AN ADDRESS
ON
CO0NG..REGGATIO-0NALISSM
AS AFFECTED BY THE DECLARATIONS OF THE
ADVISORY COUNCIL
HELD IN BROOKLYN, N.Y.. FEBRUARY, 18766
BY
RICHARD S.; STORRS, D. D.,
PASTOR OF THE CHURCH OF THE PILGR,IMS,
IN BROOKLYN.
DELIVERED  MARCH  12TiH, 1876(.
WITH THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHURCH OF THE PILGRIMS, IN RELATION THERETO,
MARCH 13TH, 1876. 
t 4
OF REQUEST.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., March 7, 1876.
-Dear -)r. Storrs:
The undersigned, members of the Church of the Pilgrims,
in  view of the disturbed feeling existing in the church in
respect of the Resut  of the late Advisory Council, requesl
you to give nolice from the pulpit next Sunday morning, of
a       church-meeting on next J~onday evening, in the LectureRoom, atl 8 o'clock, lo consider what action the church should
tlake w ilth reference to that Result. We also request you to
stale your view of the Result of that Council to the congregalion, at the Sunday evening service.
JVitI affectionale Chtristian regard,
Truly Yours,
RIClIARD P. BUCK,
A. G. ALLEN,
WALTER T. IIATCI,
JEREMIAH P. ROBINSON,
GEORGE L. NICHOLS,
FRAN1KLIN WOODRUFF,
To THE REV. R. S. STORRS, I). )D.
I - -, 
,"l.i 3,
I,   I j. 
L ETTER
ARCHIBALD BAX'T'El?
C. L. MITCHELL,
DWIGHT JOHNSON,
SIDNEY GREEN,
LUCIEN BIRDSEYE,
JOSh-tuA M. VAN COTT.
,;        i,. 
In compliance with the foregoing Letter of Request, Rev).
Dr. Storrs read to the congregation, at the service on Sunday
evening, -iarch 1-2th, 1876, the following
A D D. E S S -
TIrE FACT having become public, by no agency of mine,
that I have resigned prominent offices in the Congregational
communion, and it having been naturally inferred by the
public that I am not in sympathy with recent acts and Utterances of those appearing to represent that communion, it
seems proper that I should state distinctly the grounds of
my objection to these, and my reasons for withdrawing from
the positions which I had held. As to the personal charges
which have been so long urged against the pastor of the Plymouth Church, I have never taken any part in the loud and
painful public discussion; and I certainly shall not now
begin.  But I have some thoughts, which to me seem just,
on the relation of the Result of the recent Council to the
general scheme of Congregational government; and these I
am not unwilling to present. Of course, they express only
my opinions; and I have no smallest right or wish to do
more than state them, for others to think of. But they are
sincerely entertained, and over my action must be controlling.
The Advisory Council, whose Result I would consider,
appears to have been one of fair ability, and respectable
character, though not, perhaps, of unusual moral weight, or
possessing any pre-eminent share of that indefinable authority which comes with conceded eminence in knowledge,
experience, and Christian wisdom. It was large in numbers,
however, representing a constituency, according to the statistics furnished me by a friend, of 34,611 members in the
churches whose pastors or delegates were present; whereas
the churches represented in the Council of 1874 have a present membership, I am told, of only 28,843. Of the seventeen divines individually invited to the previous Council, but
ten were present. Of the twenty similarly invited to the
more recent Council, twelve appeared.
-  -w  - -I  
4 
The churches thus represented are scattered, also, very
fairly over the country; and, while some of them are of the
second or perhaps of the third class of churches, in respect
to numbers and public influence, their advice and testimony
are as proper to be regarded, as indicating the views and the
practice which obtain among them, as if they were planted
in larger towns, and had had more chance to be publicly
heard of. How far it may be true that a good many of them
were called to this Council because of the known prepossessions of their pastors in favor of the Plymouth Church
policy, and of its minister, I have no special means of knowing. Very likely this was true of a considerable portion.
The roll of the Council seems to suggest it. The statement
of the chairman of the business-committee appears to confirm it. And the fact, if it be one, may shed some light on
the strange conclusions to which'they came.  Of course,
while they were here they were naturally and constantly
under the influence of the pastor who had called them, and
of his frequent impassioned appeals, and were subject to the
silent but powerful impression of the representations and
feelings of the families in which they were being liberally
entertained.
All this should fairly be considered in examining the
Result which was put forth by them, and in estimating its
probable future effect upon the general denominational
development. At the same time, there certainly was in the
Council a considerable number of capable and distinguished
men, who have had more or less of moral leadership in Congregational representative bodies, and whose apparent adhesion to this Result gives it an importance which it otherwise
might not have had.  Colleges, theological seminaries, some
prominent churches, were represented in it;. and the name
of the brave and eloquent veteran who was its senior moderator, is itself an instrument of great value and force in the
hands of those who accept the conclusions to which even he
would appear to have assented.
Evidently, then, the Result of this Council is something
which cannot be dismissed, as of trivial importance. As the
formal, and apparently the unanimous utterance, of the last 
and largest Congregational Council hitherto convened by a
single church, it must be pondered by one who would know
what the denomination is likely in the future to be and to
do, and how far he can, with justice to his convictions, cooperate with it.
The declarations put forth in the Result to be scrutinized
are loosely though quite ingeniously stated; but the meaning of them is not hard to be found, and the relation of them
to the organizing principles and the practical working of the
Congregational system is no more obscure than is the moon
at its full on a clear night. Of course, some of these declarations are more important than others; but all have reference to occurring cases, and are intended to mould and
govern church-practice, and so far all have a measure of
importance.
1. The Result says, for example, that "in many cases"
where a member has signified, not in writing or in speech,
but " by his acts," that he " has abandoned fellowship with
a church, in doctrine, worship, or Christian sympat7t1y," it
may properly separate him from it, without formal censure.
This is doubtless true, provided no charge has been made
against the member, affecting his character, and provided,
after due notice he makes no objection to'this interpretation
of his acts. But stated indefinitely, as in this declaration,
and leaving the church wholly at liberty to put its own
interpretation on such of his acts as it chooses to recognize,
and to decide for itself whether his is one of the "many
cases" where such action is proper, it certainly is a dangerous doctrine. It seems hardly possible that the Council itself foresaw the perilous range of its words. Perhaps its
members were so intent on the cases of those whose exclusion they had been brought here to justify, that they quite
forgot the many others whom such a rash statement would
equally affect. It places upon substantially the same footing, so far as liability to removal is concerned, the man who
has excited animosities in the church by his zeal for the
truth, and the man who has left it for the Roman Catholic
communion. The one may be judged to have shown himself "by his acts" not in fellowship with it "in Christian
-.5 
-6
sympathy," as the other is not in doctrine, or in worship.
Under it, so far as appears, a church may at any time cut off
a member whose opinions and votes on exciting points of
church-administration differ from those of the majority;
while, if this declaration is Congregational law, there is for
such a one no redress.
It may possibly be said that the good sense and Christian
feeling of the church may be relied on to prevent such abuse.
