the end of the prayer-meeting in Plymouth Church, without 
 any previous notice, they appoint delegates to Councils, by 
 their Manual. According to their Manual, every one of you, 
 coming together here to consider the most important question 
 which has confronted Congregationalism in this country since 
 Dr. Channing preached his Baltimore sermon, — every one of 
 you would have been appointed and sent forth, to represent 
 your churches, to represent the Congregationalism of the past 
 and of the present, to put your hand upon the levers which 
 are to turn the ship one way or the other for all time to come, 
 at precisely such a meeting as we convened. You would have 
 been sent hither thus, with this authority, in this critical 
 emergency, — Plymouth Church itself would have sent its 
 delegate, on precisely such an occasion, — at exactly such a 
 meeting as we called to consider this matter. 
 
BEGINNING OF REMONSTRANCE. 211 
 
 At that meeting, it being a stormy night, there were not 
 so many present as usual. We had not anticipated the storm. 
 In consequence of it, if there had been one dissenting voice 
 or face among the thirty-odd male members of the church 
 who were present, I should have counseled delay. The 
 moment the matter was suggested, the moment the Resolu- 
 tions were read, for consideration, criticism, opposition, or 
 assent, every voice was utterly in favor of them. The vote, 
 when it was taken, was a vote so unanimous, so energetic, so 
 instantaneous, that the thirty seemed multiplied by three. I 
 never before heard so eager a vote from so many persons. 
 The Committee of my church are here, and can be questioned 
 as to whether their impressions agreed with mine. 
 
 After the meeting a gentleman came to me, and said : " You 
 don't icnow how relieved I am. I came from a church where 
 discipline was careful. I have enjoyed this church. I have 
 been happy under your ministry. I have had the feeling that 
 here I could be useful and happy for years to come. When I 
 read the report of the proceedings of Plymouth Church, the 
 other morning, I took it home to my wife, and said to her : 
 ' We have made a mistake. We must get out of Congrega- 
 tionalism as soon as we can. Character is not safe in it. 
 The most licentious tongue cannot be curbed. No reputation 
 can be sure of vindication.' " That was the feeling ; not his 
 alone, but that of many. Then we sent the letter. 
 
 Why was not the letter read } Because it was a letter to 
 the Plymouth Church. Because it was not a letter to the 
 public. We desired and meant, if human skill could contrive 
 it, to keep it private between that church and our own, and 
 that none — 
 
 A Delegate [interrupting] : What you have spoken of 
 were the Resolutions that were passed. The letter you now 
 speak of was not read in the church-meeting } 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : How was this church-meeting called } 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : It was called at the prayer-meeting, 
 — called as every similar meeting with us is always called, and 
 has been from the beginning. 
 
 Mr. Moderator, if these brethren will allow me to go on 
 now, and finish my statement, and afterward will ask me any 
 
2 12 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 questions, as many as they like, I will fully answer ; but these 
 sudden interruptions break the continuity of my thought, and 
 may delay us a good deal. I was saying that that letter was 
 intended to be private. Therefore, and therefore only, it was 
 not read in open church-meeting. For if it had been read 
 in such church-meeting, instantaneously these nimble fingers 
 [glancing toward the reporters] would have got it, and yonder 
 unwearying types would have given it, or given an abstract of 
 it, probably in a broken and incomplete form, in which it might 
 have been entirely misunderstood, entirely misrepresented. 
 If it had been published by us, in its full text, it would not 
 have been in any sense a letter to the Plymouth Church, but 
 a challenge to that church, before the general public, addressed 
 to it in the newspapers. We did not mean it to be such. It 
 was intended to be a private communication between the 
 churches. In order to prevent its being published in a garbled 
 form, in order to avoid the necessity of publishing it our- 
 selves, it was not read in open church-meeting. 
 
 A Committee was appointed, under full and careful Resolu- 
 tions, to which I have referred, to send such a letter, con- 
 ferring with the Plymouth Church concerning this matter. 
 We believe, in the Church of the Pilgrims, in the ancient doc- 
 trine of delegated duties, as distinguished from vested author- 
 ity. Any Congregational church may delegate duties. Jt 
 does so to its deacons, who are to take care of the poor, and 
 serve at the communion. It does so to those whom it sends 
 on Councils, like this. It does so to those whom it appoints, 
 if it appoints them, as often it does with us. Superintendents 
 of Sunday schools, or of mission schools. We delegate duties ; 
 but we never vest authority in any body of men. When the 
 duty is done, the authority is terminated ; and that is the dis- 
 tinction between the democratic and the aristocratic church, 
 in our judgment. Not that all the business be done with all 
 the brotherhood taking part in every particular. That is not 
 necessary, though we have no objection to it ; but that all the 
 business be done by the whole brotherhood, acting either in 
 public assembly, or though representatives appointed for an 
 office, appointed for a time, instructed to perform a special 
 duty, and then to report. 
 
THE REMONSTRANCE CONDITIONAL. 213 
 
 That was the way which the church elected in sending this 
 letter : to keep it private, that it might not be offensive to the 
 Plymouth Church in th,e mode of its presentation. Then the 
 letter was accepted by the Committees, was unanimously 
 approved, unanimously signed, and sent upon its way. We 
 did not know, of course, what the Plymouth Church would do 
 with it. They might have taken the letter, and presented it 
 to their Examining Committee, if they had chosen, and said : 
 " Here is a letter the reading of which, publicly, may for the 
 present be postponed." They had it three weeks, almost, before 
 they read it. " We will enter into a conference with these 
 Committees, and see if there cannot be some adjustment of 
 this matter without publication." They might have done 
 that, without infringing the liberty or the rights, or in any 
 way impinging upon the dignity, of the church. We did not 
 know what they would do. 
 
 The letter is said to have been a strong one. We meant it 
 should be strong ; but we meant it should be kind. If we 
 made any mistake, we most certainly apologized for that in 
 the letter which was next sent, in which we expressly dis- 
 claimed any spirit or purpose of unkindness. We meant it to 
 be strong, because our convictions and feelings were strong, 
 with regard to the nature of the action they had taken, and 
 the dangerous consequences of that action. 
 
 But the letter is overshadowed, as the sod beneath the oak 
 is overshadowed by its branching arms and the mighty coronal 
 of its foliage, by such words as these : " The policy is here, as 
 ive understand it, distinctively avowed." " It is announced as 
 a prevailing policy of the church." Announced ! We did not 
 say affirmed by you. " It seems to us to offer opportunity and 
 positive inducement." " Such a course of action appears to ns 
 especially untimely." " We are impressed zvith the conviction 
 that credit cannot properly be given." "To remain silent 
 when a policy is avowed wJiicJi impresses tis" etc. " We do it 
 in absolute kindness of spirit, but under the deepest convic- 
 tions of duty ; believing that you, however tinconscionsly, are 
 imperiling the name," etc. In one instance, where it might 
 have been added, such an expression is omitted ; at the begin- 
 ning of the last paragraph. We did not mean to say that this 
 
214 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 is an error which has been certainly adopted by the Plymouth 
 Church. We say, " believing that you " in the preceding 
 paragraph. And then we speak of the error itself, objectively, 
 as " vital and vast ; " understanding, ourselves, that the ante- 
 cedent word " believing " qualified every thing that follows. 
 But there might have been added the same expression, which 
 occurs seven or eight times elsewhere. 
 
 Why did we not send a note, instead of an energetic letter .-• 
 Brethren, Plymouth Church is a powerful church ; a proud 
 church, with reason ; confident in its strength, with reason. 
 It seemed to us then, it seems to me now, that a simple note 
 of inquiry sent to that church would have been like one of 
 last autumn's leaves dropping on the current, swift and swol- 
 len, of the unheeding brook ; that, if we were to challenge 
 any attention on their part toward this action, which seemed 
 to us so radical in its error, and so threatening in its conse- 
 quences, it must be done by a letter long enough, earnest 
 enough, to secure the attention which we desired to command. 
 Perhaps we made a mistake. If you think that any other 
 course would have brought about consequences more desirable, 
 when you are placed in the same circumstances you can try 
 the other course, and then we can compare results. 
 
 We did the best we could, in the fear of God, in the love of 
 that church, in the desire that our own churches should be 
 relieved of the burden which seemed thrown upon them, and 
 defended from the dangerous power which seemed suddenly 
 introduced among them. Under a serious sense of our re- 
 sponsibility, with conference beforehand, with the approval of 
 the wisest and most experienced men whose judgment we 
 could get, privately, that we might not challenge them before 
 the public, we sent a letter, long and earnest, but a letter con- 
 cerning which one of the wisest and kindest of men within 
 the circle of my acquaintance, long a minister of Christ, said, 
 when he heard it read : " Brother, I am glad you have remem- 
 bered one thing, which I always say in a case of this kind, — 
 forbear threatening." That was his instantaneous verdict on 
 it. That, with all the excitement under which we were, with 
 all the vivid impressions we had of the nature and the conse- 
 quences of this action which we resisted, that was our impres- 
 
LETTER APPROVED BY THE CHURCH. 215 
 
 sion : that we had been self-restrained, and that the letter did 
 not threaten. That was our intention. 
 
 This letter was sent, as I have said, without our knowing 
 what would be done with it, what immediate disposition would 
 be made of it. It might be treated as a matter not necessary 
 to be spread at once before the whole brotherhood, but perhaps 
 to be referred to some committee, and only to be made public 
 at the end of some preceding correspondence. Possibly we 
 might have been wholly satisfied by the result of such a 
 correspondence, and have been ready to withdraw the letter. 
 We didn't know. It was kept ; and after nearly three weeks 
 had passed it was read, and the answer to it was adopted. We 
 had kept it private until a fortnight had passed from the time 
 when our church-meeting was held. In the interval it had 
 been read to an assembly of many persons, — members of the 
 church some of them, members of the society, and not of the 
 church, some of them, — at the house of the pastor of the Plym- 
 outh Church. This was a matter of public notoriety. It had 
 been made to be so, not by us. And then, after that, feeling 
 that the obligation of privacy, and the responsibility for privacy, 
 were no longer upon us, it was presented at our church-meet- 
 ing, called as before, at which, in the case of my own church, 
 more members were present ; and it was unanimously and 
 instantaneously approved. 
 
 Brethren, if you imagine that there was any trick in getting 
 it prepared by the Committee, and not approved at the begin- 
 ning by the church, — if any representations of the Plymouth 
 Church have made that impression upon you, — you may just 
 as well take the impression, and carry it home with you, that 
 I am a black man ! We did not want to heat the already warm 
 feeling of our churches on the subject. We did not want 
 passion, rivalry, and antagonism, to come in any sooner or 
 faster than we could help. We wanted quietness, deliberation, 
 a Christian judiciousness, and a Christian success; and the law 
 of our action was in that motive. 
 
 So far, then, I have answered these questions, — what we did, 
 and why we did it as we did. Let me now call your attention 
 Brethren, before I finally relieve your patience, to one or two 
 matters which I think we should consider carefully, all of us, — 
 you on your responsibility, and we on ours. 
 
2l6 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL 
 
 Let me say one word, however, before I come to that, in 
 answer to the question asked by Prof. Smyth. I said dis- 
 tinctly yesterday afternoon, — as I understand it, as I meant to 
 say it, as I believe I did say it, — that the card which was pub- 
 lished by Mr. Beecher would be accepted by sympathetic 
 minds as a final vindication of himself from the imputations 
 which had been cast upon him ; a truthful and complete 
 denial of the scandalous statements which had been circulated 
 against him. It would be accepted as such by sympathetic 
 minds ; and they would feel that, as far as he was concerned, 
 he had done enough. That was the argument given for not 
 prosecuting the matter in the church, when it came up for 
 investigation, indirectly, through the offering of these charges. 
 Therefore I touched it, and for no other reason : to ask, for 
 my own satisfaction and for yours, whether that vindication, 
 to other minds, hostile to him, might not have been increased, 
 supplemented, emphasized, re-enforced, by the distinct verdict 
 of his own church, after investigation, with a judicial authority. 
 I said that it seemed to us, he might thus have been shielded 
 from certain taunts and stings which have since been flung at 
 him. 
 
