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 12
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
13*
154
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
" In the year 1857 the number of members admitted to the [South] Church was forty-seven."
There must be some mistake here, as the number of per- sons admitted in 1857 was only sixteen. Probably the year 1858 is intended ; but even in that year, according to the Church records, only 42 were admitted, and according to the tabular statement in the Congregational Quarterly, 43. The number might have been 47, or even greater, speaking after the manner of men, but for the fact that at the most interesting period of the revival, our then minister was absent from his charge for nearly a month, on a preach- ing expedition to the West. While the South Church, under the faithful labors of its pastors, has, with the bless- ing of God, received in the year 1863 about as many mem- bers as it did in the memorable year before mentioned, (the year of the great revival throughout the land,) most other Churches have languished. Indeed, for the last five years, the statistics of the Churches generally, so far as we have had opportunity to examine them, show but a melancholy record. The last report (1863) of the General Association of Connecticut contains a paper by Rev. Dr. Cleaveland, of this city, which says :- "In 1859, one hundred and ten Churches, with 14,184 members, gained not one from the world. In 1860, one hundred and thirty-six Churches, with 19,323 members, were alike fruitless. In 1861, one hundred and forty-six Churches-more than half our whole number-with 19,685 members, received not one by profes- sion." It further appears from the same document, that in 1859, 1860 and 1861, the aggregate number of members admitted by profession into all the Congregational Churches of Connecticut, was 597 less than the number of deaths. The statistics of the years 1862 and 1863 are not presented in the same way, but we doubt if they will prove any more favorable. Indeed, we expect they will show a further diminution. Dr. Cleaveland barely hints at what may be one of the causes of this declension, when he says, "It becomes us to be on our guard lest any of the great doc- trines of grace which in all ages have been the wisdom and
155
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
power of God unto salvation, should be eclipsed by nearer, but infinitely less important objects."
"At least SEVENTY members, including the petitioners, have left [the South Church] during the year, or are ready to leave the Church when another place of worship shall be provided, because of their dislike to Mr. Carroll's ministrations."
We have learned to be somewhat distrustful of the calcu- lations of the petitioners. Thus far they have done the Church no harm, but good, by leaving it. Notwithstanding secessions, the number of members is larger than when Mr. Carroll first came among us. The audiences are also larger. They are larger since the holding of the Council than before. What the petitioners and their "sympathizers" may be able to accomplish HEREAFTER, of course we do not know. But, at present, we feel no uneasiness about it. We only hope they will be as comfortable and happy in their new relations as we are in ours. It is the general feeling among the members, that the prospects of the Church were never better. Now that Mr. Carroll has declined the call to New York, we all breathe more freely, and expect to prosper greatly, if his life and health are spared, and if God continues to bless his labors among us.
"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 the same purpose, aside from the contributions of one individual."
In a paragraph quoted above, the petitioners speak of the Church as "sustained ALMOST ENTIRELY by the contributions of ONE MAN," and complain of the influence thereby exerted by him. As the petitioners and their sym- pathizers appear to have a plenty of money, the question is, why they did not curtail this one man's power, by taking upon themselves a larger portion of the burden which gave him that power. It will not answer to say that they do not like Mr. Carroll ; for he has been with us but about twenty
156
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
months, and his predecessor, during the latter part of his ministry at least, was in full sympathy with the petitioners on the topics of which they now complain. Why did not the " seventy" pour forth their offerings liberally to sustain Mr. Noyes ? Why leave the burden of supporting public worship under HIS ministrations, as well as Mr. Carroll's, almost entirely to " one man ?" That one man, we dare say, would at any time have been willing to have his influ- ence curtailed in such a way. He simply paid what no one else did, or offered to pay. As however the petitioners, with all their ability, have, by their own showing, done " almost" nothing towards the support of the enterprise, might it not have been as well, (if they were dissatisfied with a minister whom they had more agency in procuring than the "one man" had,) to withdraw quietly to other Churches, as to get up an Ex-parte Council and excommu- nicate or attempt to excommunicate the whole concern ? However, if they are satisfied with the result, we are. But before parting, we will just quote an extract of a letter from a Congregational minister in the interior of the State, which we hope they will duly ponder. In feeling and judgment at least, we suspect he is one of many. He says, " If Congregationalism is right, your Church, as respects the management of its own affairs, is eminently right. If
Congregationalism is right, your Church is not only right, but prospered because it is right. Your practice is in har- mony with common sense. Your reply to the Ex-parte Council is conclusive. According to your rules, or custom, each member has equal rights with every other member in strictly Church meetings, and of course may vote. In these particulars you are on the rock. Unless I sadly mis- take, yours is a model Congregational Church. I admire your manner of doing things. I pity the Ex-parte Council. Of course they will not confess it, but they must be ashamed of their officiousness as respects your affairs. Since writing the above, I have read the Rejoinder. If there was no more to be said, it had better not have been said; for, in the light of brother C.'s friends' reply, what they say is not very creditable to them."