But good sense and Christian feeling sometimes suffer a suspense; and, in the interval, they are not a guaranty for the
rights which rules are intended to conserve, which this rule,
if adopted, would leave fatally exposed.  No limit is set to
the exercise of this power on the part of the church   Almost certainly the use of it would swiftly become tyrannical
abuse, in the hands of an excited and passionate majo'rity;
and such an abuse would seem justified beforehand by this
vague but decided affirmation of the Council. It strikes at
the man who moves or approves an unwelcome inquiry, as
directly as at him who spurns and denounces the church itself. The only safety under it must be found in a passive
agreement with the governing power within the society; and
any majority, determined on its ends, which should fail to
make the church unanimous,  under  such an unlimited
charter as this, must be wanting either in perception or in
pluck.
Very likely this was not the intention of the Council.
They may have used words without estimating their force.
But the intention of the legislator is one thing, the effect of
his rule is quite another; and that the rule to which I demur
is capable of exactly this application, I cannot doubt.
2. Still mnore dangerous, however, morally at least, is the
further declaration that when a member has openly abandoned communion with the church, and is also charged with
a scandalous offense, either by public rumor or by specific
allegations, "the church may, to avoid greater scandal, use
a wise discretion in selectinq the offense L[i. e., either the
absence, or the asserted gross wickedness] on which it shall
separate him from it, and discharge itself from all further
responsibility for his conduct and character." 
This may seem plausible; but, in effect, it relieves every
church from the duty of investigating any offense of any
offender, who does not himself prefer to be examined. It
opens to him an easy way to escape all ecclesiastical inquiry,
as to the grossest sins, and makes his irresponsibility to the
church, for whatever foul and flagrant wrong-doing, nearly
perfect.  He is charged with forgery, adultery; slander, or
with a flagrant breach of trust.  He has also for some time
been absent from the sacraments, as such a man would not
be unlikely to have been.   He may threaten to make a
troublesome disturbance, if his sins are searched out; and,
according to this declaration of the Council, the church
which he disgraces is under no binding obligation, to the
community, to other churches, to the man himself, or-to the
Lord and Judge of all, to examine the grounds of the blasting accusation, though it fill the air, or though it be presented by specific allegations, and be sustained by unanswerable
proof.  That church is at liberty, "in a wise discretion," to
evade this painful but salutary duty, and to separate the
offender from its future fellowship on the ground of his continued absence from church. The fleeing forger may be
properly dismissed, on account of a sudden voyage to Holland, without reference to any suspected imitations of other
men's signatures; and it might have been "a wise discretion " - each church must judge -to treat the incestuous
Corinthian person whom Paul would have had "delivered
unto Satan," as one not entitled to further communion because of irregular church-attendance.
It will be to some a minor matter that this directly contravenes the Result of the Council of 1874. It authorizes
the precise course pursued by Plymouth Church in the case
then considered, which course the previous Council omphatically condemned, and declared sufficient, if repeated, to
authorize the withdrawal of fellowship. By that Council
the familiar Congregational doctrine was affirmed, in these
terms: "When a regular complaint is made against such a
member [i. e., one voluntarily absent from the communion
of the church, and from its worship] that in some other respect he violates the law of Christ,  *  *  * the considera
- 7 
-S
tion that he has long ago forsaken the church is only an
aggravation of his alleged fault."
It would hardly, perhaps, have been expected that a sec ond Council, with the same moderator, should so explicitly
contradict the first. It distinctly contravenes, and essentially nullifies, that section in the Platform which declares,
in terms, that "when a Council, properly convened and
orderly proceeding, has pronounced its advice, a second
Council upon the substance of the same question, or upon
the advice of the first, is manifestly improper" (part 3,
chap. 2, sec. 10). It tends to leave everything unsettled; to
produce as many Councils as there are possible varieties of
opinion amongthose who call them; to put an end to all
Councils, by making all useless.
But this may not be of cardinal importance. The really
startling thing about this statement is that it prompts any
criminal to evade a church-censure, by abandoning churchcommunion. It allows and encourages any church to save
itself the trouble of examining and condemning the grossest
offender, on condition that it will treat him as a recognized
absentee. The specific allegations of those who know, the
universal conviction pervading the community, that a member of the church is flagrantly immoral, leaves the church
at liberty, at its own discretion, to say nothing about him
except that he does not come to the communion.
It certainly seems to me that in this declaration the Council-without intention, of course, but in effect-has heaped
dirt on the graves of its ancestors, and done grave dishonor
to the name and the cause of the Lord of righteousness.
The Lord says: "Woe unto that man by whom the offense
cometh."  This rule says, rather: "Woe unto that church
by whom the offense thus coming is exposed." Tke common sense of the world is justified in demanding that the
wolf in sheep's clothing shall be shown for what he is. But
this rule contemplates simply shutting the gate, when he
goes from the fold, and leaving the fatal lamb-skins upon
him.
- 3. Though not of any primary importance, a dietum of
the Council in regard to a certain class of cases, specified in 
-9
the Letter-Missive, claims a moment's attention.  It concerns
members, otherwise unaccused, who absent themselves from
the services, on the ground that they believe the pastor
guilty of crime, though the church, after investigation, has
acquitted and sustained him. The declaration is, that such
a reason for absence, without asking for letters of dismissal,
is "entirely invalid, schismatic, and unchristian."  The
wrath of the Council seems fully aroused against such
wrong-doers, though it had just opened an outlet, so instant
and so easy, for those accused of scandalous offenses.
Undoubtedly it is true that a member, believing, on sufficient evidence, that the pastor of the church is guilty of some
tremendous wickedness, of which, however, the church as a
body remains unconvinced, should seek elsewhere, when
that is practicable, religious instruction, with the comfort
and help which the sacraments bring. IS such a one should
continue in the church for any purpose of factious disturbance, he is justly to be condemned. Hiis withdrawal from
it, rather, is plainly a matter of Christian duty.
But there are manifold cases, not conceivable only, but
actual, in which retirement from the church and union with
another should properly be long postponed. There are not
a few-as where no other church exists in the community,
or in the neighborhood-where a letter of dismissal cannot
be asked for, except as a mere matter of form.  The better
course would seem to be, in any such case, for the member
to wait, in patience and in prayer, till God in His providence
shall bring to light the hidden things, and make others the
sharers of the painful knowledge which already is his. Such
patient waiting may be the only possible way to rescue the
church, and secure in the end the preaching from its pulpit
of a purifying Gospel.
But, in the meantime, the Council says that such a member "should show himself loyal to the authority" of the
church; and itf regards "the conceit that he may protest
more effectually against the supposed error of the church
by partially withdrawing from its fellowship" as "eminently dangerous and disorganizing." If this means anything
pertinent to the case, it means that in the proper or neces
0 
-10
sary interval, between the conviction of the pastor's guilt
and the final request for letters of dismissal, the member is
bound to hear the Gospel from what he feels to be lying lips,
and to receive the body of Christ from hands which he undoubtingly believes to be defiled with unconfessed lust.  If
he does not, the church will have right to drop him, whatever his relations to it have been, however strong his continuing interest in it and its welfare. It would seem, indeed,
according to this statement, to have further right to cut him
off, with formal censure, as "a dangerous disorganizer."
