, 1876-01-23

and again it has been urged that she ehould call
An e1-parte council, on the ground that sbe &C.
ton Of Plymouth Church was 10 effect refusal
to 70 into Mutual Council. Early IN the week
Mrs. Muuiton addressed the following letter 10
ex-Judse Van Colt. her counsel:
BHookLYv, Jan. II, l856.-H1 DEAR SIR: ask your
attention Friday evenings proceedings OF Plymouth
Church. II reported in last Saturday mornings pa
pcrb, Mr, Beechcr and the church people could not
conceal their e1uation over their escape from M
tal Council and from the proofs Of the acts known to
attention to the made to your statement OF the
case Of President Edwards; to Mr. Beechcrs descrp-
ton Of hts interviews with me- and to his CHARGE not
that had Whist he had eatd to me, but
that had covered my head with perjuty. Please nd
wise me whether ought under tho circumstances. to
make any fu1thtr effort At present to vndicate myself
from his cotrEe slauder, to expose his wlcteduees
before church Council. or otherwise will be much
Obliged If you viii favor me- with an early answer.
VERY truly yours, EMMA C. MoCLToN.
Tie death OF Mr. Van Colts daughter delayed
his reply until yesterday, when he wrote as fol-
lows:
BaookLTs, Jan. 20, 1876.-3lI DEAR Mas. MouI-
TON: Ny painful domestic En1ieties have prevented
an earlier reply to your note Of the 1th Of January
Committee OF Plymouth Church, snd what ,fr.
Beecher said at the churchmeetiug refer to- Was
under the public eye. and that an enlightened public
would deai wisely with the facts Tho point Of prcE-
dent Edwards WAS tho abuse and mischief OF the
deyice Of excluding churches either party might de-
sire 10 eelect. That point wss not answered but Was
sought to be eyaded t} saying: See what mischief
was done by composing the Council OF local churches
and excluding distant churches" But you know tbnt
We did not desire to constitute the Council OF LOCAL
churches and exclude distant churches. On the con
tra1y agreed upon forty church delegates, Of whom
trty yfour out Of the locality nnd ten individual
delegates, all Of whom were at distance. II Ply
mouth Church had, in good faith, Carried out the
agreement which wo startcd there would have
been no exclusion, within or without the locality.
Plymouth Church broke down the arrangement for a
Council By persisng in its claim to exclude four local
delegates Ont of the whole number Of fftY delegates
to be invited to constitute the Council remind you
that Plymouth Church sent a solemn protest to the
great Representative Council Of 1874 complaining that
The assembly Of delegates from disant churches was
directly in opposition to the genius Of
troubles their own locality, and to settle them in the
ueghhorhood BY the aid Of the neighborng churcnes,
without spreading the tae Of ioai dtssenslons over
the whole land.' But Plymouth Church bas genius
for being illogical.
/ had not overlooked the PASTORS suee1luE rcter-
to you, and his intimaon that he had regarded
and treated you almost be would treat little chitd
But had read his letters to your husband proved
the trial and admitted TO be genuine and noticed
he said "lour noble WIFE, too, has been to me ons
1T sss S'n9s = &, ss sts2 ssss
jnIy agoi r. 1875 be- s.ys "ro1 thousand encourage
neuts for services thar no one can appreciate who
has not been sozehearted ss haEe been, for your
honorable deicacy, for confidence and Affection, owe
you so much that neither express nor repay it.
Not that the least has been the greathedrfed kndness
and trust 1eheh your robte te has saotf and uh1eh
Hds ltfied out of despondtzrtes often, though
ft7nts truthrutness has ind nreny nat"
I had alao remembered that, between the dates Of
these letters, the interview occurred OF which.
you testihed he had not only explicitly confessed his
guilt, but avowed his purpose Of sef-desTucton and
that it your purpose to prove to the Council that
the very day which attribute that confession.
