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 8
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
1. They had, at the time of his settlement, no proper evidence that he was an ordained minister of the Gospel in regular communion with the Congregational churches and ministers of Connecticut, or with any evangelical denomi- nation.
2. Under his ministry there has been in the public wor- ship of that Church, and in the lessons from the pulpit, no utterance of sympathy with our country in its struggle for unity and life ; no expression of loyal desire for the success of the Government, or the defeat of the rebellion; no word implying that the attempts of the rebels to subvert by force the Government ordained by God in this land, is criminal ;
108
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
no recognition of the righteousness of the cause in which sons and brothers of the complainants, some of them mem- bers of the same Church, are offering their lives.
3. In the pulpit and in private conversation he has char- acterized the action of the Government as tyrannical and unjust, and has implied that the attempt of the Government to maintain itself by force against the rebellion, is criminal; and when members of the Church have courteously inquired of him concerning his views, that they might know whether he had been misunderstood on these points, he has refused to give any satisfactory answer.
4. He has borne no testimony against the wicked doc- trine of these times, that it is right for white men to make slaves of black men; but on the contrary, he has used his influence to suppress in the meetings of the Church all allusion to the injustice of slavery.
5. He has by his private and public influence brought certain young persons of the congregation into open sym- pathy with the existing rebellion.
These being the facts as we find them, our judgment is,
First. It is a distinctive and cardinal principle of our New England Congregationalism, that no person shall be invested with the pastoral office in any Church, otherwise than by the advice and consent of neighboring churches represented in a council ; that a minority, however humble, objecting to the person chosen by the majority of the Church, may have full opportunity to present the reasons for their dissent before the council convened for the pur- pose of ordaining or installing him; and that no man can be imposed upon them as their pastor, unless their objec- tions, after a fair hearing and consideration, are removed or overruled by the council.
Second. Mr. Carroll is not, in the proper use of lan- guage, pastor of the South Congregational Church in New Haven, nor is he " Acting Pastor," as that term is defined by the General Association of Connecticut. Any assump- tion of the title of pastor on his part is unwarranted, and the arrangements and proceedings by which he has been invested with the powers of a pastor in that Church, with- out the intervention of a council of neighboring churches to
109
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
inquire into his qualifications for that office, are a contempt put upon the principle of communion of churches, and a violation of the rights of the complainants.
Third. The voting of women in the Church, by which, in the settlement of Mr. Carroll, the majority of the brethren was overruled, is contrary to the Scriptures (I. Cor. xix. 34; I. Tim. xi. 12) and contrary to the usages and principles of the New England churches, and invalidates the act of a majority, which was made such by these votes.
Fourth. The refusal of the Clerk and Standing Commit- tee to call a meeting of the Church at the written request of fourteen brethren, (who were nearly one-third of the brotherhood), for the express purpose of requesting Mr. Carroll to resign his place, as provided for by the arrange- ment under which he was settled, was not only a violation of the compact, by which the question of his retirement is made at all times a proper question for consideration in the Church, whether with or without charges against his offi- cial character; but was a gross usurpation on the part of the Clerk and Committee, alike hostile to the rights of the members and destructive of the organization of a Congre- gational Church; and the refusal of the same functionaries to present a respectful memorial from twenty members to the Church, was a similar irregularity and wrong. The ratification of these proceedings by the annual Church meeting may justly be regarded as an additional grievance.
Fifth. The brethren who had received letters of dismis- sion, but who, in a formal communication to the Church, had announced their purpose not to connect themselves with other churches, but to retain their membership in the South Church, were unjustly excluded from participation in the annual meeting of that Church. The decision of the moderator, Mr. Carroll, that they were not members, and the confirmation of that decision by the meeting, can not but be condemned as an arbitrary and unjust proceeding. Those brethren are still, according to the purport of the testimonials which they had received, members of the South Church in regular standing.
Sixth. The reasons for dissatisfaction with the ministry of Mr. Carroll, as alleged and proved by the complainants, are valid.
110
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
1. It is a sufficient reason for dissatisfaction with his ministry, that he was employed by the Church and Society without exhibiting any proper and adequate proof of his regular standing in the ministry.
2. The sympathy of Mr. Carroll with the existing rebel- lion, exhibited as it has been, not only negatively by his not saying the things which he ought to have said, but positively, by saying what he ought not to have said against the Government, and against the struggle of the nation to defend itself, and to perpetuate the inheritance it has received from God; his personal influence in the con- gregation, "leading captive " unthinking and unstable per- sons into outspoken sympathy with the most stupendous crime recorded in history since Christ was crucified, and his silence in regard to the atrocious heresy, religious and ethical, now so widely maintained, that it is right for white men to make slaves of black men, being made more signifi- cant by his endeavors to suppress in the Church all allu- sions to so great a wickedness, are sufficient grounds for formal charges against him; and being proved on trial, are sufficient for his condemnation, if there be any ecclesiasti- cal body to which he is responsible.
