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 11
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
" Mr. Carroll's official returns." These returns were fur- nished to Mr. Carroll by Deacon Minor, who is therefore responsible for their correctness. They state the number of male members of the South Church on the 1st of Janu- ary, 1863, at 44. The petitioners say they " knew of but six male members who had since been received, up to the date of their memorial."* Now, the fact is, that twelve male members had since been received, viz :- On the 4th of Jan- uary, 2; 1st of March, 4; 3d of May, 4; 5th of July, 2. Total, 12.t This shows how careless the petitioners are about their figures. They count but six when there are twelve. Add 12 to 44, and it makes 56, instead of 50, does it not ? From 56, then, deduct 6 who they say had been dismissed and united with other Churches, (we know of but
* Following the petitioners, we shall hereafter speak of the memo- rial as if dated at the time it was presented; say about the last of October. Strictly speaking, it is not dated at all. But the Clerk's reply to it is dated Nov. 3d.
+ The names are before us, and can easily be had by the petitioners, if wanted.
143
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
five who had united with other Churches,-certainly there were not more than six,) and it leaves 50 male members at the date of the memorial. Of these they claim 26,-the least possible majority, -- including six sympathisers. These sympathisers, we suspect, are a very uncertain reliance ; for, if it had been possible by solicitations and entreaties to get their names upon the memorial, we need not say that it would have been done. Now, if a single individual of the six claimed as sympathisers, is not so in fact, then, according to their own showing, after correcting a single blunder as above, (which they cannot and will not deny to be such,) they have NOT a majority of the brethren, and do not even REPRESENT a majority, Observe further, that among the signers and sympathisers are included six who had been dismissed from the Church by general letter. Deduct these from the whole number of male members (50) as above, at the date of the memorial, and also from the 26 claimed by the petitioners, and it leaves 20 signers and sympathisers, out of a total of 44 male members ; being three less than a majority. We have thus carried out the calculation of the petitioners, after making the single cor- rection above mentioned-from which it appears that in or- der to show even the smallest possible majority, they are obliged to assume: 1st, That there were only 44 male members on the 1st of January, 1863, which is contrary to the fact. 2d, That members dismissed by general letter are still members in full, and entitled to the privilege of voting; which is contrary to the fact, at least in the South Church. 3d, That six members sympathize with the peti- tioners who cannot be induced to sign their paper. 4th, In order to make these assumptions available to their purpose, they are obliged further to assume that only male members have a right to vote ; which is contrary to the fact, at least in the South Church. Upon the validity of these assump- tions, all of which are fallacious, rests the only shadow of a claim which the petitioners had, to represent the South Church before the Council.
A careful examination of the records shows that instead of 44 male members on the 1st of January, 1863, as reported by Deacon Minor to Mr. Carroll, and by the latter to the General Association of Connecticut, there were in fact
144
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
FIFTY male members at that date, EXCLUSIVE of two, who, with their families, had been for a considerable period absent from the city, and whose present residence was, and is, to the Church unknown. Between the 1st of January, 1863, and the date of the petitioners' memorial, TWELVE male members were added by letter or profession, and SIXTEEN dismissed, viz : 5 by letter to other Churches, 8 by general letter, 1 by discipline, and 2 by death. Leaving at the date of the memorial, FORTY-SIX male members, exclusive of the two above mentioned. If these two were included, it would make 48. But call it 46. Of the eight dismissed by gen- eral letter, five are signers of the memorial ; two are doubt- less included among the "sympathizers ; " and one is under- stood to have joined another Church. Deduct the first seven of these eight from the 26 signers and sympathizers claimed by the petitioners, (for in all their calculations they include the general letter men,) and it leaves them but 19. That is, they do not even claim more than 19 signers and sympathizers, out of the 46 male members above stated ;- the other seven of their number consisting of men who had been dismissed by general letter, and who therefore were no longer reckoned as members by the Church. If, however, these were included as members, it would increase the num- ber of male members to 53 at the date of the memorial. Twenty-six is not a majority of 53 ; neither is 19 a majority of 46. Take it which way they will, therefore ; include the general letter men, or exclude them; and count in for the petitioners all the sympathizers they claim ; still they fall short of a majority of the male members. Hence it appears --
1. That the petitioners to the Council, 20 in number, are not what they " STYLED THEMSELVES," according to the published declaration of that body, "the majority of the brethren of the South Congregational Church in New Haven."
2. That they do NOT " REPRESENT " a majority of the brethren.
3. That they and all the "sympathizers " they claim, are not TOGETHER a majority of the brethren of the South Church.
145
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
4. And admitting that they were, it would amount to nothing in a Church where there is no CASTE, but where ALL the members, 150 to 160 in number, are by covenant and usage entitled to vote; and where, since the last " secession " of disaffected members, 31st of July last, there has been almost perfect unanimity ; not five votes having been given at any Church meeting, since that date, in opposition to the views of Mr. Carroll and his friends. In one of those meetings the number of votes was between 60 and 70.