YOU in crest Distress communicated it confidentiay
your intimate friend, MrH- Eddy, and to your
uncle, Mr. Jeremiah 2. Robinson. I'm not ahie to
with what he wrote in those two letters. md,
bound believe what he wrote, compelled to dis
1a m how M yoa
dare, in your ch1ldnkeness to show him ia great
hearted kindness and trust" to lift him out Of
to lsy me- iSi, pretty fat What vas that dear
truthfnlncss" that Laid him pretty as unless
tho advice testified you gave him Ut that interview
occurring between the letters that he should confess
his oGense to the church 7
If anything can mitigate the coarseuess OF the pas
tors speech At the churchmeettng It the iuexor
that he should be consistent he could not safely be
consistent His efforts from the beginning have been
to reconcile irreconcAbe things and to make the faae
see en- to be the true.
cannot think it is your duty to 60 further. certain
II jutt now. You had with the holiness OF iuno
cence md truth, eousted inquiry, while Plymouth
Church from the beginning has sought to evade and
up. and has again succeeded in esading though
not in covering up. II Plymouth Church can haye an
itself, as it did in 1874, and have its case judged
solely by what its Committee peases to produce its
side let it. Such IN Investigation cannot settle
anything and will leave distrustng aud portentous
public opinion where it stands to-day, Plymouth
Church will not produce MEB. Ifiton Witness il
any doubling delegate NAV cross-exsHine her, nor
Mrs. Brad4haW. Mr.. and Mrs. Richards. 1t will
produce the nproduced evidence that known to
exist, that The pastor knew, before tie 10th
letter ~ Of eontruon itS, Entrusted to to Mr. Moai e
ton," thst hs had been charged with Grim
inal intimacy With Mrs. Tilton. When they ea~
capped the Council theT knew that you knew of Mrs
Ttons repeated confessions Of that criminal intimacy
TO sereEnl persona and prepared to prove those
coofessions and be probably knew that the fact Of
hs previous knowledge Of the charge susceptible
Of such proof that it could not again be denied with
safety. Iou have been too long and too we'll known in
tho best circles and the best Christian society Of Brook
lyn mako it necessary To rudicate yourself here;
and venture tbs opinion that, before tha painful
controversy ends. your truthfulness and Christian In
teg11ty will be recognized by I'll the world. You have
properly cared for the good mama and fame Of the
Congregational Church, but the Church must
take Of itself. It must determine for itself wheh
hearing and trial. and whether tniquity can be
curey iutrcnched within lis w3s that inquiry cannot
drag it forth to the Light Of day. Congregadonasm
itself is on s t1aL and 1t remains to be proved
whether 1t has enough iron in its blood TO continue to
lire. With great respect truly yours,
To Mrs. Emma c. Mou1ton.
LETTER FROM TIE REV. EDWARD BEEcHER-
BROOKLYN Jan. go, 1676.-To the Editor Of The
Neo 1Tork Tribune: Allow me to correct
through your wideiy-circulated paper certain
statements &S TO tQ6 Mutu4I C0Qdcll
ia tho case OF Mrs. Moulton. It has been stated
that Plymouth Church claimed and exercised
the right Of veto On tho choice Of Mrs. Moulton.
This IL not true. 1t has been said that Plym-
outh Church declined the Council because cer-
tain churches were retained on the other side.
This is not true. WHAT then is the truth ?
What did Plymouth claim2
The Committee OF Plymouth Church, in private
conference with Mrs. Mouton's representative,
claimed the right OF suggesting reasons why two
o. 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 protest was not designed to exclude
the churches mentioned II, after considering
the reasons given, Mrs. Moulton still chose to
retain those churches. Plymouth Church
agreed, aud Taa known to agree, to 90 on with
the Council as If no exception had been taken,
Ihat the right OF thus stating reasons exists on
both sides ls the dictate Of natural equity and Of
common sense. It ia eHsential to the highest
degree Of perfection Of Mutual Council name
fy, that there shAll be an agreement OF both
sides in all the members Of q Council II this
Agreement cannot be reached, ne said, let each
side exercise its right Of choice.
Whether there ought not to be right Of veto
srithn certain limits, in the choice OF Jurors
in I civil court, We did not say 1t is question
which there ia room for argument
Certainly that right has been exercised, and
here may be cases where 1t ought to be. But
ne did not choose to claim or to exercise this
hight. Wo we're content with the obvious and
1udenlable right OF Stating reasons. leaving the
,nryer nf choice uuuirupared on both sides. The