Congregational Churches 
 
 sachusetts 
 Ecclesiastical Council 
 Salem, 1849 
 
 The Res -ill: of an Ecclesias- 
 tical Council. 
 
0x w m!icfr . 
 
 OCT 1 
 
 
THE 
 
 RESULT 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL COUNCIL, 
 
 COXVEXED AT 
 
 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 DECEMBER 4, 1849. 
 
 
 ■ . ■ ■ . 
 
 BOSTON: 
 PUBLISHED BY JOHN P. JEWETT & CO 
 
 DAMRELL & MOORE, PRINTERS, 16 DEVONSHIRE ST. 
 
 1850. 
 
PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL. 
 
 An Ecclesiastical Council was convened at the vestry of Howard 
 Street Church, December 4th, 1849, by letters missive from Ezekiel 
 Goss, stating that he is a member of the Tabernacle Church, in good 
 and regular standing, and has requested a letter of dismission, and 
 of recommendation to the Howard Street Church, which request has 
 been refused, that he has also requested the Tabernacle Church to 
 unite with him in calling a mutual council, and that this request has 
 likewise been refused ; and he now calls this council to examine into 
 the case, so far as to sustain the rights of the churches, and afford 
 him the necessary relief. 
 
 The following churches were represented : 
 
 1. Salem Church, Boston. 
 
 Rev. Edward Beecher, D.D., Pastor, 
 Dr. Ephraim Buck, Delegate. 
 
 2. Church in Randolph. ' 
 
 Rev. Calvin Hitchcock, D.D., Pastor, 
 Dr. Ebenezer Alden, Delegate. 
 
 3. Church in Middleboro\ 
 
 Rev. Israel W. Putnam, Pastor, 
 Bro. Zechariah Eddy, Delegate. 
 
 4. Church in Essex. 
 
 Rev. R. Crowell, Pastor, 
 Dea. David Choate, Delegate. 
 
 5. South Church, Ipswich. 
 
 Rev. Daniel Fitz, Pastor, 
 
 Bro. Daniel Cogswell, Delegate. 
 
 6. Church in Hopkinton. 
 
 Rev. J. C. Webster, Pastor, 
 Bro. J. A. Fitch, Delegate. 
 
 7. Third Church, Abington. 
 
 Rev. H. D. Walker, Pastor. 
 
8. Park Street Church, Boston. 
 
 Rev. A. L. Stone, Pastor, 
 Rev. Louis Dwight, Delegate. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Putnam was chosen Moderator, and, in his absence, Dr. 
 Ephraim Buck was chosen Moderator, pro tempore ; Rev. A. L. 
 Stone was chosen Scribe. Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. Hitch- 
 cock. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Putnam coming in, declined acting as Moderator, and 
 Rev. Mr. Crowell was chosen Moderator. 
 
 Voted, That the council is now ready to proceed to the considera- 
 tion of the case presented in the letter missive. 
 
 Voted to adjourn to 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Council met 
 agreeably to adjournment at 2 o'clock. 
 
 Documents were then submitted, showing that Mr. Goss had re- 
 quested the Tabernacle Church to unite with him in calling a mutual 
 council upon his case, and that this request had been refused. 
 
 Documents were also read, showing that Mr. Goss had repeatedly 
 asked a letter of dismission from the Tabernacle Church, and of 
 recommendation to the Howard Street Church, and that these re- 
 quests had been refused. 
 
 On motion, Voted, That council adjourn at half-past 5, to meet 
 at half-past 6 o'clock. 
 
 Voted, That the council hold an adjourned meeting in the vestry 
 of Howard Street Church, on the 18th of Dec. inst., at half-past 10 
 o'clock, A.M. 
 
 Voted to appoint a committee to wait upon the Pastor of the Tab- 
 ernacle Church, and notify him of the organization of the council, and 
 of the case under consideration, that he may attend on behalf of the 
 church. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Beecher and Dr. Alden were appointed said committee. 
 The hour of adjournment having arrived, the council adjourned, to 
 meet at half-past six o'clock. 
 
 EVENING. 
 
 Council met pursuant to adjournment. The committee appointed 
 to communicate with the Tabernacle Church reported that they had 
 had an interview with the Pastor of that Church, and that he was 
 understood to decline appearing before the council, on the ground 
 that no action of council was called for in the premises. 
 
 On motion, Voted, to advise Mr. Goss to enlarge the council, by 
 inviting other churches at his discretion. Voted to adjourn. 
 
 Attest, 
 
 A. L. Stone, Scribe. 
 
 Salem, December 4th, 1849. 
 
Tuesday, December 18. 
 The council met pursuant to adjournment, in the vestry of the 
 Howard Street Church — Rev. Mr. Crowell in the chair. The fol- 
 lowing churches were represented : 
 
 1. Church in Essex. 
 
 Rev. R. Crowell, Pastor, 
 Dea. David Choate, Delegate. 
 
 2. Church in West M dway. 
 
 Rev. Jacob Ide, D.D., Pastor, 
 Dea. Daniel Nurse, Delegate. 
 
 3. Mount Vernon, Boston. 
 
 Rev. Edward N. Kirk, Pastor, 
 Dea. Daniel Safforcl, Delegate. 
 
 4. Church in Randolph. 
 
 Rev. Calvin Hitchcock, D.D., Pastor. 
 
 5. South Church, Ipswich. 
 
 Rev. Daniel Fitz, Pastor, 
 
 Bro. Daniel Cogswell, Delegate. 
 
 6. First Church, Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. John A. Albro, Pastor, 
 Dea. Charles W. Homer, Delegate. 
 
 7. Second Ev. Church, Cambridgeport. 
 
 Rev. J. C. Lovejoy, Pastor, 
 Bro. Francis Hunt, Delegate. 
 
 8. Church in East Abington. 
 
 Rev. H. D. Walker, Pastor, 
 Dea. Elijah Shaw, Delegate. 
 
 9. Salem Church, Boston. 
 
 Rev. Edward Beecher, D.D., Pastor, 
 Dr. Ephraim Buck, Delegate. 
 
 10. First Church in Ipswich. 
 
 Rev. David S. Kimball, Pastor, 
 Bro. George W. Head, Delegate. 
 
 11. First Church, Braintree, 
 
 Rev. R. S. Storrs, D.D., Pastor, 
 Dea. David Hollis, Delegate. 
 
 12. Church in Rockport. 
 
 Rev. W. Gale, Pastor, 
 
 Dea. Thomas Giles, Delegate. 
 
6 
 
 13. Church in South Reading. 
 
 Rev. R. Emerson, Pastor, 
 Dr. Poland, Delegate. 
 
 14. Park Street Church, Boston. 
 
 Rev. A. L. Stone, Pastor, 
 Rev. Louis Dwight, Delegate. 
 
 15. Church in Hopkinton. 
 
 Rev. J. C. Webster, Pastor, 
 Bro. J. A. Fitch, Delegate. 
 
 16. Church in Middlebord*. 
 
 Rev. Israel W. Putnam, Pastor, 
 Bro. Zechariah Eddy, Delegate. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Crowell resigned his seat as Moderator of the Council. 
 On motion, the resignation was accepted, and Rev. Reuben Emerson 
 was chosen Moderator. Prayer was offered by Rev. Mr. Putnam. 
 The Minutes of the last session of the Council were read by the 
 Scribe. On motion, voted, that a committee be appointed to wait 
 upon the Pastor of the Tabernacle Church, and inform him that the 
 Council were ready to hear any communication from him in reference 
 to the case under consideration. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Putnam and Rev. E. N. Kirk were appointed such com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Voted, That Rev. Mr. Wilder have leave to appear before the 
 Council, and present the case of Mr. Goss. 
 
 Documents were read, presenting to the Council the matters sub- 
 mitted to the Council at its last session. 
 
 Voted to adjourn to 2 o'clock this afternoon. 
 
 Adjourned accordingly. 
 
 Council met at two o'clock. Rev. Dr. Ide offered prayer. The 
 Committee appointed to wait upon the Pastor of the Tabernacle 
 Church reported, that they had had an interview with Rev. Dr. Wor- 
 cester, and that he was ready to converse with them ; that he declined 
 appearing before the Council, or taking further action in the case at 
 the present time ; that he urged, as reasons for the refusal of Mr. 
 Goss's request of a letter, the considerations — 1. That Mr. Goss was 
 not in good standing ; 2. That the Howard Street Church was not in 
 good standing. 
 
 Voted, That we hear the doings of the council that advised to the 
 dissolution of the Howard Street Church. 
 
 Testimony was also called for in regard to the action of the church 
 upon this advice ; also the doings of a council called to consider the 
 action of the church in voting to dissolve ; also the action of the mi- 
 nority subsequent to the vote to dissolve. 
 
Voted, That the Council be by themselves. 
 
 The following Resolution was moved : 
 
 Resolved, That, so far as this Council is advised on the subject, 
 Mr. Goss has done nothing to forfeit his standing in his own church. 
 
 The Resolution was adopted. 
 
 Moved, That it is the opinion of this Council that the vote of a 
 majority cannot dissolve a church against the consent of a minority, 
 and it appearing that the Howard Street Church has not been other- 
 wise dissolved, and that the minority claim membership therein, and 
 have acted, and still act, as that Church, and sustain its meetings, 
 the ordinances and ministry, this Council advise that that Church has 
 not been dissolved, but still exists on its original foundation. 
 
 The question was taken by ayes and noes ; when it appeared that 
 there were 21 ayes and 2 noes, and the Resolution was adopted. 
 
 Voted, That Mr. Goss be advised to renew his application to the 
 Tabernacle Church, for a letter of dismission, and of recommenda- 
 tion to the Howard Street Church : and if his request be refused, 
 that he be advised to offer himself for membership to the Howard 
 Street Church, and that the Howard Street Church be advised to 
 receive him. 
 
 Voted, That a committee be chosen to prepare a Result of Council. 
 Rev. Dr. Beecher, Bro. Z. Eddy, Rev. R. Crowell, Rev. Dr. Storrs, 
 and Rev. A. L. Stone, were appointed this committee. 
 
 Voted, That we adjourn, to meet at 7 o'clock this evening. 
 
 Council met pursuant to adjournment. The committee chosen to 
 prepare a Result of Council reported progress ; whereupon it was 
 voted, That when the Council adjourn, it adjourn to meet on Wed- 
 nesday, January 16th, at 10 o'clock, A.M., at the vestry of Park 
 Street Church, Boston, to hear the report of the committee, appointed 
 to prepare a Result of Council. 
 
 Voted to adjourn. 
 
 Attest, A. L. Stone, Scribe. 
 
 The council met by adjournment, January 16, at 10 o'clock, in the 
 vestry of Park Street Church, to hear the report of the committee 
 appointed to frame a Result. 
 
 There were present the following churches by their Pastors and 
 delegates. 
 
 1. Church in South Reading. 
 
 Rev. R. Emerson, Pastor. 
 
 2. Church in West Medivay. 
 
 Rev. Jacob Ide, D.D., Pastor. 
 
 3. Church in Braintree. 
 
 Rev. R. S. Storrs, D.D., Pastor. 
 
4. Church in Randolph. 
 
 Rev. Calvin Hitchcock, D.D., Pastor, 
 Dr. Ebenezer Alden, Delegate. 
 
 5. South Church in Ipswich. 
 
 Rev. Daniel Fitz, Pastor, 
 
 Bro. Daniel Cogswell, Delegate. 
 
 6. Church in Rockport. 
 
 Rev. W. Gale, Pastor, 
 Dea. Thos. Giles, Delegate. 
 
 7. Mt. Vernon Church, Boston. 
 
 Rev. Edward N. Kirk, Pastor, 
 Dea. Daniel Safford, Delegate. 
 
 8. Salem Church, Boston. 
 
 Rev. Edward Beecher, D.D., Pastor, 
 Dr. Ephraim Buck, Delegate. 
 
 9. Park Street Church, Boston. 
 
 Rev. A. L. Stone, Pastor, 
 Rev. Louis Dwight, Delegate. 
 
 10. Church in Middleboro\ 
 
 Rev. Israel W. Putnam, Pastor, 
 Bro. Zechariah Eddy, Delegate. 
 
 11. Church in Hopkinton. 
 
 Rev. J. C. Webster, Pastor, 
 Bro. J. A. Fitch, Delegate. 
 
 12. Church in Cambridgeport. 
 
 Rev. J. C. Lovejoy, Pastor. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Emerson in the chair. Prayer was offered by Rev. Mr. 
 Putnam. The minutes of the last meeting of the council were read 
 by the Scribe and approved. 
 
 Voted, That the Council be by themselves. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Beecher, chairman of the committee to prepare a Result, 
 presented the report of the committee. 
 
 Voted, That the report of the committee be accepted. 
 
 Moved, That the report be adopted as the Result of the Council. 
 Carried with two dissenting votes.* 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hitchcock presented and read a remonstrance against 
 the action of the Council. 
 
 Voted, That the committee to prepare a Result be a committee to 
 communicate the action of the Council. 
 
 Minutes approved. Voted, To dissolve. 
 
 Attest, A. L. Stone, Scribe. 
 
 * One of these dissentients expressed his conviction that the Howard Street Church 
 was not dissolved in fact, and his acccordance with the main principles of the report, 
 but for particular reasons he declined voting for the result as a whole. 
 
RESULT. 
 
 The questions of principle concerning which this council is called 
 to advise, grow out of the refusal of the Tabernacle Church in Salem 
 to grant a letter of dismission and recommendation to one of their 
 members, Mr. Ezekiel Goss, to the Howard Street Church* on the 
 following alleged grounds. 
 
 1. That that church was dissolved by a vote of a majority of the 
 church in accordance with the advice of a mutual council. 
 
 2. That the Essex South Conference had sustained the validity of 
 the action of the aforesaid majority. 
 
 3. That it is not consistent with the principles of order and fellow- 
 ship in our Congregational churches, nor promotive of the best 
 interests of the community, to recognize the claims of those who now 
 assume to be the original Howard Street Church, as valid. f 
 
 It was also made manifest to the council, that these were the only 
 grounds on which the letter was refused, no other cause being 
 assigned in the documents of the church. 
 