I do not know but the churches are prepared for a statement of this sort, and are ready to place it among their
church-rules. But, for myself, I hesitate to accept it. In
things so sacred as the fellowship of the personal soul with
God, its Saviour, through His truth and Hlis sacraments, I
am not prepared to say that the ministry of one believed to
be vicious must be accepted because others adhere to him;
that the ignorance of the church is to supersede the knowledge of the personal member, as the rule of his conduct. It
may be quite impossible for him, under his convictions of
duty, and in the circumstances in which he is placed, to ask
for final letters of dismissal. He may even hope, by tarrying in the church, to be able to do something for it in the
end, when the hour of calamity, which he foresees, has come
upon it. But, in the interval, it strikes me that not his
absence from the services, but his continued attendance
upon them-his listening to the teachings, and accepting the
sacraments, of one whom he entirely believes an impure
hypocrite-this is the course which most requires apology
or defense. And Plymouth Church itself, in a recent conspicuous and significant case, appears to be of the same
opinion. 
The Roman Catholic Church holds, of course, that the
character of the officiating priest, however bad, does not impair the validity of his sacraments, if properly administered; his official prerogative inhering indelibly, independently of his character. But I suspect that it will take more
than the statement of this Council to make a like doctrine
current with Protestants, concerning their ministers. 
-11
As I said, however, this is not a matter of primary importance to the churches at large, however important the right
doctrine on the subject may be to individuals. But the next
topic treated in this Result is of supreme consequence to the
churches; and the statements in it, if accepted and carried
out, appear to me simply destructive to the rights of individuals, and tQ all proper external relations between the
churches.
4. A Mutual Council is defined in the Result as " one
selected by mutual agreement between the parties." It did
not, perhaps, need professors in seminaries, or presidents of
colleges, coming hundreds or thousands of miles for the
purpose, to give this definition.  If there were any question,
as certainly there was, on which their testimony would have
been timely, it was this:  "Is a Mutual Council one in
which the two opposed parties agree in common on every
member of the tribunal? or is it one in which they agree in
common on having a tribunal, and then proceed to constitute it, not in common, but mutually, by reciprocal interchange of selection of its members?"
This Council assumes it to be the former; and thereupon
procceeds to say that Plymouth Church had "a right" to
object to two of the churches named by her who had demanded the Council, and to make the objection at a meeting
subsequent to that at which they had been named, and it
had been agreed that they should be notified.
If that was the opinion of the members of the Council,
they certainly are not to be blamed for expressing it. But,
if their doctrine shall be generally accepted, it will have the
effect to put an end to Mutual Councils, in all exciting and
endamaginlg cases-the very cases for which they are needed.
If one party has always "the right" to object to churches
or ministers nanmed by the other, inasmuch as the right is
sure to be exercised by the party endangered in the summoning of the Council, the attempt to constitute such a
tribunal must be about as hopeful as the attempt to get any
fugitive from justice to beg judges and juries to give him a
trial. 
12
No limit whatever is put by the Council on the exercise of
this "right." If one church is objected to as too near, another may be as too remote. One is too large, and another
too small.  One has in it-a possible delegate-a friend of
one party; and another is suspected of being committed, by
some passage in its history, to a hostile course.   The
minister of one is not loose enough in his notions of retributive justice; and the minister of another does not see the
propriety of opening the Lord's Supper to all the world, at
the risk of casting its holy pearls before the swine. The
reasons are numberless to give excuse for objection.' Indeed, no reason whatever need be given.  The "right" is
affirmed; and the exercise of a right is not to be challenged,
and requires no defense.
It is nearly as plain as anything can be, that any pastor
who, with reason or without it, is under the apprehension
that a Mutual Council may be likely to harm him, will never
allow such a Council to be formed, if this dictum is accepted; that any majority in a church, which expects or
fears to be rebuked if its action is reviewed, will find no
churches acceptable to it, except what it may name itself.
And it is certainly just as plain that to break up the system
of Mutual Councils is to dissolve the Congregational communion. It is to take away the chance of redress from every
oppressed member of the church. It is to give the majority
in each church an unhindered course, in which to work
what wrong it will. It is to vacate the fellowship of the
churches of significance and value, and to reduce it to a
mere tradition or a name. A more dangerous blow was
never delivered at that church-order which has guarantied to
minorities a right to be heard, and made each church responsible for right-doing to the many standing in fellowship
with it.
The Mutual Council, whose members are not chosen in
common, but by reciprocal interchange of selection, and in
which, therefore, either party may be sure of having those
in whom it confides-this has been the nexus of the communion, and the strong defense of the injured or the weak. 
If it be said that denying the right of either party to object to those proposed by the other, would leave each free to
fill half the Council with its own partisans, the answer is
obvious. When the proceedings of a Council are public,
neither one of them can afford to be represented in it, exclusively or largely, by such partisans. The public finds
them out, and discredits them at once.  If their votes are
against the argument, those votes hurt themselves, but help
nobody else. In fact, the weakness of the cause which they
try to assist, is only by them made apparent. The moral
weight of the Council of 1874, came immensely from the
fact that churches had been called to it from the centers of
influence, without regard to commitments or prepossessions,
and that a very considerable number held views opposed to
those of the churches which had convened them.   The
weakness of this last Council comes as largely from the fact
that the great majority of the men who composed it were
believed to be called because they were in sympathy with
the action to be scrutinized, or with its authors.   The
presence of others, not understood to be thus pre-pledged,
was all that saved the Council- from popular disregard.
Without such men in it, the effect of its Result, as compared
with that of the other sort of Council, Would have been like
the weight of a ball of punk measured against a solid shot.
Recognized partisanship makes the ablest man weak, the
most eminent insignificant, and strips any verdict which
they give or secure of value and force.
While common-sense governs men's conduct, they will
see this for themselves, and act accordingly. But the coinceded right of objection to members of a Council, named, on
his proper responsibility, by the adverse party, is simply
destructive to that system of tribunals which  has  been
hitherto the strength and boast of Congregationalists.
5. The Council assures the public that it finds no reason
to call in question the method by which the "Investigating
Committee" of Plymouth Church was constituted, or the integrity with which its proceedings were conducted.   That the gentlemen who served on that anomalous conimittee are worthy of all social consideration, as pleasant
- I'll 
14
friends, kind neighbors, valuable citizens, no one will be so
ready to admit as one who has known most of them long.
But it has not been usually the case that an investigating
committee is named wholly by the party accused. It does
not generally consist exclusively of his personal friends, or
business associates.  If acting for a church, and taking the
place of the church-committee, it has not been common to
put upon it, as influential members, those not themselves
members of the church-attendants on its services, but confessing for themselves no public allegiar(nce to the law of its
Head.  It has not been customary for the committee, so constituted, to take as its legal adviser and counsel, the devoted
and diligent attorney of the accused. And instances will
hardly be found, prior to 1874, in which that attorney saw
witnesses beforehand, and arranged with them so to shape
his questions as to seem to examine them, while keeping
from the committee damaging testimonly-which is known
to have been done in the instance, at least, of Mr. Richards.
A committee so composed, and so conducted, whatever
the personal worth of its members, would seem about as
effective for elucidating obscutre and complicated facts,
especially for evolving inimical facts against its nominator,
as a brush of feathers for excavating mines. It may have
its uses, but that is not one of them. In comparison with'it,
the committee of three distinguished, wealthy, and estimable gentlemen who examined the New York City accounts,
and certified to their correctness, a few months before the
Ring exploded, was a judicious and satisfactory body.