GOSSIP.
The conversation alleged in the Rejoinder to have taken place between one of the petitioners and a member of the Standing Committee of the South Church, is not recognized by any member of that Committee as an actual occurrence. One of them remembers the conversation which he supposes is alluded to, but denies that it is correctly reported, even "in substance." He is represented to have said, in sub- stance :
"It would make no difference 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, almost entirely by the con- tributions of one man, his wishes would have paramount weight, and the self-governing power of the Church be virtually abrogated."
The smallest proportionate majority ever given for Mr. Carroll, by the South Church, was on the 18th of February last, when there were 51 votes in his favor, and 22 against him, as announced at the time by the chairman, Dea. Minor. The way to test the truth of the "three-fourths " statement, is, to get such a majority, or any majority at all. There is no chance to test it, so long as the petitioners and their sympathizers can muster only 22 votes against 51. They will not pretend that a majority vote of the Church was ever overruled, or attempted to be overruled, by Mr. Hallock. Perhaps their meaning is, that a majority vote is sure to be given in accordance with his wishes. But how are his wishes
146
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
ascertained when he does not express them, as is often the case ? It would be more correct to say he is sure to sustain the will of the majority. Happily, an accordance of views has commonly existed between him and a majority of the Church, but not always. How about that " majority of the brethren " claimed by the petitioners on the occasion above alluded to ? So there was a little independence left at that date, although confined to the petitioners and those who " sympathized " with them! When the last of them has withdrawn, agreeably to the advice of their own Council, all independence of opinion and of action will have gone with them, no doubt ! In other words, the Church will be united.
"One of the petitioners is informed for the first time, by this docu- ment, 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 con- demned 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 'Independent Congregational Church.' "
The censure passed upon the late Clerk, Dr. Nicoll, for tampering with the records, was in perfect accordance with the position maintained by the Church as to members dis- missed from it without as yet being connected with any other Church, viz : that although such persons are not enti- tled to the full rights of membership, yet the Church can exercise a watch and discipline over them until received into some other Church. By what authority, then, do the petitioners assert that "this Church has declared itself to have no control over those who have received letters of dismission ? " When did they make such a declaration ? Never.
" This brother would state that the fact which he noted in the re- cords was derived from the public declarations of a majority of the brethren in their meeting, both as it respected their opinion and their
147
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
votes, and it being the duty of the Clerk to note all matters of interest to the Church, this fact was duly recorded."
We rather wish that "this brother" had been called before the Church, as it would then have been practically shown whether he held himself amenable to its jurisdiction, or whether he claimed the right of speaking and voting in its meetings, WITHOUT being subject to its watch, care and discipline. However, both the Church and the public now know what would have been his defense, viz : that he made the entry complained of, on the strength of "the public declarations of a majority of the brethren in the meeting, both as it respected their opinion and their votes." Does he mean to say that " a majority of the brethren in the meeting " spoke in the meeting against the continuance of Mr. Carroll, and declared that they should vote against him ? If so, it looks like a previously contrived plan to accomplish an object. He first moves, and gains assent from an unsus- pecting majority, that the vote be taken by " secret ballot ; " and then, in his own "secret " way, claims to have ascer- tained that " a majority of THE BRETHREN" voted in the negative ; and so enters it upon the official records of the Church. No opportunity was given to the majority to chal- lenge the statement; confessedly it was not founded upon any actual vote ; it was not declared by the chairman or by any body else before the Church-but rested, and still rests, upon the naked assertion of the then Clerk, Dr. Nicoll. A prudent man would not have voluntarily placed himself in a position where his integrity or accuracy would be so liable to be called in question, without any visible means of sub- stantiating his statement, which, even if correct, he had no right to enter upon the records of the Church, as it made a distinction which the Church had never authorized, between the votes of members, and because such a stealthy mode of obtaining results, would, if tolerated, expose the Church, or any other body of persons where it was practiced, to the most enormous abuses.
"Mr. Carroll's summary silencing of the bell while ringing for the victory at Vicksburg, had induced many who had before been his sup-
148
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
porters, 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."
