Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1875-08-06
AUG ST 6. 1875.
The Brooklyn Scandal.


UG U ST 6, 1875.
The Brooklyn Scandal.
LITTER FROM DIR. LEONARD BACON.
DIR. Leonard Bacon, cf New Haven, hav
ing seen in New York paper, over thu
initials of a personal friend, communica
tion expressing surprise that DR.. BacoI
should have "preached for Mr. Beccher,
makes it the occasion for letter to tn,
New York Tribune, defining pithily hi
position, which in some respects. is the posi-
tion Of many others. He says:
l. have not preached for Mr. Becchei
nor at his invitation. | preached in the
Plymouth Church, Sunday evening, June
10, at the invitation of Mr.. Halliday, whom
l regarded as representing the church, Mr.
Beecher being at that time relieved from
responsibility for the Sunday evening ser
vice.
2. When | received the invitation, re-
membered, inst, that it is my vocation to
preach the Gospel wherever | can lind a
congregation to hear me and that no
preacher can be reasonably considered as
vouching for the religious soundness of those
to whom he breaches an occasional sermon.
When the Apostle Paul preached on Mars
Hill, he did not thereby vouch for tie or
thodoxy of the Epicureans and Stoies who
were his hearers. | remembered also that,
from the date of the Brooklyn Council, the
Plymouth Church people had been highly
displeased with my expressed opinions
about their dealing with Mr. Tilt0n and
about the whole policy Of silence; = and |
could not but regard the invitation as a tes-
timony that they had fallen in with my way
of thinking. and that they would not again
drop without censure church-member who
puts into circulation, or mGliciously repeats,
disgraceful charges against their pastor. |
found afterward tiat had not misunder-
stood the meaning of the invitation
,. | wish it to be understood that though
| did not preach for Mr.. Beecher, am will
ing to do 50 if he is willing to invite me,
just as am willing to preach at anybody's
invitation wherever | am likely to have
respectful and attentive hearing. Should
DR.. Bellows, or DR.. Chaplin, or the more
erratic Mr.. Rockingham offer me pulpit
and an audience, why should not accept
the offer? The man who invites Inc TO
preach in his stead makes himself in some
sort responsible for my preaching, bat he
does not make me responsible for his |
have friend-a jealous but broad-minded
Congregationalist-w gave some thou
sands OF dollars to the building Of e Roman
Catholic cathedral, and did not think that
his Professionalism or his Evangelical faith
was compromised by the Gift. And i'll,
at the invitation of Archbishop McCloskey.
should preach the gospel of Christ in the
New York Cathedral, ought to he con-
sdered as vouching for the Pope and the
Vatican Council? Paul preached in syna-
gogues wherever the rulers of the synagogue
invited him to speak; but he did not in 50
doing 90 over to ''the concision." Why
then should refuse to preach in the Hebrew
Temple on the Fiith-aye., if were invited
to do so by those who preside over the great
congregation?
g. Ny friend insists that shall denounce
Mr. Beecher's theology or want OF theo-
logy." Ianswer that, just how, the ques-
ton before the public i not about Mr.. |
Beeeher's theology, but about his personal |
morality. The meanest thing in Mr. Beachs /
argument to the jury was his attempt to IL
Iluence their verdict by throwing the Ply |
mouth pulpit's theology or want Of theology
into the scale as a makeweight While /
have my own opinion about the wisdom and
the tendency of attempting to present Christ
and his salvation in terms of CHRONOLOGICAL
should make myself a partaker in what
regard a. other men : sins, ii. at this crisis.
when BrOoklyn-nOt to say the whole cOaa-
try-is becoming divided into parties for and
against Mr.. Beecher, | should begin an at
tack on what seem to be defects in his theol-
Jey. This Is not the time for such criti-
ism. Ii he were abreast Of Mr.. Hilton or
Mr. MOulton a. ian advanced thinker
The question of his personal morality ought
% be determined by positive testimony and
lot by presumption or Inference from hi,
ipiniOns. offer no ''compr1mi,e, ' bus. on
he other hand, | do not intend to be COM
lromised against my own jud g'lent and
ril.
.. There i one point On which my friend
oes not challenge me 10 speak, bat on
which, in present circumstances. can
ardly be silent. Hot Iarti>ans On both
ides will charge me with eyading the real I
sue, If do not explicitly declare what my l
'ositIon l. on the specific question, whether {
IT. Beecher Is guilty Of the charge pre-
FRED against him by the firm Of Moulton
nd Til;on. t
The man who Is charged with an iuiamoa,
fense and denies the charge may rest hi
eiense upon his character. We accept his a
email, and wait for proof from the accusar. r
IT. Beecher has denied explicitly and under 1
18th the charge preferred against him and n
lying denied it, he has right to be re-
irded as innocent till his guilt !, proved. =
essrs MOulton and Tilton, having slowly
'cnmulated through period of three or
ur years their material of war. and having II
ID the help of Gen. Benjamin F. Butler in
'yising the plan of the campaign, made
cir attempt. They had the power of the IN
ate OF New York to compel the attendance ~
witnesses, and to make them testify "a
icy had professional advocates Of most dis ~
lgulshed ability 10 examine and cross -,
anime witnesses, 10 marshal their evidence, nj
d to argue for them. Their side had the an
st word Of statement to the jury. and the la
It. 1t Is difficult to say what advantage tn
ey could have had which they had not. at
~ateA - tAbA4oNttl kllL--kllE must lIU- B "
cted, believe. save one, in the history so
result, Is, on their part. all
lure. They undertook to prove Mr. re
echer guilty of definite ofen-e, and they or
re not done what they undertook to do pa
p, therefore, stands just where he stood at 80 -.
hrst denial of the charge. The attempt r.,
prove him guilty having failed, the legal 81,
anon sense presumption Of hi innocence wa
lains unimpaired lac
have no right to demand-nor has any hel
n right to demand-that he shall pos Pre-
ely prove his innocence. The burden of gre
OF rests on those who accuse him. Our Owe
y is to wait not for proof Of his innocence ~
for proof of his guilt. d dor
hall be told that there are other charges
yet investigated? Those other charges -
on the sole authority of Mr.. Henry c. .
rcn, who, however reluctantly, has ex- tns
sly withdrawn" them-though with ii IN;
that they are false If that tho
lber of Plymouth Church still insists hoe,
| by nod and wink, or by expressive the
ice, ;" that his allegations distinctly re- lane
sed in document appended to the 'Tri- rail
lite Agreement, and by him with poir
'n are nevertheless true (as calico is cd a
rted to have said. brushing the dust
his knees after humbly Withdrawing {,
allegations about the earth's motion. rain
verthelesS it moves ; then it is for lore
to prove what he cannot DENY that lac even
said, or else to stand before the church 1hc
hieh he is member, and before the lTr
d, as being, presumptively and prob , lme
the originator Of that great scandal of r rc,'
h Mr.. Tilton was the promulgator. n n.fo
e are waiting to see land there are many road
what the Plymouth Church ard its The
II will do about those other charges. The
lllton's otherwise incredible story gain Hood
edit and n sort Of credihilitv fr9m the way
lprehensible manner in which the LAT
" Of it was treated by those who ought C,,
We brough. him speedily % serious the 1
ning' those other charges - over iierk
wed Tor a year by the one specific The :
q which Nessrs Aforltc,. 81 ~