 I do not think it is necessary that I should state such in 
 detail. A Sunday paper, published in this city in the interest 
 of the liquor-sellers, was responsible for one of them, ten days 
 ago. It was, simply, that he was not a man whom the matrons 
 and maidens of Brooklyn should follow in any crusade. A 
 Democratic paper, published in New York, was responsible 
 for another, which happened to flash into mind as I was speak- 
 ing on this point yesterday, but to which I will not further 
 refer. I say, merely, that the answer which Plymouth Church 
 made, — that the pastor had already vindicated himself, — in 
 reply to our suggestion that there was an opportunity for 
 further vindication of him by its proper action, seems to us to 
 be met, in a measure, and replied to by the fact that here, a 
 year and a half after the stories were first started, such flings 
 can be still repeated ; and by the fact, which it seems to me 
 will probably be the fact, that whenever any paper finds itself 
 in antagonism hereafter with that eminent and powerful man, 
 when he strikes at the Ring as he used to, when he thunders 
 
ACTION WAS CORPORATE, PUBLIC, FORMAL. 217 
 
 against vice in high places as he used to, and any one desires 
 to fling at him a poisoned dart, this will be the dart : " Your 
 church did not investigate those stories ! " I think the church 
 loved him, oh, how well ! Any pastor might be proud, at the 
 end of fifty years, instead of twenty-five, to have such unani- 
 mous, substantial, mighty out-bursts of love and confidence 
 toward him. They loved him with all their hearts ; and, as I 
 said yesterday, I honor them for it. But I think, though they 
 loved him so well, they loved not wisely. To that single point 
 my remark about this matter had reference ; and then, beyond 
 that, I went on to say that to this end, of manifesting their love 
 with all their soul, it seemed to us that they sacrificed the whole 
 duty of the church in discipline : its remedial duty, if one was 
 guilty and could be reclaimed ; its vindicating duty toward the 
 innocent man, if he were unjustly accused of the offense ; its 
 punitive duty toward one found guilty of such offenses, if he 
 offered no excuse, and showed no repentance ; its vindicating 
 duty to itself, for the clearing of itself from any suspicion of 
 complicity in such wickedness ; its vindicatory duty toward 
 the Lord on high, who walks in garments of unblemished 
 brightness. We all felt this; and only in reference to that 
 previous point came up the remark about which this inquiry 
 has been made. 
 
 Now, Brethren, I beseech you to observe, before you go into 
 the private session, these things : that this action is corporate 
 action, public and formal, by the church. The question has 
 been asked, I suppose, of either one of us, many times : " The 
 pastor of the Plymouth Church is reported as having preached 
 so and so. Why do you not interpose there .-' Why have you 
 not made any remonstrance about it } " Because we have 
 nothing to do with that. That is for the church to take pri- 
 mary cognizance of ; and, as long as the creed of the church 
 remains evangelical, we have nothing to say. So we under- 
 stand our responsibilities, and our duties. Mr. Beecher is a 
 man of such liberal thought, of such a far-circling mind, of 
 such facile and affluent utterance, that he corrects one state- 
 ment by another, and the statement of one week by that of 
 the following ; and we have always been ready to let his state- 
 ments balance and interpret one another, confident that in the 
 end the substance of the Gospel would therein appear. 
 
2l8 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 We have never felt any right to interfere with regard to his 
 various expressions of his opinion, so long as the church 
 remained evangelical in its public declaration of the Faith : 
 the church to whose creed he has expressed his assent, and 
 does express it at every communion ; the church whose creed 
 he has never disavowed ; the church whose creed is the public 
 platform on which he stands every Sunday to preach. 
 
 But here is action, corporate and public, of the church 
 itself ; an action not referring to minor matters. We have no 
 call to interpose where a church is regulating its own affairs. 
 It may elect deaconesses, or not ; it may let the women, in 
 whom so largely the piety of the church resides, vote in 
 church-meetings, or not ; it may elect its deacons for three 
 years, or for six years, or for life, or not. All the internal 
 arrangements of it are wholly within its own discretion. But 
 when it touches a doctrine of the Faith, to bring which into 
 the world the Son of God came from the throne, to interpret 
 which in the world the Spirit of God works in the church, the 
 maintenance and vital incorporation of which are essential 
 to the life of God in the world, and to the coming of the 
 Millennium, — when it touches a doctrine of the Faith, by 
 corporate action, we have a right to interpose, as we have 
 supposed. 
 
 This is corporate action concerning Discipline, you ob- 
 serve ; concerning that pure and salutary discipline which to 
 us appears characteristic and necessary in the household of 
 Christ. Here is a doctrine of discipline incarnated in this 
 action, as it seems to us, which, being accepted as legitimate, 
 and properly to be applied in any case, makes void the 
 covenant, terminates discipline, dishonors the church, dis- 
 solves the church, and casts a stigma upon churches in con- 
 nection with it, making them suspected by reason of their 
 fellowship. It is a principle that will work, as I have said, if 
 you give it liberty, everywhere. A church loving its ease will 
 take it. A church following a great example will take it. 
 Plymouth Church is powerful and prominent ; and therefore 
 we felt that, because its influence was so wide, it was the 
 more incumbent upon us to stand up against it, for what we 
 hold to be the truth and purity of the Master's household. 
 
SAME R ULES ; NE W INTER PRE TA TION. 2 1 9 
 
 You introduce this principle with sanction and approbation, 
 you recognize it once and here, and it works to loosen the 
 cement of Christian fellowship in every Congregational church, 
 from the rock where the Plymouth Pilgrims landed to the 
 Golden Gates of the Pacific. 
 
 Brethren, it is not a light matter. It is a matter the roots, 
 the depth, the power of which, will appear to you more and 
 more as you examine it. Personal considerations, one way or 
 the other, are less than the whistle of the boy in the street 
 against the rush of the north-east storm. Personal considera- 
 tions we wholly cast aside. Here is the power, the invisible 
 and tremendous power, of a disorganizing principle of disci- 
 pline and fellowship within the church, let loose upon the air, 
 and riding abroad upon all winds. We have breasted it as we 
 could ; and now it is for you to do it also. 
 
 Here is a principle, also adopted, you again observe, by cor- 
 porate action, in regard to the Fellowship of the churches. 
 New and dangerous that is, as well. New t What do they 
 say in their letter .-* They quote their rules. They say, 
 * These are our immemorial rules. Plymouth Church stands 
 where it did. Why do you interpose now } You gave us the 
 right hand of fellowship twenty-six or twenty-seven years 
 ago, on the same rules as now. Why now remonstrate .'* ' 
 
 They are the same rules, but the same rules with a wholly 
 different interpretation ; precisely the same rules that appear 
 in the Plymouth Church Manual of 1854, in which appears 
 this contrary interpretation : — 
 
 This independence of Congregational churches is neither dis- 
 cord nor isolation, as some represent. They live in close fraternal 
 union ; often meet in Mutual Councils and Conferences ; ask and 
 receive advice and assistance from each other ; and ma)'^ admonish 
 each other, in case of heresy, lax discipline, or any scandalous 
 offense. 
 
 Our fellowship with them was predicated upon the rules as 
 thus interpreted. A new interpretation makes the rule a 
 new one. The life of it is not in the verbal form, but in the 
 moral meaning and intent ; and the moral intent and meaning 
 are represented by the present declaration of the mind of the 
 
220 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 church ; so that, though the rule in form continues the same, 
 by the new interpretation it is wholly changed. What is that 
 new interpretation ? That these rules relieve all other 
 churches — not ours merely, every church in the city, every 
 Congregational church in the land, every one of your churches 
 — from responsibility for the Doctrine of that church. 'We 
 may give up the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the 
 divinity of our Lord, punishment in the life to come, the 
 depravity of human nature, the regenerating grace of the Holy 
 Spirit, promised by God, and realized in the human soul ; and 
 you cannot remonstrate.' In respect to Order : ' we may 
 become Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, what we will ; 
 and we remain in fellowship with you still, as a Congre- 
 gational church.' In respect to Discipline : ' we may loosen 
 all its bands, dissolve its covenants, and be in fellowship with 
 you still, as a Congregational church.' 
 
 That is what the language seemed to us to mean ; and if 
 they had gone on to say, in an equally public and authoritative 
 way, ' therefore our relations with you henceforth are no 
 more responsible or intimate than with a Baptist or a Method- 
 ist church : ' we should have said. Amen. If the withdrawal 
 had been complete, if they had not said in the same breath, at 
 the same meeting, and afterward in a subsequent document, 
 *we are more Congregational than you are, we are Congre- 
 gationalists /«r eminencel then our path would have been 
 cleared. We wish that church all possible success. We will 
 utter no word, and lift no finger, to stop its triumphant march- 
 ing forward. But we are not willing to be responsible for a 
 church with which we can never remonstrate. If my neigh- 
 bor lives in quietness, I live in peace with him ; but if he in- 
 sists upon keeping grenades and bomb-shells in his cellar, and 
 now and then touches one of them off, I want the party-wall 
 made thicker. 
 
 We say, then, that this public and corporate action, first 
 concerning Discipline, dissolves the church, practically. It 
 leaves that church bound together by mutual sympathies, by 
 their common attachments to a place and a service, to a pastor 
 and to a memory ; but the same principle, of the power of dis- 
 solving covenants by a personal choice no longer to be bound 
 
CASE NOT CLAIMED AS EXCEPTIONAL. 221 
 
 by them, extends to the pastor, and to every officer ; and, 
 carrying it out completely, the church has no more organiza- 
 tion than a thousand sparrows, flirting and quarreling in the 
 air. And the same action, by the principle of Fellowship 
 which it infolds, dissolves the denomination. If a Congre- 
 gational church cannot remonstrate with another, but still 
 remains responsible for it, it is impossible that fellowship 
 should continue to be pledged, upon such terms, and such a 
 basis. A fellowship that may be used for remonstrance when 
 the occasion demands it, when the necessity is great, is vital 
 to the denomination. A fellowship that should be occupied 
 and exercised in interfering in merely minor matters would be, 
 of course, intolerable and tyrannous. 
 
 We have dwelt side by side with Plymouth Church all these 
 years, and have said never a word of criticism, censure, or re- 
 monstrance, concerning any of its procedures. But when 
 these touched what seemed to us the vital bond of the church, 
 the covenant, and the paramount end of the church, the purifi- 
 cation of even its erring members, the manifestation of the 
 innocence of the upright, and the vindication of Christ's glory 
 on the earth, — we felt bound to remonstrate, and to remon- 
 strate earnestly. 
 
 Now, Brethren, if you say this case was exceptional, remem- 
 ber that Plymouth Church has never said it. Opportunity 
 has again and again been given, and no such reply has ever 
 been made. It might have said, " The man is a monomaniac." 
 It might have said, " For other reasons, this case we set 
 apart." We recognized that in our first letter, and gave the 
 opportunity for the saying of it, if it were true. " It is not 
 represented [we say] as a hazardous, but a seemingly necessary 
 expedient, adopted reluctantly, in some extreme and excep- 
 tional case, the prosecution of which might be attended with 
 peculiar embarrassments." We absolutely suggested such a 
 reply, if such a reply could honestly be made ; and there was 
 no response. It was announced as according to the rule ; a 
 natural, proper application of the rule ; to be repeated fifty 
 times a year, therefore, if fifty times a year the occasion should 
 arise. 
 
 If you say that Plymouth Church is itself exceptional, we 
 
222 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 admit that, to a degree : exceptional in its numbers; excep- 
 tional in the fame and power of its pastor ; exceptional in the 
 magnificence of its income ; exceptional in the largeness of its 
 enterprise, in various directions. But then will you tell us at 
 what point the exception begins to arise which relieves it from 
 the obligations of Discipline within, and of Fellowship without ? 
 How large must the church be ? how numerous must its mem- 
 bership become ? how famous and powerful must its pastor 
 show himself ? Where is the gauge, in mental ability and men- 
 tal attainment, in rising above which a man gains the right to 
 do as he will, and remain a Congregational pastor still ? How 
 large must the church have become, in the expanding compass 
 of its strength, before it becomes competent to do exactly 
 what it chooses in respect to Doctrine, Order, and Discipline, 
 and allow no remonstrance ? 
 
 Draw the line, Brethren. Tell us at what point the excep- 
 tional position begins to operate for a universal freedom from 
 the restraints which we feel binding upon us. And if you 
 say that such a principle of Fellowship as that is allowable, 
 and that, in the interests of a looser discipline, a church may 
 sever itself from all responsibility to others, and still remain a 
 Congregational church, then, in the name of justice, in the 
 name of reason, in the name of the gratitude we owe to the 
 early founders of Unitarianism for their many services to 
 letters, and morals, and liberty, and a humane religion, do not 
 fail to carry back that principle, and say : A principle which 
 is allowable for the giving of larger looseness in the matter of 
 discipline, is allowable as well for the encouragement of freer 
 speculation upon matters of doctrine ; and Unitarian societies 
 are in fellowship with us, as Congregational churches yet ! 
 