If the Council, however, thought this arrangement fair,
and adapted to relieve men's minds of uncertainty, they are
not to be complained of for having approved it. But
neither must they complain hereafter when any Congregational minister, accused of whatever concealed wickedness,
insists on having a similar committee: selected by himself;
comprising men of great social power, but not members of
the church; guided and guarded by his vigilant attorney;
sitting in secret; selecting the witnesses whom it will hear;
judging beforehand, as the Council says is right, "' whether
their evidence would be material;" superseding the regular 
committee of the church, and making at last only such a re
port of the evidence presented as shall seem best fitted to
sustain its result. A minister must be exacting, indeed, who
is not satisfied with such astute and comprehensive arrangements for guarding him from a threatening inquiry. And,
as the minister has no personal rights which every other
church-member does not equally possess, any member may
demand a like committee when 7is character and acts are
the subject of scrutiny.  I see not why, upon this plan, the
Examining Committee should not be wholly laid aside, in
cases of discipline; and members be released from even the
necessity of refraining from the communion in order to
escape its scrutiny.  WThen that has come to pass, the function of the church, as a guard and a witness for Christian
purity, will seem, according to the logical force of this Resullt, to be quite fulfilled.
Since the Council endorses the constitution and the conduct of this famous committee, without hesitation and without limitation, it looks as if a precedent of considerable
importance had got itself established- so far, at least, as the
earnest approval of this large and respectable representative
body can give it establishment.
6. Lest, however, even this arrangemenit should not give a
wholly sufficient protection to a minister, accused of whatever wickedness, the Council in another way makes his
security nearly perfect. This is one of the most remarkable
things connected with this remarkable Result..
The church in the Andover Seminary had addressed to the
Plymouth Church a wise and tender fraternal letter, expressing its concern at the injury suffered by the cause of
religion, in consequence of the painful anxiety felt by many
in regard to the character of the pastor of the latter, and
asking the Plymouth Church to unite with it in calling a
Council, fully and impartially to examine the facts, and set
the Christian mind of the country forever at rest. The letter
was adopted after the recent Council had been summoned,
as touching a matter of vital importance which that had not
been invited to treat; and it reached Plymouth Church only
forty-eight hours before this Council was assembled. Going
- I 5 
wholly outside its Letter-Missive, the Council took up this
application, and adopted certain resolutions about it:-a
function for which it had not been appointed, from which it
was properly wholly debarred by that fundamental provision
in the Platform which expressly limits every Council to
"the subjects specified in the Letter-Missive," and on which
it had no more right to enter than on the simultaneous trial
of General Babcock. In giving an opinion adverse to the
letter of the Andover Church, it curiously illustrated the
revolutionary character of much of its action.  The old rule
has been that an ex-parte Council cannot be called till a
Mutual Council has been refused.  Here the rale is reversed,
end for end, and a Council, certainly wholly ex p)arte as
concerning this matter, declares a future Mutual Council out
of order.
In doing this abnormal thing it "solemnly declares" certain propositions which may be best understood by applying
them to a possible case.
The church in A entered into fellowship with the church
in B, when the latter was constituted, and still stands in that
fellowship, interchanging with it members,  meeting it in
Councils, and in its measure responsible for it before the
public.
The church in B called a pastor, and at his installation
the church in A entered also into fellowship with him, by a
distinct and separate act; and it stands in that fellowship,
receiving him to its pulpit, meeting him in Councils, inviting
him on occasion to administer its sacraments, and in its
measure responsible for him before the public.
This pastor comes to be considered by many immoral in
life, perhaps an infidel in opinion; and such a rumor pervades the air, the evidence of the fact is widely affirmed to
be in possession of many persons. But under his strong
personal influence, and through the incessant and shrewd
activity of those who adhere to him, the mass of his church
continue their attachment, and one by one those who dissent
are extruded from it.  Comparative  unanimity is thus
secured, though at the sacrifice of much that was important.
But still the rumors do not abate, and the Gospel seems dishonored in the house of its friends.
.- lo, 
17
The church in A feels the increasing and overwhelming
burden of this evil fame attaching to the pastor to whom its
public fellowship has been pledged, and is anxious that the
matter be impartially examined-that, if innocent, the minister accused may be cleared, or, if guilty, be removed; that
in either case the pressure may be lifted from the churches,
and the name of Christ be freed from reproach.  It has no
end whatever to gain except his protection, if he be guiltless; the protection of the churches, if he is not; and the'
furtherance, either way, of the supreme and immortal cause.
Under the "solemn declaration" of this Council, what can it
do to accomplish this end 
In general, the reply is: It can do nothing not already
precisely specified in the Cambridge Platform of 1648; for
the Boston Platform of 1865 seems, with intention, to be left
out of sight. But suppose that those more ancient regulations did not contemplate the precise case, so exceptional in
its nature, where a man widely accused of guilt is still sustained by the mass of his church; cannot the complaining
church then apply to the new case the principles of that
Platform, and solicit the other church to unite with it in
convening a Council, mutually selected, to investigate the
acts and the character of the man who is pastor of the one,
and to whom the other has given its fellowship   "No,"
says the Council, "it cannot do that.  Here is what and all
it can do."
First, it may suitably admonish the church in B, andc remonstrate against its dereliction of duty.-That church is
not the prime or real offender. It may be deceived, as were
even the apostles when they trusted their treasurer; but its
misapprehension is not a crime.   The pastor is the one
whom the scandal concerns, and who needs investigation.
But concerning him the church in A, which has given to
him its public fellowship, is not allowed to even inquire. It
is as if in a suspected commercial crime the alleged forger
could not even be questioned, but only the innocent acceptor
of his note.
Secondly, this remonstrance bringing no satisfaction, the
anxious and troubled church in A  may  acquaint other 
- 18
churches with the objectionable action of the church in B,
still refraining from complaint of its pastor, and ask them to
unite with it in a further admonition.-This is a step which
the Boston Platform does not recognize, and the authority
for inserting which, on the part of this Council, is not apparent. It simply puts a further fetter on a progress already
sufficiently slow. It requires a most unwelcome correspondence, carrying the discussion into different churches, involving the risk of division in each, and still aiming, as before,
not at the pastor, whom the rumors affect, but at his contented and well-meaning church. But suppose that time
and patience are given for doing this8 work, and that still no
issue satisfactory is reached.  What next may be done?
Thirdly, the admonishing churches, taking the law into
their own hands, may forbear communion with the church
in B, and call a Council to consider the case; but this Council "has power to inquire and consider only " whether the
church in B "is really acting contrary to order and duty."
Even power to exclude it, or advise its exclusion, from the
general fellowship, if it should be found to be so acting, is
not affirmed by this cautious declaration. So far as appears,
the Council can only'"inquire and consider," which, perhaps, they might have done at home, without taking any
corporate action.  Certainly they can take none which directly concerns the pastor involved. As to that, the church
in A is absolutely, vehemently, precluded from any attempt
at it by the dictum of this assembly.   No such church, it
says, with unwonted emphasis, "has the right or the power"
to claim to take part in any investigation of his character,
either through a AMutual Council proposed by itself, or by
an ex-parte Council, on the failure of that. The entire process must stop short with the calling of a Council to "inquire and consider" whether the related church in 13 is acting regularly in retaining for its pastor a man whom it confides in, while others believe him an immoral skeptic.