 It was indeed reported by a committee of the church, that they 
 had intimated to him that his absence from church meetings, public 
 worship and the sacramental seasons of the church, was irregular 
 and contrary to his covenant, and seemed to proceed from alienation 
 of feeling, and that on this ground it was improper to grant his 
 request 4 But he was expressly told by the pastor that the church 
 did not adopt or sanction this report. § Mr. Goss stated in a letter 
 to the church, Sept. 14, 1849, " I know of no unkind feeling to any 
 member on my part ; if there is or has been, I wish their forgiveness, 
 as they would be forgiven." || In Oct. 12, 1849, he said concerning 
 his absence, in another communication addressed to the church, " I 
 acted in good faith, supposing that I was in order. I was doing 
 as others had done without reproach. The pastor knew of my course 
 and my feeling." He then states that if the pastor and others 
 thought that he was doing wrong, they ought in covenant fidelity to 
 have admonished him, " but as it is, I did not know that I was guilty 
 until I asked to be dismissed, and now I cannot see it. I repeat that 
 if any have been grieved with any of my wrong doing, I humbly 
 ask them to forgive, and when I am sensible what the wrong is, I 
 will endeavor to make all suitable reparations." 
 
 This communication however the pastor and church refused to 
 allow him to read — and when he desired to speak on what the com- 
 mittee had said to him, they refused to hear him. The reason 
 
 * Appendix No. 1. t No. 2. 
 
 + No. 3. § No. 4. || No. 6". 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 assigned for this was that the church had not adopted and thus 
 endorsed the statements of the committee, and that the church had 
 neither charges nor charge against him. It was repeatedly said to 
 him, " we have nothing against you,"* and therefore he was not 
 allowed to speak. Here then a brother had come before the church 
 desirous to see his offence, if any there were, desirous to confess and 
 make reparation when convinced, desirous so to explain his conduct 
 as to give satisfaction, and yet was not allowed to speak, on the ground 
 that they had nothing against him. Is it right now in such a case to 
 hold back grounds of grievance, if any there are, and to refuse to 
 hear any explanations or receive any confessions or satisfaction that 
 might have been made, on the oft repeated ground that they had 
 nothing against him ; and yet to refuse him a letter, and then when he 
 asks relief of an ecclesiastical council, to throw in an intimation that 
 he was under an unfinished course of discipline ? Or even to inti- 
 mate that they were about to commence a course ? But even this 
 last intimation is rebutted by direct testimony. For when it was 
 suggested to the church to begin to deal with him, the pastor objected 
 and they refused so to do.f 
 
 We therefore are satisfied that the brother was not under a process 
 of discipline, but is in good and regular standing. Moreover, as 
 he expressed sorrow and asked forgiveness if he had grieved his 
 brethren, disclaimed all intention or consciousness of doing wrong, 
 and offered to do all in his power to make reparation when convinced 
 of wrong, he did all that he could, and of course all that any one 
 could reasonably demand, to give satisfaction to his brethren. If 
 then the pastor and church refused to receive satisfaction when he 
 desired to give it, it is no part or province of Christian discipline to 
 reserve offences for future consideration, and to intimate to him or to 
 the council, that perhaps, hereafter, they may call him to account. 
 To do this is rather to abuse discipline as a means of impeding him 
 in securing his rights, than to follow the law of Christ, if thy brother 
 say unto thee I repent, thou shalt forgive him. 
 
 The council is of the opinion that when a member applies for letters 
 of testimonial and of dismission, and no process of discipline is 
 pending against him, he is entitled to receive them unless some 
 brother declares that he is offended, and will take immediate steps of 
 gospel discipline in respect to it. Otherwise a member could never 
 secure his rights, so long as either the pastor or any other brother 
 saw fit to say that perhaps hereafter he should commence discipline. 
 
 As a council, therefore, we are not called on to interfere with an 
 unfinished case of discipline. No process of discipline had been 
 
 * No. 4. t No. 6. 
 
11 
 
 commenced. On the other hand, the brother is in good and regular 
 standing in bis church. 
 
 We arc therefore called to consider simply the alleged dissolution 
 of the Howard Street Church, and the action of the Essex South 
 Conference with respect to it, as the reasons for denying to Mr. 
 Goss a letter to the Howard Street Church. 
 
 It was also made clear to the council, that Mr. Goss had proposed 
 to the Tabernacle Church to call a mutual council to advise with 
 reference to the validity of these reasons,* and that they had refused 
 to accept his proposal^ The reasons assigned by the church for 
 refusing to unite in calling a mutual council are in substance, that 
 their own action with reference to Howard Street Church, was taken 
 with much carefulness, and under a constraining sense of duty to 
 vindicate and support the fundamental principles and accredited 
 usages of our Congregational order, as affecting the independence of 
 each church respectively, and the inalienable rights of majorities in 
 each church, and that there is no existing occasion to submit its 
 doings to the revision of a council, neither is there any such occasion 
 apprehended in the changes of the future. 
 
 We suppose that whenever an individual feels his rights invaded 
 by the action of a church, similar reasons might be assigned by the 
 church for refusing to unite in a mutual council. A church will of 
 course be satisfied that they have acted carefully, and under a sense 
 of duty, and it is natural to feel that no advice is needed or is likely 
 to be. But suppose that the individual differs from the church as to 
 what are the fundamental principles and accredited usages of Con- 
 gregationalism, and believes them to be violated, and not defended 
 by the church ? Has he no remedy ? 
 
 If such reasons for refusing a mutual council are valid, then 
 individuals have no possible mode left of vindicating their rights, and 
 nothing remains but universal and unconditional submission to what- 
 ever the church shall see fit to do. But it was the express design 
 of our ancestors in establishing ex parte councils, to avert such a 
 result, and thereby prevent our churches from becoming irremediable 
 despotisms. It is therefore plain to the council that a sufficient 
 ground for convening us has been made out, and that duty calls on 
 us to consider the questions at issue, and to give such advice as has 
 been requested. 
 
 In entering upon the discharge of this duty, we cannot but be 
 deeply affected with the importance of the principles involved. We 
 are well assured that a case similar to the one in question has rarely, 
 if ever, occurred in the history of our churches. The principles on 
 
 * No 7. t No. 8. 
 
12 
 
 which it was attempted to dissolve the Howard Street Church, and 
 by which that act is defended, are not only novel, but in our judg- 
 ment would, if carried out, effect an entire revolution in our churches 
 as it regards the import and sacredness of the covenants by which 
 they are bound together ; and furnish a new instrument of destruc- 
 tion, to be used in every case of difficulty and division in a church. 
 Great, therefore, as is the respect and affection with which Ave regard 
 the brethren who have introduced and are attempting to defend these 
 new doctrines in our churches, we feel constrained to do all in our 
 power to subject them to a thorough scrutiny, and to call on our 
 churches decidedly to reject them, as at war with the fundamental 
 principles of our system, and the obvious dictates of truth and 
 righteousness. 
 
 And inasmuch as the Tabernacle Church has seen fit to appeal to 
 " the fundamental principles, and accredited usages," of our churches, 
 and the Essex South Conference has intimated that " precedents" 
 sustain their decision,* we shall commence our investigations by the 
 inquiry, what these " fundamental principles and accredited usages," 
 and " precedents" are, in the present case ? 
 
 It will, therefore, be seen at once, that the present inquiry is not, 
 Are our Congregational principles and usages right, and can they be 
 defended by an appeal to the Bible ? but, What are they in fact ? If 
 our brethren shall ever see fit, professedly, to repudiate them, then 
 it will be time to defend them. But, so long as they appeal to them 
 for support, it is only necessary to inquire what they are. 
 
 It is obvious, also, that the principles, usages, and precedents, 
 which we are called on especially to consider, --are those which re- 
 late to the covenant, by which believers in our churches are bound 
 to God, and to each other. 
 
 We proceed with the more pleasure to consider our fathers' views 
 of the church covenant, because it is a point on which the founders 
 of our system were perfectly agreed, and to which they attached the 
 highest importance. With them the covenant was not only a funda- 
 mental principle of the system, but, as they held it, it was the funda- 
 mental principle of the whole Congregational fabric. Davenport, in 
 his defence of Congregationalism against Paget, speaking of the 
 " formal cause" that is, the organizing principle of the church, says, 
 " this holy society, the Church of Christ, arises from the coadunition 
 or knitting together of many saints, into one (body), by a holy cove- 
 nant, whereby they, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house. 
 1 Pet. 2 : 4, 5. Though a church covenant be common to all 
 churches, in its general nature, yet there is a special combination, 
 which gives a peculiar being to one Congregational church and its 
 
 * No. 9. 
 
13 
 
 members, distinct from all others ; else how could one church have 
 that power over its own members, which another hath nut ? 
 
 In Hooker's Survey, Pt. I., chap, iv., the inquiry is raised, What 
 is that which makes the church to be that which it is ? The reply 
 is, not invisible union and communion with Christ, but " mutual cove- 
 nanting and confederating of the saints in the fellowship of the faith, 
 according to the order of the gospel, is that which gives constitution 
 and being to a visible church." Of this their antagonists were fully 
 aware. 
 
 Rathband charged on the Congregationalists, as an error, that 
 they made " what they call the Church Covenant, whereby all the 
 members of the Society (Church) are united to Christ, and to one 
 another," " absolutely necessary, essential, and constitutional, to 
 and of the true Church." Welcle admits that this is their view of 
 " a pure Congregational Church, as it is refined according to the 
 platform of the Gospel." 
 
 For this principle, as held and applied by them, they were attacked 
 both in England and elsewhere, by the opponents of Congregational- 
 ism. In 1637, certain ministers in England undertook to call the 
 New England brethren to account, for opinions and practices deemed 
 by them " groundless and unwarrantable," and forwarded nine po- 
 sitions of this sort to them, on which they demanded their judgment. 
 Of these, the sixth stated what they deemed the unwarrantable claim 
 that no church member could withdraw from a church, without leave 
 first obtained from the church. The New England ministers admit- 
 ted the principle, and defended it, on the ground that the church 
 covenant, of necessity, implied it. This called out a full statement 
 of their views of the covenant.* This, according to them, consists in 
 four particulars. 
 
 1. " Every member, at his admission, doth openly profess, and so- 
 lemnly promise, that, by Christ's help assisting, he will not only, in 
 general, give up himself, — as to the Lord, to be guided by him, so 
 to the church according to God, to be directed by it ;" but also, in 
 particular, that he will perform all duties of brotherly love and faith- 
 fulness to the body ; as of diligent watchfulness over all his brethren, 
 thereby to prevent sin ; so of faithful admonition, after their falls, to 
 regain them to the Lord from their sin." 
 
 2. " The engagements are not made only by the members ad- 
 mitted into the church, but by the church back again to the members. 
 So that, thereby, the whole church in general, and every member in 
 particular, stand as well in conscience bound, to perform all duties of 
 love and watchfulness to him, as he doth to them." 
 
 3. " These promises, thus lawfully and mutually made, that mem- 
 
 • Written, in all probability, by the celebrated John Cotton. 
 
14 
 
 bers, as also the whole church, are bound, not only every one for 
 himself actively to perform them, but passively, also, to suffer his 
 brethren to do these offices upon and towards himself. If he neglect 
 the former, he shall falsify his covenant, so solemnly, before God, 
 angels and men, made ; and so not only break his promise to his 
 brethren, contrary to Ps. 15 : 4, but also, in some sort, commit the sin 
 of Ananias and Sapphira, in lying against the Holy Ghost, condemned 
 and severely punished by God's own hand. If he fail in the latter, 
 he shall not only be guilty of the same sin of breach of covenant 
 with God and man, as in the former, but shall also be guilty of this 
 folly of despising council, so much condemned, and shall also proclaim 
 this his folly and pride, by showing to all the church that he is wise 
 in his own eyes, and leans to his own wisdom, both reproved in Prov. 
 3 : 7, and 23 : 4." 
 
 4. " From all these things premised, it appears that we can do no 
 less — and yet we do no more than, first, require a metnber, before 
 he depart, according to our covenant, thus lawfully, deliberately, and 
 mutually made, to express to his brethren his desire of departing, 
 and the place and society to which he tends — whether to a godly 
 church, where he may be edified, or to some corrupt assembly, where 
 he may be destroyed ! and, secondly, require his grounds and reasons 
 which move him so to do." All of these particulars are sustained by 
 an appeal to the word of God. Thus did New England, in a clear 
 and eloquent testimony, utter to Old England her deepest and most 
 settled convictions as to the nature and effects of a church covenant. 
 And it here deserves especial notice how clearly they enforce the 
 truth, the mutual covenant between member and member, is not 
 separable from the covenant with God, but is a part of it ; so that, 
 to violate it, is to lie to the Holy Ghost, as did Ananias and Sapphira. 
 In short, they covenant with God, not only to serve him, but 
 also to enter into a church state with each other, and to fulfil the 
 vows made to each other, in coming into that relation, so that the 
 covenant with man cannot be broken without breaking the covenant 
 with God. 
 
 It was charged upon our fathers as an offence, that they held such 
 views of the covenant. In 1644, Eathband endeavored to set forth, 
 in an odious light, the principles of our New England fathers — to 
 whom Welde, of Roxbury, replied. And it is very striking, that, 
 among other things, Rathband quotes, for this purpose, the covenant 
 of the Church in Salem, as follows : " We, whose names are here- 
 under written, members of the present Church of Christ, at Salem, 
 &c, solemnly, in the presence of God, &c, renew this church cove- 
 nant, which we find this church bound unto at their first beginning, 
 viz., we covenant with the Lord, and one with another, and do bind 
 
15 
 
 ourselves, in the presence of God. to walk together in all the ways 
 of God, according as he is pleased to reveal himself unto us in his 
 word; and after many specifications, 'we promise to walk with our 
 brethren and sisters in this congregation (church), with all watchful- 
 ness and tenderness.' " Here the covenant with man is included in 
 the covenant with God, — " We covenant with God, and with one 
 another, to walk together in a church state," is its import. This 
 same view, as will appear elsewhere, is found in Cotton Mather's 
 Ratio, in 1776, and was then the common form of the churches. 
 We shall also show, in another place, that it is incorporated at this 
 very day in the covenant of the Tabernacle Church in Salem. More- 
 over, this view their assailants charged on them as an error. Rath- 
 hand says, that in their definition of a covenant, it is included, " that 
 they hind themselves to the Lord, to walk in all such ways of holy 
 worship to him, and of edification, one towards another, as God him- 
 self hath required of every church, and the members thereof." — 
 Apol. p. 5 ; Discov. of Gov. p. 3. This Welde concedes. 
 