Such being the facts, and our judgment upon them, we are prepared to answer the questions which the complain- ants have proposed to us for our advice :
First. In consideration of the facts which have appeared before this Council, and which we have already recited, we advise the complainants that the South Congregational Church, so called, ought not to be recognized any longer as a Congregational Church, and as a Council we advise the Churches which we represent, and all other Churches of our communion, to withhold from that Church those acts of mutual recognition and fellowship which are customary among Congregational Churches, and which are the form of their unity as an ecclesiastical commonwealth.
Second. 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 au- thorize our Moderator and Scribe to give to them, collect- ively or individually, in our behalf, letters certifying their
111
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
regular standing as professed followers of Christ in full communion with the Congregational Churches of Connecti- cut, and commending them to any Church with which they may choose to connect themselves, or to any ecclesiastical council which may be convened for the purpose of recog- nizing 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 determined partly by local considerations, with which they, and the members of the other Churches here, are bet- ter acquainted than this Council 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 Church, 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.
REV. JOSEPH ELDRIDGE, Moderator.
W. T. EUSTIS, Scribe.
REPLY OF THE SOUTH CHURCH
TO THE LATE ECCLESIASTICAL COUNCIL.
The following reply of the Standing Committee of the South Congregational Church, to the action of the Ex-parte Council recently held in this city, was submitted to said Church on Friday evening, Jan. 1st, 1864, and by the Church was UNANIMOUSLY approved, and ordered to be published.
WHEREAS, an Ex-parte Council, representing twelve of the two hundred and twenty-two consociated Congrega- tional Churches in this State, has been lately held in New Haven, at the request of twenty petitioners, now or recently
112
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
connected with the South Congregational Church, for the professed purpose of advising them "concerning their rights and their duty ;" and whereas, in advising them, said Council have sat in judgment on this entire Church and upon our ministers ; and, whereas, the Council has given to the public its proceedings and result, which result has been telegraphed throughout the country ; we owe it to our- selves, as a Church, to Rev. Mr. Carroll, as our minister, and to truth and justice, that the facts in the case be stated and published through the same channels.
As this Council has seen fit to vindicate its decision to the public, however degrading to a Church judicatory we feel such an appeal to be, we are compelled to suffer in silence, or respond before the same tribunal.
The petitioners for the Council, members of the South Congregational Church, ARE NOT, as they claim to be, " a majority of the Brethren" of said Church.
. When the Council was convoked, we had forty-seven male members, not including those who had taken letters of dismission. [See Church records.] Of this forty-seven, but fifteen, including absent members, were petitioners for the Council.
The distinction indicated by the term "Brethren " in connection with voting, has never been sanctioned by any resolution or vote of the South Church. The right of voting by females has never been denied by the Church, and the exercise of this right obtained and was practiced prior to the Rev. Mr. Carroll's coming among us. It has simply been continued, not inaugurated, during his adminis- tration. In the early part of 1861, the vote of the Church on the question of accepting Rev. Mr. Noyes' resignation, (as was testified before the Council then held,) stood,- Yeas 70, Noes 5; total 75; which is a much larger number than there ever were, of males only, in the South Church. All this exposes the groundlessness of the assumption that this practice was introduced for the purpose of "imposing" Rev. Mr. Carroll upon this Church. The minority of the Church, as well as the majority, have exercised this right from that time to the present. At a meeting of the Church, Feb. 18th, 1863, on the question of inviting Rev. Mr. Car- roll to continue his labors among us as Stated Supply,
113
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
females as well as males voted, without objection on the part of the Chairman, E. S. Minor, then a Deacon of the Church, and since one of the petitioners for the Council. If this was " contrary to the usages and principles of the New England Churches," why did he not interpose his authority as Chairman, to prevent its exercise; and why did no other member raise a question of order as to the pro-
priety of such a proceeding ? When for the first time this distinction was recorded on the Church books in these words-" the majority of the Brethren voting in the nega- tive,"-it was in violation of the judgment of the Church as to the rights of members, as is shown by the fact that soon after the interpolation was discovered, the Church by a unanimous vote, adopted the following resolution :
" WHEREAS, At a meeting of this Church held Feb. 18, 1863, a vote was passed to invite the Rev. J. Halsted Carroll to continue his minis- terial labors with this Church, said vote being recorded fifty-one yeas and twenty-two nays, with these words added, 'a majority of the brethren voting in the negative ;' and whereas, this Church has never made any distinction in its membership in regard to voting; and whereas, said vote was taken by ballot, with no official announcement or knowledge as to the vote of any member; therefore, voted, that the former Clerk of this Church, John Nicoll, M.D., is guilty of tampering with the records, and is hereby censured for such conduct . by this Church."