157
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
In conclusion, we append the following extracts from an article in the Congregational Quarterly for January, 1860, on the "Authority of Councils," written by one of the Editors, Rev. ALONZO H. QUINT. If we rightly under- stand the positions of the writer, they accord much more nearly with the views of the South Church on the points he discusses, than with the ACTION of the Ex-parte Council recently held in this city.
EXTRACTS FROM THE CONGREGATIONAL QUARTERLY, JAN., 1860.
" Whenever perplexity arises in the administration of Congregational Church policy, it is either because its prin- ciples are misunderstood, or because, when understood, they are not observed with Christian manliness and fidelity by its adherents. When practical confusions arise in the work- ings of Councils-Councils stepping out of their legitimate work-Councils called to override Councils-Councils ar- rayed against Councils,-we believe that it is because the fundamental principles which are their basis, are forgotten. Though loth, as we are, to admit that want of principle ever enters, we must confess that our policy is evidently intended, by its reliance only on moral power, for people in a high state of grace, and that that grace is not always found."
" To remedy the want of grace is not in our power. To do what little in us lies to explain some features of Coun- cils-especially under the rather general title above, we are glad to attempt."
" What the authority of Councils is, depends entirely on our essential principles. These are two-fold : first, the entire sufficiency of every Church, in and of itself, for all purposes of government and discipline; and, secondly, the obligations growing out of the fellowship of Churches, as such, to each other, and especially in all matters concerning the general welfare. When these principles are followed, there is no practical difficulty as to the proper occasions for, or the proper work of, Councils. It is to these princi- ples that we look, to find how Councils come into being,- their prerogatives while in being,-and the force of their decisions."
158
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
"I. THEIR COMING INTO BEING."
" Councils cannot come into being except a Church be directly concerned in the matter for consideration. Indi- viduals cannot, for their own matters, summon a Council ; a Church must be a party in inviting,-the apparent excep- tion of Ex-parte Councils called by aggrieved individuals being no real exception, as the individual must complain of some CHURCH action, and bases his call upon the fact that the Church of which he complains, OUGHT to have been a party, but has UNREASONABLY refused. An individual complaining of another individual, a party in a Church complaining of an opposing party, dissatisfied members complaining of a pastor,-cannot call a Council. There must have been some distinct CHURCH action, of which complaint is made. Thus, if an individual complaining of another, wishes for a Council, he must first bring the complaint formally before the Church; if the Church do not remedy his grievance, he has no resource unless the Church do in some way deprive him of his rights; and even these rights cannot come before a Council by his de- mand, unless the rights affected concern his relations of fellowship with the Churches at large."
" While this is the case in matters concerning which there is agreement, an idea sometimes prevails that Coun- cils have appellate jurisdiction in all matters of Church action with which parties are dissatisfied. But this is a mistake."
"They have no supervisory power over the internal affairs of a Church; that Church is, on Congregational principles, entirely sufficient to take care of its own affairs. The 'Churches consulting' control THEIR FELLOWSHIP, but not the action of the particular Church."
