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 9
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
"III. In that meeting a majority of the male members present voted against the proposed arrangement, but their votes were overruled by counting the votes of female members."
How did the council obtain this information ? If from the clerk, (Dr. Nicoll,) how did he obtain it ? If from the other petitioners, or any of them, how did they obtain it ?- the vote being taken (on motion of the clerk) by " secret ballot."
"IV. The aforesaid arrangement having been made, Mr Carroll assumed the title and authority of " Pastor of the South Church " sub- scribing official papers in that character, being habitually spoken of among the members of the Church, and in Church meetings, by that official title, and being announced frequently to the public as Pastor of the Church."
If the charge is, that Mr. Carroll assumed the title and authority of installed Pastor, we deny it .- We have called him Pastor among ourselves and in Church meetings, and announced him so to the public : but so have several of the petitioners. On one occasion, three of them, with others, addressed him as " Pastor," in a formal letter, expressing the " great pleasure and profit with which they had listened to his Thanksgiving sermon on the claims of our country on Christians," and asking a copy for publication. The late Superintendent of the Sunday School, (Geo. S. Minor,) one of the petitioners, often announced him as Pastor. At quar- terly and anniversary meetings of the Sunday School in the Church, how familiar these words from his lips-" We will now listen to our Pastor." When thus "called" and " an- nounced" by us and them, were any of us deceived, or did we or they intend to deceive others ? No more did he, in " sub- scribing" himself " Pastor," deceive or attempt to deceive others. The offense charged here, is about as formidable as that of addressing a man by the title of Esq., who is not an Esq., who himself knows he is not an Esq., and who is
120
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
known not to be an Esq. by the party who addresses him thus. If the fact of our addressing Mr. Carroll as Pastor, be proof of his assuming the title and authority of Pastor, why were not his predecessors, while they sustained the same relation to this Church that he does, guilty of the same offence when addressed and even spoken of in print by the same title. (See Catalogue of South Church, E. S. Minor chairman of publishing committee.)
"V. Certain members of the Church, fourteen in number, being dis- satisfied with the ministry of Mr. Carroll, and desiring that notice might be duly given to him for the termination of the arrangement, presented to the Clerk of the Church their written request for a Church meeting, which request was refused by the Clerk and Standing Com- mittee.
"VI. Afterwards the same brethren and others, twenty in all, ad- dressed their memorial to the Church, stating distinctly the grounds of their dissatisfaction with these proceedings and with the ministry of Mr. Carroll, and asking for a Council of the Churches, to be mutually agreed upon, who should advise with the Church and the complain- ants. The Clerk, to whose hands the memorial was committed, refused, by the advice of the Standing Committee, to lay it before the Church."
They did refuse. And why ? (1.) Because this very question about the continuance of Rev. Mr. Carroll's labors among us, had been discussed at great length at a Church meeting specially called for that purpose, not long before, and had been decided in favor of such continuance by a vote of fifty-one to twenty two. (2-) Because the regular an- nual meeting of the Church must be held in the ensuing month of November, when this whole subject could be re- discussed and re-decided.
We admit that the literality of the rule* requires the Clerk
* NOTE BY THE AUTHOR OF SOUTH CHURCH HISTORY .- After all, there was no such rule. It is not among the printed "Standing Rules" of the Church, where the duties of the Clerk are defined, nor in the manuscript records, nor any where else. The most that can truly be said is, that there was such a usage; but even this was not uniform
121
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
to call a meeting of the Church whenever requested by a certain number of members But can it be supposed that in adopting such a rule, the Church intended to make itself liable to be called together every month, week, or day, at the pleasure of the requisite number of petitioners, and thus be kept in a state of constant agitation ? If not, a reason- able discretionary power must be vested somewhere to pre- vent this abuse; and where better than in the Standing Committee. This discretionary power our Standing Com- mittee exercised in the case before us, and their action was unanimously approved by the Church. And yet, for this irregularity principally-for this refusal under these circum- stances-we are judged by Council as no longer " to be re- cognized as a Congregational Church ;" and they feel con- strained " to advise their Churches to withhold from us acts of recognition and fellowship, customary among New Eng- land Churches."