 Brethren, we are in the place where two seas meet. Do not 
 misunderstand the exigencies of the case. Don't decide 
 merely upon abstract questions. We can argue out principles 
 for ourselves, if we must. We are capable of reading, each of 
 us, and can find them in the Platform. But give us practical 
 advice. Here, where the two seas come together, and the ship 
 is in danger of being broken by the violence of the waves, we 
 turn to you. Here are two churches : I will not match them 
 against Plymouth Church in numbers, in wealth, in fame in the 
 
PRACTICAL ADVICE DESIRED. 223 
 
 world, though I do not know that in numbers or wealth they 
 would not bear the comparison : but I say that they have 
 been honest and faithful churches, to the Master, to the truth, 
 to the order they inherit from their New England ancestors. 
 One of them is the oldest in the city, of its order ; the other 
 as old, within a few months, as Plymouth Church itself. There 
 is included in these churches as fair a proportion as you will 
 find, in any churches of the city, of those who love our Master ; 
 who are eager to spread the tidings of his Cross through the 
 world ; who are ready to give, of what God has given to them, 
 liberally, gladly, continuously, for the furtherance of His work. 
 They have done no dishonor to the Fathers' name. They 
 compare favorably with any churches, of any order, in the city 
 around them, for the efforts they have made for the evangeli- 
 zation of the heathen, and the promotion of Christian educa- 
 tion and religion in the land. They have stood ready to help 
 asylums and hospitals, schools and churches, and every public 
 work, — giving of their money, and giving of their time, 
 giving of the inmost energy of their will, of the very life of their 
 souls, that they might build up and bless this city, now, and in 
 the coming time. 
 
 Now you are where the two interests collide. Here are two 
 churches ; there is one, greater, perhaps, and certainly more 
 famous, than either or both of these. But do not think that 
 you can cover the case between these churches by abstract 
 propositions. Give us advice. Tell us what to do. Remem- 
 ber the responsibilities which are now upon you, as they have 
 been, long and heavily, upon us. Admonish us, if you think 
 we have erred. Direct us in our future course. Do it as 
 mindful of Him whom we serve, and in whose presence we 
 are every one of us to stand. And remember that you are to 
 us the last resort ! 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : May I ask if the reply of Dr. Storrs covers 
 the action of the Clinton-avenue Church } if that was the 
 method adopted there .-* 
 
 Rev. Dr. Budington : It was. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rankin : I have no present opinion. I am seeking 
 for light and truth. We were told by Dr. Dexter that that is 
 what we are here for. I admire the magrnificent ilietoric of 
 
224 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 Dr. Storrs as much as any one. But after all I wanted to 
 know whether the preliminary steps that should be taken, 
 before any thing was put upon paper, had been taken by these 
 churches. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Post : There was one question asked, that I be- 
 lieve has not been answered, upon which I think an answer 
 will be desirable : whether the construction put upon the last 
 letter of these churches by the Plymouth Church, as declining 
 a Mutual Council, or withdrawing their request for it, was 
 correct, or was admitted .'' 
 
 Rev. Dr. Budington : In reply to the question of Dr. Post : 
 It will be remembered that Plymouth Church asked us to state 
 the points we had in mind to be submitted by the three 
 churches to the Council, saying, in connection with the ask- 
 ing, that they would give us a prompt reply. In our letter we 
 gave them the points, as we understood them, in frank and full 
 answer to their question. At the same time, in another part 
 of this letter, we affectionately and earnestly called their atten- 
 tion to what we understood to be the inevitable result of their 
 Resolution of independence. We did not understand that the 
 two things were connected together at all. We did expect a 
 full and free answer to both ; and, if either was omitted, we 
 certainly did not expect that an answer to that part of our 
 letter would be omitted, which was drawn forth expressly by 
 their request, and a prompt answer to which was promised 
 beforehand. You can understand, therefore, Brethren, how 
 much surprised we were, when, on submitting to them the five 
 points in our minds, they said they inferred, from the fact that 
 we put a certain interpretation upon a certain Resolution, that 
 therefore they were released from their promise to tell us 
 whether those five points would be accepted, by them as by 
 us, for common submission to a common Council. 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : There is one question which I did 
 not reply to, and one statement which I wish to make. 
 
 The question was asked, but I had forgotten it, it was so 
 entirely unfamiliar : what power the Standing Committee 
 has in my church } It has no power ; because it does not 
 exist, and never did exist. We have what is called an Ex- 
 amining Committee, whose function is expressly limited to 
 
QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. 225 
 
 conferring with persons desiring to enter the church, and pro- 
 pounding those whom they consider proper candidates ; and, 
 further, to hearing complaints, when any complaint is made 
 by one member against another. They have no authority 
 whatever, beyond those two delegated duties. 
 
 The Committee which was appointed by the church to con- 
 duct this correspondence with the Plymouth Church, and 
 which has been acting for the church in this matter ever since, 
 — authorized to do so by successive Resolutions, empower- 
 ing it to do all that was needful to bring this to its issue, and 
 finally authorized, specifically, to issue these Letters-Missive, — 
 is a Special Committee ; appointed for the special purpose for 
 which the special powers have been given, and whose function 
 terminates, absolutely, when the case is ended. 
 
 One word more : I did not see Mr. West present in the 
 house at the moment when I made my statement in regard to 
 the conviction on his mind which led him to make this move- 
 ment in Plymouth Church, with no suggestion, with no in- 
 spiration, from us, and no previous knowledge of it on our 
 part. I have seen him, since I ascertained that he was here, 
 and have just asked him if he heard my statement ; and he 
 says he did. I asked him if the statement was correct ; and 
 he says it was. 
 
 Rev, Mr. Martyn : Would it not have been competent for 
 the two churches by their Committees to have asked for an 
 explanation of these matters of common concern from the 
 corresponding Committee of Plymouth Church ">. and, if so, 
 would not that course have been nearer to Matt, xviii. than 
 the course that was adopted, in first sending the letter, with- 
 out asking for any preliminary oral explanation } 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : Our Committees are Special Commit- 
 tees, as I have said, appointed for a specific duty ; their existence 
 terminating when the duty shall be done. The Plymouth 
 Church had no corresponding Special Committee on this sub- 
 ject. Our permanent Examining Committee had no authority, or 
 privilege, to institute a movement of this kind, or to conduct 
 it ; and we were not aware from their Manual, and never have 
 been made aware since, that their Examining Committee had 
 any prerogative of receiving such a communication, and reply- 
 's 
 
226 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 ing to it. If they had had such an authority, it must have been 
 given to them by the church, and for the occasion. It would 
 have been Presbyterianism, outright, for our Examining 
 Committee to have made a remonstrance to their Examin- 
 ing Committee ; for it would have concentrated the authority 
 and power of the church in a Session, without the name. 
 The church-membership, on our part, appointed its Special 
 Committee to represent it. The membership of the Plymouth 
 Church might have done the same thing, if they had chosen ; 
 but they never did it. 
 
 Rev. Mr, Martyn : Did you not inform us in your remarks, 
 a few moments ago, that in your judgment it would have been 
 competent for the Committee to have received your letter, 
 and to have withheld it from the church for a time } Now, if 
 it was competent for that Committee of Plymouth Church so 
 to act, would it not have been equally competent for that 
 same Committee to have received from your Committee the 
 communication to which I refer, oral, and preliminary .? 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs : I said that we did not know what Ply- 
 mouth Church would do with our letter. A copy of it went to 
 the Pastor, and another to the Clerk ; and they might have 
 presented it, if they had chosen, to the Examining Committee, 
 have taken their advice, and have got from the church, upon 
 that advice, the authority for any Special Committee to confer 
 with us before making the letter public. There would have 
 been nothing un-Congregational in that. But we had no 
 right to assume that it would be done, as in point of fact it 
 was not done ; and we could only address our letter to the 
 church itself, not to its Examining Committee. 
 
 Rev. Mr, Byington : I would like to ask Dr. Storrs whether 
 it is his understanding, that, in the letter of December 15, the 
 offer of a Mutual Council, which had been made to Plymouth 
 Church, was withdrawn .'' 
 
 Rev, Dr. R. S. Storrs : No, sir. It was positively not with- 
 drawn. We understood their Resolution to declare them 
 practically, though not formally, outside of the circle of Con- 
 gregational churches, no longer responsible to us, no longer 
 responsible to any Council. We said then, ' It seems to us that 
 by that action you have vacated the result of any Council of all 
 
QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. 227 
 
 authority or significance as concerning yourselves. We do not 
 renew our application, lest you should take it as intimating 
 that your recent Resolution does not mean what it says.' But 
 we never withdrew the request, and we stated distinctly the 
 points which we desired to submit. 
 
 Rev. Mr. VVillcox : Dr. Storrs stated yesterday his great ap- 
 prehension, and that of the Committees, to be, that so much of 
 our time would be spent in preliminary discussions, that we 
 should arrive at a Result only after a hasty examination of the 
 facts before us. We have an hour before dinner, and can cer- 
 tainly do something in that time. But if we proceed with 
 these questions, which we could easily do until night, we must 
 accomplish nothing. Many of the brethren must be at home 
 before the Sabbath. I move, therefore, that the Council be 
 now by themselves. 
 
 Rev. C. H. Everest, of Brooklyn, N.Y. : I am somewhat a 
 stranger to the brethren who are gathered here ; but I am a 
 pastor in this city, and I know that there are many members of 
 our churches here, and many brethren in the ministry, not 
 members of the Council, and that we cannot give them a 
 greater privilege than to allow them to listen to these Fathers 
 in the Church, so eminently qualified to be their teachers. If 
 it is not out of order, sir, I would move that the sessions of 
 this Council, in the future, as in the past, be open. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Fiske : There is a point upon which inquiry has been 
 made by a member of the Council, to which Dr. Budington 
 I hope will give an answer ; as to the passage in the letter 
 of the Plymouth Church to the parties inviting us. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Budington : As I understand it, I am inquired of 
 whether we had reason to believe that there would be no ac- 
 ceptance of any further communication on our part with the 
 Plymouth Church ; and I would say, in reply to that, that we 
 felt that we were definitely shut out from any communication 
 with Plymouth Church, after the reception of their last public 
 letter, by reason of language you will find in the middle of 
 page 49 of the pamphlet, in which they say : " We must de- 
 cline to receive in any case from them " (meaning from the 
 whole brotherhood), " or from you " (meaning the committees 
 of the two churches), " letters containing covert insinuations 
 
 I 
 
228 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 against the character of any of the members of this church." 
 Inasmuch as our communications respected a case of disci- 
 pHne, by the very necessity of the case those communica- 
 tions were susceptible of the interpretation of " containing 
 insinuations " against certain members of that church ; and 
 this sentence necessarily excluded us from any subsequent 
 communication with them. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Patton, of Chicago, 111. : I would like to inquire 
 whether any other members of the Committees of the two 
 churches would like to be heard. 
 
 Deacon R. P. Buck, one of the Committee of the Church 
 of the Pilgrims, responded : I would say that we agree 
 entirely with the representations made by Drs. Storrs and 
 Budington, and that the Committees are united in this 
 thing. I would not say a word further, except for the last 
 question asked of Dr. Budington. It so happened, that it fell 
 to my lot to present the first letter to Mr. Beecher. Mr. 
 Beecher received us politely. The moment he opened the 
 letter, he asked me its contents. I told him it was a letter of 
 considerable length, and he had better read it at his leisure, 
 rather than hastily, as he would be obliged to then. He in- 
 sisted, as he tore it open, on knowing its contents. I then 
 said to him it had relation to the action of Plymouth Church 
 on the 31st of October, — the lack of discipline toward a 
 member who had been slandering his gastor. Mr. Beecher 
 answered with great emphasis, and, as I thought, with some 
 passion : " We don't allow any one, sir, to interfere with our 
 matters, in this church. We don't acknowledge the right of 
 any body of men to interfere in any form with us." I im- 
 mediately replied : " Perhaps you had better at your leisure 
 read the letter, before any reply is made." I merely state this 
 in answer to the question : that they did not allow any inter- 
 ference on the part of any other church, and considered it im- 
 pertinent on our part that we should remonstrate with them. 
 I thought it proper to state this in answer to the inquiry made 
 of Dr. Budington about their shutting off correspondence. 
 The committees are perfectly satisfied with the presentation 
 of the case by our pastors, and agree most perfectly, I believe, 
 with all that has been said. 
 
COUNCIL ARE BY THEMSELVES. 229 
 
 The question was stated to be on the motion that the 
 Council be by themselves. 
 
 The Moderator : It has been suggested that a word of 
 explanation is necessary. Persons who are familiar with the 
 transaction of business in ecclesiastical Councils know that 
 the immemorial and constant usage of a Council is to deliber- 
 ate, after hearing the case presented by the parties concerned, 
 on their Result, and to come to such Result by themselves. 
 This is in perfect analogy with the proceedings in all similar 
 matters. If the Council retire now, to be by themselves, not 
 only will our friends in the galleries, and on the floor, members 
 of these churches that have invited us, be excluded ; but the 
 gentlemen of the press will also be excluded. They will un- 
 derstand that they have as little right to be present, and take 
 note of what we say and do in this private session, as they 
 have to be present in the jury-room when the case has been 
 committed to the jury, or to be present at the private con- 
 sultation of judges on a question of law. I make this state- 
 ment for their satisfaction ; for I cannot doubt that it will be 
 entirely satisfactory both to the gentlemen of the press, and 
 to the members of these churches, and to the public at large. 
 The question is : Will the Council now be by themselves .^ 
 
 Rev. Dr. George E. Adams : May I say one word in reference 
 to this matter .'' This is not a secret session. We do not go 
 by ourselves because we have any thing to say that we are not 
 willing the world should know, but because we can do more 
 by ourselves, in a small room, in an hour, — where we can hear 
 each other talk, — than we can do here in three hours, where, 
 if we say any thing, we must make long speeches. 
 
