USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > New Haven > History of the South Congregational Church, New Haven : from its origin in 1852 till January 1, 1865 > Part 10
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20
Thus far in our history, acts of " recognition and fellow- ship " toward us on the part of the Churches represented in the Council, have been few and far between. Whether the action of Council will make them fewer hereafter, remains to be seen. At present we are unable to appreciate our loss.
"Secondly. We advise the complainants, and as many other members of that Church as may associate with them, to withdraw from their present relations to it. And we authorize our Moderator and Scribe to give to them, collectively or individually, in our behalf, letters certi-
131
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
fying their regular standing as professed followers of Christ in full communion with the Congregational Churches of Connecticut, and commending them to any Church with which they may choose to con- nect themselves, or to any ecclesiastical Council which may be con- vened for the purpose of recognizing the formation of a new Church. The question whether they shall proceed to constitute a new Church in the south part of the city of New Haven, is a question to be deter- mined partly by local considerations, with which they, and the mem- bers of the other Churches here, are better acquainted than this Coun- cil can be. Yet we cannot refrain from saying, that for the sake of patriotism and of pure and undefiled religion, there ought to be among the growing population of that quarter a truly Congregational Charch, from which the sympathies of patriotic Christian souls may freely go up to God on the wings of prayer and praise, and in which the whole counsel of God, "revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness," shall be preached plainly and unswervingly.
"Signed in behalf and by direction of the Council.
"REV. JOSEPH ELDRIDGE, Moderator. "REV. W. T. EUSTIS, Scribe."
In this second and last paragraph of advice, the Council recommend (1) that the complainants and such as sympa- thize with them, " withdraw from their present relations " to us. In this recommendation we cordially concur. (2) A modest intimation that they proceed to constitute a new Church in the south (this) part of the city. Reasons,-con- siderations of " patriotism" and of "pure and undefiled religion." If " pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father" is this, "to visit the widow and fatherless in their affliction, and to keep ourselves unspotted from the world," this we have humbly tried to do, not only positively but negatively ; our Church, by refusing to convert itself into a political machine, and our minister, by refusing to preach or pray politics.
In what respect are the patriotism and piety of the pro- posed new Church to differ from ours, as above described ? But without pressing this question, we are inclined to hope that the recommendation of the Council to build a new Church will also be complied with, and that the old and wealthy Churches here will give it a liberal support.
132
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
It is likewise insinuated against Rev. Mr. Carroll, that he has been unfaithful as a minister, "failing to declare the whole counsel of God." What is the evidence the Council furnish the public upon which they made, and made public, this fearful charge against Mr. Carroll, as recreant to his official duties and faithless as a minister of God ? None whatever. And they not only pronounce sentence upon him on the strength of ex-parte statements, but upon him, though beyond their jurisdiction, and amenable to another denomi- nation. But the best refutation of this slander is the simple record of his ministry. What is the record of the year just closed, from January, 1863, to January, 1864 ? Our con- gregations on the Sabbath, and at weekly meetings, have never before been uniformly so large, in our history of eleven years, except during a short period under the minis- try of Rev. Dr. Stiles; while the additions to our Church membership have been 43-a larger number than in any year of the previous nine years. Comparing this accession with that of other Churches during the year 1862, as recorded in the minutes of the General Association of Con- necticut, we find more fruits from his labors, and larger accessions of members, than in the ministry and Churches represented in the Council who condemned him and us as unfaithful. Of the 284 Congregational Churches in the State, (222 consociated, and 62 independent,) only two had so large an accession.
If these be indications of infidelity to duty and to God, we pray they may abound; that as a Church we may be " steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord ; " and that as a minister, Mr. Carroll may continue to refuse to promulgate for doctrines of Christ " the com- mandments of men," and may continue to know nothing among us save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
NEW HAVEN, January 1, 1864.
(Signed) THOMAS HORSFALL, r
NICHOLAS COUNTRYMAN, CHARLES H. WARNER, CHAS. F. HOTCHKISS, JOHN H. LEEDS,
Standing Committee.