If this is a correct statement, it proves that the occasion alluded to was exactly the time when any discretionary power which the Standing Committee possessed, should be exercised, to prevent hasty and injudicious action. The incident about the bell (which was subsequently explained to the satisfaction of a great majority of the Church,) was seized upon by those who had previously sought to displace Mr. Carroll, but had signally failed, as an encouragement to renew the onset, hoping, under the excitement and mis- apprehension of the moment, to accomplish their object. Had they succeeded, it is now certain that they would have precipitated a course of action which a great majority of the members in their calmer moments would have deeply regretted; for, in every subsequent as well as previous meeting of the Church, Mr. Carroll has been sustained by a triumphant majority. Not sustained in the matter of the bell, for THAT as a distinct issue has never come before them ; but sustained in his general course, as a most faith- ful, talented, and eminently useful minister of Christ, whom they desire to have for THEIR spiritual teacher and guide, in preference to any other clergyman within their knowledge. Therefore we say that if, at the moment of the bell excite- ment, the Church would have been "ready to unite in the call for his dismissal," as alleged by the petitioners, the Clerk and Standing Committee did them an invaluable ser- vice by refusing to call them together at that time.
"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."
This is falling from high ground. Before, the practice was contrary to the Scriptures; now it is contrary to cus-
149
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
tom. Whose custom ? "Of Congregational Churches ; " but not of the South Church, as an independent body. And do the petitioners pretend that among all the 284 Con- gregational Churches in this State, the custom in regard to female voting is uniform ? Is it so in all the Churches represented in the late Ex-parte Council ? If we are rightly informed, two Churches at least, of the twelve represented in said Council, practice female voting, at least sometimes. We refer to the Chapel-street Church, of which the Scribe of the Council, Rev. Mr. Eustis, is Pastor, and to the North Church, of which Rev. Dr. Dutton is Pastor. We have it from one who was present at the meeting which called Rev. Mr. Eustis, that female members voted for him as Pastor. Why then may not females in the South Church vote for Rev. Mr. Carroll as Stated Supply ? Also in the North Church, at a meeting subsequent to the one called for the purpose of repairing the organ, when it was suggested that the organ at the other end of the Church needed to be repaired, or replaced by another, there was a general rally of the Church members, male and female, and by their joint vote it was decided to retain their Pastor .* As to the Chapel-street Church, we can hardly be mistaken when we find the statement confirmed by so good an authority as Rev. Dr. Dutton, one of the members of the late Ex-parte Council. In a letter, dated May, 1856, he wrote as fol- lows : " The Chapel-street Church, in one instance of elect- ing Pastor, received the votes of females; and also have done the same in the election of Deacons." In another part of the same letter Dr. Dutton wrote: "From the NATURE OF A CHURCH, as composed of renewed persons, and as having power of self-government, I do not think any argument can be drawn against the voting of females, but the contrary." This is sensible talk-pity he should talk differently in 1863-4. Another gentleman writes thus, under date of the 13th inst .: " I was present at a meeting to give Mr. Eustis a call, at which Deacon W. rose and sug-
* NOTE BY THE AUTHOR OF SOUTH CHURCH HISTORY .- This infor- mation, although derived from a member of the North Church who was present at said meeting and voted, proved to be incorrect.
13
150
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
gested that he would like to know how those present regarded Mr. Eustis,-whether they would like to have him for minister. ALL that were present and disposed, threw in a vote." The same thing occurred in the College-street Church, if we are correctly informed, at a meeting for the election of pastor a few days ago,-since the holding of the Council. Nor are these the only exceptions to the " cus- tom" referred to, among the Congregational Churches of Connecticut. Indeed we KNOW that in some others it is customary for females as well as males to rise, in token of assent to the reception of members into the Church, after the latter have taken the covenant. Raising the whole per- son is as truly voting as if only a hand were raised, and makes as much noise. If the " silence " text forbids the latter, then, A FORTIORI, it forbids the former. But it does neither. Nor any more does it forbid women's voting by ballot. Without quoting further precedents at this time, we should like to ask how and why it is so much worse for the South Church to do a certain specified act, than for the Chapel or North or any other Congregational Church to do the same; and whether it is BECOMING for one Church to assist in excommunicating another, for doing what it does itself. As the South Church is now the aggrieved party, why should it not proceed to convene a Council, ostensibly to consider its own grievances, but really to get the Chapel- street and North Churches excommunicated, for violating " the principles and usages customary among the New England Churches ?" And why should not Mr. Carroll assemble the Presbytery to which he belongs, and cause to be arraigned before it the several ministers who were mem- bers of the late Council, and if they neglect to appear, have them pronounced NOT ORDAINED, because they failed to give to the Presbytery " proper evidence of their ordination " as clergymen in regular communion with the Presbyterian body, or with any other " evangelical denomination ?" and then TELEGRAPH IT AS A FACT all over the land. Again we ask, why not ?
"It was the usual practice in the South 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."
151
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
They were sometimes, then,-when the females chose to vote ? Exactly. This was and is our custom.
" No instance is known in which females voted by ballot previous to the meeting when Mr. Carroll was settled by female votes."
No one said they did. No one said that the vote on accepting Rev. Mr. Noyes' resignation was by ballot ;- whether the 70 for accepting it and the five for rejecting it, voted by raising the hand or by ballot; but, that they enjoyed the right of VOTING, and did vote; and if entitled to vote, (which the petitioners now admit,) they could vote either way. It is the right, not the mode, which is claimed, and the former includes the latter.