"VII. Between the time when the request was made for a Church meeting and the time of preparing the memorial, some of the complain- ants asked and received letters of commendation, in the ordinary form, by which their membership in the Church would be terminated when- ever they might become members of other Churches. But in the me- morial those brethren gave notice to the Church, that upon mature de- liberation they had relinquished their intention of connecting them- selves with other Churches; and they remained, in the language of the testimonials which had been given them, 'members of the South Congregational Church.'"
Answer .- "Members of the SouthCongregationalChurch." Why did the Council omit the next clause ? viz : " and are hereby dismissed at their own request." The fact that those brethren gave notice to the Church that "they had relinquished their intention of connecting themselves with
nor well defined. Very often Church meetings were called by a simple announcement from the pulpit, without the intervention of the Clerk at all. There is now a recorded Rule, adopted at the annual meeting of the Church, Nov. 24, 1863, as follows:
"Voted, That the power to call a Church meeting for business, shall rest in the Church Committee, together with the Clerk."
122
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
other Churches," did not make them remain, "in the lan- guage of the testimonials," "members of the South Con- gregational Church,"* but members " dismissed." Besides, a simple "notification " to us, by those dismissed, "that they did not intend to present their certificates to other Churches," did not release them from the necessity of pre- senting them to our Church for re-admission; for our cus- tom and usage is, and ever has been, when members hold certificates from us which have not been presented else- where, if such parties desire to return to us, their certifi- cates must be acted upon by the Church. This was, and is, our custom. Have any of the petitioners holding cer- tificates of dismission from us, conformed to our custom in this matter ? No. They have never returned their certifi- cates to the Church, but still retain them, claiming full membership, while carrying about with them the testimo- nials that they are dismissed from us. Why, then, should we make them exceptions to our rule ? Why should we recognize them as in full membership upon a "notification," when others have never been so recognized in like circum- stances ? Are we, as a Church, bound by this, their new
* NOTE BY THE AUTHOR OF SOUTH CHURCH HISTORY .- The argu- ment drawn from the language of the certificates of dismission, is just as good and no better than would be that of an officer who had been dismissed from the service of the United States by a Court Martial, but who should claim that by the very language of that order, he still held his position in the regiment. We will suppose the order to read as follows:
"Decision of Court Martial, No 52 .- Ordered, that A. B., First Lieu- tenant of Company H, ninety-eleventh regiment U. S. Artillery, be, and he is hereby, dismissed from the service in disgrace."
If such an officer should appeal to the language of the order, in proof that he had not been dismissed, who could gain-say his plea ? Does not the order itself speak of him expressly as "First Lieutenant of Company H, ninety-eleventh regiment of U. S. Artillery ?" How then can he be otherwise. If the Court Martial which dismissed him, is not good authority in his favor, who or what is? And yet this flimsy argument is endorsed by the Council !
123
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
claim ? Further, this custom has recently been recognized and ratified by the formal action of our Church at its last annual meeting. It was decided in the case of George S. Minor,* claiming this right for the first time in our history,
* NOTE BY THE AUTHOR OF SOUTH CHURCH HISTORY .- That he intended to ask for an absolute dismission, is evident from the lan- guage of his application, as follows:
"NEW HAVEN, July 19, 1863.
" To the Clerk of the South Congregational Church .-
"Dear Sir: Feeling it a duty to dissolve my connection with this Church, I respectfully ask through you, of them, a letter of dismission, with a certificate of Christian character, and recommendation to any Church of Christ to which by God I may be directed to hold fellowship and communion.
Very respectfully, GEORGE S. MINOR."
We have before us the requests of several other persons who applied for general letters of dismission about the same time with the above. The following is a copy of Deacon Minor's application.
