New-York tribune., 1876-01-21
PLYMOUTH CONTROVERSIES.
PLYMOUTH CHURCTs ATTITUDE.

PLYMOUTH CHURCHS ATTITUDE.
LETTER FROM THE REV EDWARD BEECKER-THE
COUNCIL NOT REJECTED BY THE cHURCH-ITs
RIGHT TO SUGGEST TIE WITHDRAWAL OF GER
TAIN CHURCHES.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.
SIR: Allow me TO correct through your widely cir
cuasd paper certain erroneous statements as to the
Mutual Council in the case of Mrs. Moulton. 1t has
been stated that Plymouth Church claimed and ex-
ercsed the right of veto on the choice OF Mrs.
SioultOn. This is not true. 1t has been said that
Plymouth Church declined the Council because GER
tain churches retained the other side. This
is not true. What then is the truthi What did
Plymouth claim
The Committee Of Plymouth Church, in private
conference with Mrs. Moulton's representative
claimed the right of suggesting reasons why two of
the churches named by him should not sit in the
Council But it was then and there stated explicitly
and was reduced to writing that such informal pro-
test was not designed to exclude the churches men-
toned it, after considering the reasons given, Mrs.
Moulton still chose to retain those churches
Plymouth Church agreed, and was known to agree,
to 60 on with tho Council as if no exception had
been taken. That the right of thus stating reasons
exists on both sides is the dictate of natural equity
and of common 1t is essential to the highest
degree of perfection Of a mutual council, namely,
that there shall be an agreement of both sides in
all the members of a council. II this agreement
cannot be reached we said let each side exercise its
right Of choice.
Whether there ought not to be a right Of veto
within certain limits, in the choice of jurors in
civil court, did not say 1t is question concern
ing which there is room for argument. Certainly
that right has been exercised, and there may be
cases where it ought to be. But did not choose
To claim to exercise this right. We content
with the obvious and undeniable right OF stating
reasons leaving the power Of choice uBimpaired on
both sides. The Committee in private conference
suggested reasons why two churches should not be
included in the Council, but emphatically and in
writing, which was before Mrs. Moulton when she
gave up the Council declared its willingness to 90
on with the Council calling every church or minis
ter she should nominate. The document before her
was in this language
econd Your right TO onehalf the Council IA not
disputed, and We have simply called your al tehton TO
considerations which seem to us to require reiecton on
your part and ON the part Of the churches referred TO-
We peat what said in the first instance, that we do
for moment think of Withdrawing from the Mutual
Council in case You disregard our suggestions.
Again the clerk of the church sent to her, through
her lawyer the following document:
BIooKLYS. Jan. 10, 1876.
J. NJ VAN CoTT, esg-Dcar Sir The Committee Of
Plymouth Church desir' inform you that they
They ready al 10 sign and issue he ietero'is
sire eer nth or ui0m he chonges Sugges'ed respect
ing The churches to DC cdHed. sincerely yours,
THOMAS j. TILSEY
Excepting the place of meeting, Mrs. Moulton,
therefore, was offered her own way on every point.
The church wanted the Mutual Council and still de-
sir,s II, and il willing TO 90 with 1t. The
churches named by her were accepted, and would
have been called. She withdrew from mutual
council simply because we exercised our manifest
right of suggesting to her reasons for not calling
two churches at the same time leaving her right 10
call them wnimpaircd and unquestiOned. On that
ground and Oh that only. she drew back.
EDWARD BEECHLE, Chairman OF Committee.
Er00LtyE, Jan. 20. 1876.