But passing this, what evidence did the petitioners give the Council, or has the Council given the public, that they, the petitioners, were what they claimed to be, viz : " a ma- jority of the brethren" even. It is found in the caption and first paragraph of the "Result," which we quote :
"Result of the Council called by 'the majority of the Brethren of the South Congregational Church, New Haven.'
" This Council has been convened by certain brethren styling them- selves "the majority of the brethren of the South Congregational Church in New Haven," and complaining that they "have been de- prived of the rights which belong to brethren of a Congregational
10
114
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
Church." Whether they are or are not entitled to the rights of a ma- jority, is a question upon which we are not called to express an opinion, for it is not material to any of the issues involved in their complaint. These brethren, twenty or more in number, have addressed the Church in a memorial asking for a Mutual Council to consider certain matters by which they are aggrieved, and their request has been denied. Their right, therefore, of obtaining advice from neighbor Churches through an Ex-parte Council, in conformity with a reasonable and long estab- lished usage of the New England Churches, cannot be disputed."
The evidence furnished to substantiate this claim, is three-fold : (a) an assertion of it: "Result of the Council called by 'the Majority of the Brethren :'" (b) a modifi- cation of it : " This Council has been convened by certain brethren 'styling themselves a majority ;'" (c) a partial abandonment of it: " Whether they are, or are not, enti- titled to the rights of a majority, is a question upon which we are not called to express an opinion ; for it is not mate- rial to any of the issues involved in their complaint." The Council may regard the question of majority or minority as immaterial; but for important reasons, it is a point not only upon which an intelligent and unprejudiced opinion should have been formed and expressed, but formally de- cided ; for, with this claim undecided, how was it possible that the Council should know what case was before them ? And is this an unimportant point in the estimate of a Church Court, to know who are the parties before them ? And yet this can only be settled when this claim is settled. If these petitioners, members of our Church, be a majority, then is the Council dealing with our Church; and in this case, because the Church has convened them and asked for advice. If, on the other hand, these " Brethren" be a mi- nority, then are the Council dealing only with a few indi- viduals asking for advice, and should confine their action to them. They have nothing to do with our Church-they have no jurisdiction over us-unless we, as a Church, asked for the Council, or consented to become a party to it. We say that this is the only way in which they could have any legitimate right to discuss and decide upon our affairs ; for,
115
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
we are an Independent Congregational Church, neither associated nor consociated, and as an independent Church, which we are and always have been, we are in this case no more amenable to this Council, uncalled by us, than a Baptist, Methodist, or Episcopal Church would be. And the same obtains in the case of our minister, Rev. Mr. Carroll. He is not a member of the Association or Con- sociation ; but an Old School Presbyterian clergyman, " responsible" to his own brethren, and none other,-an ecclesiastical body which we regard as entirely "evangeli- cal." Did both Church and minister, or either of them, call and ask advice from this Council ? Neither did. We neither asked advice, nor needed it; for, the greater part of the minority having absented themselves from our services for some time past, we have been during this period a united and prosperous Church,-have had no difficulties to harmo- nize, no grievances to complain of.
The vote of sixty-one members ratifying the action of the Standing Committee in declining even to become par- ties to this Council, was unanimous .- This being so, by what authority has this Council, representing twelve out of two hundred and twenty-two Consociated Churches in this State, arraigned, tried, condemned, and attempted to " ex- communicate" us ? Who made them judges and rulers over us, an independent Church, and over our minister, who belongs to another denomination ? It is simply imperti- nence and usurpation.
" The right of obtaining advice from neighbor Churches through an Ex-parte Council in conformity with a reasonable and long established usage of the New England Churches, cannot be disputed." We do not dispute it. But when called upon by others to advise them, (which advice was conveyed in a single sentence,) we do deny that it was either necessary or right for the Council, upon a whole Church, a Church over which they had no jurisdiction, and upon Ex-parte statements, to pronounce anathemas, and even attempt to assassinate the character of its minister. And however much "in conformity with a reasonable (!) and long established usage of the New England Churches," it is in manifest non-conformity with simple Christian
116
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
courtesy, and " contrary to the Scriptures." 1 Peter, iv : 15; 2 Thess., iii, 11.
That the South Church was not before the Council, will appear from the fact that we had at the date it was called, one hundred and fifty-two members, (not including those who had taken letters of dismission.) Of these one hun- dred and fifty-two members not dismissed, forty-seven are males ; of these forty-seven males not dismissed, only fifteen signed the petition for the Council,-the other five not being recognized as members by this Church, which as an independent body, has alone the right to determine who are its members and who are not. Are fifteen a majority of forty-seven ? Are twenty, " styling themselves a major- ity of the brethren," a majority of fifty-three ? which is our number of males if we include, as they do, the five peti- tioners dismissed, and one dismissed who is not a petitioner ? No! And yet they ought to have known that they were not a majority, and might have known it had they used the proper means, and thus have saved themselves this exposure.