"NEW HAVEN, July 22, 1863.
"To the South Congregational Church .-
" Dear Brethren :- Feeling that I cannot with satisfaction to myself and advantage to the Church, retain connection with it while under its present circumstances, I respectfully ask for a letter of dismission and recommendation to whatever Church I may wish to connect myself. Respectfully yours,
E. S. MINOR."
After reading these requests, and others life them, can there be a doubt what was the intention and wish of the applicants? They felt it a "duty" to separate themselves from the South Church and the South Church granted their request. Neither party, it is safe to say, had at that time the slightest idea of any further ecclesiastical connec- tion with each other. If Paul and Barnabas, after "shaking off the dust of their feet against" the sinners of Antioch, had subsequently returned and claimed it as their property, and demanded to have it put back upon their feet, the Antiochans would have been hardly more surprised than were the South Church people at the claim of their dis- missed members to to be still members of that Church in full, entitled to speak and vote in their meetings, the same as if they had not been dismissed. And yet the Council sustains this claim.
124
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
by a vote of sixty-one to one, (see Church records,) that those members who had taken letters of dismission, though not presented to other Churches, while entitled to " occa- sional communion," are not entitled to vote; and as an independent Church we have the right not only to make our own rules for our government, but the right of interpreting them also. This rule and interpretation is not unusual. It is endorsed by Dr. Dwight, President of Yale College, (see 4 vol. Theo. p. 320,) where the fact is stated that " Persons are not unfrequently dismissed from particular Churches in good standing and with full recommendation of their Christ- ian character. These persons are certainly not members of any particular Church or Churches, until they are sever- ally united to other Churches in form. It is plain that they can act no where as members of the Church of Christ, except in what is called occasional communion." Again, this rule of ours is not " contrary to the principles and usa- ges of the New England Churches," if the Center Church, of which Rev. Dr. Bacon is pastor, conforms to those " principles and usages." Among the standing rules of that Church we find the following :
"Every member of this Church shall be considered as under the watch, care and discipline of this Church, until he shall have been reg- ularly dismissed from his connection with it by a vote of this Church."
This clearly implies that when regularly dismissed by a vote of the church, he is no longer under its watch, care and discipline. Would a person having been thus dis- missed-not even under its " watch, care and discipline,"- be still considered a member of that Church, and entitled to vote on questions before it ? And this is the case of the complainants before the Council against the South Church. They have been "regularly dismissed by a vote of the Church," and have received letters certifying that fact; therefore, according to the decision of our Church, they are no longer members of it in such a sense as to be entitled to vote. Wherein, then, does our course differ from what necessarily would be the course of the Center Church under similar circumstances ? And yet that Church is a
125
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
constituent part of a Council which condemns us for the same action its own rule requires.
"VIII. The reply which the Clerk, by the direction of the Standing Committee, returned to the signers of the memorial, was addressed 'To Amos Smith, G. H. Butricks, and as many other signers of the above named request as are still recognized members of the Church;' the said Clerk and Committee thereby assuming to exclude from mem- bership those signers who held at that moment the written testimo- nials of the Church to their good and regular standing."
And why should they not exclude them ? They had been regularly dismissed by a vote of the Church, and nei- ther the Clerk nor Standing Committee, nor both together, had power to reinstate them. The Church only could do this. The case of Amos Smith, one of the petitioners, illustrates this point. Some years since, having taken a letter of dismission, he did not present it to any other Church, but on his return to this city, he expressed a desire to renew his former connection with this Church, and was received accordingly by a vote of the Church, to which he returned his certificate of dismission.
"IX. At the annual meeting of the Church, held in the evening of Nov. 24, '63, Mr. Carroll, acting as moderator, denied to the members above mentioned the right of voting, or of speaking in defense of their right to vote; and that denial was approved by the meeting. The same meeting ratified all the doings of the Committee, including their suppression of the memorial."