A more perfect illustration of the "way not to do it," it
seems to me, was never presented since the son in the parable said, "I go, sir," and went not. 
19
The church in A entered into fellowship with the church
in B, and still raises no question as to its general moral
soundness. If it made objection to its rules of procedure, it
could arrange that, by a conference or a Council.   But that
is not its present grievance. It, also, by a separate public
act, entered into fellowship with the pastor of that church.
It has no judgment to utter against him;  but it knows him
to be suspected by many intelligent and God-fearing persons
to be a guilty hypocrite. His shadowed name darkens its
life.  The unabating rumors against him make further effective Christian activity impossible for it.  They give impulse and edge to the sneer of the skeptic, and break the
force of every sermon.  But, according to the vehement volunteered deliverance of this recent assembly, it can no more
touch him with any proper churchl-inquiry, through an impartial tribunal for the purposes than it can strike with the
blow of impeachment a cabinet officer.   Thie fellowship,
which makes it responsible for him, forbids it to ask whether
his name with the general public should be Judas or John.
It can only approach his innocent church; ask others to do
so; forbear communion with it, if it please; and at last.call
a Council "to inquire and consider," not wlhethler the pastor
is a dissolute pretender to a grace he does not know, but
whether his church has been acting in order.  If it accomplishles anythingi whatever toward investigating the chlaracter of the minister accused, with whom it stands in public
fellowship, and whose alleged wickedness brings a constant
and sore reproach upon it, it does this only by indirection,
and under the cover of a different aim    It can only reach
him by considering, and possibly censuring at last, not himself; but those who believe in him.  It can only raise the
question of guilt in the pulpit, by inquiring into the orderly
conduct of the possibly nmistaken but morally sound disciples in the pews.
If this is Congregationalism, I cannot but suspect that the
general Christian mind of the country will think it has had
about enough of it.  Certainly no priest or minister in any
other body of Christians ever known on earth was so carefully and entirely shielded from inquiry, as to his character, 
-20
as is the pastor of a Congregational church, according to the
statement of this assembly, so long as he succeeds in keeping his hold upon his circle of local hearers. His power to
deceive them is the guaranty of his safety.  Their ignorance
is his absolute defense. He may laugh at all ecclesiastical
inquiry, from whatever quarter, so long as his personal followers adhere, and while the "solemn declaration" of this
Council spreads above him its shield and buckler.
As if to drive the very last nail in the screen which is to
hide him, thie Council makes even this tedious, indirect, and
unworthy process to be conditioned upon a previous "neglect
to investigate" on the part of the church to which he ministers. If there has been some form of investigation, with
which that church has declared itself satisfied, the church
which stands in fellowship with it cannot, without an unjust violence, send its first admonition.
It does not seem extravagant to say that no paralysis ever
chained all the muscles of motion and of speech as the statement of this unauthorized Council would chain the zeal of an
intelligent church, which sees the whole progress of religion
impeded by the swarming and ever-renewed allegations of
unconfessed wickedness in one with whom it stands in fellowship, but into whose conduct, according to this, it can no
more inquire than into the secrets of a Turkish harem. I
would not overstate the matter; but, really, this declaration
of thie Council almost amounts to a practical invitation to
any deceptive and plausible rogue to enter the Congregational ministry, and there get a safety which the world outside is not ready to offer.
No heresy, even, it would appear, however destructive,
can be questioned about by the neighboring churches until it
has so far gained acceptance with a church that it is willing
to allow and endorse it. A practical protection is carefully
secured to it, in all its earlier development and progress; and
the doors of the communion seem flung wide open for any
defection from the faith of the Gospel.
If it be said that the Council was limited by the Cambridge
Platform, and so shut up to these damaging conclusions, the
reply is immediate: that there is a Platform later than that, 
more recent therefore in its equivalent authority, and much
more familiar among the churches, which, at least, provides
that any church, after due admonition, may call a Council
to advise whether another church "tolerates and upholds
notorious scandals;" which Council, finding that it does so
after proper inquiry, may advise the withholding from it of
communion. If it be said that even this authority for instituting an inquiry, uninvited by the one church, but indispensable to the others, does not warrant a full investigation
into the alleged scandalous facts, it must be replied that such
technical and verbal adherence to a rule, when the case is not
one which the rule fully contemplated, would be a most idle
"sticking in the letter." Grant that the ancient Platform,
framed in a pure simplicity of manners, did not contemplate
precisely the case of one to whom his church shall adhere
while multitudes of minds outside of that church conceive
him guilty, and concerning whom, after, it may be, dreadful
years of discussion and suspense, opinion is more divided
than at first;-Congregationalism, if possessing a true vitality, must certainly be able to apply its principles, by some
normal process in harmony with those principles, to the
exacting and novel case.  If it cannot, it is too weak for a
crisis, and already too old for the times.  If it cannot, the
organic law which restrains it, and makes it incapable of
meeting such emergencies, is condemned beyond the hope of
reversal.
The Andover proposal was in no sense inconsistent with
the earliest Platform, much less with the later. It was in
perfect intimate harmony with their spirit, and their principles; though it sought, I may admit, to illustrate that spirit,
apply those principles, in a case hitherto quite unexampled.
Acceptance of it would have remedied a defect, and filled
out a polity. Rejection of it, and the substitution for it of
something as utterly foreign as possible to both Platform and
polity, is the very sharpest dishonoring censure that could,
as I think, have been passed upon both.
But this is the thing which comes next in order.
7. Having made the Mutual Councils of churches either
practically impossible, by giving to each contesting party
- 21 
- 22
the right of veto on the other's nominees, or else, as where a
pastor is involved, incompetent to any useful office, and apparently feeling still, in spite of any pre-conmmitment of its
members, and in spite of the impassioned declarations which
met them, that further investigation must in some way be
had, outside of the church, in order to ainy relief of religion
from the load it has been carrying, and especially to any timely
vindication of thle churches of its order, the Council proceeds
to invent a new instrument for the purpose; and this is the
real consummation of its work.
The fact that it had no authority to do this, conferred by
the Letter which was its charter, does not seem in the least
to have hindered its zeal.  For any such purpose it was only
a casual, illegitimate assembly, as destitute of authority as
any street-meeting. But it took up the work with ardent
devotion, and certainly came to a wonderful result. It proposes an instrument for such investigation, apparently
simple, but in reality curiously complex, and places the entirv management of it as completely in the hands of those
desiring a particular result as the wheel of the ship is in the
hands of the helmsman.
A brief analysis will make this apparent.
First, a committee of three members of the Council is appointed, to organize a commission; these three members
being excellent gentlemen, whose confidence in the pastor to
be investigated is said to be expressed and complete.
Secondly, these members, in forming the commission, are
authorized to select any five names out of twenty; among
which twenty are several of gentlemen whose eagerness for a
result of vindication would be likely to stand a tremendous
shock, from whatever evidence.
Thirdly, if these five nominees should not all consent or
be able to serve, any three of them are a quorum, and may
fill up the vacancies with any persons whom they shall select,
whether named in the previous list or not.
If a commission organized like this is not, from its inception, committed, by all the sentiments of its members, to a
special result, the customary laws which regulate human
action must have been reversed, and the stream and the
fountain be no longer alike. 