 Such were the views of our fathers on this most momentous theme. 
 Nor were they heedlessly formed ; for holding them they were sub- 
 jected to severe and long-continued attacks, and deep study and 
 earnest prayer was needed to sustain and vindicate their truth. 
 Burton, in his defence of Congregationalism, against Bastwick, 1645, 
 says : " Now the very name of covenant is become a bugbear to 
 many," and again, " You tell us that our gathering of churches hath 
 no example in Scripture." Rathband says, that " the Apostles went 
 a shorter way to work — because the Holy Ghost had given them no 
 such direction, nor was this matter of a church constitution (by a 
 covenant) then hatcht." 
 
 In Hooker's Survey, the whole of the 7th chapter of Part I. is 
 devoted to answering the arguments against their views of the church 
 covenant, alleged by Rutherford and various others. 
 
 Finally, the same doctrine is embodied in the Cambridge Platform, 
 ch. 4 : sec. 1, 2, 3, where the following words are worthy of particular 
 notice. After stating that particular churches can be known only by 
 their forms, they say, " This form is the visible covenant, agreement, 
 or consent, whereby they give up themselves unto the Lord, to the 
 observing of the ordinances of Christ, together in the same Society, 
 ivhich is usually called the Church Covenant. For we see not 
 otherwise how members can have church power over one another 
 mutually." Here we see that coming into a church state is an es- 
 sential part of the obligation assumed in giving themselves up to God, 
 so that the covenant with him is a covenant to enter into, and to re- 
 main in, a visible particular church, by a covenant with them. 
 
 Such, then, were the views of the fathers of our system, who bore 
 
16 
 
 the burden and heat of the day in laying those deep foundations on 
 which our churches have for centuries reposed. Churches were with 
 them no mere voluntary associations for mutual religious improvement, 
 which those who formed might dissolve at pleasure, and replace by 
 what they deemed better, or by none at all, as they saw fit. Though 
 no man could enter the church except by his own free will, yet the 
 church itself was an ordinance of God, and it was his revealed will 
 that every man who had repented and believed in Christ, (and it was 
 every man's duty to do this) should enter by mutual covenant with 
 some particular church into church estate. Of course when they 
 covenanted with God to do all his known will, whether it was expressly 
 stated or not, they covenanted to come into church estate with their 
 brethren, and to remain in it. But that so important a duty might 
 not be left to mere inference, they expressly incorporated it into their 
 covenants with God. 
 
 Moreover they held definitely and decidedly that if not in covenant 
 with some particular local church, no one had a right to claim any 
 interest, or to challenge any privilege in any other local church. 
 Hence Hooker, in his Survey, expressly says, " In the house of God 
 we must become covenanting servants if we have any interest there, 
 or think to challenge any privilege there." In other places, he and 
 others defend this principle at great length, as will hereafter appear. 
 
 We are thus full in this investigation because of the confident 
 appeal of our brethren of the Tabernacle Church to " the fundamen- 
 tal principles and accredited usages of our churches." We now see 
 clearly what they are. 
 
 We moreover give prominence to this part of the subject, because 
 those who defend the power of a majority to dissolve the Howard 
 Street Church, have found it necessary explicitly to deny, and argue 
 against these very foundation principles of the Congregational system 
 — so that a more fundamental issue cannot be raised. If they are 
 right, all of our fathers were wrong — Mather, and Cotton, and Hooker, 
 and Davenport, and Welde, and the framers of the Cambridge Plat- 
 form, and the New England ministers who defended our polity 
 against assailants in old England, and the ancient church of Salem, 
 and all our ancient churches, and even the fathers of the Tabernacle 
 Church in Salem, — these are all of them wrong, and the antagonists 
 of Congregationalism are right. All this may be, and if it is so, then 
 let our foundation principles be overthrown, and a new system be built 
 upon better. But let not such a work be called a defence of our 
 " fundamental principles and accredited usages," but a work of 
 radical reform, and its authors radical reformers. 
 
 Again, we give prominence to these principles because the whole 
 issue depends on them. Here is the great hinge on which the whole 
 discussion turns, and we cannot place it in a light too clear and vivid. 
 
17 
 
 And now we remark that of this kind was the covenant of the 
 Howard Street Church, only as it might seem with a providential 
 foresight of such a crisis as the present, they were guided to insert 
 stipulations rising in intensity above all that is found elsewise. 
 After the usual covenant with God and the church they bind the 
 vows already assumed by assenting to the following affecting pledge. 
 
 " In reliance on that grace which is able to keep you from falling, 
 you receive the covenant promises, and a covenant God as yours 
 forever, and set your seal to a full determination that in life and in 
 death you will be faithful to this covenant. This people is your 
 people, and this God is your God. Thus you promise and declare." 
 Then the reciprocal vows of the church are assumed, and a title 
 to all the privileges of the church estate is solemnly given, before 
 God, angels and men. As to the nature and import of the covenant 
 of the Howard Street Church, there can, then, be no shadow of a doubt. 
 
 AVe next proceed to consider the principles and usages of our 
 system, as to a transfer of covenant relations from one particular 
 church to another. And here the case is no less clear. It of 
 necessity flows from the preceding views of the covenant, and is in 
 universal accordance with the fundamental principles and accredited 
 usages of our system, that the only ways to cease to be a member of 
 any particular church are these : 
 
 1. By a letter of dismission and recommendation to another church, 
 given on this condition. — that not until the person recommended is 
 received by such church shall his existing membership cease. 
 
 2. By the act of God, calling the person home by death. 
 
 3. By excommunication, for offences, properly charged and proved. 
 The Cambridge Platform is full and decided to this effect. " Order 
 
 requires that a member removing have letters testimonial and of 
 dismission from the church whereof he yet is, unto the church where- 
 unto he desireth to be joined. Until the person dismissed be received 
 into another church, he ceaseth not, by his letters of dismission, to be 
 a member of the church whereof he was. The church cannot 
 
 MAKE A MEMBER NO MEMBER, BUT BY EXCOMMUNICATION." 
 
 These then are the only modes of leaving the church ; and till it is 
 thus left, all who are "in it are bound not only to God to remain in 
 covenant with each other, but also to each other, by the mutual vows 
 which they have assumed. Each individual has covenanted with God, 
 and with each in the church, to watch over them and seek their good 
 according to his ability. Out of this covenant grows the right and 
 duty of mutual exhortation, and, if need be, of reproof and discipline. 
 To be in such a covenant our fathers justly regarded as one of the 
 highest privileges that can be enjoyed on earth ; to be the subject of 
 such watchful care, is one of the highest necessities of a Christian in 
 this world of trial and temptation. 
 3 
 
18 
 
 What, then, are we to understand by the alleged dissolution of the 
 Howard Street Church ? Is it that all of the members, by advice 
 of council sought and received letters to other churches, and were by 
 them received, and thus the Howard Street Church ceased to exist ? 
 Had this been done, no covenant obligations had been violated, no 
 principles of Congregationalism had been contravened. But this is 
 not what the council recommended. This is not what the church 
 did. The reason is plain. All of the members did not desire to do 
 it. The Howard Street Church were not so reduced in numbers and 
 resources, nor were they so deficient in piety, that they could not 
 sustain the preaching of the gospel, and the ordinances of the church. 
 Nor was it true that the public good did not require a church 
 where the Howard Street Church stood. All this the council which 
 advised the dissolution expressly state. The thing which the council 
 deemed expedient, was in some way to get rid of this church, as it 
 was then organized, in order that a new one might be organized in its 
 place, in which a portion of the materials should be better, and the 
 whole church be better put together. This the council expressly 
 avow.* They tell us in the first place, " It appears that the pastor's 
 request for a dismission arises from embarrassments which have 
 rendered, in a great degree, abortive his earnest and self-denying 
 efforts for a course of years, and which embarrassments have now 
 come to a crisis, so that we can do no less than accede to his request, 
 and we hereby declare his pastoral relation dissolved." 
 
 What they meant by the embarrassments here spoken of will 
 appear from the following paragraph in their Result. 
 
 " We deem it to be our duty in concluding this Result, to call upon 
 some of the individuals of the church to reconsider the manner in 
 which they have treated their pastor, during the existence of the 
 difficulties which have given occasion to the calling of this council. 
 Saying nothing of those who have been in fault in other matters, 
 there has been a disposition on the part of these, to push some 
 favorite points to extremes ; — a want of charitable construction of 
 the pastor's motives and conduct in relation to points on which there 
 existed a difference of opinion between him and them ; and a defi- 
 ciency of that kindness and courtesy Avhich he had a right to claim 
 as a Christian minister, and particularly as their pastor." 
 
 That they contemplated the removal of these individuals in some 
 way into some other organization, is obvious from the closing advice 
 of the Result. 
 
 " The council hope that they will see their error, and that in what- 
 ever future ecclesiastical connection they may be placed, they will 
 
 * No. 10. 
 
19 
 
 Beek to be possessed of a spirit of wisdom, and of a sound mind, and 
 -will remember, that charity, kindness, and forbearance are as import- 
 ant parts of Christian character, as zeal in suppressing the errors 
 and vices of society. « Parsons Cooke, Moderator. 
 
 " E. A. Lawrence, Scribe.'''' 
 
 We are now prepared fully to understand the advice given by the 
 Council to the church. 
 
 " And since the embarrassments which have so far frustrated his 
 ministry still exist, without prospect of change, while the church 
 retains its present organization, we would suggest the inquiry whether 
 the best good of all concerned would not be consulted by a dissolu- 
 tion of that organization, and the members connect themselves with 
 other churches" in this city. A step so uncommon, we think, is made 
 expedient by reasons as peculiar. It is not that we think that there 
 is not ability and piety enough to sustain the enterprise in favoring 
 circumstances. There are materials of great value in this church, 
 but they stand in such relations as to hinder their efforts for good. 
 Nor is" it true that our denomination in this city have churches 
 enough without this. The prospect rather appears to be, that if this 
 is dissolved, a new one will soon take its place. We would, there- 
 fore, advise that the present organization, if it sees fit, vote a disso- 
 lution, and if the proprietors of the meeting-house see fit to close it 
 awhile and wait for the movements of Providence, we feel persuaded 
 that the time will soon come when the way will be made to open it 
 under better auspices. A new organization formed for the purpose, 
 would of course stand clear of most of the embarrassments of the 
 present." 
 
 If all of the members of the church had been willing to ask for 
 letters of dismission to other churches, there would have been no need 
 of voting a dissolution of its present organization. It would not 
 have been dissolved. It would simply have ceased to exist in a mode 
 authorized by our system, and perfectly consistent with the vows of 
 the covenant, and then, if it had been deemed expedient, a new church 
 could have been formed. But it was perfectly well known that there 
 was a large portion of the church who had no desire to be dismissed 
 to other 'churches, and who would not ask for letters. Moreover 
 those individuals who were deemed an embarrassment, we may well 
 suppose, were the ones least likely of all to ask for letters. The 
 desired new organization then could not be formed in accordance with 
 the usual and well-known principles of our ecclesiastical platform. 
 It became necessary therefore to devise for the occasion a novel and 
 extraordinary mode. 
 
 The step, the council admit, was very uncommon. " A step so 
 
20 
 
 uncommon is, we think, made expedient by reasons as peculiar." 
 The peculiarity of this extraordinary mode was, that by it the organ- 
 ization could be dissolved against the will of* such as would not ask 
 for, or take, such letters to other churches. Hence proceeded the 
 theory of the power of a mere majority, by a simple vote, at once and 
 utterly to dissolve the existing organization. Notice now the conse- 
 quences that it draws after itself. To make this plan effectual, it is 
 indispensably necessary to insist that the dissolution of the Church 
 shall not be conditioned upon the previous reception of its members 
 into other churches ; for then, as before, the unwilling ones would 
 prevent the dissolution, for they would neither take letters to other 
 churches, nor ask to be received. The dissolution of the Church, 
 therefore, must be absolute and unconditional, or the plan will not 
 gain its end. In no other way can the old organization be dissolved, 
 and a new organization, formed for the purpose and clear of existing 
 embarrassmeyits, take its place. This new theory, it must be con- 
 fessed, was skilfully framed for the occasion, and exactly adapted to 
 gain the end in view ; and its advocates avow their principles, and 
 take their consequences, with unflinching and commendable consist- 
 ency. Let us look at its application. We have considered the 
 covenant, by which the members of the Howard Street Church were 
 solemnly bound to God, and through God to each other, and the re- 
 ciprocal rights and duties growing out of that covenant. 
 
 And now the new doctrine, concerning which our advice is asked, 
 is this, that a simple majority of so many of the brethren of the 
 church as happened to be present at any legal meeting of the church, 
 had the power totally to dissolve and abrogate this covenant, so that 
 all the members of the church, brethren or sisters, present or absent, 
 willing or unwilling, and by whatever ties of affection united, or how- 
 ever strong their desire to walk together, as a church, in the ordi- 
 nances of the gospel, though but a moment before in covenant, and 
 members of the same church, are, after the vote, no longer in cove- 
 nant, and are members of no local church, and of course are under 
 the covenanted Christian watch and care of no human being on earth. 
 
 No sooner have seventeen men adopted this simple sentence, 
 " Voted, that this organization is hereby dissolved," than the work 
 is done. The church is dead. Its bonds are dissolved, and its 
 members scattered. A new organization may, indeed, be formed in 
 its place, but no human power can restore life to the dead. Our 
 fathers expressed the full conviction of all our churches, when they 
 said, in the Cambridge Platform, that the whole church cannot make 
 even one member no member, except by excommunication, and ex- 
 communication cannot be inflicted except for crime, and after a fair 
 trial. 
 
21 
 
 But this new doctrine teaches us that a mere majority of the 
 brethren, at a given meeting of the church, although a minority 
 of all the brethren of the church, and a very small minority of all 
 the members, can, by a single vote, make every member no member 
 of that or any other church. 
 