"This argument [from the Covenant,] proves, if any thing, that females have the right of being appointed deacons, acting upon com- mittees, the right of discussion in business meetings, and of prayer and exhortation in prayer meetings."
Begging pardon, this does not follow. The covenant does not authorize what the Scriptures forbid. The Scrip- tures forbid females becoming deacons. Acts, vi., 3. " Look ye out among you seven MEN." The Scriptures forbid females to become exhorters in meeting. I. Tim. ii. 10, 11. The privileges conferred by the covenant upon ALL who take it, are limited by the Scriptures. Female members who take it, take it with this limitation, of course. While not permitted to become deacons, or to exhort, they ARE entitled to all the privileges of membership not forbid- den by the Scriptures. Voting is one of them. No where is it forbidden in the sacred volume. We judge that the Standing Committee ARE "prepared to follow out this argument to its logical conclusion."
MR. CARROLL'S LOYALTY.
A considerable portion of the petitioners' Rejoinder is occupied with the question of Mr. Carroll's LOYALTY. There are several kinds of loyalty in this country at the
152
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
present time,-some good, and some not so good. In order to know whether a man is loyal or not, it is necessary to ascertain which kind of loyalty is intended. One kind blows its own trumpet, while it looks out for fat contracts, custom-house pickings, or any other chance to serve its country by filling its own pocket. Another kind, which is perhaps the most common of all, would, if analyzed, yield about the following results : abolitionism, 23; sectionalism, (the same which existed before the present war began,-not to say, which fomented and precipitated the war,) 27; patri- otism, 2; self-righteousness, 6; real benevolence, 1; party animosity, 10; intolerance, 13; dish-water, 4; shoddy, 9; other ingredients too subtle to be easily ascertained, 5. Total, 100. It is admitted that IN THIS SENSE of the word, Mr. Carroll is not as loyal as he might be. And if on that account he was waited on by a mob some two or three years ago in his native city, Brooklyn, it is nothing more than has happened to many of the purest patriots in the land. During the war of 1812, Gen. Lingan, of Balti- more, was killed by a mob. Even abolitionists have some- times been complimented in that way. The Apostle Paul encountered one at Ephesus. Mobs only disgrace the par- ties concerned in them, or who set them on; NOT the objects of their hatred.
When the petitioners are obliged to resort to an alleged remark "stated" to have been made some where to some- body at some time or other, by Mr. Carroll, to the 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," it shows how hard up they are for evidence to impeach his loyalty. They are however kind enough to say, "In the matter of loyalty claimed for the FRIENDS of Mr. Carroll-this has not been denied." Well; 130 of these loyal " friends," in their letter to Mr. Carroll accom- panying a New Year's Gift of $500, say,-" WE ARE WIT- NESSES of the gross injustice of the imputations attempted to be cast upon your fidelity to the Government under which we live. On nearly if not quite every Sabbath since you came among us, you have prayed for our country, its rulers, its officers and soldiers, the sick and wounded, the
153
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
dying and bereaved; that the crushing sorrows which rest upon us may be overruled for the highest good of our whole nation, and the glory of God; and that in His own time and way He will stay the torrents of blood and tears which are flowing all over the land, and grant us a righteous PEACE." And again, -" We never heard a word from your lips which by any fair construction of language could be made to imply a lack of real patriotism, or any thing inconsistent with a faithful allegiance to the Government of your country."
" Has Mr. Carroll forgotten the language he used in public prayer on the morning of the Lord's Day when news came of the battle before Fredericksburg ?"
If Mr. Carroll has forgotten that prayer, his people have not. Whether it was "tall" or short, it was one of the most solemn and earnest prayers that we ever listened to; melting an entire audience, except, of course, the petition- ers and their "sympathizers," whose lively imaginations pictured images of disloyalty where nothing of the kind existed. On the following Sabbath he delivered a deeply interesting address on the character and life of Thomas E. Barrett, one of his members, who fell in that battle; describing him as a real patriot, who went forth not for any selfish or sinister purpose, but honestly to serve his country.
As to that ever memorable sermon to the 15th regiment upon their "duties as soldiers" to their country and to Christ, the immense audience who listened to it, filling the entire church, were held in breathless silence and riveted attention, and none were more moved than the soldiers themselves, several of whom have written home about that very discourse, the memory of which strengthened them in the front of the battle. Would that it might be repeated by our Pastor-speaking not, as one of our former minis- ters did, to empty pews, SUPPOSED to be filled with soldiers, but to actual soldiers, either in his Church or at the Hos- pital, where he has always officiated with the utmost plea- sure to himself and to those whom he addressed.
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.