" The well known Council called by the aggrieved mem- bers of the Church of the Puritans, New York, erred, or rather their officers did, on this very point ; they declared the action of the Church to be null and void, which they had no business or power to do; they could only say that THEY were willing to fellowship these brethren notwith- standing the Church action, and advise Churches to receive them even without the letters which had been, as they said,
159
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
unjustly withheld. We remember an Ex-parte Council, which aggrieved persons who had been admonished without trial, as they said, had called, (after endeavoring to obtain a mutual one, in vain ;) the admonition had left the parties still in regular standing. The Council in proceeding to organize, and censure the Church, went beyond their prov- ince, and were guilty of a gross usurpation, as well as impertinence. It was alleged that the Church had violated Congregational order-which may have been the case ; but that gave the neighboring Churches no right to interfere, unless the case was so marked as to have justly required withdrawal of fellowship from that Church. The dissatis- fied members could take letters; if these were denied, they could then have asked for a Council-on that point. If the action of a Church stops within itself; that is, if the effect of it does not impair the regular standing of the aggrieved, the latter have no claim for a Council, nor has any Council a right to interfere."
" The principle then is, 'neighbor Churches' have a right to expect to be called together on all matters relating to the general welfare; they have a right to act when a party invites them who is aggrieved by Church action IN SUCH A MANNER AS DESTROYS HIS FELLOWSHIP WITH THOSE OTHER CHURCHES; and they may convene when invited by any Church which wants "light and peace." But they have no right to demand a voice in the internal affairs of any Church, and no power whatever to supervise them. They control the fellowship of the Churches, but not the action of any Church in its own matters. The remembrance of this simple principle would sweep away half our Councils, and all of those which have become an offense in the nostrils of the community. Invited Churches ought never to accept an invitation to INTERFERE WITH THE BUSINESS OF A CHURCH WHICH DOES NOT CONCERN THEM. We have never yet seen more than ONE Ex-parte Council which was not an impertinence."
II. PREROGATIVES OF A COUNCIL IN BEING.
" The Council will find not only its CHARACTER in the letters missive, but the Council is LIMITED IN ITS ACTION to the subject matter of the letters missive."
160
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
" The object alleged in the letters missive, is the sole one which the Council is competent to consider. The reason is obvious. Deriving all power in this particular case from the letters missive, they can no more go beyond, than the government of our country can exercise powers not dele- gated to it by the Constitution. Nor would it be proper, on the one hand, that delegates asked for a special purpose, should act for another ; nor, on the other hand, that an inviting party having secured a Council, should use it for purposes not previously mentioned. Called together for one thing, they have no right to do another.
" We are aware that this rule is frequently transgressed. Many Councils have seemed to regard themselves irrespon- sible, and as being put in charge of the Churches at large. It seems to be felt by some men " dressed in a little brief authority," that under the high sounding title of COUNCIL they are endowed with great prerogatives. Whereas they are like courts martial in respect to their object; limited to the precise work for which they are summoned. For exam- ple : a Council is called for organizing a new Church, for the alleged reason that great want of harmony exists in another in the same town; it is then perfectly competent for the Council to inquire as to the alleged dissensions, and whether they are such as to furnish good reasons for advis- ing a new organization, and whether they are irremovable ; but they have no right to proceed to an investigation into the merits or demerits of the dissensions,-because the parties are not before them ; and if THEY were, the CASE is not."
" Having carefully and prayerfully examined into the subject matter, the Council have power to embody its opin- ion upon that matter, AND NO OTHER, in a 'result of Coun- cil,' which is to be signed by the Moderator and Scribe, and be formally communicated to the parties concerned."
" The Congregational doctrine of the authority of Coun- cils therefore is this : Councils come into being by the call of parties inviting. They have power to organize ; power to examine credentials ; with no power to enlarge or dimin- ish their number; power to examine the subject specified in the letters missive, but no other subject; power to hear
161
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
evidence ; power to deliberate on the proper course to be taken in reference to that subject; power to advise the parties inviting them, what to do in the matter, with no power to direct or order any particular course, or to reverse individual Church action ; AND, WITH POWER TO PRAY A GOOD DEAL MORE FOR DIVINE ASSISTANCE THAN MANY COUNCILS DO, they have power to dissolve."