 The question being taken, the motion was adopted, and the 
 Council went into private session. 
 
THIRTEENTH SESSION — SATURDAY, MARCH 28. 
 
 At twenty minutes before twelve o'clock, p.m., the Council 
 resumed its open session. The Hon. C. I. Walker, the 
 Associate Moderator, was in the chair. 
 
 He said : I desire, and especially request, that there shall 
 be no manifestations of approval or disapproval as this Result 
 shall be read, as is becoming the order and solemnity of 
 such an occasion. The Moderator of the Council will now 
 read the Result, at which the Council has arrived. 
 
 The Moderator, Rev. Leonard Bacon, D.D., then read the 
 Result, as follows : — 
 
 RESULT OF COUNCIL. 
 
 This Council has listened carefully to the Committees of 
 the churches by which it was convened, and has received 
 from them a clear and earnest statement 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 com- 
 munication declining an invitation from this Council, as well 
 as from these two churches, to appear, by its pastor and com- 
 mittee, and assist in the presentation and discussion of the 
 questions before us, but, at the same time, offering sugges- 
 tions 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 the Christian 
 character, of what they have done in their dealing with the 
 Plymouth Church. No church is beyond the reach of the 
 public opinion of other churches, expressed either directly, or 
 through an ecclesiastical Council. Any church, in its essen- 
 tial and inalienable independence, may, in the exercise of a 
 reasonable discretion, consider any public action of any other 
 church ; may, in proper methods, express its approval or dis- 
 approval ; and may make that public action the subject of 
 friendly correspondence and remonstrance, or, if need be, the 
 ground of a temporary or a permanent cessation of acts of 
 inter-communion. 
 230 
 
RESULT OF COUNCIL. 
 
 231 
 
 There has been laid before us a series of letters that have 
 passed between these two churches and the Plymouth Church. 
 On that correspondence it is our unquestionable right to 
 have an opinion, and to express it, though we have no right to 
 try the Plymouth Church, as a party before us. 
 
 We have to say, then, that the letter of remonstrance and 
 admonition with which the correspondence began was not un- 
 called for. 
 
 The churches throughout the United States, and the general 
 public also, felt a painful anxiety on a question imminent and 
 urgent in this city of Brooklyn, and involving the honor, not 
 of the Congregational churches only, but of Christianity itself. 
 Without any more explicit reference to that question, it will 
 suffice to say, that, in the Plymouth Church, a complaint was 
 brought against a member, that he had "circulated and pro- 
 moted scandals, derogatory to the Christian integrity of the 
 pastor, and injurious to the reputation of the church." The 
 person complained of appeared in the church-meeting, and 
 declared that, four years before that time, he had, by his own 
 volition, terminated his connection with the church ; and 
 thereupon his name was, by a vote of the church, dropped 
 from the catalogue of its members. 
 
 That action of the Plymouth Church was the occasion on 
 which these two churches interposed, with remonstrance, and 
 with a request for a friendly conference. 
 
 In this act they represented the interests of the fraternity 
 of Congregational churches, whose principles of discipline, 
 and whose fair Christian fame, were endangered by the course 
 which the Plymouth Church seemed to be pursuing. For this 
 moral heroism they deserve thanks, even should errors of 
 judgment be traceable in some of the details of their pro- 
 cedure. 
 
 In our consideration of the letter then addressed to the 
 Plymouth Church, we find that the impression made by it was 
 in some measure different from what was intended by its 
 authors. Written under the pressure of apprehensions and 
 anxieties long suppressed, it seems to have impinged more 
 painfully than was intended on the sensibilities of those to 
 whom it was addressed. 
 
232 
 
 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 To many the letter seems entirely unexceptionable, in 
 matter and in manner, and entirely appropriate to the occasion ; 
 while to others it seems unnecessarily severe in the tone of 
 its condemnation of the proceeding complained of. 
 
 In their second letter, the complaining churches, having 
 found what impression they had made by their remonstrance, 
 offered an explanation, which, we trust, was not unacceptable. 
 
 Concerning the reply of the Plymouth Church to that letter, 
 we say nothing more than that an ingenuous explanation of 
 the reasons which had prompted the Plymouth Church to rid 
 itself of an offending member by an exceptional method might 
 have brought the correspondence to an early and a happy 
 termination. We can see no sufficient reason why the request 
 of the complaining churches for a fraternal conference should 
 not have been granted. 
 
 In the subsequent correspondence we see, on the part of 
 the complaining churches, an expression of their desire to 
 unite with the Plymouth Church in referring the points of 
 difference to the advice of a Council. We find on the part of 
 the Plymouth Church no definite expression either of consent 
 or of refusal. Yet, inasmuch as the Plymouth Church did not 
 distinctly refuse to unite in a reference to a Council, we can- 
 not but regret that the complaining churches did not urge 
 their request, till a refusal or an evasion should have become 
 unequivocal. 
 
 We are not invited, nor do we take it upon ourselves, to 
 advise the Plymouth Church concerning its methods of deal- 
 ing with offenders. But we are invited to advise these two 
 churches on certain questions. 
 
 Therefore we say, distinctly, that the idea of membership in 
 a Congregational church is the idea of a Covenant, between 
 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 may be broken by the member. He may 
 offend, and, when duly admonished, may give no satisfactory 
 
RESULT OF COUNCIL. 233 
 
 evidence of repentance. In that case, he is cut off from com- 
 munion. 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 absence of a resident member from the com- 
 munion of the church, and from its public worship, does not 
 dissolve the Covenant, but is a reasonable ground of admo- 
 nition, 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 law of Christ, and especially when the 
 complaint is that he has " circulated and promoted scandals 
 derogatory to the Christian integrity of the pastor, and injuri- 
 ous 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 these churches 
 and the Plymouth Church, we express our hope that the very 
 extraordinary proceeding which gave occasion for the corre- 
 spondence, and for this Council, will not be a precedent for 
 the guidance of that church hereafter. Could we suppose 
 that such proceedings will be repeated, we should feel that 
 the disregard of the first principles involved in the idea of 
 church-membership, and in the idea of the fellowship of 
 churches with each other, would require the strongest pos- 
 sible 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 discipline will not be repeated. 
 
 The accused person in that case has not been retained in 
 the church, nor recommended 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 espe- 
 cially with those who are in all things like-minded with us, 
 holding to the same faith and order, not only in things fun- 
 damental, but in things less essential, yet dear to us by 
 conviction or association." " We cheerfully admit, that when- 
 ever any church shall openly and avowedly change the essen- 
 
234 "^^^ BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 tial conditions upon which it was publicly received into the 
 fellowship of neighboring churches, or shall by flagrant neg- 
 lect exert a pernicious and immoral influence upon the com- 
 munity, or upon sister churches, it is their right, either by 
 individual action or by Council, to withdraw their fellowship. 
 We hold that, preceding disfellowship, in all such cases, there 
 should be 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 communication from 
 the 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 respon- 
 sible for it, in respect to doctrine, order, and discipline, — 
 which action, as interpreted by the circumstances then exist- 
 ing, implied a withdrawal to the ground of total Indepen- 
 dency, — yet that church is to be fraternally judged by its 
 latest utterance. 
 
 These professions on the part of the Plymouth Church may 
 be accepted by other churches as indicating its intention to 
 maintain an efficient discipHne, and to regard the mutual re- 
 sponsibility of churches. 
 
 At the same time, the Council feels constrained to declare 
 that these declarations seem to us inconsistent with the Reso- 
 lution of interpretation adopted by the Plymouth Church, 
 December 5th, 1873, and with other acts and statements 
 appearing in the published documents. We think that the 
 action of that church, as presented in these documents, if 
 unmodified, would justify these churches in withdrawing fel- 
 lowship. 
 
 Yet, inasmuch as the Plymouth Church seems to us to 
 admit, in its communication to us, the Congregational prhici- 
 ples of discipline and fellowship, we advise the churches 
 convening this Council to maintain with it the relations of 
 fellowship, as heretofore ; in the hope that the Plymouth 
 Church may satisfy these churches of its acceptance of the 
 principles which it has been supposed to disavow. 
 
RESULT OF COUNCIL. 
 
 »35 
 
 We also desire, in this connection, to re-affirm and emphasize 
 the doctrine, laid down in all our platforms, of the obligation 
 of Fellowship. This duty applies to all Christian churches. 
 In the case of those instituted and united in accordance with 
 the Congregational polity, it involves that more intimate com- 
 munion which is exercised " in asking and giving counsel, in 
 giving and receiving admonition," and in other acts relating 
 to doctrine, order, and discipline. 
 
 This mutual responsibility of the Congregational churches 
 has characterized their system from the beginning, distinguish- 
 ing it from simple Independency. With the autonomy of the 
 local church, it is one of the formative and essential princi- 
 ples of Congregationalism. Without it, we have no basis in 
 our polity for that system of co-operative effort to which our 
 churches are pledged. 
 
 We regard, therefore, the principles of fellowship which the 
 pastors and churches convening us have so earnestly main- 
 tained, to be those which we have received from our Fathers, 
 and the Word of God. We appreciate and honor their fidelity 
 to these principles, under circumstances of peculiar and severe 
 trial. And we offer our earnest prayer to the great Head of 
 the Church, that He may bestow upon them, and upon the pas- 
 tor and church with which they have been in correspondence, 
 wisdom and grace ; that He may guide them in all their action ; 
 and that He may quicken in all our churches, through these 
 painful trials, a spirit of renewed fidelity to the sacred obliga- 
 tions of our Covenants, and our church-communion ; and we 
 pray that He to whom all power in heaven and on earth is 
 given, who has promised to be with His Church always, 
 even to the end of the world, and who, under the inspiration 
 of His spirit and His truth has joined these churches in a 
 grand and memorable past, standing shoulder to shoulder in 
 the great moral and spiritual battles of the age, may again 
 unite them in the future conflicts and victories of His king- 
 dom ! 
 
 Leonard Bacon, ) ,, , 
 
 „ , ixr I Moderators. 
 
 C. I. Walker, \ 
 
 A. H. Quint, 
 
 I. C. Meserve, ^ ^''''^''' 
 
236 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 When Rev. Dr. Bacon, the Moderator, had finished read- 
 ing the result, he said : 
 
 This is the Result of the Council. We take pleasure in 
 communicating it to the churches that have convened us, 
 hoping and praying that, by means of it, they may obtain light 
 for their guidance, and may be led in the paths of peace, 
 unity, and righteousness. 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. S, Storrs said, in reply : 
 
 Mr. Moderator, I have only in a word, at this late hour, to 
 express, on behalf of the Committees of the churches, and 
 on behalf of the churches themselves which these Commit- 
 tees represent, our sense of indebtedness to the members of 
 the Council, for the great patience with which they have con- 
 sidered the case presented to them ; for the freedom of utter- 
 ance in the presentation of the case which they have allowed, 
 on the one hand to the churches inviting them, and on the 
 other to the Plymouth Church ; and especially for the ex- 
 tended and careful discussions through which these subjects 
 have passed in the private sessions, of the details of which, 
 of course, we know nothing, but of the extent and patience 
 of which we are fully aware. 
 
 I believe it was Burke who said of Lord Clive, concerning 
 his work in India, that he " forded a deep water on an unknown 
 bottom ; but he left a bridge for his successors, across which 
 the lame might hobble, and the blind might grope their way." 
 We have had to deal with very extraordinary facts ; we have 
 had to face a very extraordinary combination of antagonistic 
 influences ; we have had to contend for principles which 
 seemed to us vital. We are very glad that, in reviewing the 
 past, upon the whole, we see so little to regret, and that the 
 Council sees so little to regret, in what we have done. We 
 rejoice that what we have done has brought into new and dis- 
 tinct expression, by so large a body as this, — representing the 
 Congregational churches of all parts of the land, and, in 
 intelligence and experience, far surpassing any similar body 
 that was ever assembled before, — these principles, which 
 have been with us vital and organic, for which we have con- 
 tended, and which are now upborne before the land by the 
 wisdom and the eminence of this assembly. 
 