Fourthly, this commission is, apparently, not to be organized till after the lapse of sixty days, during which charges
may be presented-after which they cannot be-by parties
making'themselves responsible [ it is not said to whom ] for
the truth and proof of the same. Whether these parties
must be members of Plymouth Chlurch or not does not clearly
appear. The most intimate representative of the pastor in
that church has once said that "by all civil or ecclesiastical
law" they must be. But subsequent statements appear to
change this. That they cannot know beforehand who are to
try the charges which they present, is obvious at first sight.
They present them in the dark, to an unknown tribunal.
Fifthly, the commission, so organized, without hearing any
evidence in support of the charges, may decide that they
have already been sufficiently tried, and on that ground may
dismiss the comnplaint.
Sixthly, if at the end of sixty days no charges have been
presented, it seems to be provided, in a strangely complicated series of words, that the commission may yet be organized, if the committees of the church and the Council
deem it desirable, to hear testimony not previously given,
which they think may throw light upon the charges already
tried. In other words, if the committee of the church wish
then to present e.-parte testimony on behalf of the pastor,
the commision may be organized to hear such testimony, and
to render a general verdict upon it. It would not be stranger
than other things have been, if this should turn out to be the
sole function of this commission.
By the approval of the Council in the parallel case of the
"investigating committee" this commission is authorized
beforehand to sit in secret, to use its own judgment in calling
for witnesses, and in concluding, before they ares called,
"whether their evidence would be material."  It is unrestrained by any rules, except the discretion of its members.
It cannot, probably, protect witnesses before it from suits for
slander, on account of their testimony. It is responsible to
no one. It has simply to report the result which it may
reach to the Examining Committee of Plymouth Church, to
be given by that committee to the public; and Plymouth
- 23 -- 
-  24
Church itself is not even advised to accept the result, or do
anything about it, except to publish it. The action of the
commission is evidently intended, however, to be a finality,
beyond which inquiry never shall go.
It would certainly be unjust to the many honest members
of the Council to even suspect that this curious commission
was allowed by them to be organized in their name for the
purpose of acquittal.  It might not, perhaps, be wholly unjust to the shrewder minds behind the scheme to suspect
that they thought it adapted to give a show of readiness to
meet hostile charges, without involving serious danger-an
ecclesiastical Quaker-gun, which looks ready for any service,
but through whose silent wooden mouth no shot can pass.
It certainly is not too much to say that no result in the least
likely to be attained by such a commission can do anything
important toward enlightening and purifying the fetid darkness in which the churches of Brooklyn and of the land have
long been walking.
But, even if it could, is it not a humiliating, if not an
alarming fact, that all the ancient and honored methods
of general administration among related Congregational
churches, by means especially of Mutual Councils, are suddenly completely set aside, by an assembly not empowered
to do it, in favor of a contrivance like this-extemnporized,
untried, and possibly attended with more peril and perplexity than the wisest can foresee? It is a contrivance as
unknown as court-martials to all preceding Congregational
history. It may be wholly ex-parte in constitution, while
fulfilling perfectly the provisions which frame it. It could
not displace the pastor from his pulpit, though it should
find him guilty at last of worse offenses than his accusers
have ever alleged.  It cannot even advise the withdraving of
fellowship from the church which sustains him, though that
church, in the face of a damnatory verdict, should unitedly
adhere to him. It is as wholly irresponsible a body, to the
Council which devised it, to the affiliated churches of the
communion, as it is to Prince Bismarck. It need not give a
semblance of reason for its finding; and any Council subsequently convened could not act upon that finding, except 
after full consideration of its grounds, without the grossest
injustice.
One cannot but stand perplexed, and almost aghast, before
the proposal for such a commission, put forth in the name
of the Congregational churches, from the sea-coast to the
mountains, by an assembly not authorized to do any such
thing, and by an assembly which could not regard the Andover proposal as properly Congregational; which felt itself
constrained to advise its rejection, because chapter and verse
did not appear in the Cambridge Platform empowering one
church to ask another to unite with it in a Mutual Council,
to clear, if possible, the character of a minister, pastor of the
one church, but received to its public fellowship by the other.
The gnat and the camel will recur to one's thoughts!
The development of Congregationalism, in a needed direction, by a cordial approval of the Andover proposal, would
have made churches more fraternal, ministers improperly
accused more safe, and would have added stability and vigor
to a system of government adapted at the outset to a limited
region, but now extending over areas continental, of which
the Fathers never dreamed. But this novel arrangement, for
an irresponsible secret commission, is no more a development
of any principle in the Platforms of the communion, or in its
previous history, than an iron spike driven into its trunk is
the development of a peach-tree. If it should become a precedent at all, it would simply be a precedent for an unhindered license in inventing new methods of church-inquiry,
and putting upon them our ancient name.  The next Council
might, with equal propriety, propose the public drawing of
lots to decide a man's character, as more scriptural in its nature, and not less Congregational.
The above are some of the principal points presented in
this remarkable "Result," which appear to justify a degree
of apprehension, and to be fitted to make men pause before
they allow themselves to even seem to be committed to
principles so rash, and to measures so strange. But, after
all, the radical trouble, with any one who thoughtfully considers it, lies deeper than these.
-  111) 
To put a power, practically unlimited, of excluding members on account of their "acts,"  as showing a want of
"Christian sympathy," into the hands of any majority; to
authorize any church to let the great sinner go unrebuked, if
he has ceased attending the services; to require a member
who fully believes in the pastor's guilt to continue to attend on his ministrations, when a letter of dismissal is for
any reason impossible to be asked for, denouncing his
course as "unchristian" if he does not; to make Mutual
Councils practically impossible, in difficult cases, by requiring a common agreement of the parties on all the members,
and giving to each "the right"' to object to the other's
nominees; to endorse for the past, and so authorize for the
future, an "investigating committee" selected by the accused, not wholly conmposed of even church-members, and
affectionately devoted to the man whose acts it is to examine; to forbid one church to ask another to unite with it
in a faithful endeavor to clear themselves, and the Christian
community, of the injury involved in ever-recurring and un
settled charges against a minister for whom both in their
measure are responsible; to put forth a commission, such as
that here proposed, as a substitute for the usual Councils of
the churches-these things are enough to startle the dullest.
But still behind and beyond all these breaks forth on
one's thoughts that greater question, more unsettling to the
mind than even these strange and eccentric propositions: If
a Result like this be accepted, then what is left, in the entire
Congregational plan, to be regarded as finally settled? What
can ever be considered fixed and defined, beyond the reach
of the first rash impulse?
If one Council can commend the rules which a previous
Council-certainly not of less intelligence —has decklred, if
carried out, sufficient to justify the withdrawal of fellowship; if one can adjudge specific cases, in effect, if not in
form, by principles which the other declared unsound; if
one can answer three several questions, specifically proposed
to a previous Council, and answer them in exactly the
opposite sense; if a Council not empowered for the purpose,
can construct and set forth a wholly new instrument for
- I)o 
churchl-inquiry, and supersede by it all the usual church
tribunals; if it can forget its own Letter-Missive, and enter
on important and difficult business of whlichl in that appeared no mention; if even the permanent Platforms of the
communion have no directing or limiting force in any such
case, but a Council, once organized, may consider any question, and assume any function, which others shall suggest
or which it may contrive-what basis remains for any settled
rules whatever] Why  contend for such rules, when the
only possible effect seems to be to heap up sand, which the
next foot may scatter, or any puff of breath blow down?