Only one of the persons alluded to, (Geo. S. Minor,) was present at the annual meeting, and as he was not recognized by the custom and rule of the Church as a member, of course he could not be allowed to take part in the proceedings.
"X. The reasons for the dissatisfaction with the ministry of Mr. Car- roll, presented to us by the complainants, and sustained by such evi- dence as the nature of this investigation has made practicable, are the following :
"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
11
126
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
the Congregational Churches and ministers of Connecticut, or with any evangelical denomination."
Why did the complainants have no proper evidence that Mr. Carroll was a minister in regular communion with any evangelical denomination ? Simply because the complain- ants, for reasons best known to themselves, never asked him, or they would have had proper evidence that he was an ordained Minister of the Gospel in regular communion with the Old School Presbyterian denomination,-a gradu- ate of Princeton Theological Seminary in the class of 1855, ordained and installed in the Presbyterian Church at Jamesburg, N. J., May 30th, in the same year, by the Presbytery of New Brunswick. Rev. Dr. Hall, of Tren- ton, N. J., preached the sermon ; Rev. Dr. Hodge, of Prince- ton, N. J., proposed the constitutional questions ; Rev. Prof. Green, of Princeton, delivered the charge to the Pas- tor; and Rev. Dr. McDonald, of Princeton, delivered the charge to the people. [See records and roll of the New Brunswick Presbytery.]
"2. Under his ministry, there has been in the public worship of that Church, and in the lessons from the pulpit, no utterance of symyathy 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 attempt of the rebels to subvert by force the Government ordained by God in this land, is criminal; no recognition of the righteousness of the cause in which sons and broth- ers of the complainants, some of them members of the same Church, are offering their lives."
Is it not extraordinary that under such influences the friends of Mr. Carroll in the South Church and congregation have sent quite as many men to engage in the service of their country as have the petitioners and their friends in the same Church and congregation ? At least thirteen of the former class are or have been in that service by voluntary enlistment-most of them for a period of three years. Is it not strange that the Council should make such statements as those above quoted, in the face of such facts as we have presented, and of such " utterances " as are expressed in the
127
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
subjoined extract of a letter dated Nov. 3d, 1862, from Mr. Carroll to Mr. E. S. Minor, one of the petitioners to the Council, who, at the above-mentioned date, was a deacon in this Church. This letter has been in his possession more than a year :
" I pray for our rulers. This I do every Sabbath ; that God would endue them with his Holy Spirit; give them wisdom from above, which is alone profitable to direct ; crown with His blessing and success their every effort which shall secure the real good of the land, thereby effecting His own purposes in it and concerning it, and redeeming them thus from narrow, groveling views. I pray for the soldiers; this I do every Sabbath; that God would encamp round about them ; that he would preserve them in body and soul, in health and morals, in all their interests for time and eter- nity ; and for their families and friends as well; and for Peace, in God's own way, (and His ways are not our ways ;) for Peace in God's way of thinking-purposely, therefore, ' shutting out of view the great principles we think involved,' (inasmuch as God's thoughts are not as our thoughts ;) for Peace, which if God sends, must be righteous and 'free from crime.' I pray for the country; I do this every Sab- bath ; that God would pity her and interpose in her behalf, so that she may no longer be made one vast Golgotha, but the land of Immanuel. It is not enough that I thus recog- nize Government as an institution of God, and the 'powers that be, as ordained of God,'-no! but because in holiest approach unto the Most High, I do not advocate a certain policy ;- because before the throne of God I do not intone the Shibboleth of a party."
'3. In the pulpit and in private conversation he has characterized 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 rebelllon, is criminal; and when members of the church have cour- teously 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."
