New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-03-18
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL.


DIR. sroRRs's CoNGREGATIoNALIsM MAY BE
CONSERVATIVES, BUT 1T is NOT THE OLD NEW
ENGLAND sYsTEM-FOLLY OF TELLING CHURCH
ITHAs NOT DONE ENOUGH, AND THEN REFUSING
TO SAY WHAT SHOULD BIZ DONE
70 fhs Editor OF The Tribune.
SIR: Since the close of the session of the
late Advisory Council in Brooklyn extended and
criticisms have been made in regard TO Its action and
particularly It's action respecting theAndover letter and
the organic ton of investigating commission These
criticisms have brought before the public by Prof
Mead Of Andover in The Boston Daily Adrertser by che
Rev. Dr. Dexter and Prof symth In The Congregation
al,st by the Rev. DIR. Bartlett OF Chicago in The Ide
peudn and By the Rev. Dr. r. s. storrs of Brooklyn in
discourse which he delivered in the Church of the Pill
grims Sunday evening last These distinguished gen
temen 1t is commonly reported all in consultation
before the Andover letter, is familiarity styled,
was written, and Joint authors of the plan
in accordance with which it was prepared
Whether this report is correct or not i have no
sufficient means Of Determining and would, therefore,
express opinion upon the subject. But the careful
reader the several documents which they have pub
ished since the adjournment of the Council cannot fail
TO be impressed with the striking similarity In all the
details OF their criticisms There may have been no CON
cert OF acton either before the celebrated letter
written since its proposal was declined in accord
ance advice of the Council by Plymouth CEurch
but their utterances could scarcely be alike they
had been in daily communication from the beginning
until the present moment. 1t may be regarded as for
tunate circumstance that such remarkable Similarity IN
the criticisms exists The persons who constituted the
Council may be that they have before the al
this early day. all objections which likely TO be
made or which be made to their action, and IN any
reply which they may attempt TO offer they may direct
their efforts united body of gentlemen ali saying
the same thing nsieadof turning in many different d.
rectons TO meet as many opposers.
do not propose enter into any controversy with
these gentlemen or with anybody else, this subject.
rut the ri Council has, in been
naryelously and misrepresened and rs
/ WAS by accident, brought into somewhat prominent
connection with what the Council did in relation to both
Of the points mentioned 1t has seemed TO Inc not insult
able that should bring some facts and suggestions 10
the attention of tho public, and particularly OF my
brethren IN the Congregational ministry. Passing over,
however the prese occasion, any reference 10 the
matter Of tho Investigating Commission, Will conine
myself to points connected with the Andover
letter.
THE COUNCIL MIsREPREsENrED
The Council objected to this letter and advised
Plymouth Church decline its proposal because 1t was
untimely and because it contrary TO the platforms
and rules of Congregational system The reasons for
believing il liable to both of these objections were
presented in an elaborate report prepared by gentle
who is confessedly in all quarters the highest Nv
Ing authority in questions Of Congregational law Ihe
report clear and able thai distinguished anu
highly esteemed lawyer who heard it read portion OF
the the Council took pains TO speak OF II 10 me
Immediately afterward as "A remarkable document IN
these respects. had myself supposed tnat It's meaning
could not mistaken and that the committee who had
considered IT, and the Council who had adopted u by
a unanimous vote-whateyer else they might have
failed to do-had made their own view OF Congre-
gationalsn in respect the particular points in
question, erfectly plain. But 1t seems That my
associate and myself were in error i'll TINS
opinion respecting the cearness of the report and that
the language used was Obscure; for DIS Dexter ana
storrs have failed to get distinct idea OF what we
al IN hand, they have made us
declare what made every effort not TO declare Ihey
have stated for example, t.. at we announced solemn
declaration that, i'll notorious public scandal
should be tolerated in particular church. with All
absolute refusal the part OF that church to
or to get rid of It, the other churches OF the Consrcsa
tonal body could withdraw fellowship from the
offending church, relieve themselves from RESPONSE
bility fellowship with pastor who Is accused III COZ"
nection with such scandal The Council may be per
mtted say, took no sueh position Ihey look, anu
intended to declare with all plainness that they took pre-
csely the opposite position For the past 20 years my OIL
ca duties called to the Interpretation ofanguage
and TO careful examination OF the interpretation o!
Others and can frankly say that have never krOw
an instance, in all my reading, in which more complete
misnterpreation OF what writers intended TO say has
fallen my Notice than this to which now refer III
truly remarkable that able man q" the Rev. Dr.
Bacon the author OF this report should Tor one occa
sion have accustomed clearneSs OF his STYLE ana
that the Committee with which he was connected ana
the Council Of 10 members to whom II submitted
should all failed to that its statement conveyed
meaning ius. the contrary OF what they were trying 10
state But IL il to believe Drs Storrs ana
Dexter Certainly there Is want OF clcarness some
where or the language Of the report III relation to
another point Misunderstanding in certain quarters
CHURCH CAN TRY ITS OWN MEMBERS.
What did Council to sayi They meant to say
and as had supposed they did say precisely what the
Cambridge platform namely. that under crcu!n-
stances connected with notorious public scaLd3 such
as those supposed above, other churches can withdraw
fellowship from the offending church and take steps for
disfellow Shipping it; that they can Ito use DIR. L. D.
storrss language when he says what he regards AS
essential to his remaining Sin the communion he was
born I'M employ method for releasing themselves
from all responsibility for the accused church But
they declared, the other hand what the Cambridge
platform Indicates clearly possible that these other
churches in the Congregational fellowship cannot DO
namely that they cannot. either through mutual eou
Gil originated by themselves or by erare council or
I'm any other way enter what the sole province OF
the particular church. and propose or ask or demand
or undertake member OF that church for any OF
Tense They unitedy AMI ALL withdraw fellowship
from the offending church aud "re.ease themselves from
responsibility for it, but they cannot try the offending
member Of that church. This IL what the ADVISORY
Council said and all that 1t said Congregationaism Is
declared BIZ these five gentcmen-and we all say the
same thing-to be u historic system Among the very
foundation stones history is this fact which the
late Advisory Council felt called upon to state anew be-
cause under excitement OF the present great scandal
Il seemed in danger OF being forgottonthc fact that no
church can rcspass the domain OF another church Tor
the purpose OF trying member OF that other church
Wien this foundation stone is removed the whole Con-
gregational buildng will fall in ruins and all who are
attempting It, in the desire to accomplish
some other Ceyen, 1T may be- in some views desrabie'
14,al.s