DISSOLUTION OF COUNCIL. 237 
 
 And as you have offered your prayer for us, that we may 
 be kept in the paths of righteousness, and of the peace which 
 comes with righteousness, so we offer in return our earnest 
 prayers for you, and for the churches which you represent : 
 that you individually may be guided and kept on your way 
 homeward, and may find in health and in peace those whom 
 you left there ; and that upon the churches over which you 
 preside may come the blessing of the principles affirmed by 
 you, in all time to come ; and the blessing of Him from whom 
 those principles come to us ; in whose Son is our only perfect 
 leader, in whose Spirit our only perfect guidance, and in whose 
 Heaven our only true and everlasting home ! 
 
 The following Resolution was offered : 
 
 Resolved, That the members of this Council desire to record their 
 thanks to God for the tokens of His presence, which, during their 
 sessions, they have enjoyed ; for the spirit of brotherhood and for- 
 bearance with which their discussions have been characterized, 
 from first to last ; and for the signal favor which He has shown 
 them, in guiding them toward the Result at which they have arrived. 
 They recognize in these things the answer to the prayers which 
 have been offered, not only by the members of the Council them- 
 selves, but by others, and by the churches whom they represent ; 
 and they return to their several spheres of labor in the faith that 
 the Lord hath been with us, and will bless us. 
 
 The Resolution was unanimously adopted. 
 The following Resolution was also offered : 
 
 Resolved, That we offer to the Pastors and the churches by whose 
 invitation we are convened, in behalf of interests which are ours 
 no less than theirs, the cordial and unanimous thanks of the 
 Council, for their eminently liberal provision for our coming and 
 entertainment, and for the thoughtful care with which they have 
 guarded the freedom of our discussions ; and, in departing, we in- 
 voke the presence and blessing of God to abide continually in the 
 households whose hospitality we have such reason to hold in most 
 grateful remembrance. 
 
 The Resolution was unanimously adopted. 
 On motion, the Council was then dissolved, after the sing 
 ing of the Doxology, and the Benediction by the Moderator, 
 
The Following Document was transmitted to the invited 
 and accepting members of the Council, by the joint Com- 
 mittees of the Church of the Pilgrims, and Clinton Avenue 
 Congregational Church, Brooklyn, N.Y,, April 15, 1874. 
 
 To the Churches, and Clergymen not in the Pastoral Charge, invited 
 to the Advisory Council, convened in Brooklyn, N. K, March 24, 
 1874. 
 
 Dearly Beloved : — The Committees of The Church of the Pil- 
 grims, and The Clinton Avenue Congregational Church, have been 
 requested, by their respective churches, to send you a copy of the 
 Report submitted by them, on the third of April, together with the 
 Resolutions passed by the churches, at that time. 
 
 Wishing you grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father, and 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, we are affectionately yours, in the faith and 
 fellowship of the Gospel : — 
 
 For the Church of the Pilgrims: 
 RICHARD S. STORRS, Pastor, 
 Richard P. Buck, 
 Archibald Baxter, 
 DwiGHT Johnson, 
 Joshua M. Van Cott, \ Committee. 
 Eli Mygatt, Jun., 
 Walter T. Hatch, 
 
 LUCIEN BiRDSEYE, 
 
 For Clinton Avenue Congregational Church : 
 WILLIAM IVES BUDINGTON, Pastor, 
 
 Alfred S. Barnes, 
 
 James W. Elwell, 
 
 Harvey B. Spelman, 
 
 Thomas S. Thorp, [Committee, 
 
 Augustus F. Libby, 
 
 Flamen B. Candler, 
 
 Calvin C. Woolworth, 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 The Special Committee, which was requested by this church to 
 act, on its behalf, in summoning the Advisory Council, called by 
 the Letter-Missive adopted by the church, February 23d, and also 
 in presenting to the Council, when convened, the matters to be 
 laid before it for consideration and advice, beg leave to report : 
 
 That they have performed the offices thus intrusted to them, 
 with the care and attention which their importance demanded, and 
 with an earnest desire that the wishes of the church, in regard to 
 238 
 
ACTION BY INVITING CHURCHES, APRIL 3, 1873. 239 
 
 the constitution of the Council, and to the presentation before it 
 of the subjects to be discussed, should be fully accomplished. 
 
 The Committee, as requested by the church, after full consulta- 
 tion with the Committee of the Clinton Avenue Church, * desig- 
 nated and invited seventy-nine churches from different and distant 
 parts of the land, with seventeen eminent divines not now in the 
 Pastoral office ; endeavoring thus to secure a Council as impartial, 
 as discreet, and as properly influential, as could be assembled, rep- 
 resenting fairly the Congregational churches of the country. Of 
 the churches invited, seventy-six accepted the invitation ; and 
 SEVENTY-FIVE were represented in the Council, by Pastor or Dele- 
 gate, in far the larger number of instances by both. Three 
 churches, only, declined the invitation. 
 
 Of the clergymen personally invited, a larger proportion were 
 unable to be present. By reason of sickness, accident, absence 
 from home, or imperative official duties, we were deprived of the 
 aid of seven of those whose wisdom we had sought ; but the 
 remaining ten were present and influential in the Council. 
 
 The Council was convened, in the Clinton Avenue Church, on 
 the evening of Tuesday, March 24, and continued its sessions 
 till midnight of Saturday, March 28, having given the most 
 earnest, careful, patient, and intelligent attention to the important 
 questions submitted for its advice. 
 
 The Official Report of the proceedings of the Council has not 
 yet been forwarded to the Committee, by the officers of that body. 
 When it is received, it will be transferred, by the Chairman of the 
 Committee, to the Clerk of the church, unless the church shall 
 otherwise direct, to be preserved among our files. 
 
 The Result adopted by the Council, and adopted, as we are in- 
 formed, with only eight votes in the negative, has been communi- 
 cated to the Committee, in advance of the full journal of the 
 proceedings ; and they herewith present it to the church. It is as 
 follows : — 
 
 \yide pp. 230-235.] 
 
 In connection with this Result of Council, the Committee offer 
 to the church, for its consideration, and recommend for its adop- 
 tion, the following Resolutions : — 
 
 Resolved, first : That this church accepts the Result of the Coun- 
 cil, recently convened by its invitation, in connection with that of 
 
 *(" Church of the Pilgrims," as presented at Clinton Avenue Conp-egational 
 Church. 
 
240 THE BROOKLYN COUNCIL. 
 
 the Clinton Avenue Church, * and directs that it be entered in full 
 on its permanent records. 
 
 Resolved, secondly: That this church is grateful to the sister 
 churches, far and near, which responded, with such unusual readi- 
 ness and unanimity, to its request for their presence and advice ; 
 and also to the eminent clergymen who have given it the benefit 
 of their counsel, in the peculiar circumstances in which it has been 
 placed, and on the important questions which, in the Providence of 
 God, have come before it. 
 
 Resolved, thirdly : That this church fully appreciates the wisdom 
 and dignity, with the admirable spirit of kindness and candor, not 
 toward the inviting churches only, but toward the Plymouth Church 
 as well, which were shown by the Council in all its deliberations, 
 and which are conspicuously manifest in its Result ; and, while 
 recognizing thus the wisdom, impartiality, and Christian fidelity of 
 those whose counsel it had sought, it also devoutly and gratefully 
 recognizes the guidance and the help of God, from the inspiration 
 of whose Spirit come all wise counsels, and all just works, and 
 whose direction the church desires and prays ever to follow. 
 
 Resolved, fourthly : That this church welcomes the distinct recog- 
 nition, by the Council, of the gravity of the occasion which called 
 forth our earliest letter of remonstrance and admonition, and the 
 emphatic approval expressed by it of the action in which we then 
 " represented the interests of the fraternity of Congregational 
 churches, whose principles of discipline, and whose fair Christian 
 fame, were endangered ;" it is encouraged by the distinct and vig- 
 orous affirmation, given by the Council, to what this church has 
 always regarded as essential principles in the Congregational order 
 of government ; it is instructed and re-enforced, by the explicit 
 declaration of the Council, that the action of the Plymouth Church, 
 prior to the issuing of our Letters-Missive, " if unmodified, would 
 justify these churches in withdrawing fellowship ; " and it accepts, 
 with cordial readiness, the suggestions of the Council, or of any 
 members of it, as to any "errors of judgment which may be trace- 
 able in some of the details of our proceedings." 
 
 Resolved, Jifthly : That as this church has had but one desire and 
 purpose in all its correspondence with the Plymouth Church, — 
 namely, to have the true principles of discipline within the local 
 church, and of the fellowship and mutual responsibility of Congre- 
 gational churches toward each other, maintained and honored — 
 
 *(" Church of the Pilgrims," as presented at Clinton Avenue Congregational 
 Church. 
 
ACTION BY INVITING CHURCHES, APRIL 3, 1874. 241 
 
 and as these are judged by the Council to be now accepted and 
 set forth by that church, with satisfactory clearness, and in a per- 
 manent form, in the dechirations adopted by the Plymouth Church, 
 March 25, and on that day presented to the Council, — which 
 declarations constitute henceforth a part of the official records both 
 of the Plymouth Church and of the Council, — we accept, on our 
 part, the recommendations of the Council touching our further re- 
 lations to that church. We concur in the hope expressed by the 
 Council that the " Plymouth Church may satisfy these churches of 
 its acceptance of the principles which it has been supposed to dis- 
 avow ; " and, without memories of bitterness, or anxious anticipa- 
 tions, we invoke for it an ever increasing measure of Christian 
 prosperity, and the Divine favor. 
 
 Resolved, sixthly : That the foregoing Report and Resolutions be 
 printed, and that a copy of them be sent, by the Committee, to 
 each of the churches, and to each of the clergymen not in the Pas- 
 toral charge, invited to the Council by our Letters-Missive. 
 
 Resolved, finally : That, after performing the duties assigned by 
 these Resolutions, the Special Committee heretofore representing 
 this church, in its correspondence with the Plymouth Church, and 
 before the Council, be discharged from further duty. 
 
 For the Church of the Pilgrims ; 
 RICHARD S. STORRS, Pastor, 
 Richard P. Buck, 
 Archibald Baxter, 
 DwiGHT Johnson, 
 Joshua M. Van Cott, \ Committee. 
 Eli Mygatt, Jun., 
 Walter T. Hatch, 
 
 LUCIEN BiRDSEYE, 
 
 Brooklyn, N.Y., April 3, 1874. 
 
 For Clinton Avenue Congregational Church : 
 WILLIAM IVES BUDINGTON, Pastor, 
 Alfred S. Barnes, 
 James W. Elwell, 
 Harvey B. Spelman, 
 Thomas S. Thorp, \- Committee. 
 
 Augustus F. Libby, 
 Flamen B. Candler, 
 Calvin C. Woolworth, 
 
 Brooklyn, N,Y., April 3, 1874. 
 At church-meetings, of the Church of the Pilgrims, and the 
 Clinton Avenue Congregational Church, held this evening, the 
 foregoing Report and Resolutions were unanimously accepted, and 
 adopted. Attest, 
 
 JOHN C. BARNES, 
 Clerk of the Church of the Pilgrims. 
 
 FLAMEN B. CANDLER, 
 Clerk of Clinton Avenue Congregational Church. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Absence of Church Members, Volun- 
 tary, does not dissolve their Church 
 Covenant, 233. 
 
 Absentees in churches, to be inquired 
 after, and if disciplinary matter be 
 found, the church to act in such 
 cases, — from Manual of Plymouth 
 Church, of 1854, 41 ; are to be 
 sought after, and if censurable, dis- 
 ciplined by church, — extract from 
 the IManual of Plymouth Church, in 
 1854, 149. 
 
 Abstract Questions submitted to the 
 Council, their consideration not ob- 
 jected to by Plymouth Church, 1 19. 
 
 Acting Pastors, are they delegates ? 58, 
 83 ; are to sit in Council ? 129. 
 
 Adams, G. E., 57, 58, 78, 79, 192, 206, 
 208, 229. 
 
 Address to Plymouth Church, by two 
 Churches, the first was cautious, 
 iSi ; its vigor warranted, 182. 
 
 Advice as to action of the two 
 Churches, is it to be withheld, if 
 another Church debars them from 
 resort to Ex- Parte Council ? 71. 
 
 Advice, Councils for, ought to be rec- 
 ognized as forming a third class of 
 Councils, in Congregational Polity, 
 96 ; from Council, the two churches 
 had a right to seek, 230. 
 
 Advisory Council, to censure another 
 Church, no precedent for, iii ; what 
 is a, the limits of its power, what may 
 it do? 114; if its questions involve 
 a third party, should not principles 
 governing Mutual and Ex-Parte 
 Councils apply to it ? 114. 
 
 Advisory, the Council was meant to be, 
 by the inviting Churches, 69, 71 ; it 
 is, 109, no. 
 
 Albany, N.Y., First Church, 6, 56. 
 
 Amherst, Mass., College Church, 5, 55. 
 
 Andover, Mass., Church in Theologi- 
 cal Seminary, 6, 55. 
 
