New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-01-11
THE MUTUAL COUNCIL.
DIR. sCUDDERs CHURCH ALOOF.

meeting of the members of the Central
Congregational Church OF Brooklyn 1.-THE Rev. Dr. seud-
des he'll last evening to decide whether or not the
church should accept invitation 10 be represented AT
Mutual Council be called to consider the case Of
Mrs Mou!ton. John NJ Pratt presided, and the meeting
was opened by the reading Of letter from John NJ.
Van COtt, asking II tho Church would con-
sent 10 be represented at the Council Mr..
yan Colt wrote that Plymouth Church, repre-
scented its counsel and Mrs. MOuton, represented by
himself bad agreed to call Mutual Council to arrange
the difficulties between them; that they had agreed upon
the churches and ministers who would he called to CON
suie the Council-consstng OF 90 churches and 10
persons not representa- ,hurches-and that they had
agreed make preliminary inquiries OF the churches
aud ministers to ascertain whether they would accept
tic invitation to be represented In the Council when the
lettcrmissiye out Immediately after the
reading of s letter, David NJ. Stone offered tile FOL
lowing:
Resocca That in response to note inquiry received
nom Joshua NJ Van Colt esq., our pastor be requested 70
notify the writer that this church, upon receipt OF IN
ttei,nl-siye will accept me lnyl hn 10 We dspIe
plymouth Chuich and Que Of th' members thereof
The following was offered amendment by Mr.
Sphinx
Wh,reas This church has been invited to particI &C
In Mutual Council called to consider diileresces be-
tween Plymouth Church aud Mrs. Emma g. Monlton'
one 81 us mem Jrrs aud particularly these TWO PROPOSE
tons
from IT. unDers IL did, Are ITS rcasons Tor ts Nahd
the while she dd wish withdraw
from membership were her reasons Tor tho Fald anu SUI
Bhereas, The consideration Of question:, ospe-
clliy the last, Will and doubtless intended TO- ne
ccsstatc inquiry Into The guilt or innocence OF the
pastor Of sdd church IN respect of matters when nave
been before public years, and have been the SAD
ject Of protraced and exhaustive ny,eealion IN the
new spapcs, society, N the church. aud IN the courts
and have proved 10 b. thus far insolublc and
Whereas. We depocato the contin1'd agitation OF n
matter which ce surg Is proitless and know Is so
| cldiIy denurdiZng; and
Whereas, On thc principal question to be considered by
said council there L. ~ tins church, IA IN tho community
large, wide diif renee ana radical opposition Oi
opinion such that delegate could be chosen WHO could
whereas The spiritual condition OF this church IL now
such az to render G1edpsS GppVrn ns an! SHS
follow action It's representatives might take III such
Whereds We believe that for these reasons she pres
euce OF tbs church by ia represeniauyes IA suth pIo
posed council would be % no service 10 others, out "Oud
be Of great detnment TO the cause oil christ III THIS
church therefore,
Rcs1ieed That Tor these reasons this church respect
fully declines the invitation to be represented Ia said
proposed Council
Tuese resolutions were greeted with applause and a
warm debate followed the reading Of them.
Tue Rev. Dr. scudIer said that before the first
Plymouth Church Council meeting similar to this one
had been held by this church, and they had discussed
the question whether not To accept an invitation
be rpIesentod IN the Council. II had chen been pre-
dictcd that harm would be done by acceptance but then
had concluded send delegate who had tried to do his
duty and trouble had occurred. This was different
case. The circumstances were dlferent-grayey So
Or scudder said had been Sncned ut first to comply
with that view which considered that anything
that should bring dissensi0n into the church
should De avoided, but after carefully looking at the
question, ho had concluded that the church should
accept tae invitation. II simply question Of duty
II they declined go into because they feared harin
would they do right Would IL not bc msin erpreted
In regard the duty OF delegates they were not to rep
resent merely the sentiment OF tile church which
-out them. IL that were So 1t would only
DO necessary to get the church together ascertain
It's views and forward them TO the Council
That wac "A wrong view OF a delegates duty Ii would
Je go at all than TO in such bonds The
proper dcn 81 delegate was man with a clear head
heart who could hear the evidence and stand for
what thought right The rules OF this church required
receive aud give council when requested to do by
sister church Dr. scudder concluded by saying that
he did To get into this conflict and would be
glad to keep Of it possible but he put the matter
lac simple ground OF duty.
Mr. Parsons expressed tho opinion that the invitation
should be rejected M Nccfus considered it better
wait until Plymouth Church actually invited the church
to send representatives the Council before deciding
what to do. Mr.. Cook declared that nothing but harm
could come from accepting the invitation Mr. Creepy
was OF a similar opinion. Mr.. Ray, who recently
d member OF Plymouth Church, spoke excitedy
ia favor Of accepting the invitation. He in favor OF
settling the question whether Mrs. MoutOn could be
dropped without n fair trial. Whether she wrong
right on other points she had right to be tried before
being elected from Plymouth Church. Plymouth Church
said she had absned herself from its services, but why
WAS not that found out long and II II was subject
Of trial why had she been brought to trial The
speaker had belonged to Plymouth Church and felt
strongly in this matter lie said he not allowed to
express an opinion Plymouth Church had right
to turn him any out without trial.
Mr.. DumOnt could not how the church could act on
the two questions proposed together The first question
faulty question and no would never be in favor of
touching H. but the second question by itself might be
proper FOR the Council to consider Mr. Stone said
tins not invitation to an er pdrte council Ii was
Council called b. Plymouth Church herself to consider
teo questions which she had agreed TO submit
to It. The list ~ churches had also been mutually agreed
upon. Thirty letters Of inquiry, all precisely alike, had
out half signed by Plymouth Church and half
by Mrs. Moulton. But Plymouth Church asked this
church TO be represented, and not Mrs Mouon alone
and there could be no objection accepting the invita-
ton. The Council was Il fixed fact. and would be held
whether this church sent delegates not II II refused
1t would avoid the excitement that was
sure ~ take place. II delegates were not sent
the excitement would be st greater and people would
ask why this church refused Do represented and sscrbe
wrong motive for IT, Borldes the whole question
could be settled without necessarily inqnilng into the
truth OF the charges against Mr. Beccher Some delegates
might think Mr. Beecher guilty and yet consider that
Mrs Moulton abented herself wrongly from the church.
aud others might believe the pastor to be innocent and
still be OF the opinion that the church hah mad no right 10
summurly eject Mrs Moulton.
Henry Bakeley said that the Council only scheme
OF Mr. Beecher's enemies to rain him. Mr.. Van Colt
would the Council not to got at the truth but To
get every ady auaRe he could for Mrs Mouon IN order
feed the grudgs of Francis ID. Moulton against MI
Beecher II only attempt to bolster up and give
respectability to another attempt to spread dis
far fla NJ