MYRON BARRETT, Stated Clerk.
133
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
At a meeting of the South Congregational Church, held in their Chapel on the evening of January 1, 1864, the above Reply was read, and the following resolution, offered by Mr. Edwin W. Treat, was UNANIMOUSLY adopted :
Resolved, That the Report of the Standing Committe just read, in reply to the Ecclesiastical Council recently held in this city, be approved by this Church, and pub- lished.
THOS. HORSFALL, Clerk of the Meeting.
The above documents were published in the New Haven papers,-the former near the close of 1863, and the latter on the 2d of January, 1864. They were followed by others, which are here subjoined :
REJOINDER
TO THE "REPLY OF THE SOUTH CHURCH."
The Standing Committee of the South Church, in their reply to the Result of the Ecclesiastical Council recently convened at the request of certain petitioners in this city, have undertaken to bring charges against the body of the complainants and against individual members by name.
The petitioners desire to state, that in their action they have been influenced only by a sense of duty. On consult- ing as to the best means of providing a place of worship more. congenial to their views of duty, they were advised that a Council convened to form a new Church, would have as one of its first duties, to inquire into the reasons for their leaving the South Church, and that to call a Mutual Coun- cil where both parties might represent their case, was the most suitable course to be taken in pursuance of their ob- ject. No other course, therefore, seemed open to them, but the one they have taken.
134
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
The petitioners, of course, are not to be held responsible for the action and finding of the Council, yet the unanimous judgment of the men who constituted that body, represent- ing Churches in every part of the State, will scarcely be over-ruled in the opinion of thoughtful and impartial minds, by the assertions of those who refused to submit the case to a tribunal, half of whose members they were at liberty to select.
The petitioners did not claim before the Council that the names signed to the Memorial were a majority of the breth- ren of the Church, but that they represented a majority of them. This claim was grounded on the following facts, viz :- Mr. Carroll's official returns to the General Associa- tion of Connecticut, state the number of male members, January 1st, 1863, to be 44. The petitioners knew of but six male members who had since been received up to the date of their memorial, making the whole number 50; six or more had been dismissed and united with other Churches within the same period, leaving the number of male mem- bers at 44,-and they know that 26, including the memo- rialists, sympathized with them. If then, the official returns to the Association were correct, the number the petitioners claimed to represent, was a MAJORITY.
It may be proper to add a word to illustrate the views of some of the members of the Standing Committee as to the treatment which an unquestioned majority might expect to receive from the "ruling powers" of this Church. One of the petitioners in conversation with a member of the Com- mittee, declared his belief, that if a Church meeting was called, and the subject fairly considered of requesting Mr. Carroll to tender his resignation, two to one would be in favor of the motion; and furthermore he offered if his state- ment was doubted, to give the names of those who he had reason to believe would vote for it.
The reply was in substance, that it would make no differ- ence if even three fourths of the members were in favor of the motion ; so long as Mr. Hallock wished Mr. Carroll to stay, he would stay, and they could not help themselves. It has been often admitted by members of the Committee and others, that while the Church is sustained as it now is,
135
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
almost entirely by the contributions of one man, his wishes would have paramount weight, and the self-governing power of the Church be virtually abrogated.
It is said that " those of the petitioners who had not been dismissed, had free access to the records." In reply to this, one of the petitioners who has not been dismissed, affirms that he applied for an inspection of the records and was denied by the Clerk.
One of the petitioners is informed for the first time by this document, that censure has been passed upon him by the Church ; which it is understood was voted at the close. of the prayer meeting Dec. 29th, 1863, (barely in time to be used in the reply of the Committee of the Church,) and without any summons to the accused, who was condemned without a hearing. Considering that this brother is one of those who received letters of dismission and over whom this Church has declared itself to have no control, it must be acknowledged that their action in the case vindicates the position which they claim for themselves, of being an "Inde- pendent Congregational Church."
