New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-03-23
COMMENTS IN ADVANCE.
VIEWS OF THE REV. DIR. TAYLOR, THE REV. DR.
sCUDDRR, AND OTHERS.

COMMENTS IN ADVANCE.
VIEWS OF THE REV. DR. TAYLOR, THE REV. DIR.
sCUDDER, AND OTHERS
The Rev. DR.. William NJ Taylor of the
Broadway Tabernacle this city, when called upon to
give the OF feeling in his church concerning the
Congre gaonal controversy in Brooklyn said that no
had only recently returned after considerable absence
and had not made such inquiries as entitled him to
speak for the church. At the meeting which elected
delegate to the Council the three 10 one IN
favor Of representation As the Clinton.ave. Church
and the Church of the Pilgrims had asked their sister
church TO advise with them the Broadway Tabernacle
inclined to disregard the invitation 30 far as
he knew, there strong opposition to sending
delegate. To a question about his own opinion
Of the merits of the controversy, he re-
piled that 1t was not the time to give
that Il expected that the me mbers OF
the Council would together uncOmmitted by
statements OF opinion, urymen into the Jurybox.
II they had formed opinion they would undoubtedly
be ready review upon the Of the
OF the several churches shall to this Council as
learner The short time have been in this country has
not given me thorough acquaintance with all ques-
tons OF Congregational form. principle and usage.
have tried TO work my church upon Congregational
principles, nut have had more knowledge OF these
principles as applied individual body than 70 the
church In general" when asked III regard to his i'm
about the funess and representative character
of the Council he replied that he not sufficiently In
formed concerning COngregatonalism In the west 10
give proper estimate. He knew something Of New
England Congregatonalism and should judge that the
Council would contain satisfactory representation
from New England He not inclined to suppose
that the refusal OF Plymonth Church to appear in tho
Council by committee would modify at all the charac-
ter Of the Council alter the direction OF its discus
As 10 the justice of their charge that an epare
Council had been called when they had never refused To
unite in a mutual Council, he said that he had not
looked into the subject fully enough TO pronounce upon
IL. He confident that the Council would not be e.
drte in the sense that would not be prepared 70 give
right To Plymouth Church which belonged TO It, To the
que stion what exactly the Council might bo ex-
pared TO answer. In the call five points were set forth
10 considered 10 s hardly TO he expected that the
to he autbortavey settled by the decision Of
the Council, depends upon she amount OF authority
The Rev Isaac C. Meserve Of the safest Conerega-
tional Church Of Brooklyn said that his church, IN
inr elected L. L. Robbins as Law delegate to the Council
lay delegate had been previously chosen but be had
ve members OF the church opportunity TO show
their feeling in the matter No opposition to representa-
upon the merits of tho had not been
oanvassed by him. but 80 far as his Observation went Its
think" said Mr. Meserve, that most OF the
people OF Brooklyn take that side OF the
question The people of the churches generally
likely to with their pastors IN such a matter"
gland men and the position OF Plymouth Church is d
recty opposed to all NewEngland usage and precedent
For my part have hesitation IN saying that
opinion decidedly in favor OF the position taken by
the Chntonave Church and the Church OF the Pilgrims
The point OF difference is after all only this: Can men,
Der OF Congregational church withdraw himself from
that church without obtaining its consent by the pm
England IA the very cradle OF ConeregationalsE. 1t
appears to me that the Council viii be strong repre-
The Rev Tneodore j. Holmes of the Lee-ave Church,
which desired to hold aloof from the Council Deacon
H. &. Hodgdon was chosen lay delegate at fulI ana
ave Church az TO the merits of the controversy could
not be anticipated properly before the case is made up
and presented to the Council There seems 10 be not
only difference about principles but also msnnder-
standing To what principles are at issue HIS own
Ign Congregatonalists in general, he thought, was
held somewhat In reserve Till the appearances
pected the Council 10 be representative and In
uental. and settle fnally-ln far as 1t had au-
believed that the refusal OF Plymouth Church to be
represented before would not affect It's character on d.
vert It's discussions IT is called TO decide certain primer
pies and into the history OF Plymouth Church.
into the record of Mr. Beecher either as pastor or
man The views of Plymouth Church upon church
poity aud VIII be fully presented In the Council,
for have information, said MT Holmes mat several
New England churches which send delegates have
opinons-so far they have definite and settled
opinons--lke those Of Plymouth Church
Tie Dr. III. NJ Scudder Of the Central Tabernacle
when asked for an opinion upon the controversy an
ionast. He would 60 Council 10 hear what
to be both SIDES. His church had long discus
sion the previous evening propriey of sending
delegate Many were in favor holding aloof
ing that each church should be left TO itself in matters
of discipline An attempt made to get vote upon
this last point, but failed and he could not say which
party III the controversy had more followers IN bis
church III himself argued that the sister churches
had asked the Central Tabernacle Church TO advise with
them would not be courteous 10 refuse, but that dele
gates ought go without instructions and without
iudte ready TO decide impartiay upon the statements
TO the Council After considerable discussion the
church voted 30 to So TO send delegate, and David NJ
Stone chosen.
DR. Scudder did not know what the prevailing opinion
Brooklyn gationalism upon the Council
and decided that he had not data enough to judge IL
the Council he satisfactory representative body. He
was surprised that Plymouth Church refused to send
committee the Council but had not made up his mind
what effect their refusal might have. He also
certain what the Council might he expected TO accom-
psh He was not thoroughly familiar with Congrega-
tionai ecclesascism points OF discipline, he had
the Reformed Church fifteen years, IN the Pres
byterian ak years. and IN the Congregational Church
only throe years.