" Their only power is reason. So far as they have any authority, it is through their piety, their integrity, their manliness and their common sense. For, 'the decree of a Council,' well says Richard Mather, ' hath so much force as there is force in the reason of it.'"
Alas ! then, for the force of the decree of the Council recently held in reference to the affairs of the South Church in New Haven.
A MEMBER.
MISSTATEMENT OF FACTS
IN THE DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH CHURCH.
That the public may learn what reliance is to be placed upon the statement of facts by the defenders of the South Church and of their officiating Pastor, I would draw atten- tion to the assertions of the communication from "A Mem- ber," in respect to the voting of females, in the Chapel street Church when the present Pastor was called; and in the North Church, when a resolution of confidence in the Rev. Dr. Dutton was passed. IN NEITHER OF THESE CASES WAS THERE A VOTE CAST BY A FEMALE, NOR WAS THERE ONE PRESENT.
When Mr. Eustis had received a call from the brother- hood of the Church, and from the Society, he preached to the congregation, and at his request, after a Tuesday eve- ning lecture, there was an informal expression, by those present, of their desire in respect to his acceptance of the call, which had already been tendered. At that meeting the proposition was made, not as the blundering informant of the writer states, by Deacon W., who was not Deacon until ten years afterward, but by an OPPONENT of the Pas-
14
1
162
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
tor elect, that the ladies should express their wishes. This was consented to; and this informal expression of opinion, though of course never put upon record, was reported to Mr. Eustis.
Dr. Dutton has no recollection of writing any such letter as the writer professes to quote from. If any such letter exists, he would like to see it, for he is confident that the extract quoted does injustice to his sentiments. If he made any such statements in respect to the Chapel street Church, they were founded on a mistake; and he knows that the allegation that women have ever voted in the North Church is utterly untrue.
The South Church has, therefore, among Congregational Churches in this city, the peculiar claim to the title of a "WOMAN'S RIGHTS" Church, and deserves by this radical- ism to be ranked with the Church in New York City, over which Dr. Cheever presides.
One word in addition. Those who read the result of the late Council, will remember that it was in three parts ; first, a statement of facts ; secondly, a declaration of principles in the Congregational Order; and thirdly, advice to the parties calling the Council.
The voluminous replies have not DENIED ONE OF THE FACTS-not even so much as to show, what a word of his might have done, that THE REV. MR. CARROLL BELIEVES THAT THIS REBELLION IN BEHALF OF SLAVERY IS WICKED.
THE APOLOGISTS have avowed that the South Church is not governed by the principles affirmed in the Result, which is precisely what the Council adjudged. They therefore cannot demur at being declared not a Congregational Church, but an INDEPENDENT Church, OUTSIDE of our order; although to obtain a respectable standing, they procured at the start, recognition by a Council ; intending, as it would appear, to break their pledge of walking in the Congregational order, so soon as it might seem convenient.
Whenever they DENY the FACTS affirmed in the result, with proper evidence ; or Avow the PRINCIPLES of Congre- gationalism, as set forth in our standards, and authorized by the Scriptures, they will be entitled to a respectful hearing.
A MEMBER OF THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
163
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
REV. DR. DUTTON'S LETTER ON FEMALE VO- TING.
Messrs. EDITORS :
In a communication which you published last Wednes- day, " A Member of the Ex-parte Council " said, in refer- ence to Dr. Dutton's letter of 1856, from which I had pre- viously quoted, " Dr. Dutton has no recollection of writing any such letter as the writer [myself] professes to quote from. If any such letter exists, he would like to see it ; for he is confident that the extract quoted does injustice to his sentiments." Others besides himself " would like to see it," and I am happy in being able to gratify both him and them, as well as to relieve the incredulity of " A Member of the Ex-parte Council," who pretty clearly intimates that in "professing to quote from " such a letter, I was hum- bugging the public. I now publish it entire, except the postscript, which relates to other matters. If Dr. Dutton still doubts the existence of " any such letter," he can see the original, in his own hand-writing, by calling at No. 240 State street, main floor. The following is a copy of it :
"NEW HAVEN, May 3, 1856.