 We do not doubt that those who are ignorant of the facts of this 
 .case, will read this statement with inexpressible surprise, and perhaps 
 with no small degree of incredulity. It will seem to them impossible 
 that intelligent Christian men, much more, leading and influential 
 ministers in our churches, could, by any course of influences, be led 
 to assume such a position. Yet we have simply stated what an acci- 
 dental majority of the Howard Street Church profess to have done, 
 what leading ministers claim that they had a right to do ; and still 
 more wonderful, the right to do which they still contend for, as es- 
 sential to the independence and inalienable rights of our churches ! 
 The simple and undeniable facts of the case are these. The Howard 
 Street Church, at the time when the council advised their dissolution, 
 consisted of 170 members, 50 of whom were males. At the time of 
 the disbanding vote, most, if not all of these were still members of 
 the Church, for, although some had taken letters to other churches, 
 they had not been received. This Church, on the evening of May 
 4, 1847, by a vote of 17 males, was declared to be dissolved, in ac- 
 cordance with the advice of a mutual council.* 
 
 The form of the vote was this : " Voted, to adopt the remainder 
 of the Result of Council, and by and with their advice, this organiza- 
 tion is hereby dissolved, and that Deacons Smith, Foster, and Driver, 
 be a committee to grant letters of dismissions and recommendations, 
 under date of May 4, '47, to all the remaining members of the 
 Church, to any Orthodox Congregational Church they may direct." 
 Yeas 17, nays 10. 
 
 From and after this vote, it is insisted that Howard Street Church 
 ceased to exist, and that those once members of it, ceased at that 
 moment to be members of any local church whatever. It follows, of 
 course, that nobody had the right, by covenant vows, to watch over 
 any one ; and as for admonition, exhortation, and discipline, the 
 entire ground on which the right and duty of exercising them once 
 rested, had fallen away. True, indeed, a committee was appointed 
 in the vote to give letters of dismission and recommendation, to other 
 churches, to all who should ask for them, to be dated on the night 
 of the alleged dissolution of the Church. But, according to the new 
 theory, they ceased to be members of the Howard Street Church, 
 even before they had asked, or could ask, for a dismission from it : 
 for, before the committee could meet, the Church itself had ceased 
 
 • Appendix, No. 11. 
 
22 
 
 to exist. The very vote bv "which they were appointed dissolved the 
 church. Much more had they ceased to be members of the Howard 
 Street Church, according to this new doctrine, before they were, or 
 could be, members of any other church. 
 
 Yet it is affecting to see how the memory of the good old ways of 
 our fathers lingered about them, and, in spite of inconsistency, modi- 
 fied their speech. No one was asking for a dismission. The vote 
 before the Church was not to dismiss such as desired it, but to dis- 
 band all, whether they desired it or not, and this is what was, in fact, 
 done on the new theory. And yet the committee appointed by this 
 suicidal vote, is directed to give letters of dismission to all the re- 
 maining members of the Church ; just as if, after a church was dis- 
 banded, there were any remaining members — just as if it were 
 possible to dismiss any one from a non-existing church. But this 
 amiable inconsistency shows how hard it was to forget the good old 
 ways of our fathers. Letters of dismission used to be necessary be- 
 fore these new doctrines. But how would such letters, in this case, 
 appear ? " When received by you, their connection with us will be 
 dissolved." But the committee themselves belong to no church, and 
 have no connection either with each other, or with those whom they 
 profess to dismiss. By one potent vote, of seventeen men, all bonds 
 have been sundered, all ties cut, and every individual who was once 
 a member of the church, floats as a solitary atom on the surface of 
 the ocean of this cold world. The committee may indeed testify that 
 they were once church members, in good standing. Other churches 
 may kindly pick them up, and take them in, if they see fit ; but the 
 idea of receiving them by dismission from a non-existing Church, and 
 from which they never asked a dismission, is too absurd to be thought 
 of for a moment. 
 
 Indeed, the committee, or some of them, seem afterwards to have 
 become aware of the inconsistency of their position and duties, for 
 to this day all of them have never met or acted together. Some 
 have received letters from one of the committee, in virtue of which, 
 other churches have admitted them to their communion. Others, 
 who maintain the validity of the dissolving act, remain to this day in 
 connection with no church at all. 
 
 Such is a compendious view of the facts and principles with 
 reference to which we are requested to advise. In ordinary circum- 
 stances we should have supposed it sufficient merely to state the facts. 
 Aside from the influence of local excitements, particular ends, and 
 personal committals, and on the broad ground of Congregational 
 principles, it does not seem to us that there is room for a moment's 
 doubt. And Ave cannot refrain from expressing both sorrow and 
 wonder that it has become necessary seriously to argue a question 
 
23 
 
 like this. But local causes have given it importance. New princi- 
 ples have been introduced. With sorrow we say it, a council led the 
 way. Men of talents and influence are committed in their defence, 
 and even a conference has sustained them by its authority ; although 
 we are happy to say that at a subsequent meeting a majority would 
 have voted to reconsider their decision, had not the vote of the 
 moderator produced a tie and thus prevented it. Such facts as these 
 create an emergency. We feel called on, therefore, as we value the 
 very life of our system and of the principles of our fathers, to give a 
 careful and thorough consideration to these new doctrines. 
 
 In our judgment, therefore, these principles are utterly and funda- 
 mentally erroneous, and the proceedings in the alleged dissolution 
 of Howard Street Church are utterly invalid, for the following 
 reasons : 
 
 1. They are in direct violation of the most obvious and best 
 established principles and usages of the Congregational system. 
 
 2. Independently of their relations to the covenant with God, they 
 are in violation of the obvious principles of natural right. 
 
 3. But especially are these proceedings inconsistent with the obvi- 
 ous and well established import of the covenant with God. 
 
 4. The principles and precedents thus introduced are most danger- 
 ous in their practical tendencies, furnishing an instrument of de- 
 struction to be used in every case of difficulty and division in our 
 churches. 
 
 5. The defence of them has obliged their advocates to adopt 
 principles hitherto unknown to our churches and subversive of our 
 whole system. 
 
 6. The main argument by which the proceedings in question are 
 commonly defended, an appeal to the rights of majorities, is entirely 
 devoid T>f force. 
 
 7. The dissolving act was improperly recommended to the church 
 by the council which advised it ; the church not having voted to 
 submit any such question to them for advice. 
 
 8. Even if on general principles a majority had power to disband 
 a church against the will of a minority, yet in the present case the 
 church had established by special legislation a rule as to the mode of 
 calling meetings, and the limitation of the powers of majorities, which 
 clearly proves these transactions to be invalid. 
 
 1. From our previous investigations it is plain that if any principles 
 of the Congregational system are obvious, undeniable and fundamental, 
 they are these. 1st. That it is the duty of all regenerated individuals 
 to enter into church estate in particular local churches whenever God 
 in his providence renders it possible. " All believers ought, as God 
 giveth them opportunity thereunto, to endeavor to join themselves 
 
24 
 
 unto a particular church, and that in respect of the honor of Jesus 
 Christ, in his example and institution, by the professed acknowledg- 
 ment of, and subjection unto the order and ordinances of the gospel ; 
 as also in respect of their good of communion, founded upon their 
 visible union, and contained in the promises of Christ's special 
 presence in the church ; whence they have fellowship with him, and 
 in him one with another ; also, for the keeping of them in the way of 
 God's commandments, and recovering of them in case of wandering, 
 which all Christ's sheep are subject to in this life, being unable to 
 return themselves ; together with the benefit of their mutual edifica- 
 tion, and of their posterity, that they may not be cut off from the 
 privileges of the covenant. Otherwise, if a believer offends, he 
 remains destitute of the remedy provided in that behalf. And should 
 all believers neglect this duty of joining to all particular congrega- 
 tions, it might follow thereupon, that Christ should have no visible 
 political churches upon earth." — Platform, chapter 4, section 6. 
 2d. That this is effected by means of a mutual covenant with each 
 other, which is enforced by the covenant with God, and that the 
 organization of a church cannot be effected in any other way. Platr 
 form, ch. 4, sec. 1-3. 3d. When an individual has come into such a 
 covenant with a local church, he cannot be thrown out of it by the 
 church, except for crime, but must remain in covenant with that local 
 church till received by another. Of all these positions we have 
 already given abundant proof. 
 
 Such, then, are the obvious and well-known principles of our system. 
 And now what can be a more direct and absolute violation of these 
 principles in every respect, than by a single vote of a majority to 
 dissolve this covenant, and to throw every member of a whole church 
 into the world, with none who has a covenant right to watch over, 
 admonish, exhort, or reprove them ? 
 
 What if they can, perhaps, join other churches ? They have no 
 covenant right to enter another church, or to enjoy its ordinances. 
 They have lost the title to church privileges with which they were 
 invested. If perchance they enjoy them, it is a matter of mere 
 grace on the part of other churches, and, as we shall soon show, is 
 contrary to Congregational order. Moreover there is none to call 
 them to account if they do not seek to join other churches, or if they 
 fall into error or sin. They have therefore entirely lost what the 
 Platform specifies as one of the most important ends of church 
 fellowship, " the keeping of them in the way of God's commandments, 
 and recovering of them in case of wandering, (which all Christ's 
 sheep are subject to in this life,) being unable to return of themselves. 
 Otherwise, if a believer offends, he remains destitute of the remedy 
 provided in that behalf." 
 
 2. But in the second place, thus to dissolve a church by the vote of 
 
25 
 
 a majority is an entire violation of the laws of natural right, even if 
 no covenant with God were involved. 
 
 When two or more individuals enter into a covenant with each 
 other, even in worldly things, mutual and reciprocal rights are 
 created, so that one or more individuals cannot absolve themselves 
 from their obligations to the others, without their consent. A majori- 
 ty of a copartnership cannot rescind their copartnership agreement, 
 or put an end to it before the stipulated time, without being chargeable 
 with breach of covenant, and exposing themselves to the payment of 
 damages. Hence when a man has sworn, even to his own injury, 
 inspiration tells us that if he is an upright man, " he changeth not." 
 
 Is this true in the affairs of this world ? Do even the men of this 
 world avow this principle ? And shall we introduce and advocate a 
 lower standard of morality in the church of God, which ought to be 
 the salt of the earth, the light of the world ? Think for a moment 
 of the facts of the case. By solemn mutual covenant they had been 
 received into the church, and declared entitled to all its privileges. 
 They had been welcomed to the fellowship of the blessings of the 
 gospel. A fraternal watch over them had been pledged, and a 
 mutual {iledge had been received. What right then has one part of 
 the church, without the consent of the rest, to absolve themselves 
 from obligations thus solemnly assumed ? Much more, what right 
 have they to arrogate the power of absolving others besides themselves 
 from their mutual vows ? One of the highest charges against the 
 papal usurper has been that he has assumed such power. "What 
 right have they to declare that even those who desire to remain 
 united in covenant promises cannot ? What worse did the man of 
 sin when he assumed the power to change the immutable laws of 
 right ? It seems to us that a more direct and palpable violation of 
 the laws of equity cannot be conceived. 
 
 Civilians tell us that it is a principle which pervades all free gov- 
 ernments that " a moral power equal to and of the same nature with 
 that which made, alone can destroy."* But a Congregational church 
 comes into existence by the personal covenant of every individual 
 member composing it, with every other. How then can it be broken 
 up and destroyed without the personal assent of all the covenantors ? 
 What other moral power is equal to this, and of the same nature ? 
 Certainly not the vote of a mere majority. It exists by the personal 
 covenant of each with each, it can cease to exist only when each 
 releases each from that covenant. 
 
 Moreover, jurists inform us that in a covenant three things are 
 involved : first, the agreement ; second, the consideration ; third, the 
 things to be done or omitted. But it is self-evident that to take away 
 
 * Story and Rawle on the Constitution. 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 the consideration in view of which the covenant was made, is a pal- 
 pable act of injustice. But the right to a permanent enjoyment of 
 church privileges in a particular organization is always a consideration 
 in entering into such a covenant. Without this, property would not 
 be invested, or sacrifices made. But when the covenantors feel that 
 they can secure permanent covenant privileges for themselves and for 
 their children, from generation to generation, then they will erect a 
 house of worship, set up the table of the Lord, open the baptismal 
 font, and settle a pastor to break to them and theirs the bread of life. 
 
 Is it then for a moment to be endured, that after all this solemn 
 covenanting, the very considerations in view of which the covenant 
 was formed, and sacrifices made, shall be taken away ? Shall a man 
 who is guilty of no offence be told, " the privileges of this organiza- 
 tion, much as you value them, and whatever sacrifices you have made 
 for them, can be yours no longer. True, you are guilty of no 
 disciplinable offence. We cannot directly cast you out. But a 
 majority of us have concluded to break up this organization. You 
 may go where you please, but in this church you cannot stay." Is 
 it for a moment to be endured that such acts as this shall be done 
 unrebuked in the church of God ? Who, when members of a church, 
 brothers and sisters, have done nothing at all to violate their covenant, 
 has a right to despoil them of those great spiritual privileges which 
 were their main consideration in entering into the covenant, and which 
 gold and the most precious gems can neither purchase nor equal ? 
 The pretence of giving an equivalent for these, by letters of commen- 
 dation to other churches, is no defence against the charge of injustice. 
 They have now church privileges. These belong to them by cove- 
 nant. They are their own. If they choose to keep them, no power 
 on earth has a right to take them away. No power has a right to 
 insist that they shall give them up, and take what others are pleased 
 to call an equivalent instead. There is no equivalent, when the most 
 cherished treasures of the heart are thus rudely torn away. 
 