 Applause, Council not to be influ- 
 
 enced by, 60 ; in sessions of Coun- 
 cil, 206. 
 
 Aristocratic and Democratic methods 
 in Church management, 45, 46. 
 
 Attitude of the two Churches towards 
 Plymouth Church, declared unwar- 
 rantable by that Church, 49. 
 
 Atwater, D. F., 56. 
 
 Bacon, Leonard, 53, 56, 58, 59, 235. 
 
 Bangor, Me., Central Church, 5, 54. 
 
 Barber, A. L., 57. 
 
 Barbour, W. M., 5, 54. 
 
 Barnes, A. S., 4, 31, 35, 46, 238, 241. 
 
 Barnes, J. C, clerk, 241. 
 
 Barstow, A. C., 56, 60, 83, 97, 128, 190. 
 
 Bartlett, E. O., 55, loi, 102, 105, 200, 
 203. 
 
 Bath, Me., Winter Street Church, 5,54. 
 
 Baxter, Archibald, 4, 31, 35, 46, 23S, 
 241. 
 
 Beard, A. F., 57. 
 
 Beecher, Edward, 117, 118, 125, 127. 
 
 Beecher, Henry Ward, 36 ; remarks 
 by, June 29, 1873, 5^ '■> neither two 
 Churches nor Committees, hostile to, 
 134. 
 
 Benevolent Societies, their officers dic- 
 tated to, in summoning this Council, 
 121. 
 
 Binghamton, N.Y., First Church, 7, 56. 
 
 Birdseye, Lucien, 4, 8, 31, 35, 46, 238, 
 241. 
 
 Blake, S. L., 54, 202. 
 
 Boardman, G. N., 7, 57, 79, 108. 
 
 Bolles, A. S., 56. 
 
 Boston, ]\Iass., Ex-Parte Council au- 
 thorizing and aiding in formation of 
 Old South Church, at, 87 ; Old South 
 Church, 5, 54 ; Union Church, 5, 155 ; 
 Phillips Church, 5, 55 ; Eliot Church, 
 5, 55 ; Central Church, 5, 55 ; Shaw- 
 mut Church, 5, 55. 
 
 Bovnton, G. M., 57. 
 
 Bradford, A. H., 57. 
 
 Bradford, J. R., 55. 
 
 243 
 
244 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Brastow, L. O., 54. 
 
 Bridgeport, Conn., First Church, 6, 
 56 ; Second Church, 6, 56. 
 
 Brooklyn, N.Y., South Church, 6, 56 ; 
 Elm Place Church, 6, 56 ; Central 
 Church, 6, 57 ; New England Church 
 (E. D.), 6, 57 ; State Street Church, 
 6, 57 ; Puritan Church, 6, 57 ; Lee 
 Avenue Church (E. D.), 6, 57. 
 
 Brown, E. P., 56, 128. 
 
 Brown, George, 57. 
 
 Brown, T. M., 55. 
 
 Brown, W. B., 57, 60, 65, 192, 193, 
 194. 
 
 Brunswick, Me., First Church, 5, 54. 
 
 Buck, Richard P., 4, 31, 35, 46, 228, 
 238, 241. 
 
 Buckingham, S. G., 55. 
 
 Budington, William Ives, 4, 31, 35, 46, 
 52, 81, 82, 84, 223, 224, 227, 238, 
 241 ; remarks at Opening Session 
 of Council, 52 ; presentation of last 
 two Questions in the Letter-Missive, 
 before the Council, 170 ; remarks at 
 Morning Session of Council, March 
 26, 194. 
 
 Burlington, Vt, First Church, 5, 54. 
 
 Burnham, Choate, 55. 
 
 Burns, Peter T., 57. 
 
 Burton, N.J., 56, 58, 63, 64. 
 
 Bushnell, Horace, 6. 
 
 Butler, J., 56, no, 113. 
 
 Butterfield, H. Q., 57. 
 
 Byington, E. IL, 54, 202, 226. 
 
 Cambridge, Mass., First Church, 5, 
 
 54- 
 Cambridgeport, Mass., First Church, 
 
 Candler, Flamen B., 4, 31, 35, 46, 238, 
 
 241. 
 Candler, F. B., clerk, 8, 241. 
 Carpenter, F. W., 56. 
 Case, when presented to Council, may 
 
 throw light on nature of Council, 
 
 Censure of Church not actually or con- 
 structively a party to Advisory Coun- 
 cil, not to be allowed, 108, 112. 
 
 Chambers, R. B., 55. 
 
 Chapin, A. L., 7, 58, 105, 192, 199, 
 201, 203, 206. 
 
 Charges presented to Examining Com- 
 mittee of Plymouth Church, Oct. 6, 
 1873, — i°> -3i 24 ; sent to accused 
 Member, by the Committee, 10. 
 
 Chicago, 111., First Church, 7, 57 ; 
 Plymouth Church, 7, 57 ; New Eng- 
 land Church, 7, 57 ; Union Park 
 Church, 7, 57. 
 
 "Christian Union," newspaper, 25, y]. 
 
 Church, as an organized body, dis- 
 solved by policy of Plymouth Church, 
 144, 220; local and individual, re- 
 
 sponsible for management of its 
 affairs, 50; is corporate and con- 
 senting action by, necessary to ter- 
 minate membership in } 2, 38. 
 
 Church member can cut himself off 
 from the church, — claimed in Plym- 
 outh Church, 14. 
 
 Church membership, can it be ter- 
 minated by voluntary absence ? 2, 38. 
 
 Churches calling the Council and Plym- 
 outh Church, relations between, 
 advice of Council concerning, 233. 
 
 Churches in communion with Plymouth 
 Church, injured by its action, Oct. 
 31,1873,12,43. 
 
 Churches invited to sit in Council, 5, 6, 
 7 ; number of, 239 ; number of, ac- 
 cepting invitation, 239 ; number of, 
 declining it, 239 ; number of, repre- 
 sented in Council, 239. 
 
 Churches, of Pilgrims and Clinton Av- 
 enue, Brooklyn, N.Y., did they act 
 according to Congregational princi- 
 ples, in their dealings with Plymouth 
 Church ? 3 ; concerned by the ac- 
 tion of Plymouth Church, 18 ; first 
 letter from, to the Plymouth Church, 
 Nov. 8, 1S73, 27 ; the second, Dec. 
 5. 1873, 34 ; the third, Dec. 15, 1873, 
 38 ; action by, April 3, 1S74, 241. 
 
 Clark, Isaac, 56, 79. 
 
 Clergymen invited to Council, num- 
 ber of, 239 ; number of those invited, 
 present in Council, 239. 
 
 Clinton Avenue Church, Brooklyn, 
 N.Y., no case of discipline in it like 
 that issued by Plymouth Church, Oct. 
 31, 1873, 194- 
 
 Coe, D. B., 7, 57. 
 
 Colt, T. M., 55. 
 
 Columbus, Ohio, First Church, 7, 57. 
 
 Committee, Examining, of Plymouth 
 Church, report to the Church, Oct. 
 31, 1873, 4 ! *o communicate with 
 Plymouth Church, Report from, 
 100 ; Joint, from Church of Pilgrims 
 and Clinton Avenue Congregational 
 Church, functions of, 13, 225. 
 
 Common name, imports common 
 principles, 174. 
 
 Concord, N.H., South Church, 5, 54. 
 
 Conference between the three church- 
 es, objects to be attained by, 30 ; 
 declined by Plymouth Church, 14, 33. 
 
 Congregational Churches, their mutual 
 relations stated by Mr. Beecher, to 
 be precisely the same as theirs with 
 Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian 
 Churches, 15; the Council declares 
 that the two churches represented 
 the interests of, in remonstrating 
 with the Plymouth Church, 231. 
 
 Congregationalism, a Historic System, 
 based on God's word, 146 ; con- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 245 
 
 demned, if the two churches be not 
 advised by Council, 167 ; definition 
 of, by Plymouth Church, Jan. 2, 1S74, 
 16, 50 ; by Mr. Beecher, 51 ; more 
 truly, represented by Plymouth 
 Church, than by the two churches, 
 48 ; three principles inhering in the 
 name, 174. 
 
 Congregational Polity, of gradual 
 growth, 85. 
 
 Constitution of Council, 131. 
 
 Corporate and public action of PI)Tn- 
 outh Church, in dropping member's 
 name, Oct. 31, 1S73, ''> -'7- 
 
 Correspondence between the two 
 churches and the Plymouth Church, 
 Council has an unquestionable right to 
 have and to express opinion of 231. 
 
 Council, called to advise the two church- 
 es, 2, 13 ; Constitution of, 131 ; how 
 called, 134 ; convening and organ- 
 ization not objected to by Plymouth 
 Church, 119; dissolution of, 237; 
 mav be called when a church needs 
 advice, — extract from the Platform, 
 9 ; Nature of. Resolution by Rev. Dr. 
 Dexter, So, 84 ; the point involved in 
 the question never thought out, and 
 legislated to last issues, 85 ; motion 
 to lay this Resolution on the table, 
 rejected, 105 ; not Mutual, or Ex 
 Parte, but Advisory, 67 ; Opening 
 Session of, March 24, 52 ; Second 
 Session of, March 25, 82 ; Third 
 Session of, March 25, 129; Fourth 
 Session of, March 25, 170; Fifth 
 Session of, March 26,. 192 ; Thir- 
 teenth Session of, March 28, 230 ; 
 Questions submitted to it, 2 ; Result 
 of, 230 ; Roll of, 54. 
 
 Council, Mutual, sought by the two 
 summoning Churches, i ; Invitation 
 to a, understood by Plymouth Church 
 to be withdrawn, 49 ; not declined 
 bv Plymouth Church, 49 ; it was not 
 withdrawn, 224, 226 ; question asked 
 by the two churches whether Plym- 
 outh Church declines, 35 ; if in- 
 formed of points to be submitted to 
 a, Plymouth Church will promptly 
 inform of decision concerning, 36 ; 
 Plymouth Church could not take part 
 in,' consistently with its Resolution 
 of Dec. 5, 1873, 45. 
 
 Councils, four kinds recognized by 
 Platform, 69 ; three classes of, 95 ; 
 Mutual, Ex Parte, and Advisory, 
 nature and functions of each, de- 
 fined, 96. 
 
 Covenant, Acceptance of, a condition of 
 church membership, 140 ; of church, 
 defined, 142 ; in church membership, 
 dest oyed by policy of Plymouth 
 Church, 142. 
 
 Covenanting of Believers in one church, 
 for watchfulness and discipline, in- 
 heres in the name Congregational, 
 174; between churches, for mutual 
 watchfulness, inheres in the name 
 Congregational, 175. 
 
 Cowles, Henry, 57, 82. 
 
 Credentials, Committee on, 83 ; Report 
 by, 129. 
 
 Cro'sbv, Nathan, 55, 80. 
 
 Curtis', H. F., 56. 
 
 Cutler, E., 55. 
 
 Cushing, C, 53, 55. 
 
 Daggett, O. E., 56. 
 
 Daniels, A. H., 54. 
 
 Day, Calvin, 56. 
 
 Da>', H. N., 56. 
 
 Dec. 5, 1873, Resolutions adopted by 
 Plymouth Church, relieving all other 
 churches from responsibility for its 
 Doctrine, Order and Discipline, and 
 itself from responsibility for those 
 of other churches, 37, 40, 43 ; de- 
 clared by the two churches to sever 
 denominational alliance between 
 themselves and that Church, 16, 44. 
 
 Democratic and Aristocratic method 
 in church management, 45, 46. 
 
 Demond, Charles, 55, 115, 116, 128. 
 
 Dennis, Samuel, 56. 
 
 Denison, J. H., 57. 
 
 Dereliction from Christian duty, not 
 to be passed over by church, de- 
 clared in Manual of Plymouth 
 Church, 41. 
 
 Detroit, Mich., First Church, 7, 57 ; 
 Second Church, 7, 57. 
 
 De Witt, T-, 55, 64. 
 
 Dexter, H. M., 6, 53, 55, 59, 80, 84, 
 104, 128. 
 
 Discipline, may church avoid it, when 
 one member is charged with grossly 
 unchristian conduct, by another 
 member ? 2, 39 ; of Plymouth Church, 
 all other churches declared to be 
 relieved from responsibility for it, 
 by that Church, Dec. 5, 1873, 15, 37, 
 43 ; Questions of, arising from occur- 
 rences in Plymouth Church, and 
 notice thereof taken by the two 
 churches, iS ; views of Plymouth 
 Church upon it, misrepresented, 123; 
 Rules of Plymouth Church as to, in 
 1S48 and 1865, 26; in 1874, 127 ; de- 
 stroyed by policy of Plymouth 
 Church, 143 ; is to be remedial, 151 ; 
 is for the education of the Church, 
 151 ; is for the vindication of the 
 Church, 151 ; the case between the 
 two churches and Plymouth Church 
 not treated precisely as a case of, 
 209. 
 