Thus the petitioners, members of this Church, were not what they claimed to be, a majority of the brethren, much less of the membership, of the Church.
" First of all, this Council has made a communication to the Church through its clerk and standing committee, and also to the Rev. J. Hal- sted Carroll as another party interested in the matters referred to us, inviting them to appear and offer any explanations which they may de- sire to make concerning the transactions complained of. But these in- vitations have been explicitly declined. We are sorry to add, we have been denied all access to the records of the Church, and that the com. plainants have not been able to obtain authentic copies of the records, which they desired to present for our consideration."
Two facts are here stated : " 1. Rev. Mr. Carroll ' declin- ed ' to appear, and the records were ' denied.' "' Reasons :- Rev. Mr. Carroll declined because he failed to see any juris- diction over him by said Council, not being a member of the Association, nor a minister of their denomination, but a Presbyterian clergyman. The church declined sending its
117
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
records or "authenticated copies " of the same, because it had decided by a unanimous vote, (61,) as stated above, not to become a party to the Council. It should be remarked, however, that those of the petitioners who had not been dis- missed, had free access to the records; one of whom (G. H. Butricks,) took extracts therefrom. Having declined to ap- pear before the Council, how could we be expected to pre- sent our records, or authenticated copies thereof, and thus take away the ex-parte character of the Council ?
" Having carefully considered the documents submitted to us in be- half of the complainants by their Committee, and having heard such testimony as they in the disadvantageous circumstances in which they are placed have been able to adduce, we find the following matters of fact :
"1. The Church in question was instituted as a Congregational Church, with the advice and approbation of a council of Congrega- tional Churches, and the complainants became members of it, in the warranted expectation that they were to enjoy all the rights belonging to the brethren of a Congregational Church, according to the princi- ples and usages of the New England Churches."
True, it was organized as a Congregational Church ; but never having been associated or consociated, we are an In- dependent Congregational Church,-and as such, claim the right to regulate our own affairs.
Several of the petitioners, one of them a Deacon, (E. S. Minor,) organized with us, and assisted in making our rules, and in creating and sanctioning our customs. Such being the case, what reason have they now to complain of those rules and customs ?
Among these rules and customs, is the right of all mem- bers to vote. This right was acquiesced in and practically " approved by the minority, in common with the majority, at the meeting in February last, already referred to-Deacon E. S. Minor, one of the petitioners, in the chair.
This right is further sustained by the action of the Church in all cases of the admission of members, and has been, from the organization of the Church to this day. In every such case, after the assent of the member or members to the covenant, the minister, speaking in behalf of the
10*
118
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
Church, and all the members rising in token of approval, says :- " Then doth this Church affectionately receive you to its membership and welcome you to all the privileges, labors and blessings, of the Household of Faith." "Thus you are admitted to this Church, and have a right to all its privileges." " Then are you." Who ? " Male members ?" " Adult male members ?" "Brethren ?" No! You who take this covenant. Adults and youth, parents and children, male and female, all recommended by the Committee and received by the Church. "You are"-what ? " admitted to this Church, and have a right to all its privileges." One of the privileges conferred upon all who take our covenant, is voting; and as an Independent Church, we claim the right of deciding not only who are our members and who are not, but also what are the privileges of our own Church conferred by the Church upon its members.
"II. The Rev. J. Halsted Carroll commenced his labors at the South Church in December, 1861, being invited by the Society's Committee to officiate as a candidate. He was soon afterwards employed by con- current votes of the Church and Society to supply the pulpit for a year. Before the termination of the year, a meeting of the Church was held to consider the question of a more permanent settlement of Mr. Car- roll in the work of the ministry there. An arrangement was made, purporting to be between the Church and Society as one party, and Mr. Carroll as the other party, by which he was to remain in the work of the ministry among them indefinitely, and which could be termina- ted only when either party should give four months notice of a desire for the termination."
Such an arrangement not only "purported " to be made, . but was made. Is there anything peculiar in this relation of Rev. Mr. Carroll to the South Church ? It is the same relation Rev. Dr. Stiles sustained to this Church, and Rev. Gurdon W. Noyes, during the early part of his ministry, except the " four months' notice," which made it apparently a more permanent relation than that of the present incum- bent. Why, then, should this be cited as a grievance, or as something wrong on the part of people or minister ?
That nothing of a permanent or pastoral relation was
119
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
secured by this arrangement, is admitted by the complain- ants themselves ; for they say, " it could be terminated at anytime by giving four months' previous notice."
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.