Of what possible use are discussion and effort to get anything defined, or anything established  And if that cannot
be, what alternative is left for one who would build an orderly church, according to wise and intelligible rules, on
whose permanent validity he can rely, but to get himself out,
as soon as he can, of such rickety confusion? It is idle to
build our edifices of stone, if thl rules of the church, more
important to it than buildings, are so mutable and shifting.
Anybody can put materials together, if they are solid; but
it takes nothing less than miraculous power to make a permnanent wall of water.
I left the positions which it had been pleasant for me to
occupy, because of the pressure of these thoughts upon mne.
I did not do it as declaring a purpose to leave at once the
communion I was born in, in which my fathers had ministered before me, and in which my whole public life has been
passed.  I have no claim to influence others; but, for myself, I wait to see what others say, what the general mind of
the churches says, to these extraordinary recent proceedings.
It may be that such a reaction will come as will give to the
general scheme of government, which to me now appears
almost fatally threatened, a new term of life, with more of
stability, order, and strength.   But, unless such comes,
I do not see how any man can abide for long in a house so
frail in its foundations, and so infirm in its structure, that it
may tumble in heaps around him at any moment.
Certainly, I cannot. I have not years enough left for
work to give any large future part of them to rebuilding the
.-.27 
Qs
platform on which I am to stand. I see the heads around
me growing whiter. I know that whatever force I have
must now be used for the service of God, in the manifestation of his Divine Son. With me the blossoms have fallen;
the ripening fruit-season is fast passing; the October tints
are not far in the distance.  There are subjects on which I
love to dwell, as those who hear me will bear witness; but
these questions of a changeful external polity are not among
them.  There are transcendent and immortal results, for
others and myself, for which I would work. I cannot be
always unavailingly trying to get the very primary rules of
church-order re-established.
The Congregational system has had a great history. Its
colleges and seminaries, as well as its churches, are trophies
that will not let others sleep. It has given abundantly to
other communions, and has all the time been enriched itself.
Its ministers have often been pre-eminent in the communities
which they have moulded. Its missionaries have walked
the dark places of the world, in the white of an apostolic
charity, and sometimes in the crimson of martyrdom. Its
great benefactors, of institutions and of man, shine crowned
with the gold of a glorious beneficence.  But it cannot live
always by virtue of its past. If it would still surpass that
history, in its fiuture development over the country, if it
would attract the best minds to itself, or even hold the common minds which it has trained, it must do it by securing
the purest Gospel in the teaching and the life of both ministers
and members. It must, at least, assure the world that it
provides established rules, which conserve and cherish
Christian purity; that members received to the churches
which it forms cannot be released from them, whatever their
crimes, by simply absenting themselves from the sacrament;
that Councils are assured to the humblest member who feels
aggrieved, in which those whom he trusts and respects shall
sit unchallenged; that any minister in its communion, accused of gross sin, shall be properly questioned, and impartially judged, by a regular, speedy, and competent tribunal;
and that, while giving the right hand of fellowship to either
minister or church is made as easy as to draw on one's glove, 
29 -
it shall not be as wholly impossible to withdraw it, whatever
the occasion, as it is to escape from one's poisoned skin.
As at present presented, in this recent " Result," the whole
scheme seems absurd.  The man who builds churches at the
WVest or the South, or in his own city, on the basis of its
principles, appears to me to be doing all he can to heap up
anxiety and trouble for himself, and to make the external
Kingdom of Christ a mere confused, chaotic jumble.
Last of all, it must be said, with the utmost emphasis,
that a method must be found, if one does not exist, and a
method in harmony with the primary principles which are
organic in the system, for securing a recognized purity in the
pulpit; at least, for releasing other churches in fellowship
from all responsibility for any one accused, by many voices,
of reduplicated crimes, and the question of whose possible
guilt continues, year after year, an incessant subject of public debate.   The recent Council distinctly admits, and conspicuously affirms, that its accepted Congregational scheme
has no regular and appropriate way whatever for searching
into and settling a vast public scandal in one of its churches;
that that can only be done, if at all, by some machinery
wholly unknown to either of its Platforms, to any of its
manuals, to any tradition of its elders; and that neither a
requesting member of the church, nor a member dropped
from the roll against protest, and while making severest
charges against the pastor, nor any sister church, near or
remote, can effectively secure such a Mutual Council as
might explore and end the scandal.
Nay, more than this: each one of the proceedings by
whIichl the church, enthusiastically devoted to its pastor, has
fostered to its portentous growth this detestable incubus on
all American Christian life, is authorized and endorsed by
this numerous Council. The dropping of onie of its members
from the roll, after he had charged the pastor with adultery,
and when a complaint, on account of such charges, by a
member of excellent standing and repute, had been formally
lodged against him; the peculiar appointment and peculiar
procedures of the "investigating committee," on account of
which their verdict wholly failed to restore public confi
11 
- 30
dence; the cutting off of another member, without trial or
censure, in spite of her protest, and in face of her terrific
declaration that the pastor, who for years had opened to her
the secrets of his confidence, was to her knowledge a perjured adulterer; the denial to her of a Mutual Council, under
cover of an objection to two of the churches named by her,
which made it impossible for them to appear, and justified
others in equally declining; the repulse of the gentle and
noble overture from the Andover church-every one of these
proceedings is emphatically endorsed, the last was suggested,
by this large and influential representative body.
The machinery of Congregationalism, according to it, is
precisely adapted to prolong and keep alive such a scandal
as the present; but is hopelessly incompetent, in its normal
provisions, to bring it to an end.  Any other similar demoralizing development, hereafter arising, is, therefore, as fully
assured as it can be of having as long a run as this, and of
keeping the anxious mind of the public as widely feverish
and festered as now.  Tile irresponsible " Scandal Bureau"
may need to be often repeated hereafter, may need to be
made a permanent institution, under such an astonishing
scheme of i  government."
I seriously think that if a way had been' sought to make
the Congregational name a by-word and a hissing to the entire American people, I had almost said to the civilized
world, the way thus adopted was the very best possible; and
that unless the method proposed by the Andover church, or
one equivalent to this, shall be insisted on as just and right,
and shall ere long be carried to success, the ancient and
honored denominational title, in which we have rejoiced,
will be so smirched that no one who can help it will be willing to wear it.  If it be true that Congregationlalisni,.after
centuries of development, and after three years of public
distraction by this hideous rumor of an unexplored wickedness, has really no power to do anything about it, in an
effective and legitimate way, but can only approve the successive steps by which the present paralysis has been reached,
men ought not to be severely blamed if they adjudge it
unworthy, at least, of further respect.
41ilo 
-31 -
It is not pleasant to me to write thus.  I remember the
schools in which I was trained. I remember the graves by
which I have stood. I remember the grand and saintly souls
who are now with the Church of the First-born above. I remember the almost thirty years in our own congregation-of
happy, harmonious, and useful church life, with the truths
that have stirred us, the promises that have raised us as on
the swift celestial wings, the Divine influence that  has
wrought on our souls, the sacraments where we have seen
the Lord. I remember the other churches around us, to
which I have given whatever I had of counsel and support,
and in whose welfare my heart has expanded with new delight; and I hardly can bear even now to read, I would almost recall, if it were possible, the words I have felt constrained to write.  But VERA PRO GRATIS is as good a rule
now as in earlier times.  And it is as true of the government
of the churches as it is of their worship, that " God is not
the author of confusion."