 3. Nor is this all. Even if all the members of a church were 
 willing to release one another from their mutual vows, and to throw 
 one another back into an uncovenanted state, they have and can have 
 no right before God, to do it. It will be noticed that we do not say 
 that all the members of a church may not by mutual consent bring it 
 to a close, by regularly passing from it into other churches. In this 
 way no one is thrown back into the world in an uncovenanted state 
 with none who has a right to watch over him. But we do say that 
 if all of the members of a church were desirous to throw themselves 
 out of a state of fellowship, into the world, by dissolving their cove- 
 nant, they have no right to do it. Duty to God requires them not 
 only to enter into church estate, but to continue in it. This, as we 
 
27 
 
 have proved, is fully stated in the Platform, and by all our standard 
 authorities. It is recognized in the covenant found in Cotton Mather's 
 Ratio, and which was the common form in 1720. " We acknowledge 
 our everlasting and indispensable obligations to glorify our God, in 
 all the duties of a godly, and a sober, and a righteous life, and very 
 particularly in the duties of a church state and a body of people 
 associated for an obedience to him in all the ordinances of the gospel." 
 It is recognized in the covenant of the Tabernacle ( hurch in Salest 
 "We apprehending ourselves called of God into a gospel church 
 state," and again — tl We acknowledge our everlasting and indispen- 
 sable obligations to glorify our God in all the duties of a holy, sober 
 and religious life. Depending, therefore, on his powerful grace, we 
 engage to walk together, particularly in a church state, in the faith 
 and order of the gospel, as far as we shall have the same revealed to 
 us by die word and spirit of God.'* 
 
 The first church in Boston entered into covenant "in the name of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, and in obedience to his holy wise and divine 
 ordinances," and " desirous to unite into one congregation or church 
 under the Lord Jesus Christ," "solemnly and religiously, as in 
 his most holy presence," " promised and bound themselves" to walk 
 together in church estate, and in the discharge of its duties. 
 
 The original covenant of the first church in Charlestown was in 
 substance the same. At the present time it includes this passage : 
 
 " You do solemnly and religiously, as in His most holy presence, 
 covenant and promise, through his grace, to walk in all your ways, 
 and in communion with this particular church in special, as members 
 of it, according to the rules of the gospel. This you severally 
 covenant and engage. 
 
 " We, therefore, the members of this church, [here the members of 
 the church ris . ] do now publicly declare our cordial reception of you, 
 as members of the church of Christ, and of this branch of it in 
 particular. 
 
 " And we covenant and promise, on our part, to watch over you 
 agreeable to the directions of the great Head of the church, and to 
 treat you as members in full communion with this church, and entitled 
 to all its privileges." 
 
 The \riews of the modern churches of Boston are well represented 
 by the toll owing extract from the covenant of Park Street Church, 
 drawn up by Dr. Griffin. 
 
 " We welcome you to this fellowship with us in the blessings of the 
 Gospel, and on our part engage to watch over you, and seek your 
 edification, as long as you shall continue among us. Should you 
 have occasion to remove, it will be your duty to seek, and ours to 
 grant a recommendation to another church ; for hereafter you can 
 
28 
 
 never withdraw from the watch and communion of the saints, without 
 a breach of covenant. 
 
 " And now, beloved in the Lord, let it be impressed on your 
 minds, that you have entered into solemn circumstances from which 
 you can never escape. Wherever you go, these vows will be upon 
 you. They will follow you to the bar of God, and in whatever 
 world you may be fixed, will abide upon you to eternity. You can 
 never again be as you have been. You have unalterably committed 
 yourselves, and henceforth you mustbe the servants of God." 
 
 In most of the Orthodox churches of Boston these views are 
 explicitly stated. In all they are understood. And beyond all doubt 
 this is the common understanding of our churches at this day. 
 After the covenant of the Old South Church, the following statement 
 is found : 
 
 " This sacred covenant has been deliberately entered into, and its 
 high obligations voluntarily assumed, by every member of this church. 
 Those obligations are now, and will be until death, upon every one 
 who has assumed them ; for he that " openeth his mouth unto the 
 Lord, cannot go back." See Judg. xi. 85. Luke ix. 62. Heb. x. 
 38, 39. 2 Pet. ii. 20, 21, 
 
 The views of this church of the importance of the duty of 
 Christian watchfulness over each other, which is pledged in the cove- 
 nant, are impressively stated in the following passage : 
 
 " When in their company, converse frequently upon the things 
 pertaining to the kingdom of God ; and particularly of your duties 
 and obligations as the covenant people of God. See Mai. iii. 16. 
 Heb. x. 24, and iii. 13. ' This practice,' says one, ' would be of 
 eminent service to help the memory, in regard to our covenant obli- 
 gations, as also to quicken unto obedience. Thus, for instance, when 
 a brother is observed to be going into temptation, or in present 
 danger of falling into some transgression, it is not improbable that 
 these words, spoken in a suitable manner, in his hearing, REMEM- 
 BER YOUR COVENANT, would prevent his fall ; or, if he has 
 already fallen, it may be those words would be the means of recover- 
 ing him out of the snare of the devil, and of bringing him unto 
 unfeigned repentance.' " 
 
 If, then, it is conceded and taught on all hands, that it is a part of 
 our covenant with God that we will come into covenant with a par- 
 ticular church, and continue in a church state till death, how can a 
 church throw themselves out of such a state without a breach of 
 covenant with God ? Even if it is done under color of an intent, 
 as individuals, to join other churches, still, to dissolve the covenant, 
 and withdraw Christian watch before all are under the care of other 
 churches, is an unjustifiable mode of doing it. Covenanted duties 
 orbid it. 
 
29 
 
 By doing it they throw themselves into a state in which they have 
 no assurance that all will ever be brought back into a state of cove- 
 nant again. They throw up their watch when they do not and can- 
 not know that grievous wolves will not come and tear and devour the 
 lambs of the flock, before they are gathered into any fold again. It 
 is on this ground that the Platform denied that the whole church has 
 a right to throw up her watch over even one of her members, before 
 he is safely received by another church. This is not a mere positive 
 rule, it is based upon the principles of eternal right. Much less, then, 
 has a church a right, even by unanimous consent, to throw up their 
 watch over each other, and leave every member of the church a 
 wanderer in this world of snares and temptations. If any should in 
 consequence of such an act fall into sin and misery, and God should 
 inquire of any one of the former members of the church, where is 
 thy brother ? will it avail him to say I know not ; am I my brother's 
 keeper ? What if he has voted to absolve himself from his vows to 
 watch over him ? Will God hold him absolved ? 
 
 4. Upon the dangerous tendency of the principles and precedents 
 which we are considering, few words are needed. Admit the right 
 of a church thus to disband itself by the vote of a majority, for the 
 sake of getting rid of " embarrassing" members, and what minority 
 in a time of division or excitement would be safe ? One or two bold 
 and devoted men might be very embarrassing to a backsliding and 
 worldly-minded majority. Some influential person who fears disci- 
 pline, may regard those who desire to bring his case up as very 
 embarrassing elements in the church. Nothing now remains to be 
 done but to watch his opportunity, rally his forces, gain a majority 
 and vote to dissolve the church and form a new organization expressly 
 for the purpose, in which these embarrassments shall not exist. Is 
 it said, this cannot be done without the advice of a council ? We 
 reply there is no such provision in any of our standard writers. 
 They have given no rules for dissolving churches, by repealing the cove- 
 nant. The case of course never occurred to them. t Their principles 
 led them to no such results. It is indeed usual, but not essential, to 
 form a church by advice of council, with especial reference to the 
 question whether it is needed. But if a church exists and is admitted 
 to be needed, and it is in principle right for them to dissolve them- 
 selves and reorganize again for the sake of getting rid of embar- 
 rassing members, then we say, there is no provision in any of our 
 writers that forbids them to do it on their own judgment. And even 
 if it were orderly to do it only through advice of council, still they 
 can do it without advice, or even against it. Moreover, in times of 
 excitement on disputed questions which affect many churches, the 
 majority of a church may easily call a council of such ministers and 
 
30 
 
 churches as are known to be hostile to an odious minority, and by 
 their advice disband and reorganize again, leaving out the embarrass- 
 ing minority. Who cannot foresee the end to which such principles 
 would conduct, if once introduced into our system ? Men might be 
 virtually excommunicated without charge or trial, or opportunity of 
 defence, and in every division and difficulty, the question of dissolu- 
 tion would come up. Is it not, then, the part both of wisdom and 
 duty to foresee the ruinous results to which they tend, and resist them 
 most strenuously at the outset ? One thing is sure, if we do not 
 desire to work an entire revolution in our system, and utterly to 
 explode the principles and usages of our fathers, we are bound to 
 regard these new doctrines with unmitigated disapprobation and dis- 
 pleasure. 
 
 5. The unsoundness of the principles in question is also clearly 
 evinced by the grounds which their advocates are naturally, and of 
 necessity, led to assume in their defence. Since the right of a ma- 
 jority to throw a whole church out of a state of covenant fellowship 
 is to be defended, it becomes necessary to depreciate the necessity 
 and importance of particular church covenants, or of being in con- 
 nection with any local church at all. The community has, therefore, 
 been told by leading ministers, in public arguments on this subject, 
 before the pastors and delegates of a conference of churches and 
 the attendant assembly, that the Bible nowhere expressly requires a 
 covenant of the members of a church to walk together in the same 
 church, as essential either to salvation or the church state, and that 
 there is no certain evidence that the apostolic churches were so con- 
 stituted by a formal mutual covenant among their members as to 
 make a dissolution inconsistent with church order, or their Christian 
 profession. Their covenant, it is intimated, was only with their great 
 Head ; they were held together only by inward ties ; and worshipped 
 together or apart, as the case required. Of the same nature is the 
 theory to which they resort, of a membership in a general or Catholic 
 church, which still continues after a particular church is disbanded. 
 In consequence of this, they tell us, the members of a disbanded 
 church are not unchurched, nor deprived of any of their church 
 rights and privileges. This membership in the church general they 
 seem to think almost or quite equal to that in any particular church. 
 
 If the question at issue were, whether Congregational views of 
 the church covenant be right or not, and if our brethren were ap- 
 pealing to scripture to prove them wrong, — all this, if true, would be 
 very much in point. But the issue being what it is, viz. : What are 
 Congregational principles and usages ? — we are not called on here 
 to discuss the truth or falsehood of these theories, though it would be 
 easy to show that they are utterly unsound. It is enough here to 
 
31 
 
 remark, that they are directly at war with the principles of our actual 
 system, as illustrated by existing usages, and as laid down in all our 
 leading writers. They all, with one voice, argue that the Christians of 
 the primitive churches were united by mutual covenants, and that the 
 power to watch over and discipline each other, which they undeniably 
 had and exercised, could not be derived from any other source. 
 '* We see not otherwise," says the Cambridge Platform, "how mem- 
 bers can have church power over one another mutually." The 
 Platform also strongly inculcates the duty of believers " to join 
 themselves unto a particular church," out of regard both to the au- 
 thority of Christ and to their own good. 
 
 Hooker calls the Presbyterian theory "that a pastor can be a mem- 
 ber of the visible church, though he be a member of no particular 
 congregation" (church), a "new paradox." 
 
 lie shows its absurdity thus : " All particular congregations are 
 all the members that the visible Church hath ; therefore, he that is 
 not a member of a particular congregation, is no member of a visible 
 Church." 
 
 Yet on the Presbyterian theory, a minister has ties to Presbvte- 
 ries, Synods, &c, and can be disciplined; but the members of a dis- 
 banded church belong to no particular visible church, have no tie to 
 any organization, and are liable to no discipline. Much more would 
 our fathers call this modern theory " a new paradox." 
 
 Hooker also expressly states that when we speak of a general, or 
 universal, or Catholic, visible church, the word church is only a ge- 
 neric term, and that " such a Catholic Church is never to be seen 
 but in particular congregations (churches), nor yet ever exerciseth 
 its power alone, (or seorsim'), but only in the several assemblies." 
 Indeed, all of our fathers regarded the idea of an organic universal 
 visible church, with officers and sacraments, as the very radical error 
 of the papacy. They also rejected, decidedly, the idea that the right 
 to the privileges of the church was derived from union to any kind 
 of universal church, visible or invisible. We have already quoted 
 Hooker to this effect. Again, he says expressly, in discussing the 
 issue between the Congregationalists and their opponents, " Confed- 
 erating makes persons members of visible churches ; those who are 
 not confederate we conceive no members of a visible church : and, 
 therefore, in that condition they have no right, nor in a right order 
 can challenge the benefits or privileges of members, nor can any 
 officer in a right order dispense them unto such." Survey, part III., 
 eh. 2. 
 
 He states the position of Hudson, whom he is opposing, substan- 
 tially thus: One in a state of membership with the Church Catholic 
 hath thereby a right unto all church privileges ; and even if he see 
 
32 
 
 fit to join a particular church, that does not give him any new right 
 to church privileges. All proceeds from his membership with the 
 Catholic Church. This he proves to be " an open contradiction in 
 terms to God's revealed method." — Survey, part I., ch. 15. Cotton, 
 in his " Way of the Congregational Churches cleared," is no less 
 explicit. And the Cambridge Platform teaches that believers, if 
 they are not in church order, cannot enjoy communion ecclesiastical, 
 political, although, like the twelve disciples at Ephesus who had not 
 been regularly admitted to the church, in the usual manner, they 
 may be professed believers in Christ, and, in that sense, members of 
 the militant visible church. But regular ecclesiastical communion, 
 according to the Platform, belongs only to such as " walk according 
 to the church order of the gospel," that is, in local churches. They 
 also expressly deny any universal visible church, through union with 
 which believers can obtain a right to regular ecclesiastical communion 
 in local churches. This can be obtained only through a covenanted 
 union with particular churches. — Ch. 2, sec. 4. Hence, as Hooker 
 says, while not thus united, no officer can, in a right order, dispense 
 church privileges unto them. 
 
 Such, then, are the fundamental principles and accredited usages 
 of Congregationalism on this point. But these theories of the defend- 
 ers of the church-dissolving power, tend directly to lead the com- 
 munity to believe that it is of very little consequence whether they 
 are members of a particular church or not, or are in a covenant or 
 not, and thus to aim a blow at the very vitals of our churches, and 
 utterly dissolve the bonds of our whole system. Who would have 
 expected to hear such sentiments from pastors of New England 
 Congregational churches ? How unsound must be that position, the 
 defence of which impels and obliges them to promulgate such theories. 
 But, above all, who could have imagined that such views could be 
 put forth under the pretext of defending the fundamental principles 
 and accredited usages of our church polity ! Had they charged our 
 fathers with gross error, and justified their antagonists, and set up 
 the standard of radical reform, all of this line of argument would 
 have been perfectly consistent. But to claim to be inspired by rev- 
 erence for the fundamental principles and accredited usages of our 
 fathers, to engage with all their might in the work of utterly explod- 
 ing, and absolutely and thoroughly destroying them, is indeed a 
 phenomenon that fills us with undissembled wonder and astonishment. 
 
