New-York tribune., 1876-03-24
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL.

DOVER LETTER-NECEssITY FOR THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION OF THE SCANDAL BY AN IN
PARTIAL CONGREGATIONAL TRIBUNAL
TO the Ed,tor Of The Tribune.
SIR: In your issue of to-day the Rev. Lyman
Abbott observes respecting myself He addressed
to the Council an unofficial letter, In which he In
formed the Council that letter had been addressed
by the Andover Church to the Plymouth Church. and vas
then in the hands Of the latter body, and implied II he
did not explicitly express, desire that 1t might be pre-
sented to the Council" This unofficial letter low
give and leave the public Judge how far Mr. Abbott is
accurate in affirming that this letter implied II 1t did
not explicitly express desire that IL might be presented
to the Counci-especally If by this be meant desire
that It might be submitted the Council or review and
Judgments
Rer LEoyARD BACON D. d.. Moderator OF tie Adrsory
Council called bg Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, y. T.;
DEAR SIR: Allusons having been made IN the puDno
press TO the act Of the Cong egatonal Church IN
chmr"h TO mite viii it in the cali Of an Ecclesiastical
Council to investigate the charges lagalnst the nlegry
action having misunderstood in various quarters
have thought IL proper for the better @ d o
yer Church delivered some days since by Commit
from this Church to the Clerk Of Plymouth Church
Yours, very respectfully, EGBERT y. shi1h'
BROOKLYN, ". y. Feb. II, 1876
Mr. Abbott also asserts that I "came" to him as
Chairman Of the Business Committee with the request
that the Andover letter might be laid before the Coun
Gil" In the sense IN WHICH appears ""i"
lie will pardon me for saying never "came" TO him.
At least recollection OF anything Of the Sort
nor that had any interview with him in his official char
acter as Chairman Of the Business Committee" Imet
him. gentleman meets another at the close II my
memory serves me- of Of the sessions OF the Council
AS we were both about leaving the church, ana lau
brief conversation with the church the door
and on the street IL related far IA recall H. 10 the
possibility OF thorough investigation one
q. that proposed by the AIdovcr letter. Something
which said IN this private conversation must have led
Mr. Abbott whose conscientious trlthfuln ~ do hol
in the least call in question, TO suppose that made OF
him request that the Andovcr letter might ne lald pe
fore the Council. The interview was so accidental 80
unmpor,an "a respects any desire or purpose on my
part that the fact had passed from my
mind recalled by Mr. Abboits letter cannot pul
think that he understood than intended to ex-
press tax ne his statement 1T s lowest meaning II he
Intends scarcely suppose that he docs, 10 u
mate that requested the Council to CONSIDER the hhd
YER letter in the Of adudcatng upon It, or treat
ing 1t az one the topics iegltimatey before 1t ~
an ecclesiastical council, I can only say that
even the possibility OF such interPreta-
ton OF my Language never occurred 10 me.
therefore submit that such facts "a these-he fact oil
nv "unotcia letter and the wholly disconnected anu
accidental fact OF my crsation with Mr Abb"t'-dd
not constitute double request which authorized MN
10 suggest to the Committee Of Plymouth Church thc
,oup,l nor To suppose that "Andover requested the
Council 10 hear and consider IT," was not member OF
tie Council; never appeared before H. or any oi It's
Committees was invited 10 come before H. OF any
Of s Committees; not, during II, session. III BI"Oh-
lyn In any official Representative character; had no
power whatever to bring anything before II officially;
and was any manner or d"gree responsible for IT,
action had several conversations with different meEi
bcrs OF the Council. Of them unsOhght ana casual
confess that thought nor Imagined that sucI
conversations could be regarded by anybody "a having
an Official character careful scrutiny OF MI Abb"tts
language explains suspect, how such grave mistake
has been made. When he aludes 10 anything have
written or said, he the phrases laid before the
Council" "presented to the Council" when he speaks OF
his own tugecstiou interpretation and opinion he uses
the term submit II seems Ia me that this solves h'
whole difficulty To he willing that document should
b. read TO a Council for II. normItion II one thing To
submit il to anthoratvey passed upon by that body
ia a wholly different thing. Mr. Abbott sppeais froLi
ecclesiastical law for which he says that lac mas "ho
tas,e TO common sense" II mistake not, the iuds
ncn Of both establishes beyond question I'll" distinction
| have just made.
Iacknowedye without reserve, that willing that
the Andoyer letter should be read TO the Council rr-
yate letter. which have never been permitted TO see'
was some nat publicly read at tho close OF one Il the
Councils sessions IL soon shown, was told, to
some 75 members Of the Council Under lie inhs"nce ~
supposed though indirectly ready to believe, Mr.
Beechcr who had previously treated mo with great
couresy made remarks before members oi the CoiHcli
and the reporters OF the public press who eagerly caught
them up and published them. which showed al entire
,isappreLenson OF the action Of the Anduyer Church
and It's Committee I knew that the Andoycr letter
vould correct such misconce epons. at least far a.
tney implied n tpirit hostile "a him or 10 Plymouth
Church desired, therefore, that there should b. no re
strction Of courtesy, Of any SORT on the plymouth
Church Committee, of ignorance In the Council when
slould stand in the way OF that letters being road
never supposed IT to possible that could con
strue notification information assent tn ts bcIns
used or even expressions OF desire that 1t might be Oh
famed as submission to Jurisdiction. This statement
covers believe the facts alluded TO In Mr.. Abbotts
and any agency may have haa IN tho piesoha-
ton of the Aniover letter 10 tn" Council
Two other m alters are suggested by Mr.. Abbott upon
which may b. pardoncd a word. He seems to thlnk
that my action in some way shields the Council from
critcism for having exceeded It's just authority. How
ms mere rcauost even IL proved to have been made AMI
10 irnpy far than Mr. Abbott claims, could convey
any power "a body all whose authority n dchned ana
limited By its charter, 1t s impossible to conceive, even
when one abandons ecclesasca law and church prece-
dents for common sense.
The other point H. the relation OF technical rules 10
common sense Technical rules have never long de-
feated I'm the administration Of Congrcgationasn pur-
pscs snd ends OF TRUTH purity, and righteousness; III
other words sanctihed common sense. Technical rules
are chiefly Of value in providing intclighlc ana orderly
methods OF procedure, and restraining from nasty ana
unjust action. IL ordinarily the safest and wsest
course to abide by them strictly. Especially when
,ounci by violating them works injustice In IL proper to
insi.t Oh them and show that its result Is without
force This applies Tie late Councils action with
reference 10 the Audoyer letter essentially however
uuntenonaly, unfair. " condemned upon nisappre-
hension 1t violated funda entail principle OF Conge-
gatiopaIisnl the obligation Of church fellowship. IL
.ucE boy at the rights and liberties of the Anduyer