0
.1 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHURCH,
BROOKLYN, N. Y., March 13, 1876.
Pursuant to notice from the pulpit on the last Lord's D)ay,
the members of THiE CH-IURCH OF THE PILGRIMS assembled in
their  Lecture Room,  at  8 p. m.   The meeting was  opened
with prayer by the Pastor, R. S. STORRS, D). D)., Moderator.
Mr. Walter T. Hatch then offered the following Preamble
and Resolutions, and moved their adoption, which motion
was seconded.
TVWhereas, There is a known, and authoritative ecclesiastical law of the Congregational communion, evidenced by its usages, and its accredited Platforms
of polity, by which the validity of the acts of churches and of Councils is
determinable; and
TVhereas,  The procedures of churches and Councils which do not conform
to that law are disorderly, illegal, and revolutionary, and not binding upon individual churches, or the Congregational communion; and
Whereas,  The late Advisory Council convened in Brooklyn in February,
1876, did, in its published Result of Council, in terms or effect, declare and
affirm:
(1) That a subsequent ordinary Council may disregard, annul, and set aside
the Result of a previous Council, which acted within its Letter-Missive, and
within the acknowledged competency of a Council:
(2) That a Church may, without reproach for laxity of discipline, drop a
member for alleged prolonged absence from ordinances, or other minor of   fense, without inquiring into the truth of graver charges publicly and
specifically made against the moral and Christian character of such mem   ber; "selecting" a minor "offense on which it shall separate him from its
fellowship," that it may avoid the scandal of investigating and cutting him
off for the graver offense
(3) That a Council may declare itself upon matters of the gravest concern to
an individual church, and to the collective churches of the communion,
which are not submitted by the Letter-Missive, from which, by the con   sentaneous act of the inviting and invited churches, the sole authority of
the individual delegates and of the collective Council is derived,  and by
which its functions are strictly limited:
I 
33
(4) That without hearing a church which has proffered a Mutual (ouncil to a
sister church, and without a submission of that question by the Letter
Missive, a Council may advise the latter church that such proffer was un  authorized and should be rejected, and may thus take upon itself the ex  elusive responsibility for the rejection of a proffer which it was within the
undoubted competency of one church to make, and of the other church
to accept:
(5) That after agreeing to unite in calling a Mutual Council, each party has
an unconditional and unlimited right, by objecting, to exclude from the
Council any church or Minister proposed by the other party to be invited,
even irrespective of the question whether such excluded church or Minister
is in truth and in fact so committed to a pronounced judgment in the case
as to be morally ineligible to sit in the Council; that such right of excliu  sion exists even after the excluded church or Minister has been named,
agreed to, and by arrangement between the parties notified that an invita  tion will be sent, and may be exercised so as to exclude from a Mutual
Council (one-half of which is to be named by each party) all churches
which, and all Ministers who, by their maturity of age, experience, and
wisdom, or by reason of vicinage, or special knowledge of the parties, or of
the relevant facts on which the Council is to pronounce a conclusion, are in
the nature of things most competent, morally and intellectually, to con  clude wisely and justly:
(6) That a pastor (and by parity of reasoning a church-member, who has
equal rights with the pastor), who is charged with a scandalous offense, may
be permitted by his church to pass by the standing Examining Committee,
and constitute a special committee, of attached friends and business asso  ciates (some of whom are not members of the church), to investigate the
charge, with the assistance and direction of his private attorney; and that
the church may accept an investigation by such special committee, so con  stituted and directed, and its decision, as ample and final, and as relieving
such church of all duty to make further inquiry into the truth of the
charge:
(7) That a Counceil may set aside the orderly method of investigating, by a
regularly constituted Council, a grave matter which concerns the purity
and good name of all the churches. and may substitute therefor a secret
Commission, anomalous in the mode of its constitution, in the definition
and limitation of its functions, and its methods of procedure; and, in the
personncel of the tribunal, so unknown that confidence cannot be implicitly
reposed in either its integrity, intelligence, or impartiality; therefore,
Resolved,  First:  That the Church of the Pilgrims does not accede to, and
will not be bound by, the principles so declared in this Result of Council; that
it regards those principles as novel, false, and revolutionary, and subversive of
the Platforms and polity of the Congregational communion; and that it does
not hold itself bound to continue in denominational fellowship with any church
which adheres to those principles. 
- 34
Resolved, Seconidly:  That upon the fundamental principles of the Congregational Platforms and polity-principles which underlie all voluntary corporate
association and effort-whatever concerns the collective brotherhood of the
churches may be judged by that brotherhood in a properly constituted Council,
ordinary or extraordinary, according to the particular case; and that if a
church proves itself unwilling, or unable, by some appropriate ecclesiastical
procedure, instituted by itself, or in any orderly way proffered by sister
churches, to rid itself of a scandal which tends and threatens to discredit all
the churches, it is the right, and may be the imperative duty, of the brotherhood of churches, to institute inquiry, in order to rid itself either of such
scandal or of such church; and that we shall regard a final denial of such right
of the brotherhood of churches to investigate, in any extreme case, through an
ecclesiastical Council, as endangering not only the purity but the very existence
of the communion of Congregational churches.
An amendment to the motion to adopt the Preamble and
Resolutions was offered by Mr. Alexander Forman, that the
Preamble a'nd Resolutions as read, and the Address of the
Pastor, as delivered last evening, be printed, and put into
the hands of members of the congregation, and further
action be postponed for two weeks, to give a further opportunity to consider these questions.
After some discussion, in which several members took
part, the question was called for, and decided in the negative,
by a rising vote, only twenty-three voting for the amendment.
The sections of the Preamble were' then read by the
Moderator, and voted upon serialirn and were adopted by a
vote of nearly four to one.
The question upon the adoption of the Resolutions was
then called for, and a rising vote being demanded, the first
Resolution was carried by a vote of seventy-eight in the
affirmative, to twenty-five in the negative.
The second Resolution was then read, and declared adopted, by a vote of eighty-five to fourteen.
The question was then put upon the adoption of the
Preamble and Resolutions as a whole, and they were declared adopted, by a vote of ninety in the affirmative,
against twenty-three in the negative.
The following Resolution was then offered by Mr. W. T.
Hatch, and carried: 
Resolved, That the Moderator be requested to appoint a committee of three,
of whom the Clerk of the church shall be one, to arrange for the publication, in
pamphlet form, convenient for circulation, of the Address delivered last evening by our Pastor, upon the Result of the recent Advisory Council, and also
the proceedings of this meeting; with instructions to print at least 5,000 copies, and to forward a copy to each Congregational church in the United
States, and to other clergymen and prominent individuals, at their discretion;
and to furnish, at cost price, to the members of this church and society, whatever copies they may wish for private circulation.
On motion, the meeting adjourned.
JOHN C. BARNES, Clerk, 
WALTER T. HATCH,      Committee.
EDWIN S. WATERMAN. )
315 
0
HALLET & BRlEEN, PRINTERS, 58 & 60 FULTON ST., N. Y.
.1