This brother would state that the fact which he noted in the records, was derived from the public declarations of a majority of the brethren in the meeting, both as it respected their opinion, and their votes ; and it being the duty of the Clerk to note all matters of interest to the Church, this fact was duly recorded.
In relation to one of the special grievances of the peti- tioners, the deprivation of their rights by the Committee,- the latter justify their action in refusing to call a Church meeting upon the request of a sufficient number of members, by the assertion, that the subject of Mr. Carroll's ministra- tions over the Church had been sufficiently discussed at a recent Church meeting, and " the annual meeting must be held in the ensuing month of November," when the whole matter could be rediscussed and redecided. In reply the petitioners would state that Rev. Mr. Carroll is settled for an indefinite period, and in order to dismiss him it is required that four months notice be given, and this was their object in requesting the meeting. It was nearly four months before the "annual meeting" to which they refer, would be held. It is true that the subject had been discussed at a
136
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
previous meeting and declared to be settled by a decisive vote, but in the mean time matters had assumed a different aspect. Mr. Carroll's summary silencing of the bell while ringing for the victory at Vicksburg, had induced many who had before been his supporters, to believe that he was not a loyal man, and they were ready to unite in the call for his dismissal. It was under these circumstances that the Standing Committee assumed their " discretionary powers," and standing between Mr. Carroll and the Church, refused to allow the latter to pronounce its judgment, which it is nearly certain would have condemned him. But the Com- mittee went further than this. The petitioners addressed a - respectful memorial to the Church (in the customary form) requesting them to unite in calling a Mutual Council to advise in regard to our respective duties. This memorial the Committee suppressed,-refusing to allow it to come before the Church for their decision. In this they claim they exercised a reasonable discretionary power, which must be vested somewhere to prevent the constant agitation of the Church. The rule of the Church under which this Committee are appointed, and act, makes no mention of such discretionary power, but on the contrary implicitly forbids it by prescribing their special duties, and ends by stating that they shall attend to such other matters as may be referred to them by the Church. As the call for a meeting, and the memorial, had never been referred to them by the Church, it is clear that they had no discretionary power in the matter, but assumed a power without right or authority.
Upon the question of female voting-
The Committee say " that the right of voting by females has never been denied by the Church." Very true ; neither has the right been affirmed by the Church, which would seem necessary, as the custom of Congregational Churches forbids the practice. It was the usual practice in the Church to vote by raising of hands, excepting in the case of officers who were elected by ballot, and female votes were rarely offered or counted. No instance is known in which females voted by ballot previous to the meeting when Mr. Carroll was settled by female votes. At that meeting some of the females had such an expansive idea of their
137
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
rights that they not only voted themselves, but also depos- ited votes for absent friends, thereby showing what irregu- larities are likely to prevail on exciting occasions, if the practice of female voting obtains.
But the Committee have endeavored to strengthen their position by an argument from the covenant, which as they claim, by giving every member all the privileges of the Church, must necessarily give to females the right of voting. This argument proves, if anything, that females have the right of being appointed deacons, acting upon Committees, the right of discussion in business meetings, and of prayer and exhortation in prayer meetings. The right of perform- ing these actions is granted by the covenant as well as the right to vote, and has never been denied by the Church. We hardly think the Committee would be prepared to fol- low out this argument to its logical conclusion.
Mr. Carroll's " utterances" in a certain letter addressed to one of the petitioners, are brought forward in this reply, to disprove the imputation of his disloyalty. As it is im- plied that this letter was withheld from the Council, it is due to this brother, as well as to Mr. Carroll, to state that Mr. Carroll's WHOLE LETTER WAS READ TO THE COUNCIL, and he has received all the advantage he could derive from having these utterances of his laid before them.
That the public may understand the reasonableness of the demand which the petitioners make in relation to this point, the following extract from the rejoinder to Mr. Car- roll's letter is here given.
