National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-03-27
PLYNOUTH CHUR0H.

they please about the responsibility of their
churches to the authority Of superior &C.
clesiastical power, but the people known -
the worldly people are prompted to criti-
else the acts of individual churches. Mr..
Beecher's defiance Of the "a parts council
Of Congregational churches convened in
New York constitutes one of these acts.
The meeting Of his congregation, to be
ready to take immediate action rendered
necessary by the expected proceedings Of
the council, was in itself and in its very
inception an act Of defiance. But 1t will be
very generally accepted as an act of indie
pendence rendered necessary by the danger
to "Christian liberty, courtesy and equity
which have characterized the calling of this
council" Mr.. Beecher's amenability for
acts committed while presiding over Ply
mouth church as its pastor may DO sub
jected to the criticism of sclfinvoked coun-
ellis on.y when the congregation Of that
church Is prepared to submit Its differences
to other authority than themselves for SET
Element This no one viii dispute; but how
far the authority resides in church itself,
and especially in Congregational church.
to Judge of its own affairs is not q question
among the issues involved In this contro-
versy. The fact that his congregation Is
satisfied with such explanations Of his con-
duct as he may have made to Its
members, either individually or col
lectively. Is sufficient to preclude any
necessity for outside interference in the way
Of an investigation of charges which are
not oven preferred by the member Of any
Christian organization. If he has made no
explanation, or If his congregation, as it il
now Organized. having implicit faith in his
rectitude, has demanded mono, no question
can be raised, unless the reverend gentle
men who compose the council descend to
the level of investigating street rumors, and
by exalting the tales Of malicious persons
into undue prominence make 1t possible for
every scallawag in the community to sig
nalize his malice by subjecting church to
the undesirable notoriety of public exami-
nation into its affairs. 1t is true that much
importance has been added to the charges
by the manner In which Mr.. Beechef has
treated them and the consequent public
attracted to them; but until they
arc substantiated by some acknowledged
church authority, until they have been for.
mally preferred with accompanying specifl
cations by some interested party, it strikes
Us that they should be treated As ordinary
scandal, to which any prominent man of any
profession is liable to be subjected. We
do not mean, of course, in taking this view
Of the case, to pronounce upon his guilt or
innocence, but to call attention to the fact
hat submission by his congregation to the
dictates Of an &c parts council would not
'erve to increase respect for his church. It
would rather detract from its singular indie
'endence, and destroy much offs influence
Is leading integral Of the Congregational
,ect
Another view of the case may be assumed |
hat Mr.. Beecher and his followers owe it |
o the world, which they professedly would
lttempt to Christianize, that the blot upon
he fair name of their church should be |
wiped away; that some vindication Of his |
character should be made; but the same
answer applies to this % to the demands Of
he council, and 1t would serve no better
purpose to reply to the current gossip Of
he public and the press, unsustained as it
8 by any apparent responsible foundation,
han it would to the mere suspicious Of the
members Of that body. II he had ct the
,utset made public denial it would have
,een accepted a. sufficient or might have
further attacks upon his charac.
er; but, as the matter now stands, having
efused and persisted in his refusal to pur-
me any other course, he Is compelled. for
,onsistency's sake, II for no other and more
erious reason, to remain quiet.