 Dissolution of Council, 237. 
 
246 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Dixon, J., 57, 6i, 66, 67, 68, 75, 79. 
 
 Doctrine of Plymoutli Church, all 
 other Churches relieved from re- 
 sponsibility for it, 15, 39, 43. 
 
 Dropping members of Plymouth 
 Church, while under charges, recom- 
 mended by its Examining Commit- 
 tee, II ; and voted by church, 11, 
 27 ; Rule 7, for, in Plymouth Church, 
 25- 
 
 Edgerton, F. M., 51, 125. 
 
 Edwards, W. B., 56. 
 
 Elwell, James W., 4, 31, 35, 46, 238, 
 241. 
 
 Emery, J. C, 54. 
 
 Everest, C. H., 57, 227. 
 
 Exceptional, the case in Plymouth 
 Church, Oct. 31, 1873, ^'^^ referred 
 to, as such, by that church, 166, 
 
 Excommunication of offending and un- 
 repentant church members to be pub- 
 licly performed, declared by Plym- 
 outh Church, in its Manual of 
 1854, 41. 
 
 Ex Parte, an ambiguous phrase ; tech- 
 nical as used by Congregational 
 churches, loose and vague as used in 
 law, 102. 
 
 Ex-Parte Council, is a Council called 
 by a party in a church, 65 ; is this 
 Council an, question of fact rather 
 than of order ? 63 ; the two churches 
 sought to avoid, 64 ; the Council ob- 
 jected tc, in advance, as being, 85. 
 
 Ex-Parte Council, a later expedient in 
 Congregationalism, 86 ; always a 
 Council called within the local 
 church, 86, 91 ; first suggestion of, in 
 New England history, at Weymouth, 
 Mass., 1646, 87 ; the Council was, 
 which authorized and aided in form- 
 ing the Old South Church, at Boston, 
 Mass., 87 ; occasionally used from 
 1669 to 1 7 19, 88 ; determined to be 
 the best expedient in certain cases, 
 89 ; admitted with hesitancy, and 
 opposed by many protests, 90 ; have 
 legitimate and honorable place in 
 the Boston Platform of 1865, 90 ; 
 the root principles of, 90, 91 ; there 
 must be ground for calling, 90 ; to 
 validate it, a Mutual Council must 
 have been unreasonably refused, 91 ; 
 cannot exist without supreme tri- 
 bunal, having ultimate jurisdiction, 
 which has made final decision, 91 ; 
 so cannot exist between churches, 
 92 ; the proposition illustrated, 92, 
 93; could n^t heal difficulties be- 
 tween churches, if it were used, 94 ; 
 this is, 99, 103, 120; Ex-Parte Ad- 
 visory Council, this is, 102 ; princi- 
 
 ples which regulate, app'y to this 
 Council, 105. 
 
 Fatrchild, J. H., 7, 57, 58, 59. 
 
 Fairfield, Conn., First Church, 6, 56. 
 
 Fairport, N.Y., First Church, 7, 56. 
 
 Fellowship Church, Views of Plymouth 
 Church, upon it, misrepresented, 
 123; its views declared, 123; doc- 
 trine of, asserted by Plymouth 
 Church, Nov. 26, 1873, 33 ; de- 
 clared in Manual of Plymouth 
 Church published in 1854, 41 ; Plym- 
 outh Church refuses to withdraw 
 from, 50 ; Council declares it obli- 
 gatory, 235 ; distinguishes Congrega- 
 tionalism from Independency, 235 ; 
 in Congregationalism, 172; ques- 
 tions concerning it arising out of the 
 facts occurring in Plymouth Church, 
 and notice of them taken by the 
 two churches, 18 ; with Plymouth 
 Church, duty of the two churches, 
 in respect to it, 3 ; the two church- 
 es advised by Council to main- 
 tain it with Plymouth Church, in 
 hope, 234. 
 
 Field, T. P., 56 ; 
 
 First Question in Letter-Missive dis- 
 cussed by Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs, 
 140. 
 
 Fifth Question in Letter-Missive, dis- 
 cussed by Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs, 
 165. 
 
 Fiske, J. O., 54, 59, 60, 77, 189, 192, 
 
 Foster, L. S., 59. 
 
 Fourth Question in Letter-Missive dis- 
 cussed by Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs, 156. 
 
 Freeland, S. M., 57. 
 
 Fundamental Principles in Congrega- 
 tionalism, 172. 
 
 Garbutt, E. H., 36. 
 
 Oilman, E. W., 7. 
 
 " Golden Age," newspaper, 23, 24. 
 
 Goodwin, E. P., 57. 
 
 Greene, R. G., 55. 
 
 Hall, Gordon, 5s. 
 Halliday, S. B., 26, 33, 36. 
 Hammond, C. G., 57, 128. 
 Harris, George, Jr., 59. 
 Plarris, D. L., 55. 
 Harris, Samuel, 6, 56, 108. 
 Hartford, Conn., First Ch., 6, 56. 
 
 Park Church, 6, 56. 
 Hastings, J., 55. 
 Hatch, Walter T., 4, 31, 35, 46, 238, 
 
 241. 
 Hawes, Edward, 56. 
 Hayes, T. R., 54. 
 " Heads of Agreenvent," quotation 
 
 from, 150. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 247 
 
 Hills, D. B., 57. 
 
 Hincks, E. Y., 54. 
 
 Hobart, M., 56. 
 
 Hodgdon, H. C, 57. 
 
 Holmes, T. J., 57. 
 
 Homer, N. Y., First Church, 7, 56. 
 
 Hutchins, R. G., 57. 
 
 Independence of Local Church, in 
 Congregationalism, 172 ; of Plymouth 
 Church, asserted, Nov. 28, 1873, 33 ! 
 asserted by Resolution of Dec. 5, 
 1873, 43 ; this last seems of greater 
 importance to the two churches than 
 any previous action, 40. 
 
 Independency absorbs Fellowship of 
 Churches, 173. 
 
 Independency, is it Congregationalism ? 
 177 ; the question must be deter- 
 mined by a Council, 179; Council 
 declares 'that Congregationalism is 
 distinguished from it by the mutual 
 responsibility of the churches, 235. 
 
 Individuals, may thev sit in the Coun- 
 cil ? S3. 
 
 Interference in domestic affairs of 
 Plymouth Church, by the two 
 churches, 48. 
 
 Interpretation of Congregationalism 
 by Plymouth Church, destroys Fel- 
 lowship of Churches, 172. 
 
 Invitation to Plymouth Church, to ap- 
 pear at Council, Resolution of Prof. 
 E. C. Smyth to that end, 62. 
 
 Jersey City, N.J., First Church, 7, 
 
 57- 
 Jocelyn, S. S., 57. 
 Johnson, Dwight, 4, 31, 35, 46, 23S, 
 
 241. 
 Johnson, Edwin, 56. 
 Johnson, J. G., 54. 
 Joint Committees, their Report to the 
 
 Church of the Pilgrims, and Clinton 
 
 Avenue Church, April 3, 1874, 238. 
 Jurisdiction of Council, first thing to 
 
 be settled, 113. 
 
 Karr, W. S., 55. 
 Kingman, A., 55. 
 Kingsley, H. C, 56, •]■]. 
 
 Ladd, G. T., 58. 
 
 Law (Ecclesiastical), Council may settle 
 questions of, 107. 
 
 Leavitt, W. S., 55, 77. 
 
 Letter-Missive calling Council, March 
 9, 1874, — in full, i; Council votes to 
 dispense with its reading, 60 ; this 
 vote reconsidered, motion to dis- 
 pense with reading rejected, and the 
 letter read, 61 ; its terms to govern 
 action of Council, 61, 67, 98. 
 
 Letter to Plvmouth Church from 
 
 Joint Committee of Church of 
 the Pilgrims and Clinton Avenue 
 Church, the first, Nov. 8, 1S73, 27 ; 
 the second, Dec. 5, 1S73, 34 ; the 
 third, Dec. 1 5, 1873, 38 ; the first, why 
 not read at church-meetings before 
 sent, 14; read at church-meetings 
 before it was, in Plymouth Church, 
 and approved by Churches, 14 ; 
 read to Plymouth Church, 14. 
 
 Letter from Plymouth Church, to 
 Church of the Pilgrims, the first, 
 Nov. 28, 1873, 32 ; the second, Dec. 
 6, 1873, 36; the third, Jan. 2, 1874, 
 47- 
 
 Libby, Augustus F., 4, 31, 35, 46, 23S, 
 241. 
 
 Libby, J. M., 54. 
 
 Local, Questions brought before the 
 Council are, 122. 
 
 Lockwood, J. H., 57. 
 
 Lord, W. H., 54, 60, 84, 189. 
 
 Lowell, Mass., High Street Church, 6, 
 
 Lyman, A. J., 56. 
 
 Magnifying a case, the two Churches 
 and Committees had not been, 136. 
 
 Magoun, G. F., 7. 
 
 Manchester, N. H., Franklin Street 
 Church, 5, 54. 
 
 Manning, J. M., 54, 58, 59. 
 
 Manual of the Plymouth Church of 
 1S54, 40 ; sets forth Congregational 
 principles as to fellowship and dis- 
 cipline, 41. 
 
 Martyn, Carlos, 54, 63, 73, 225, 226. 
 
 Matthew xviiith, has Christ's rule, in 
 it, been maintained or disregarded 
 when church member, under charges, 
 is released by church without exam- 
 ination .' 2, 39. 
 
 McKenzie, A., 54. 
 
 McQuestin, J., 54. 
 
 Mead, Hiram, 57. 
 
 Membership, church, can it be termi- 
 nated by voluntary absence t 2 ; 
 point where it ceases, 141 ; in a 
 Congregational Church, Council 
 declares that the idea of, is the idea 
 of a covenant, 232. 
 
 Menace, Council summoned under, 
 121. 
 
 Merriman, D., 56. 
 
 Merriman, W. E., 7, 58. 
 
 Meserve, I. C. 57, 60, 235. 
 
 Milwaukee, Spring Street Church, 7, 
 58. 
 
 Ministers invited to sit in Council, 5, 
 6,7. 
 
 Misrepresentations, Committees and 
 churches subjected to, 131. 
 
 Moderator, Permanent, nominations 
 for, 58 ; elected, 59, 60, 63, 65, 67, 
 
248 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 68, 73, 75, id, 78, 79, 82, 83, 102, 108, 
 III, 117, 127, 129, 18S, 189, 1.90, 192, 
 193, 194, 198, 199, 205, 206, 207, 20S, 
 229, 230, 236. 
 
 Moderators, Council to have two, 59. 
 
 Moen, P. L., 55. 
 
 Montclair, N.J., First Church, 7, 57. 
 
 Montpelier, Vt., First Church, 5, 54. 
 ■ Mutual Council, Can this Council pro- 
 ceed until satisfied that Plymouth 
 Church has refused a ? 63 ; how far 
 urged by the two churches ? 185 ; 
 points or questions to be submitted 
 to a, 38 ; Mutual Councils, system 
 of, subverted by Advisory Councils, 
 which are free from rules governing 
 ordinary Ex- Parte Councils, 120. 
 
 Mutual Relations of Congregational 
 Churches precisely the same as 
 theirs with Baptist, Methodist, or 
 Presbyterian Churches, claimed in 
 Plymouth Church, 15. 
 
 Mygatt Eli, Jr., 4, 31, 35, 46, 238, 
 241. 
 
 Name, Common, imports common 
 
 principles, 174. 
 Name of church (denominational), 
 
 should be changed when principles 
 
 are changed, 175. 
 Newark, NJ., First Church, 7, 57 ; 
 
 Belleville Avenue Church, 7, 57. 
 New Bedford, Mass., North Church, 5, 
 
 New Haven, Conn., First Church, 6, 
 
 56 ; North Church, 6, 56. 
 New London, Conn., First Church, 6, 
 
 56 ; Second Church, 6, 56. 
 New York City, Broadway Tabernacle 
 
 Church, 6, 56 ; First Church in 
 
 Harlem, 6, 56. 
 " New York Sun," newspaper, 26. 
 Northampton, Mass., First Church, 5, 
 
 55 ; Edwards Church, 5, 55. 
 Norwich, Conn., Second Church, 6 ; 
 
 Broadway Church, 6, 56. 
 
 Oberlin, Ohio, Second Church, 7, 57. 
 
 Official Report of Council, not received 
 by the two churches, 239. 
 
 Old South Church, Boston, Mass., the 
 Council authorizing and aiding its 
 formation, ex parte, 87. 
 
 Orange, N.J., Trinity Church, 7, 57. 
 
