The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-21
THE BUCKLEY-NEWMAN ROW.
''The Methodist Meddler" Rises to Explain
The Rev. Mr.. DaviSS Letter

NEW YORK March 20.-In the Christian Advo
cate to-day the leading editorial is headed ''The
Recent Relations ofDr John P. Newman to Meth
odism and to Congregationalism. D." The article was
written by the Rev, DR.. j. NJ. Buckley, the ed
itor and contains his explanation of his connec-
ton with the troubles in the Madison avenue
Congregational Church. He says that the Rev.
4 Wesley r. Davis, who was pastor of the church
just before Dr. Newman, induced the church to
call the latter on the basis of interviews which
Mr.. Davis had with DR.. Newman. Mr. Davis,
in letter to the committee of the church, eX
planned his interviews with Dr. Newman. "To
I his Mr.. Davissl surprise, Dr. Buckley writes,
latter the Doctor got the call in his hands, he
responded at variance with what he
had said Mr.. Davis did not know what
to do to protect himself and the church" Mr.
Davis called on DR.. Buckley, accompanied by
member of the church committee, not DR.. Ran
ney and proposed to put his letter to the com
mittee and the letter Of the committee to him in
DR.. Buckeyes hands DR.. Buckley took the let
tiers, he says, only on this conditions: that in
addition to producing them for your protection,
if Dr. Newman shall not be true to the church
that called him. / shall have the right to publish
them at my discretion, if Methedism Is dam
aged by his course. Was it for giving up this
letter that the writer was called 'meddlerF
Was it because when we received a forged
postal-card, the publication of which would have
been very damaging to Dr. Newman, even
though he had afterward denied its accuracy,
we sent it directly to him. and when he denied
its authenticity. offered to assist him in detect
ing the author!"
Dr. Buckley when asked to reveal the CON
tents of Mr. Davis's letter, refused to do so
until requested to give it to the council He
adds:
'gTo refuse it would have been unfraternal and
ridiculous Be it remembered that we told no
one directly or indirectly connected with that
church that we had it, DR.. Ranney remembered
that Mr. Davis had told him that he deposited it
with the writer For surrendering it to the
council we neither apologize nor extenuate. We
did it deliberately and Intentionally"
Dr. Buckley publishes letter from himself
to DR.. Dexter, moderator of the council. asking
if he is not entitled to the protection of the
council. DR.. Dexter says in reply and for the
council:
The understanding of that body most dis
tinctly that the suggestion that you produce
before it Mr. Davis's letter was made to the
council by some one who knew that you had
that letter in your possession, and that you
would not make it public except, possibly, on
formal request of our body; and that that sug-
gestion came to US without your knowledge or
assent. may add that the language subse-
quently addressed to the council by DR.. New
man in regard to yourself, in that connection
certainly appeared to many of its members to be
alike unkind and unfortunate"
DIR. Buckley continues
f
other facts, and documents not deposited in this
way, had we wished to NEEDLE further than the
interests of our church required, at any moment
for the past two years we could have ignited a
bombshell. Nevertheless out of regard for the
real work DR. Newman did during the war, for
the credit he deserved for his industry and for
what we supposed had been his devotion to
Methodism and out of regard for many who
loved him and his family, we have spoken
only often enough to keep our
( churches in this city vgiant y
If DIR. Newman's scheme had not been con
demned by the council it would prove death
blow to Congregationalism. 1t would
be blow at our itinerancy which, in the cities
and all through the country, would cripple it,
Aspiring men could then say, "A local preacher
. can do as he pleases. l am tired of the timer
ancy. | will locate, accept a call to another
church, and preach beside my itinerant brother
with honor and unreasonable freedom and
emolument for life, while he must move once in
three years or offener 1t would be the foun-
tam of endless chickering's between ministers, and
the cause of alterations between adjacent con
gregations 1t would unsette the values of
church property consecrated to UNCONVENTIONAL
purposes. 1t would create a temptation for
every minister disappointed with his station
whether an ambitious young man, unwilling to
wait, or one Older unwilling to endure temporary
emergencies, to locate and coquette with other de-
nominations. Troubles of this kind would be
more fatal to our system than any open and
avowed opposition from without"