"DEAR BROTHER : I received yours this afternoon, and reply at once.
"I suppose it is not the general custom in our N. E. Con- gregational Churches, for females to vote in Church meet- ings, either for officers, or on other occasions, yet it is sometimes done. The Chapel-street Church, in one instance of electing Pastor, received the votes of female members, and also have done the same in the election of deacons. The Congregational Church in Milbury has in some instan- ces had voting by females.
" I believe among the Baptist Churches, (which are strictly congregational,) the female members generally vote.
"I have not the 'Practical Church Member' at hand, but I have no doubt that Mr. Mitchell (who is quite a con- servative man,) would say that the brotherhood (the male members,) should do the voting, and that that is the mean- ing of the passage to which you refer
164
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
"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 rather the contrary, for they are members of the Church. The argument, i. e., against female voting, is from the general customs of society, founded as those cus- toms are supposed and claimed to be, on the differing natures of males and females. The argument is, that the custom of non-voting and non-speaking in public by fe- males, which prevails outside of the Church, should pre- vail in the Church.
" To my mind the argument is not very strong. And, as custom is not universally against female voting, if I was pastor of a Church in which females had been accustomed to vote, I should not endeavor to break it up, unless there was a general disposition to dispense with it. I should not make a contest against it.
" Yours truly and in haste,
S. W. S. DUTTON."
What Dr. Dutton in 1856 said he would do in a sup- posed case, Rev. Mr. Carroll has done. When the latter took charge of the South Church, 1st June, 1862, he found that "females had been accustomed to vote " there, and did "not endeavor to break it [the practice] up,"-there not being " a general disposition to dispense with it." Yet for taking exactly the course which Dr. Dutton said he would take in similar circumstances,-for this among other things, -the latter assists in excluding Mr. Carroll and his Church from fellowship with other Congregational Churches.
Another curiosity is revealed in this letter, viz : the basis of " the argument against female voting." The Ex-parte Council objected to such voting as contrary to the Scrip- tures and Congregational usage. The petitioners, in their Rejoinder, drop the Scripture argument, and mention only "the custom of Congregational Churches." But Dr. Dut- ton, in the above letter, mentions neither of these bases, but only " the general customs of society," " outside of the Church." For not conforming to the world in this particu-
165
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
lar,-for this, among other things,-he assists in cutting off the South Church from its fellowship with other Congrega- tional Churches. Well may he say, "To my mind the argument is not very strong; " that is, the argument from the general customs of society.
Dr. D. well remarks, that against female voting no argu- ment can be drawn " from the nature of a Church, as com- posed of renewed persons, and as having the power of self- government," " but rather the contrary ; for they are. mem- bers of the Church." Yes; they are members of the Church, as much as men are; and therefore have a right to all the privileges of members,-subject of course to any restrictions contained in the Scriptures; but voting is not one of them.
Dr. D. gives us some further information as to the prev- alence of female voting. Besides the Chapel-street Church in some instances, he mentions another Congregational Church, where, in 1856, such voting was sometimes prac- ticed; and expresses his belief that "among the Baptist Churches, (which are strictly congregational,) the female members generally vote."
We were aware that in Pres- byterian Churches voting by females was not unusual, but were not so well informed concerning the Baptists. As the Methodists allow females to pray and exhort in their meet- ings, voting by females would follow as a matter of course. One would think that a custom so extensively prevalent in Christian Churches of different denominations, might be tolerated in the South Church by other Churches of the same order ; or at least, not be made a basis of excommuni- cation. And here allow me to copy a paragraph of a letter from the gentlemen to whom the above letter of Dr. Dut- ton's was addressed; dated Jan. 27, 1864 :
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.