"I know of no one in our Church who desires to have ' party politics' either preached or prayed in the pulpit. I know of no one who wishes the 'Shibboleth of a party intoned in prayer,' but I do know of MANY whose LOYAL, not PARTIZAN, feelings crave at least this concession, viz : a decisive REPROBATION of the rebellion, and a decisive AP- PROBATION of the Government in its efforts to maintain its own integrity.
" They crave an ADMISSION that the cause to which their fathers, sons, and husbands, and brothers have freely devoted their lives, is a JUST and WORTHY cause. I do not see how this can be construed into PARTIZAN politics, unless the partizans are SECESSIONISTS on the one hand and LOY-
12
138
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
ALISTS on the other ; for men of all the late acknowledged parties, and religionists of every persuasion, ARE FOUND UNITED ON THIS PLATFORM. Neither do I know or believe that this concession to the feelings of our members would give offense to any one, or produce any division among our people."
What is there in this demand that is either unreasonable or unchristian ?
The petitioners would also reaffirm what has been sus- tained by the signatures of some forty names of persons who are or have been members of the South Church, that " it is not known to us that either in preaching, prayer or conversation, Mr. Carroll has ever admitted that the rebel- lion of the South against the Government of the United States is CRIMINAL, or that he has ever expressed a wish or a prayer for the SUCCESS of our armies over the rebels, or for the re-establishment of the Union over the rebellious States, or that he has ever expressed in public a word of thanksgiving for any victories or successes obtained by our armies. Is there another minister of any denomination in this city or in the State, of whom this can be said ?
Allusion is made to disloyal sentiments said to have been uttered in prayer by one of the petitioners who had been unjustly imprisoned in Fort Lafayette.
It is true that Dr. Nicoll, while smarting under the wrong inflicted by an abuse of power, the proper use of which he has never questioned, did pray that those who trifled with and misused the power with which they were entrusted by God, might be removed from places of authority ; and it is also true, (which the Standing Committee neglected to mention,) that in the same prayer he did earnestly pray for the overthrow of the rebellion, and for the freedom of the oppressed.
This reply intimates that in but one instance Mr. Carroll has characterized the action of the Government as " tyran- nical and unjust."
It was stated before the Council, that at the breaking out of the rebellion his outspoken sympathy with the traitors compelled him to leave a hotel in a neighboring city, be- cause the guests would not endure the presence of one so disloyal.
139
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
It was also stated that he had declared in effect, that were it not for personal considerations, he would go south of Mason and Dixon's line and share the fortune of the rebellion, with which cause he was one at heart.
Has Mr. Carroll forgotten the language he used in public prayer on the morning of the Lord's Day when the news came of the battle before Fredericksburg ? Certainly those well-considered sentences condemning the war can not have slipped his memory, since he expressed to one of our num- ber a regret that he was absent, and did not hear the " TALI. PRAYING" in the forenoon.
In the matter of loyalty claimed for the friends of Mr. Carroll-this has not been denied. It is the persistent efforts and determination of a few who hold the power, to foist and fix in the pastorate of the Church a man whom they believe to be disloyal, of which the petitioners com- plain. Of the soldiers who have gone from the Church into the army, we know of but one or two who have ever acknowledged that they had received a word of sympathy and encouragement from Mr. Carroll, in regard to their DUTIES AS SOLDIERS. Will the congregation ever forget the deep disappointment that was felt at the character of the services when soldiers from the 15th Regiment were present, by special invitation, to hear their minister's part- ing counsel ?
The Standing Committee claim that, under the ministra- tions of Mr. Carroll, the congregation has been larger than before; while the additions to the Church, within the year just closed, have been forty-three-" a larger number than in any year of the previous nine years."
To this it may be replied, that at least SEVENTY mem- bers, including the petitioners, have left during the year, or are ready to leave the Church when another place of wor- ship shall be provided, because of their dislike to Mr. Car- roll's ministrations : and that in the year 1857 the number of members admitted to the Church was forty-seven.
