New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-01-15
THE. CHECK TO THE PREPARATIONS.

THE CHECK TO THE PREPARATIONS.
CORRESPONDENTS WITH DEs. sToRRs AND BUDING-
ToN-THER WITHDRAWAL OF ASSEMBLING
oUTH ABIDEs BY IFS PRorEsT-MR VAN COTS
REMONsTRANCE.
The various conferences which have been held
during the past two weeks between the Committee
of the Plymouth Church and Joshua NJ Van Colt,
counsel for Mrs. Emma c. Moulton, relative to the
completion of the lettermissiye for the Mutual
Council. have been closed. 1t has been known for
several days that the main question OF discussion IN
these conferences was in regard to the churches
which should bo invited TO participate in
the council. IL has been stated on sew
eral occasions that there were only few
churches concerning which there any doubt
and members Of Plymouth Church have often ex-
pressed confidence that everything would be ar
ranged IN a day or two. Early yesterday afternoon
before the letters given below had been sent to him.
Air. Shcarman SAID he believed the full list of
churches would be made known at the meeting last
evening. but that the whole matt n rested with Mr.
Van Colt.
The belief has gained ground within a few days
that the question of inviting the churches Of Drs.
StOrrs and Burlington was the of the delay in
the completion of the letter-missiye. Aud we'll
known Congregational clergyman, residing IN Brook
lyn said yesterday early IN the day that there was
sonnet thing in these negotiations which the public
did not yet know, but which would come out in
few DAYS. He also said he did not believe the
Mutual Council would ever be held 1t now appears
that among the churches which Mrs. Mouton de-
;crmiucd TO invite were those of Drs. Storrs and
Budiugton. The following is copy Of the note
which was sent these pastors and to those of other
churches whom it was proposed by both parties to
invite:
REV Avp DEAR SIR: Plymouth Church. represented by
IT. Committee aud Mrs. Emna G. Moulton, represented
by me. nave agreed 10 lettImisslve FOR The call OF
Mutual Council ina Brooay u. ON the 10Th ot January, To
advise tie parties III answer 10 Two PueSU"hs ''y hS'
a-rrtd 10 submit. They have also agreed upon the
churches ana ministers To Ice invited To constitute the
Council, and earnestly desire that their invitation shall
bc accepted ~ the churches and ministers must all be
named VA the leteTmi--yc anu as Tue tiea Wish that
All proposed To- b, invited shall attend nave agreed
MAKE preliminary inquiry oI each - O." th,ir probable
address letter 10 mOicy oi the churches ana minis
agreed upon, asking for Information ON mat point
ID h. Ni- taat the Council shall be composed OF the
representative, 81 20 prominent churches "Ad of 10
ministers NOT rcprt rentng churches
In pursuance of this arIan mon adde's THIS coin
nunicauou To- you and respectfully ask whether -
parties ~ response the lcttemissye 10 De sent. As
an early day Is nXed for the Council prompt reply TO
this 10y tcc gram tor 10y letter n more convenient 10 you)
to my address, VA sre'ily oDi$e us. Mitn CHRISTIAN
% William-st, newborn Guy.
To this letter Drs. Storrs and Budington replied
that they had 40 doubt OF the willingness # their
people to send delegates to the Council A, soon as
Plymouth Church was informed that these churches
had been invited protest was made. The Rev.
DIS. Burlington and Storrs then addressed letters to
Mr. Van Colt withdrawing the assent they had
formerly expressed. Following are the letters
BRooKLYN, y. Y, Jan. II, 1876
The Hon. j. VI VAS Corr.-DEAR SIN: When you in
qulrcd of II the church OF which a pastor would
cccpt invitation to the Mutual Council, consented to
y ic r mouth church. hid no dOdbt Of their willing
m ,,r rIlows,p of Churches to accept such invtauon
I.,uf "A. IuI q
",,u,iit.e Of fIe Plymouth Cfur,h have protested
AGAINST the calling OF the Clinton Avenue Church ANA "a
scN Oi tnis fact NInpcd ~ the history Of mutual
,',uu,. and "a unjust IA ats implications, 1 4 e. com
PEELED to withdraw the iuescence expressed. ana To
say that think the Clinton Avenue church Wou4d not
accept tue invitation under these circumstances. "a Ger
.auly should Tor Iy self Very respectfully youIs,
WM. NEs BuDINGrON.