 What, then, it may be asked, can be that main ground upon 
 which proceedings such as these are defended ? Whenever good 
 and intelligent men go thus far astray, it is not commonly under the 
 influence of absolute error, but of some important truth, either par- 
 tially apprehended, or applied out of its proper sphere. So in the 
 
33 
 
 present ease, the advocates of these new doctrines profess, and, we 
 do not doubt, with sincerity, to be swayed by a supreme regard to 
 the great principle, that, in a Congregational church, it is the right 
 of the majority to administer the government according to their will. 
 In defending their course, the Tabernacle Church appeal to " the 
 inalienable rights of majorities." The conference also say in their 
 vote, " whereas, it is an admitted principle that in the action of Con- 
 gregational Churches laid down in the New Testament, and in the 
 records and symbols of our churches, that majorities govern : and, 
 whereas, we find no accredited precedents in the usages of the church 
 to the contrary, and do not feel willing to institute one, — therefore 
 resolved, that the claim of our brethren to be the late Howard Street 
 Church ought not to be allowed, and it is not allowed." We are 
 happy to learn that all attempts, by the pastors of churches, to ex- 
 ercise or establish a power of veto, or of suspension, by the pastor, 
 of the acts of majorities in the church, are not accredited precedents. 
 _ We are of the same opinion. We not only freely admit, but de- 
 cidedly maintain, that it is a fundamental principle of our system that 
 the majority shall govern. But all who attempt to defend the pro- 
 ceedings in question by this principle, err in both the particulars above 
 specified. In the first place, they do but partially apprehend the 
 principle to which they appeal, and in the second place, they apply 
 it out of its sphere. 
 
 Although the power of government undeniably resides in the ma- 
 jox-itj^, yet they can exercise that power only within given limits, and 
 in accordance with certain fixed principles. 
 
 These principles and limits are established sometimes by the nature 
 of things, and the great law of natural right, at other times by the 
 fundamental principles of our ecclesiastical system ; at others, by 
 express authority of the word of God, and again, by special legisla- 
 tion. Indeed, it is admitted in all equitable governments, that the 
 supreme ruling power, whether a monarch, an aristocracy, or a de- 
 mocratic majority, ought not to have arbitrary or unlimited authority 
 in government, but to be limited within a fixed and definite sphere. 
 The inhabitants of England have well-defined individual rights, which 
 neither king, lords, nor commons, nor all combined, are allowed to 
 touch. ^ So, too, they have equally inviolable civil, social, and reli- 
 gious rights. The constitution of this nation, and those of the par- 
 ticular states, set forth bills of individual, civil, social, and religious 
 rights, which no majority can abrogate. Moreover, the legislation 
 of all the states is, by the national constitution, stringently restrained 
 within definite limits. For example, the privilege of the writ of 
 habeas corpus cannot be suspended except in cases of rebellion or 
 5 
 
34 
 
 invasion. No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, can be passed. 
 The freedom of the press and of debate cannot be taken away. The 
 right to bear arms, to assemble for discussion, or religious worship, 
 and to petition, is inviolable. No title of nobility can be granted. 
 No law impairing the obligation of contracts can be passed. Within 
 these and similar limits, some established on the ground of natural 
 right, others by positive legislation, majorities are obliged to act in 
 all our states. Within definite limits, then, and in accordance with 
 certain fixed principles, majorities rule. They would become the 
 very worst of despots if it were not so. The difficult problem in de- 
 mocratic governments is, not to defend the rights of majorities, but 
 of minorities and of individuals. The strong are not in danger, but the 
 weak. Hence, if while all free civil systems defend individual rights 
 and those of minorities, with sedulous care, Congregationalism leaves 
 them without defence, a Congregational church is the worst of des- 
 potisms. If, while civil systems will not allow a law to be passed, 
 even by a unanimous vote, impairing the validity of contracts, Con- 
 gregationalism gives to a mere majority the right of utterly dissolving 
 the most solemn and affecting covenant ever framed in the universe, 
 it would be a system deserving of the highest and most unmitigated 
 execration. But it is not so. Nothing is more notorious, and more 
 universally admitted by our churches, and all our standard writers, 
 than that the power of majorities in Congregational churches is lim- 
 ited, always by natural right, the word of God, the fundamental 
 principles of our polity, and often by special legislation, in each 
 church for itself. Illustrations of the truth of these remarks will 
 occur at once, to every thoughtful mind. 
 
 No majority has a right to expel a member from the church, who 
 has been guilty of no offence — nor to expel any one without trial, or 
 an opportunity of defence. No majority of a church has a right to 
 violate their covenant with God. No majority has aright to promul- 
 gate infidel principles, nor, in short, to violate any principle of that 
 universal law of right, by which even the Judge of all the earth 
 admits himself to be bound, and in the universal observance of which 
 in his own judgment his highest glory lies. This truth is well 
 expressed in a manual of church discipline recently published, to 
 which we refer at this time because the originator and advocate of 
 the new doctrines which we are considering, was one of the sub- 
 committee by whom it was drawn up. " A church," say that com- 
 mittee, " is not a simple unrestricted democracy ; inasmuch as it is 
 subject to the authority of its king and sovereign, who has given laws 
 which must regulate and control the acts of the brotherhood." 
 Nothing can be more true than this. And if this is so, then there are 
 
35 
 
 certain things which not only no majority, but not even the whole 
 church, although by a unanimous vote, has any power or right to do. 
 
 And now in all solemnity we ask, when or whore has the king and 
 sovereign of the church given even to a whole church, although acting 
 unanimously, a right so to dissolve a solemn mutual covenant to watch 
 over one another as Christian brethren, a covenant assumed before 
 the universe, with this most solemn and affecting pledge, ,w I set my 
 seal to a full determination that in life and death, I will be faithful 
 to this covenant. This people is my people, and this God is my God. 
 Thus I promise and declare," so to dissolve such a covenant that not 
 one member of that church shall be any longer in covenant with 
 another, or with any other church to which he can say, this is my 
 people and this is my home ? 
 
 Much more earnestly do we ask, when and where has the great 
 Lawgiver and Head of the church given the right to a mere majority 
 of the brethren who happen to be at a particular meeting of the 
 church, to declare this covenant dissolved throughout the whole 
 church, so that not one brother or sister is any longer in covenant 
 with another, and that too whilst members are protesting against the 
 act as a violation of their most sacred and cherished rights ? 
 
 Will it be said in reply to this, we cannot admit the principle that 
 a minority can veto the act of a majority ? We reply, it is not the 
 minority which in such cases vetoes the act, but its own intrinsic 
 unlawfulness. It is at war with the great laws of truth and righteous- 
 ness, established by the King and Head of the church, and His 
 authority pronounces it invalid. 
 
 Indeed, it seems to us wonderful that any one should suppose that 
 it is an essential part of Congregationalism, that the action of majori- 
 ties should always be held valid — and that the Essex South Conference 
 could find no accredited precedents in the usages of the churches to 
 the contrary. 
 
 What is our system of ex-parte councils but a deliberate, designed, 
 systematic check upon the abuse of the power of majorities ? So 
 Mather in his Ratio states the case, among our earliest usages and 
 precedents. 
 
 Upham also says, that one great object of Congregationalism is to 
 preserve every individual in the full possession of his religious rights, 
 and that ex-parte councils were designed to defend them, "by check- 
 ing the violent and unjust proceedures which so often characterize a 
 dominant party." Therefore he calls them " a sort of key-stone to 
 the system, which binds and consolidates the arch of the fabric, and 
 gives it strength." 
 
 Punchard also says, that these councils " furnish an effectual check to 
 the exertion of arbitrary power on the part of a majority of a church." 
 
36 
 
 The very genius of our system, therefore, requires that the action 
 of the majority in the present case be declared invalid, as contrary to 
 the laws of equity and of God. Even if such were not the fact, it 
 would be invalid because at war with the most firmly established 
 principles and accredited usages of the Congregational system. We 
 have shown that nothing can be more explicit, nothing more univer- 
 sally recognized, than the principle laid down in the Cambridge Plat- 
 form, " the church cannot make a member no member, but by 
 excommunication." What can be more directly at war with this than 
 to make the members of a whole church, no members, by the vote of 
 a majority, or indeed by any vote at all ? 
 
 7. But even if it were possible to admit the idea that a bare 
 majority could disband the church against the wishes and protest of a 
 minority, still in this case the facts are such as to show that it has not 
 been regularly and properly done. Much weight has been attached 
 to the fact that a council advised the dissolution. But in reply to 
 this it should be said, that the question was never properly brought 
 before a council. There was no vote of the church to submit such a 
 question to a council. No one even pretends that such was the fact 
 when the church decided to call the council. They voted to call a 
 council solely for the dismission of their pastor, Rev. Mr. Mann,* 
 and appointed a committee to prepare and send out the letters mis- 
 sive. That committee, unauthorized by the church, and on their own 
 responsibility solely, inserted the clause, " and to advise them on 
 other difficulties." The church, therefore, did not call the council 
 to advise on this matter, and no opposition was made to calling the 
 particular council which met, because it was supposed that they would 
 act solely with reference to the dismission of the pastor. Of this 
 the council were informed. It was therefore out of order for them to 
 recommend a dissolution of the church, and their advice ought to 
 have no weight. 
 
 8. Moreover, even if the act of the majority were not invalid on 
 these grounds, it is in this case, on the ground that it is at war with a 
 limitation imposed by the special legislation of the church itself on 
 the power of the majority, and with the mode prescribed for calling 
 such meetings of the church. Fourteen rules and regulations had 
 been established by the Howard Street Church. These relate to the 
 form of government, mode of discipline, admission and dismission of 
 members,* the times of church meetings, the administration of the 
 Lord's supper, the observance of monthly concerts of prayer, and 
 other similar topics. Of these rules the eleventh is as follows, " No 
 alteration shall be made in any of the foregoing rules, unless at a 
 
 * No. 12. 
 
37 
 
 regular meeting for business, it having been proposed in writing 
 one v:< ■ I prt viousk/, and two thirds of the members pn st nt voting for 
 
 it." Now on this we remark that, inasmuch as the question of the 
 utter dissolution of the church is the most important question that 
 can be raised, if the church forbade altering even a regulation as to 
 the time of the Lord's supper, or observing a monthly concert, except 
 by a vote of two thirds, and after a week's written notice, much more 
 did they forbid the dissolution of the church by the votes of a mere 
 majority, and without any such written notice, or any public notice at 
 all. Moreover, by dissolving the church, the rules as to the observ- 
 ance of the Lord's supper, of church meetings, of monthly concerts, 
 and of all other services, and every other rule, would be virtually 
 repealed. If then that cannot be done indirectly which the law for- 
 bids to be done directly, surely a vote to dissolve the church, passed 
 by merely a small and accidental majority, and without any previous 
 written notice at all, is on every principle, both of law and equity, 
 null and void. Yet the legal notice was never given, nor did two 
 thirds at last vote for the dissolution. 
 
 This consideration is of itself absolutely decisive. It is abundantly 
 sufficient to settle the case. If Ave had no other ground of declaring 
 the disbanding vote null and void, this w r ould be all that Ave need. 
 Similar principles are contained in our civil constitutions, the funda- 
 mental principles of which cannot be changed by mere majorities. 
 
 But we do not desire to fix the mind on this alone. As the general 
 question is now up, we desire that it may be settled in accordance 
 with the great general principles of our system, and on grounds of 
 eternal right. We desire to reecho the truth that a majority has no 
 right to A'iolate the fundamental principles of our ecclesiastical polity, 
 or to contravene the eternal laAvs of natural equity. They have no 
 right to violate a covenant Avith God, or with man. It would be, as 
 we have before said, no violation of covenant if all the members were 
 to pass in an orderly Avay into felloAvship with other churches till none 
 remain. In this case the church would become extinct, but no cove- 
 nant would be broken. Nor would this contravene our ecclesiastical 
 polity. The church would not thus make a member no member. 
 So also two churches may be united, if it is so done that no one of 
 either is thrown out upon the world, as a member of no church. 
 But in no case is it lawful to disregard the great principle that the 
 church cannot make a member no member, except by excommunication. 
 
 If it should be said that the necessity of observing these principles 
 may involve great inconvenience, and may prevent the dissolution of 
 churches when it is desirable, we reply, it may cause great inconve- 
 nience to an upright man who has sworn to his own hurt, not to 
 change, yet the pen of inspiration has given it as one of the decisive 
 
38 
 
 tests of a citizen of the kingdom of God, that when he has thus sworn 
 even to his own hurt, he will not change. And shall a whole 
 church swear to watch over each other, till they are safely in another 
 church, and then a mere majority, to avoid inconvenience or any other 
 alleged evils, change from what they have sworn, declare that all 
 obligations to watch over each other are at an end, and against remon- 
 strances and protestations, cast out their brethren into the world with 
 none to watch over them ? The mutual covenant of the church is 
 one of the most solemn engagements in the universe. Doubtless 
 God so regards it. Shall it be trifled with ? And shall a church 
 weigh considerations of convenience or expediency against the solemn 
 demands of right and principle ? 
 
 Not only is the principle of the right of a majority to govern, par- 
 tially and incorrectly apprehended, as we have shown, but it is 
 applied out of its proper sphere. The right to govern implies the 
 existence of a community to be governed, and its proper sphere is 
 in the government of that community. But the dissolution of a 
 church is not an act of church government, but of church destruc- 
 tion. It is an act that renders government impossible. It destroys 
 alike majorities and minorities, and reduces what was once a commu- 
 nity to scattered, disorganized, and ungovernable fragments. 
 
 Appeal has been made in defence of this mode of proceeding to 
 the rights of communities to revolutionize governments by the vote of 
 a majority. But the cases are totally unlike. No nation exists by 
 a covenant, like that which gives its being to a Congregational 
 church. And though a Congregational church is a democracy, yet 
 it acts under fixed divine principles ; the principles of a covenant 
 revealed in the word of God, which it has no right to repudiate. 
 Moreover, the right of revolution and of disbanding are not the same. 
 No nation or people ever attempted so to disband itself as to destroy 
 all political ties between citizen and citizen, and all right of govern- 
 ment, after appointing a committee to distribute its citizens, by letters 
 of commendation among other nations. No nation is likely to claim 
 the right to do it. They claim the right indeed to change exist- 
 ing forms of government, but they remain organized under one form 
 till they pass under another ; and they so pass as not to invalidate 
 existing titles to possessions and property. But on these new prin- 
 ciples, under the pretence of governing, a majority have a right of 
 destroying both themselves and the minority. This is not the right 
 of government, but of suicide. It is the right of a majority not only 
 to destroy their own rights, but also to plunder others of theirs. 
 