Mr. Carroll has characterized a certain action of the Government as " tyrannical and unjust." This Mr. Carroll
128
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
did. How, and when? It was in connection with the case of John Nicoll, M.D., one of the petitioners, then an officer and member of our Church, and about the time when he was summarily taken to Fort Lafayette. His home was broken-bis practice interrupted-his reputation as an hon- est man suffering-his character as a Christian clouded- and believing him innocent, with no opportunity to prove it, and thus save himself and family-it was under these cir- cumstances and in his case, that Mr. Carroll said the action of the Government was "tyrannical and unjust," and " in the pulpit " prayed for his speedy deliverance and return. And when he did return, he prayed what Mr. Carroll had said, and more; that they might be put out of power. Proof-an entire prayer meeting. Now, which was most " disloyal ; " to say what Mr. Carroll said, or to pray what Dr. Nicoll prayed ? And yet the one who prayed thus in our meeting, is one of the aggrieved " brethren " before the Council, whose patriotism and piety are shocked by Mr. Carroll's prayers.
"4. He has borne no testimony against the wicked doctrine 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 allusions to the injustice of slavery."
True, Mr. Carroll does not preach or pray abolitionism, or any other "ism."
If he has used his influence to suppress "in the meetings of the Church all allusions to the injustice of slavery," he has not been very successful, at least in the case of several of the petitioners.
"5. He has by his private and public influence brought certain young persons of the congregation into open sympathy with the existing rebellion."
Who these " certain young persons of the congregation " are, as a Church we do not know; and if there be any, Mr. C. could not have made them such. Even the petitioners virtually confess this; for they assert that " when members of the Church have courteously inquired of him concerning
129
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
his views, that they might know whether he had been mis- understood on these points, he has refused to give any sat- isfactory answer." The question may fairly be raised, whether, instead of being brought to that position through the influence of Mr. Carroll, it has not been caused by the indiscreet zeal of parents and friends.
JUDGMENT OF THE COUNCIL.
" These being the facts (! ) as we find them," say the Council, "our judgment is," [here follow six conclusions, based upon the alleged facts.] To answer the conclusions in detail, would be to answer the " facts " over again. This we need not do. We will, however, say a few words on two of the conclusions, in addition to what has been said above on the same topics.
"Second. Mr. Carroll is not, in the proper use of language, pastor of the South Congregational Church in New Haven, nor is he 'Acting Pastor,' as that term is defined by the General Association of Con- necticut. Any assumption of the title of pastor on his part is unwar- ranted, and the arrangements and proceedings by which he has been invested with the powers of a pastor in that Church, without the inter- vention of a council of neighboring churches to inquire into his qualifi- cations for that office, are a contempt put upon the principle of com- munion of churches, and a violation of the rights of the complainants."
The last Annual Report of the General Association of Connecticut, in its tabular statements, p. 83, has the fol- lowing entry opposite South Church :
" J. Halsted Carroll, (A. p.)" Acting Pastor.
If, however, the Council rest their assertion upon a report submitted by Dr. Bacon "for examination," and contained in said Annual Report, Mr. Carroll is neither " Acting Pas- tor," " Pastor," nor " Stated Preacher" of this Church, nor indeed sustains any relation to it, but " may reasonably be regarded with suspicion." Suspicion ? Why ? Simply because Mr. Carroll "insists upon retaining his Church relation and clerical connection " " with his own ecclesias- tical body."
11*
130
THE EX-PARTE COUNCIL.
"Third. The voting of women in the Church, by which, in the settle- ment 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 invali- dates the act of a majority, which was made such by these votes."
The assertion here is, that it is wrong for women to vote : (1) Because "contrary to the Scriptures." There are no such " Scriptures " as those above-quoted, nor any others denying the right of women to vote in Churches. (2) " Because contrary to the usages and principles of the New England Churches." But not to those of our independent Church. (3) That it "invalidates the act of a majority." It might so in a consociated Church, but not in ours, which being an independent Church, has a right to establish its own rules as well in regard to voting as to other things.
ADVICE OF THE COUNCIL.
"First. In consideration of the facts which have appeared before this Council, and which we have already recited, we advise the complain- ants 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."
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.