It may be stated for the information of those interested in our object, that already a larger sum has been pledged by persons in the vicinity of the South Church to support the preaching of the Gospel, in case a new Church is formed, than has ever been raised in one year by that Church for
140
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
the same purpose, aside from the contributions of one indi- vidual; and that if those who are friendly to their object will provide them with a suitable building, the petitioners will have no occasion to depend upon the contributions of the old and wealthy Churches.
Whether in view of the foregoing facts the complainants were wrong in asking to be heard IN THE CHURCH; and when that was forbidden, in a PRIVATE CONFERENCE ; and when that was declined, in seeking for a MUTUAL COUNCIL; and when that was denied, in calling for an Ex-parte COUN- CIL-the publie will determine.
IN BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS.
SOUTH CHURCH,-AGAIN.
REMARKS ON THE "REJOINDER."
MESSRS. EDITORS :- As the Standing Committee of the South Church have not seen fit to reply to the " Rejoinder" of the petitioners for an Ex-parte Council, and as the peti- tioners might deem themselves slighted if their production was wholly passed over in silence, permit a member of said Church, not belonging to the Standing Committee, to offer a few words by way of comment. He will be best under- stood by quoting brief extracts from the " Rejoinder," and then adding his own remarks. The petitioners say :
"On consulting as to the best means of providing a place of worship more congenial to their views of duty, they were advised that a Coun- cil convened to form a new Church, would have, as one of its first duties, to inquire into the reasons for their leaving the South Church."
So this Ex parte Council was itself the result of counsel ; and, although called ostensibly to consider the expediency of forming a new Church, was mainly designed, at least by the " advisers," for another purpose, viz : to get a dig at the South Church. [We had no doubt that such was the fact, but did not expect the petitioners to confess it.] Accordingly the discussion and finding of the Council in re- gard to the South Church occupy almost the whole extent of their " Result," as given to the publlc, while in regard to
141
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
the formation of a new Church they have said very little, and that little of a very indefinite character. Who these " advisers " were, may be safely inferred from an inspection of the roll of Council. That several of them had long been aching for a chance to whip the South Church into their Abolition traces, was well understood by members of that Church ; who, while they would do nothing intentionally to invite or provoke such interference, were not disposed to purchase exemption therefrom by the surrender of their just rights as an Independent Congregational Church. But leaving what we have further to say on the subject of the Council, and of Councils generally, to the closing part of this article, we pass to another extract from the petitioners' Rejoinder :
"The petitioners of course, are not to be held responsible for the action and finding of the Council."
Why not ? Was not the Council a thing of their own creating ? Did not its decisions rest mainly on their own assertions ? To this extent they are responsible for " the finding and action of the Council ;" and they will not be permitted to escape from that responsibility by throwing the whole burden upon the shoulders of men who have as much as they can carry, with all the help the petitioners can give them. Do the petitioners mean to repudiate the action of their own Council ? Besides the slur above indi- cated, one of them has applied to the South Church for a letter of dismission and received it, since the meeting of the Council, notwithstanding the generous offer of the latter body to give them letters of its own, thus usurping or superseding the powers of the Church in that matter. But it seems that at least ONE of the petitioners prefers to re- ceive his credentials from the Church, although resting under the ban of the Council, rather than from the Council itself. We commend the wisdom of his course.
"The petitioners did not claim before the Council that the names signed to the Memorial were a majority of the brethren of the Church, but that they represented a majority of them."
12*
142
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
Hear the Council on this head :
" This Council has been convened by certain brethren styling THEM- SELVES the majority of the brethren of the South Congregational Church in New Haven."
Which shall we believe,-the petitioners ?- or the Coun- cil ?
"This claim [of a majority of the male members] was grounded on the following facts, viz :- Mr. Carroll's official returns to the General Association of Connecticut, state the number of male members, Janu- ary 1st, 1863, to be 44. The petitioners knew of but six male mem- bers who had since been received up to the date of their memorial, making the whole number 50; six or more had been dismissed and united with other Churches within the same period, leaving the num- ber of male members at 44,-and they know that 26, including the memorialists, sympathized with them."
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.