 After all, we cannot but wonder what can be the cause that so 
 much zeal is manifested in behalf of the right of a majority to disband 
 a church. If the disbanding of a church were some great good, some 
 
39 
 
 glorious result, for which churches were ordained, we could under- 
 stand it. But what church, once organized, does not naturally desire 
 to live and bless the world till Christ shall come to sit as judge of quick 
 and dead ? Why do we find nowhere in the Bible any directions as 
 to this mode of dissolving churches for which so much zeal is mani- 
 fested ? Why do we find no such directions in any earlier or later 
 works on our church polity ? Is not this a significant fact ? Does 
 it not proclaim the truth that to live and increase is the great end of 
 a church, that its death is an event to be deprecated as unspeakably 
 mournful, and that no directions are given as to the newly-invented 
 mode of self-destruction, because it is not a thing even to be once 
 thought of? If, in the inevitable providence of God, a church once 
 formed must cease to exist, let it be either by the act of God taking 
 all its members to heaven, or by so placing them under the care and 
 watch of other churches, that the church shall not cease to exist till 
 they are all safely located in a Christian home. 
 
 It is suggested by the Tabernacle Church, as a reason for not 
 granting the request of Brother Goss, that the Essex South Confer- 
 ence had refused a seat to the delegates of the Howard Street 
 Church, on the ground that it had been dissolved by vote of a ma- 
 jority of the church. We have looked into their proceedings, and 
 find that such was the case. But this council does not perceive that 
 weight should be given to this suggestion. We cannot agree that 
 the orderly standing of a church, recognized as such by neighbor 
 churches in ecclesiastical council, should be impeached in this w T ay. 
 The objects of these conferences are mutual improvement and instruc- 
 tion, and union in prayer and action, in favor of weak churches : 
 " they expressly disclaim all interference in the rights of particular 
 churches, and they exercise no acts of authority or discipline."* 
 Attempts have been made to confer upon these bodies consociational 
 powers, but it has been fully ascertained that no such change can be 
 admitted into the ecclesiastical polity of this state. 
 
 Such an attempt was made, and the proposals sent to all the 
 churches in 1705, which was repelled with great power of argument, 
 and boldly and effectually rebuked by Rev. John Wise, the admitted 
 legal expounder of the Platform ;f and it would seem that the present 
 is a suitable time to reprint his tract on that subject. We extract a 
 sentence or two : " This attempt is in defiance of our constitution, 
 and strikes at the root of our government ; for our Platform denies 
 the classical state of the churches. It sets at naught the loth and 
 16 th chapters for convening councils for the service of our churches, 
 and signs the condemnation of a form of government, settled by rules 
 of equity, settled and established by all the churches, and blessed by 
 
 * Up. Rat. Disc. 237, &c t " Churches' Quarrel Espoused." 
 
40 
 
 God through a long succession of years. I shall, for my own part, 
 with the jealous Laocoon, enter a caution against taking down the 
 sides of the city, and opening the walls of our Zion, and letting in 
 this Trojan Horse." The scheme was rejected. Dr. Cotton Mather 
 says, " There were some very considerable persons among the min- 
 isters, as well as the brethren, who thought the liberties of particular 
 churches to be in danger of being limited and infringed by its 
 adoption." 
 
 In 1815 another and more strenuous attempt was made to establish 
 consociationism in this way, and it was everywhere opposed by the 
 laitv, and by many distinguished clergymen — most especially by 
 Rev. Doctors Spring and Emmons. Dr. Spring published a tract on 
 the occasion, in which he says, " it is not authorized by reason or 
 revelation ; it is not friendly to the liberty and rights of conscience, 
 and exceeds the plan of the Fathers by placing the churches under 
 the care of standing councils." Dr. Emmons contended that it 
 tended to foster feelings of pride, place, and power, to introduce a 
 hierarchy, as in the early ages of the church, to create a jealousy 
 of the clergy, and to destroy that personal influence so necessary 
 to their usefulness. The failure on this occasion was so decisive, 
 that we have no reason to expect another attempt of the kind. 
 
 The discipline of the Platform, which has stood against these and 
 some other minor attempts now for two hundred years, is very plain 
 and clear. An assembly of Christians claims to be a Congregational 
 church, and sends its pastor and delegates to the conference. The 
 conference questions the claim. Here, by consent of parties, a 
 mutual council between the conference and the questionable church 
 can be called ;* but if none such is agreed on, the way to settle the 
 matter, by our Platform, is perfectly plain. 
 
 One of the churches acts as a church, and deals with the church 
 called in question, as does a brother with an oifending brother. It 
 may advise them to reorganize. If they do not observe the advice, a 
 charge or complaint is made to another church, and after notice and 
 action, and refusal, these two churches call a council to advise and 
 act on the subject. If the church complained against persists or is 
 contumacious, sentence of non-communion is regularly pronounced. f 
 
 But this conference postponed the Platform, and, wholly disre- 
 garding its provisions, made a summary disposition of the claim of 
 the pastors and delegates, and put the sentence of non-communion 
 immediately into effect. This is what is called coming to a result per 
 
 * The council has been informed that such a council was offered on the part of the 
 church, but it was not accepted, 
 t Punch. 116; Mat. c. 15; Math. Rat. Dis. 172; Up. Rat. Dis. 206. 
 
41 
 
 saltum — leaping over the constituted forms of trial, and jumping to 
 the conclusion. Thi°> is not C< ionalis a, and it is equally 
 
 plain that these conferences cannot hear ami decide eoclesiastical 
 cases, or take jurisdiction of them, with any proper regard to the 
 rights of the churches or private Christians, or with any pro] er re- 
 gard to the principles on which they are formed or acknowledged 
 by our order ; and if they become organized as judicial bodies, they 
 must necessarily be consociational — bodies which, it is quite certain, 
 will not be tolerated in Massachusetts. 
 
 But far worse than consociationism, in the opinion of the council, 
 is a collateral, summary jurisdiction, which disregards the provisions 
 of the Platform, and if not final, nevertheless disparages character in 
 an unauthorized manner, and creates prejudices unfavorable to fair 
 and impartial trials in a con : ay. The council, therefore, 
 
 cannot see, in the proceedings of the Conference, referred to in the 
 reply of the Tabernacle Church to the request of Brother Goss, any 
 good reason for withholding letters testimonial and of dismission. 
 
 Whether a Congregational church shall be cherished, improved, 
 aided by advice, and dealt with according to the Platform, or become 
 extinct and annihilated, are questions of interest and magnitude to 
 all its members, as well as to neighbor churches, and to all who love 
 Zion. When a church are already connected with a religious society 
 and have a house of worship, and are sufficiently numerous and of 
 sufficient ability to sustain the worship, — it would seem that absolute 
 necessity alone could induce the members to abandon the worship and 
 throw up their covenant. In other days, instead of compliance, there 
 would have been " resistance unto blood." The only definite reason 
 which we have seen assigned for the advice given to the Howard 
 Street Church to break up, comes from members of the Conference, 
 (stated as that which induced the council so to advise,) and is — " that 
 discipline in the church had been a long time frustrated, — that there 
 had been no discipline for a long time, because it was impossible.'' 
 
 To justify this strong language, the church must have been exceed- 
 ingly corrupt ; and the majority of the members mast have chosen 
 not to exercise discipline. But if such were the fact, with what 
 consistency could the council advise that letters of commendation 
 should be given to all, as without exception suitable persons to join 
 other churches ? Moreover, if there is guilt in neglecting discipline, 
 it is of course the guilt of the majority, for so long as they are the 
 majority, they could maintain discipline if they would. Is it not then 
 a singular proceeding to advise those who by the supposition are 
 neglecting known duty, to disband the church, and thus put them- 
 selves in a position in which no power on earth has any right to call 
 6 
 
42 
 
 them to account ? As a church they could be called to account for 
 neglect of duty. But as disbanded individuals they cannot be. 
 
 But we cannot persuade ourselves that Christian discipline was 
 impossible. Was there no member who had love enough " to go to 
 his brother in a Christian spirit and manner to ' tell him his fault V " 
 And would the majority refuse to take notice of a complaint for a 
 palpable offence, the first and second steps having been so first taken ? 
 Was the trial made, and made as it should be made, with desire to 
 gain the brother, by prayer and entreaty and importunity ? Did the 
 majority in this spirit make the attempt ? However this may be, 
 the remedy advised to heal this alleged disease of the church was 
 worse than the disease. 
 
 It appears to this council that the troubles in this church, concern- 
 ing which we have heard considerable accounts, and read many 
 documents, were not attended to, by the majority, or by neighbor 
 churches, in the spirit and manner prescribed by the law of Christ 
 and the provisions of the Platform ; and that the expedient devised to 
 heal them, was such that its failure need cause no disappointment. 
 " When men undertake to be wiser than the law," it is no new thing 
 that they do not succeed. Any other discipline than Christian disci- 
 pline, is a thousand times worse than no discipline. It is known and 
 felt by the offender that it is wrong and he is irritated ; other 
 members know it and sustain him, and a faction is created in the 
 church not easily removed or suppressed. 
 
 If a church be corrupt — does not maintain discipline or the ordi- 
 nances, our Platform provides a discipline in respect to such corrupt 
 church, which we understand was not pursued in this case. If this 
 church had been in so great fault and extremity, as is alleged, or in 
 any considerable wrong, neighbor churches should have taken the 
 steps which it directs — steps, which, if taken in the right spirit, we 
 believe have never failed of success. 
 
 However, as every member of the church was to be recommended 
 to other evangelical churches, it cannot be supposed that it was so 
 corrupt a church as not to be able to administer true Christian dis- 
 cipline. But if they neglected their duty, other churches should 
 have called them to account. The spirit of our system demanded 
 this, and not the destruction of the church. Congregationalism is con- 
 servative. It holds on to all that is sound, and provides the means of 
 healing difficulties and disorders both of individuals and of churches, 
 and does not crush or destroy a church even when its disorders are 
 not at once healed by the means which it provides. Although it may 
 put a church out of communion, it still hopes for its return. Such was 
 the case in Salem itself in 1733. At that time the second church in 
 
43 
 
 Boston called the first church in Salem to account, and the sentence 
 of " non-communion" by about twenty churches -was declared against 
 it. After several years the church in Salem penitently acknowledged 
 its errors, and the sentence of non-communion was taken off. (Win- 
 ner's Hist. Ser. p. 105.) 
 
 The political philosophy of Burke, so much admired and applauded, 
 was applied to. the reformation of abuses ; that of the French philoso- 
 phers of his day was — instantaneous demolition, and organizing the 
 state anew. The consequences of their work soon proved the wisdom 
 of Burke, and the folly of the philosophers. The council does not 
 perceive the wisdom of the experiment made in this case. Demoli- 
 tion, disbanding, dissolving — no such remedies are provided in our 
 polity for healing disorders in churches. Such a course impeaches 
 the wisdom of our fathers, which provided other remedies, and dis- 
 regards their practice and the usages of the churches, and tends to 
 bring our whole system into disrepute. 
 
 The council cannot but observe that the vote, by which it was 
 attempted to dissolve the church, seems to have been a very rash and 
 improvident act, besides being wholly ineffectual. When matters of 
 great importance are to be settled in the church, care should be taken 
 that all the male members be notified, and time for consideration, 
 prayer and conference, personally and collectively, should be taken, 
 and at last something more than bare majorities should be sought and 
 obtained.* In this case, no written notice was regularly given that 
 a meeting would be held for the purpose, although it was a question 
 of the greatest possible importance. Moreover, although it was 
 debated at some of the usual meetings for business, it is doubtful 
 whether all of the members knew that the matter was before the 
 church ; not above two or three more than half of the male members 
 were present, and the final vote was but seventeen in favor of the 
 measure, and ten were opposed to it. It is not our usage to pass acts 
 of less importance than this without a greater unanimity. 
 
 This fact and the subsequent results show the wisdom of not for- 
 getting or disregarding the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the 
 Platform. 
 
 After the vote to dissolve the church was passed, at a subsequent 
 regular meeting it was agreed to convoke a council to advise as to 
 whether or not they continued to be a church, and that council con- 
 vened and advised that the Howard Street Church was not dissolved. 
 These papers and proceedings are annexed and marked. f 
 
 This council is not advised of any reasons or facts which show that 
 the advice of this council does not stand good, nor why it should not 
 be respected by the Orthodox community. It has been objected that 
 
 • Punch. Cong. 170. t No. 13. 
 
44 
 
 the council was ex parte. We do not think it was so in the usual 
 sense of that term. A church, feeling the need of advice and light, 
 may well send for the advice of neighbor churches, without calling it 
 ex parte. Such, also, is the case of a council to advise as to an 
 ordination, or the gathering of a new church. There must be an 
 adverse party, not offered a mutual council, in order so to characterize 
 an ecclesiastical council. In this case, the majority had probably 
 taken their letters and joined other churches, and so could have no 
 more interest in the question than other members of the churches 
 to which they belonged ; or, not having used such letters, they were 
 still members of the Howard Street Church, and so must be considered 
 as joining in the call, and also as having a right to be heard before 
 the council when convened. Further, having seceded, and not con- 
 tinuing to worship with the church, they had voluntarily abandoned 
 all right to its property, whether it continued, ecclesiastically, to be 
 a church or not. 
 
 It appeared also, that, having been so advised that they were a 
 church, they continued their worship and called a pastor, and convoked 
 a council of Orthodox churches, to advise, as to his installation, and 
 that the council assembled and advised that it should take place, and 
 proceeded to install him as pastor of the Howard Street Church.* 
 Thus was he settled as pastor of the Howard Street Church, and 
 continues to be such upon a stipulated salary, preaching and admin- 
 istering the ordinances. Here is certainly prim a fa cie evidence that 
 this church is entitled to the fellowship of all our churches, and the 
 proceedings of the first council are necessarily recognized as valid, 
 ratified and confirmed. What more have any to seek among our 
 churches to entitle them to communion, than the proceedings of these 
 councils afford in favor of this church ? 
 