DIR. sroREs's WITHDRAWAL or ASSENT.
50 PuLiEErONT-r, BKOOkLtS y. Y, Jan. l., 1870.
Ml DEAR SIR: when you asked me tho other day IN
regard 20 y willingness aud tne probable Willingness Of
Council proposed to Ice called BY Ply mouth Church ana
Ms. aiouiton, replied mat II the invitation were
cord ia one from Dun parties ar understood 10 u be-
,houid bc ready TO accept II, ana presumed tha u,
church would bc also and that whatever AID Nc could
vc iu the adius rcn the matters TO be brought be-
ioic tie Council would be chceilully gwen but no"
tat The Committee oil the Ply mouth Church, under
stand YOU, have entered protest against Our being III
ttcd 10 the Council beg 10 say that certainly could
not attend myself ami nave very strong impression
that the church would al once decline any invitation 10
DO not wish to evade any duty, but cannot think
that duty would require either the church "a ny SELF TO
accept Invitation OyershaiOwed aud practically multi
TINS has been. 80 you VIII please consider my
expressions OF assent made to you the o'heI day 40
Very iruly. and with great regard, yours,
The Hon. JOsnUA Vi. VA COTE AZ :. sIokhs.
On the receipt of these letters Mr. Van Cott had
consultation with Mrs. Moulton, and prepared the
following letter to the Committee oil Plymouth
Church which VAS received yesterday;
BROOKLYN Jan. i3, 1876.
The Rer EDWARD BEECHER, h. -, THOMAS q. SnEAkMAS,
esq.,. dad others, COHmtee Of HBnoah ChHeh.
GhSrLLMiS: / iast evening received the note OF MI
rr, tic I,- of your church. IN which he says: The
Committee Plymouth Churcn desire me 10 inform yon
that .ey cannot their position III the matter OF
fhc l,rys and adds that they ready AT once "a
sign the cttrnlssye either With or without the changes
suggested respecting rhe churches 10 De called must
,c,sp tis action vi tbs Committee the act OF Pyn
outh Chuich until 1t . dlsdhrmed by tue church, ana
80 must regard IL tie final dtciVn of HE church re-
"a, ing he prot,.t lntcrposra ID It's committee.
In 10, .dnoe with the venerable usage OF tue Congre-
iliunh order, you named one moley Oh the ehutchea
uoey on the evening vi lhs 81 of January. A. We mu
tuay desired thu council TO % I@ ne, ON t.ic same
yeung arc.d ta l,ites should be- g. 40 chuIcNes
aud ministers named by respectively, asking an an
swtr the probability OF tuer acceptance O tho IN
,1tatiou whom sent py a letter-nissye (Ae OF
which had agreed upon ~ us and Nc adjourned To
ie 1th o January, when We were To- eohmuhic'.e .ie
churches aud ministers nad named. Ny letters were o.
dniOlu cDOr anG ciIelly avoided any lhtlmatioh oI
M. palty by whom the church minister had been
CHOSEN. We met OH the evening at tho 'th OF jan
uaiy, aud thcn anioulveI 70, =" you Ut Di r
| mad heard frum All tAceli tHc h'Os' ~
mote church, and all but ono minister and
that the received were IN tne "iatNe except
from one church in Massachusetts, lou mus distinctly
understood That tne Cnuron to Pilgrims and the Gin
ton Avenue Church would proDdDy actept Ihe INVITA-
lion a. coray invited to be part o the council Az
Ter had made this announcement you read written
protest that you had pioNoua! prepared ihu o "leI
YOU then gave me copy protesting against these two
churches being invited. instant answer that the
protest violated the fundamental principle OF mutual
couuci, violated he Arrangement by which mad each
named moieiy OF the churches and ministers TO be in
yitcd violated the arrangement pursuant To wnich
had written all the churches and ministers that mad
|