 Orange Valley, N.J., First Church, 7, 
 57- 
 
 Order of Plymouth Church, all other 
 churches declared by it to be relieved 
 from responsibility for, 15, 37, 43. 
 
 Organization of Council, Temporary, 
 53 ; Permanent, 58. 
 
 Orthodox interpretation of Christian- 
 ity inheres in the name Congrega- 
 tional, 74. 
 
 Palmer, C. R., 56, 59. 
 
 Palmer, E., 57. 
 
 Palmer, J. M., 54. 
 
 Palmer, Ray, 7, 57, 189, 192, 200, 
 201. 
 
 Parsons, H. M., 55, 59, 192. 
 
 Pastor of church, to utter scandals 
 against him is among gravest of- 
 fenses, 154. 
 
 Patton. W. W., 57, 228. 
 
 Pike, John, 6, 55, 103. 
 
 Pittsfield, Mass., First Church, 5, 55. 
 
 Platform, Extract from, authorizing 
 Call for Council, 9, 21. 
 
 Plummer, A., 54. 
 
 Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, N. Y., — 
 was its action, Oct. 31, 1S73, accord- 
 ant with Congregational order and 
 usage } 2, 39 ; invited by the two 
 churches to be represented at the 
 Council, p. 3; action of, Oct. 31, 
 1873, 25 ; duty of the two churches 
 towards it, in view of its resolutions 
 of Dec. 5, 1873, 31 ; clerk of, card 
 from, in " New York Sun," Nov. i, 
 1873, 25 ; duty of the two churches, 
 toward it, in view of its action, Oct. 
 36, 1S73, 39 ; first letter from, to the 
 Church of the Pilgrims, and the 
 Clinton Avenue Church, Nov. 28, 
 1873, 3- ; ^'""^ second, Dec. 6, 1S73, 
 37 ; the third, Jan. 2, 1874, 47 ; 
 its statement of the principles con- 
 stituting the inspiration of its his- 
 tory, 47 ; brought to trial, by ques- 
 tions submitted to Council, iii ; 
 spirit of, did it so discourage the 
 two churches, as to justify calling 
 the Council, 115; committee from, 
 appear before Council, 117; reply 
 to Council, 118; objection to the 
 Council determining whether its ac- 
 tion, in given case, was justifiable, 
 119; principles declared by, 125; 
 any action upon issue relating to it, 
 by the Council, protested against by 
 that church, 120 ; seven reasons for 
 the protest, 120-122 ; speeches by 
 its pastor, the Council partly based 
 on, 122 ; reply sent to Council, by 
 order of, 125; no jealousy of, 135; 
 did its action of Oct. 31, 1873, justify 
 remonstrance by the two churches .' 
 156; its action of Oct. 31, 1873, was 
 corporate, public, formal, 11, 217; 
 to be judged by Council, from its 
 latest utterance, 234 ; Council, in its 
 result, cites from its " Reply " to 
 Council, March 25, 1874, 233 ; these 
 declarations declared by Council to 
 be inconsistent with its resolution 
 of Dec. 5, 1S73, 234- 
 
 Policy, the announced and prevailing, 
 of Plymouth Church, an abandon- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 249 
 
 ment of watchfulness over its mem- 
 bers, 28 ; its evils effects declared, 
 28, 29, 42. 
 
 Polity, Congregational, of gradual 
 growth, 85. 
 
 Portland, Me., Second Parish Church, 
 
 5, 54 ; High Street Church, 5, 54 ; 
 State Street Church, 5, 54. 
 
 Portsmouth, N. H., First Church, 5, 
 54- 
 
 Post, T. M., 58, 105, 224. 
 
 Precedents, in Congregational Polity, 
 Reason for force of, 85. 
 
 Principles, the case before Council in- 
 volves, 137; common, the only basis 
 for common Christian work, 176. 
 
 Private Sessions of Council, Com- 
 mencement of, 229. 
 
 Protest presented to Council by Plym- 
 outh Church, illustrative of its 
 general style of response to com- 
 munications from the two churches, 
 194 ; its presentation does not re- 
 move necessity for deliverance by 
 Council, 195 ; is not part of the 
 action which convened the Council, 
 197. 
 
 Providence, R. I., Beneficent Church, 
 
 6, 55 ; Central Church, 6, 56 ; Union 
 Church, 6, 56. 
 
 Public and deliberate action by Plym- 
 outh Church, Oct. 31, 1873, de- 
 manded notice by the two churches, 
 43- 
 
 Questions by Members of Council 
 addressed to Rev. Drs. R. S. Storrs 
 and W. I. Budington, and answered, 
 199-228 ; submitted to Council not 
 same as those to be brought before 
 a Mutual Council, 70 ; to be passed 
 on by Council, implicate another 
 church, 72, 106. 
 
 Quint, Alonzo H., 53, 55, 60, 81, 100, 
 108, no, 112, 113, 116, 129, 190, 192, 
 194, 235. 
 
 Rand, J. S., 54. 
 
 Rankin, E. E., 56. 
 
 Rankin, J. E., 57, 65, 66, 73, 74, 103, 
 108, 19S, 199, 205, 206, 207,208,211, 
 223. 
 
 Raymond, Robert R., 117, 118, 125. 
 
 Recess, Hours of, 84, 12S. 
 
 Remonstrance with Plymouth Church 
 by the two churches, was it justified 
 by the action of Oct. 31, 1873, ''S^J 
 were the remonstrance, and re- 
 quests addressed by the two churches 
 to Plymouth Church, in accord- 
 ance with Congregationalism? 181 ; 
 the first was conditional, 213; the 
 first letter of, approved by the 
 Church of the Pilgrims, 215 ; Coun- 
 
 cil, in its result, declares it not un- 
 called for, 231. 
 
 Removal of church-member does not 
 release him from responsibility, ex- 
 tract from Boston Platform, 14S. 
 
 " Replv " of Plymouth Church to Coun- 
 cil, 118. 
 
 Resolution of invitation to Plymouth 
 Church adopted by Council, 62; as to 
 nature of Council, 80; as to action 
 of Council, 193 ; of thanksgiving 
 for harmony and peace in sessions 
 of Council, adopted by Council, 
 237 ; of thanks to pastors and 
 churches, adopted by Council, 237. 
 
 Resolutions to issue the Letter-Mis- 
 sive, 8. 
 
 Responsibility for Doctrine, Order, and 
 Discipline of Plymouth Church, 
 other churches declared to be re- 
 lieved from, by that church, Dec. 5, 
 
 1S73. 15. yi- 
 
 " Responsibility " in church fellow- 
 ship, meaning attached to it by 
 Plymouth Church, 124. 
 
 Result of Council, 230. 
 
 Richardson, E. H., 56. 
 
 Robbins, L. L., 57. 
 
 Robinson, W. A., 56. 
 
 Roll of Council, 54 ; read, 82. 
 
 Rutland, Vt., First Church, 5, 54. 
 
 Russell, T. H., 55. 
 
 Russell, T. \V., 56. 
 
 Sage, Henry W., 117, 118, 125. 
 
 Scribe, Permanent Election of, 60. 
 
 Scudder, H. M., 57. 
 
 Second Question, in Letter-Missive, 
 discussed by Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs, 
 147. 
 
 Sessions of Council : The opening 
 March 24, 52 ; the second, March 
 25, 82; the third, March 25, 129; 
 the fourth, March 25, 170; the 
 fifth, March 26, 192 ; the thirteenth, 
 March 28, 230. 
 
 Seventh Question in Letter-Missive 
 discussed by Rev. Dr. W. L Bud- 
 ington, 181. 
 
 Shearman, Thomas G., 51, 118, 125. 
 
 Single church. Should the process 
 with Plymouth Church have been 
 begun by a ? 185. 
 
 Sixth Question in Letter-Missive, dis- 
 cussed by Rev. Dr. W. I. Buding- 
 ton, 171. 
 
 Smart, W. S., 56. 
 
 Smith, Asa D., 5. 
 
 Smith, W. H., 56. 
 
 Smyth, E. C, 55, 60, 61, 64, 80, Si, 100, 
 199, 200, 205. 
 
 Societies, for the propagation and aid of 
 Congregational Churches.affected by 
 the action of Plymouth Church, 20. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Society, Human, would be dissolved, 
 by policy of Plymouth Church, 144. 
 
 Southgate, C. M., 54. 
 
 Spaulding, S. T., 55. 
 
 Spelman, Harvey B., 4, 31, 35, 46, 238, 
 241. 
 
 Springfield, Mass., South Church, 6, 
 55 ; North Church, 6, 55. 
 
 Stamford, Conn., First Church, 6. 
 
 St. Johnsbury,Vt., Second Church, 5,54. 
 
 St. Louis, Mo., First Church, 7, 58. 
 
 Stearns, William A., 53, 55, 109, 170. 
 
 Sterling, E., 56. 
 
 Stoddard, W. H., 55. 
 
 Stone, C. M., 54. 
 
 Stone, D. M., 57, 78. 
 
 Storrs, H. M., 56, 74, 77, 78, 192, 193, 
 206, 207. 
 
 Storrs, R. S., 4, 31, 35, 46, 68, 76, 78, 
 116, 129; presentation of the first 
 Five Questions in the Letter-Mis- 
 sive, before Council, 129-169, 188, 
 189, 19S, 199, 201, 202, 203, 206, 207, 
 208, 211, 224, 225, 226, 236, 238,241. 
 
 Street, Owen, 55. 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y., Plymouth Church, 7, 
 
 Tallmadge, D. W., 23, 24, 25. 
 Taylor, Edward, 54, 56, 103. 
 Taylor, J. L., 55, 82. 
 Taylor, W. M., 56, 192. 
 Terry, S. B., 57. 
 
 Third Question in Letter-Missive, dis- 
 cussed by Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs, 
 
 154- 
 
 Thompson, A. C, 55. 
 
 Thorp, Thomas S., 4, 31, 35, 46, 238, 
 241. 
 
 Threat, the letters of the two churches 
 to Plymouth Church not to be un- 
 derstood as a, 44. 
 
 Tilton, Theodore, 23, 24, 25. 
 
 Titsworth, A. J., 55. 
 
 Treat, S. B., 6. 
 
 Tucker, W. J., 54. 
 
 Twining, K., 56, 64, 77, 79, 83, 84. 
 
 Two Delegates, from the church at 
 Orange Valley, N. J., one to with- 
 draw from Council, 129. 
 
 Tyler, W. S., 55. 
 
 Van Cott, Joshua M., 4, 31, 35, 46, 
 
 238, 241. 
 Van Dyke, H. H., 56. 
 Vermilye, R. G., 6. 
 Virgin, S. H., 56. 
 Vose, J. G., 55. 
 Votes, Negative, in Council, upon its 
 
 Result, Number of, 239. 
 
 Walker, C. L, 57, 58, 59, 60, 71, 81, 
 113, 230, 235. 
 
 Washington, D. C, First Church, 7, 
 57- 
 
 Webb, E. B., 55, 116, 188, 190, 192, 
 199. 
 
 West, W. F., 23, 24, 25. 
 
 Westfield, Mass., First Church, 5, 55. 
 
 Weymouth, Mass., First suggestion of 
 Ex-Parte Council at, in 1646, 87. 
 
 Wheeler, H. M., 55. 
 
 Wheelwright, J. S., 54. 
 
 Wiley, John, 57, 192. 
 
 Willcox, G. B., 53, 57, 129, 199, 227. 
 
 Withdrawal of members under charges, 
 without investigation, said to be 
 recommended by Examining Com- 
 mittee in Plymouth Church, 28. 
 
 Wood, Bradford R., 56, 59, 60, 75, 76, 
 11- 
 
 Woolsey, T. D., 6. 
 
 Woolworth, Calvin C, 4, 31, 35, 46, 238, 
 241. 
 
 Word of God, alleged violations of 
 principles not declared in it cannot 
 be a basis for calling Congregational 
 Church to account, 122. 
 
 Worcester, Mass., Calvinist Church, 5, 
 55 ; Union Church, 5, 55. 
 
I 
 
I 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 T0»^> 202 Main Library 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 RENEWALS AND RECHARGES MAY BE MADE 4 DAYS PRIOR TO DUE DATE. 
 
 LOAN PEHlOOS ARE I-MO.NTH 3-MONTHS. AND 1-YEAR. 
 RENEWALS. CALL (415) 542-3405 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 i\1A:" ^ '^ '980 
 
 mwAPR03'!J0 
 
 ■iCT^o^yjggou 
 
 A^.JiJlJiCSEPU'l 
 
 NOV 06 1992 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 1/83 BERKELEY, CA 94720 
 
 ®s 
 
 LD 21-95m-7,'37 
 
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 ■ 
 
 CD2DG7aaT5 
 
 
 ir/f 
 
 :♦■•>. 
 
 m.^ 
 
 -'■''^:E 
 
 fS:.-:-^ 
 
 
 5.v-'%'v5^