 If any of the churches were " otherwise minded," our Platform 
 prescribes the manner in which they should proceed against heretical 
 and disorderly churches, and all our writers agree that it is the only 
 way provided in such cases, in the Congregational system. f But no 
 such steps have been taken with this church, and until they shall be, 
 this council sees not why its standing should be called in question. 
 
 In view, then, of all that has been said, it is the opinion of this 
 council, that the vote of a majority cannot dissolve a church against 
 the consent of a minority ; and it appearing that the Howard Street 
 Church has not been otherwise dissolved, and that the minority claim 
 membership there, and have acted and still act as that church, and 
 sustain its meetings, the ordinances, and the ministry, this council 
 advise that that church has not been dissolved, but still exists on its 
 orginal foundation. 
 
 • No. 15. t Plat. ch. 15. Punch. Cong. 185, 186. 
 
45 
 
 They also advise that Mr. Goss renew his application to the 
 Tabernacle Church for a letter of dismission, and recommendation 
 to the Howard Street Church, and if his request be refused, that 
 he offer himself for membership to the Howard Street Church, and 
 that the Howard Street Church be advised to receive him. 
 
 In conclusion, so far is this council from yielding to the reasons 
 assigned by the Tabernacle Church for denying the request of 
 brother Goss, founded on the objectionable standing of the Howard 
 Street Church, that it considers this church, if not primus inter pares, 
 as an ancient church, yet, at least, an equal, entitled to the sympathies 
 and the aifections, the help and the encouragement of all the Orthodox 
 churches in this community. And more especially should they have 
 our sympathies and our prayers, if not our thanks, for the stand which 
 they took in favor of the holy covenant, — not consenting to break, but 
 contrariwise inflexibly determined to keep it, " to hold it fast and not 
 let it go," thus setting an example of integrity and fidelity in the midst 
 of trials, " perils of brethren," and formidable opposition without and 
 within, holding up, as a standard, the ancient covenant of our fathers, 
 and calling upon all the churches to look at it as the great charter of 
 all the churches of our order throughout the Christian world. Why 
 should an Orthodox church be crushed ? Who among us all would 
 put our hand to such a work ? Why should this church be crushed ? 
 It is admitted by all, that a church, and the worship and ordinances, 
 ought to be sustained in Howard street. What possible interest or 
 valid reason can there be that it should not stand on its ancient 
 foundation, and preserve and show forth its ancient name and its 
 ancient covenant ? Do any covet its name ? We are not so advised. 
 Do any covet its property ? We know not; we suppose it is not rich 
 in this world's goods, but hope it is " rich in faith," and if it is a 
 trustee for its poor, we hope " they will not be sent empty away." 
 
 It seems to the council that all the churches must feel interested 
 to keep this church in their communit}', and that scarcely a greater 
 cloud of grief could come over them than would come by the ex- 
 tinction of this light. The beloved disciple said, "I have no greater 
 joy than to hear that my children walk in the truth." We hope 
 that this spirit is in all our churches, and that as the extinction of 
 this church would be mourned as the annihilation of long-cherished 
 hopes, so its confirmation and its walk in the order of the gospel and 
 the communion of the churches, will be hailed as the highest consum- 
 mation of Christian joy. 
 
 Reuben Emerson, Moderator. 
 
 A. L. Stone, Scribe. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 INDEX TO THE DOCUMENTS. 
 
 No. 1 . Vote of Refusal. 
 
 2. Preamble and Resolutions of the Tabernacle Church. 
 
 3. Report of the Committee. 
 
 4. Letter of Mr. Carlton. 
 
 5. Letter of Mr. Goss to the Church. 
 
 6. Certificate of Mr. Humphrey Cook. 
 
 7. Request of Mr. Goss for a Mutual Council. 
 
 8. Action of the Tabernacle Church declining a Mutual Council. 
 
 9. Action of the Essex South Conference of Churches. 
 
 10. Result of the Council advising to the Dissolution. 
 
 11. Vote of the Majority to dissolve. 
 
 12. Vote of the Church upon the Pastor's Request for a Mutual Council. 
 
 13. Proceedings of the Church subsequent to the Vote to dissolve. 
 
 14. Proceedings of the Council to which the Question of Actual Disso- 
 
 lution was submitted. 
 
 15. Churches composing the Installing Council. 
 
 16. Letter of Dr. Osgood. 
 
 No. 1. 
 VOTE OF REFUSAL. 
 
 Salem, Aug. 25, 1849 
 To Mr. E. Gosa. 
 
 At a meeting of the Tabernacle Church last evening your request was 
 presented, and after some discussion in a kindly manner, the following 
 vote was passed — 
 
 " Viz. — that in view of the circumstances in the case the request be not 
 granted." 
 
 Humphkey Cook, Church Clerk 
 
48 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE TABERNACLE 
 
 CHURCH. 
 
 At a meeting of the Tabernacle Church, Friday evening, Sept. 28, 
 1849, the following preamble and resolutions were passed, viz. : 
 
 Whereas a member of this Church has requested to "be dismissed and 
 recommended to the Howard Street Church," and whereas while the Howard 
 Street Church was under the pastoral care of the Rev. Joel Mann, a Mutual 
 Council, called to consider the difficulties existing in said Church, advised 
 that the Church should be dissolved ; — 
 
 And whereas, agreeably to the advice of the said Mutual Council, and 
 after mature consideration of all the circumstances of the case, a vote was 
 passed by a majority of the Church, to dissolve the Church, provision being 
 made, however, for a regular' transfer of membership to sister churches ; — and 
 
 Whereas, this Church has recognized the validity of the aforesaid vote, 
 by receiving members, agreeably to the aforesaid provisions for a transfer 
 of membership to sister churches ; — and whereas, notwithstanding the result 
 of an Ex-parte Council, called by the minority of the said Howard Street 
 Church, — the Essex South Conference of Churches decided that the dele- 
 gates of the said minority were not entitled to a seat in the Conference, in 
 virtue of their claim to be considered the delegates of the Howard Street 
 Church as known and recognized, previous to the vote, by which the said 
 Church was declared to be dissolved ; — 
 
 Therefore, Resolved, 1st, That as at present informed in relation to the 
 whole subject, we are not aware of any sufficient reason to repudiate and 
 disregard the decision of the Essex South Conference, in October last, by 
 which the action of the aforesaid majority of the Howard Street Church was 
 indirectly, yet distinctly and absolutely sustained — 
 
 Resolved, 2d, That in the judgment of this Church, it is not consistent 
 with the principles of order and fellowship in our Congregational churches, 
 nor promotive of the best interests of the community — to recognize the 
 claims of the aforesaid minority of the Howard Street Church, to be the origi- 
 nal and undissolved organization as known and acknowledged previous to 
 May 4th, 1847, when the vote was passed which declared the Howard 
 Street Church to be dissolved, and no longer to exist. 
 
 Resolved, 3d, That until prepared to rescind the foregoing resolutions, 
 and reconsider the facts, which are presented in the foregoing preamble of 
 the said resolutions, — it will not be consistent or proper for this Church to 
 grant letters of dismission and recommendation to membership with those 
 who claim to be the Howard Street Church in this city — without any regard 
 to the proceedings by which we have considered the said Church regularly 
 and truly dissolved. 
 
 Attest, Humphrey Cook, Church Clerk. 
 
 Sept. 28th, 1849. — At the meeting of the Tabernacle Church this 
 
49 
 
 evening, the Committee on Br. Goss's request reported and the Church 
 accepted it ; and adhered to their former vote — 
 
 Viz., that under cm ting circumstance? Br. Gross's request cannot be 
 granted. 
 
 Humphrey Cook, Church Clerk. 
 
 No. 3. 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 
 
 To the Tabernacle Cm; ch. 
 
 The Committee appointed to explain to Br. Ezekiel Oops the reasons why 
 the Church could not grant his request to be dismissed and recommended to 
 the Howard Street Church, so called, have attended to the service 
 
 Agreeably to what was stated at the time his request was acted upon, the 
 Committee informed Br. Goss that it would not be at all consistent for this 
 Church to grant his request, because the standing of those with whom he 
 desired to be connected is considered by this Church to be irregular. 
 
 The Committee also stated to Br. Goss that his own walk had been irreg- 
 ular ; they reminded him that he had not fulfilled his covenant engagements, 
 inasmuch as he not only absented himself from the meeting of the Church 
 which he used to attend very constantly, but has not for a considerable time 
 worshipped with the Church or been present at their communion season. This 
 absence appeared to be in consequence of some offence which he had taken, 
 or some alienation of feeliog which ought not to exist, and therefore it would 
 not be proper to grant his request, even if there was no objection in regard 
 to the standing of those to whom he has requested to be dismissed and 
 recommended. 
 
 Ira A. Brewster, \ CommiUee 
 
 JONA. PERLEY, ) 
 
 Salem, Sept. 2M, 1849. 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 LETTER OF MR. CARLTON. 
 
 Salem, Jan. 8, 1850. 
 Rev. and Dear Sir : — On the morning after the session of the Council in 
 the case of Mr. Goss, you remarked to me, that the action of the Council had 
 been considerably embarrassed by the intimation that Mr. Goss was still 
 under the discipline of the Tabernacle Church ; ». e., that a process of disci- 
 pline had been commenced with him, and was still unfinished, or, in other 
 words, had not been finally adjudicated by the Church ; and you asked me 
 if this intimation was true, to which I replied, emphatically, that it was not 
 true. 
 
 1 
 
50 
 
 To prove to you now, sir, that the suggestion was not true, I submit to 
 you, agreeably to your request, the following brief statement of facts. 
 
 1. When Br. Goss first presented his request to the Church for a letter of 
 dismission and recommendation to the Howard Street Church, no intimation 
 whatever was made by any one, that any brother had commenced a course 
 of discipline with him. And, besides, the pastor distinctly stated to the 
 Church, that he had intended, that very week, to request some one of 
 the brethren to converse with Br. Gross in relation to his long absence from 
 the meetings and communion of the Church ; but that the request of Br. 
 Gross had taken him by surprise. 
 
 2. After the Church had voted, that, " under the circumstances," the 
 request of Br. Goss could not be granted, he sent in a communication, 
 desiring to know what " the circumstances" were. The Church raised a 
 committee, and directed them to wait on Br. Goss, and give him an expla- 
 nation. That Committee subsequently reported to the Church, in writing, 
 that they had attended to the duty assigned them, and had told Br. Goss 
 that the reasons for refusing his request were two ; viz., that the Howard 
 Street Church, so called, was not considered by them as a regular church, 
 and that his walk had been disorderly. Br. Goss then appeared before the 
 Church, and asked permission to reply to the two reasons assigned by the 
 Committee ; but he was told by the pastor that he could not be allowed to 
 reply at all ; not, certainly to the first reason, because the Church had 
 taken final action on the subject of the Howard Street Church, and there- 
 fore that subject could not be re-opened ; and not even to the second reason, 
 because the Church had not only brought no such charge, but had made no 
 charge whatever against him. And when it was suggested that the action 
 of a committee of the Church was, in reality, the action of the Church, the 
 pastor replied, that the report of the Committee had only been accepted, but 
 not adopted, and that, therefore, their action was but the action of individuals, 
 and not the action of the Church. And Br. Goss was told by the pastor 
 and certain members of the Church, over and over again, that the Church 
 had neither charges nor charge against him ; and accordingly he was not 
 allowed to make any reply. 
 
 3. After the Church had refused to hear Br. Goss, and he had retired, 
 it was suggested by some one, that his long absence from the communion of 
 the Church was wrong, and was a fit subject for church discipline. There- 
 upon I immediately rose in my place, and stated that I hoped a course of 
 discipline would now be commenced with Br. Goss forthwith. The pastor 
 stated in reply, that there were cases, which, for certain reasons,' ought to 
 be delayed ; and intimated that this was a case which ought to be deferred 
 to a future time. 
 
 From these facts, you can judge as well as I, whether the intimation, 
 which you said was thrown out during the session of the Council, was true 
 or not. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 0. Caklton. 
 Rev. E. Beechee, D. D. 
 
51 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 LETTER OP MR. GOSS TO THE CHURCH. 
 
 Salem, Sept. 14th, 1849. 
 To the Tabernacle Church. 
 
 Dear Brethren : — Deacon Perlcy and Brewster called on me last evening 
 as a Committee of the Church to explain the circumstances in the ease why 
 you voted not to grant my request for a dismission and letter to the Howard 
 Street Church. 
 
 The first reason they gave was, That the course the Church had taken in 
 regard to the Howard Street Church, in receiving her members was, that the 
 Church is broken up, and therefore to be consistent with that course could 
 not grant my request. The second was, That the Church apprehended 
 that there might be ill feelings towards some members of the Church. 
 Whether that apprehension was well grounded they knew not, except my 
 long absence from the communion. 
 
 In reply to the first, I will inform the Church, that the brethren and 
 sisters that remain at the Howard Street Church sought counsel and advice 
 of sister churches (with which you are in fellowship), in their trials and 
 difficulties, and have acted in accordance with that advice, and since then 
 they have settled a pastor by Council of sister churches, to which you have 
 and are accustomed to dismiss and receive members, and to which you also 
 were invited. You cannot therefore expect me to surrender my rights and 
 privileges to such a plea. I therefore renew my request. 
 
 To the second, I can only say I know of no unkind feeling to any member 
 on my part ; if there is, or has been, I wish their forgiveness as they would 
 be forgiven. As for my long absence from the communion, my intention 
 has long been known by a large part of the Church, and to the pastor for 
 more than a year, and I have communed with the Howard Street Church 
 regularly ever since. 
 
 From your brother in Christ, 
 
 Ezekiel Goss. 
 
 No. 6. 
 CERTIFICATE OF MR. HUMPHREY COOK. 
 
 I hereby certify that as clerk of Tabernacle Church I have furnished Br. 
 Ezekiel Goss with copies of the following documents, viz. : 
 
 1. The vote of the Church, Aug. 25, 1849. 
 
 2. The report of the Committee which was appointed to state to him the 
 reasons why his request was not granted. 
 
 3. The resolutions adopted by the Church respecting Howard Street 
 Church, and the second vote declining to dismiss him, passed Sept. 28, 
 1849. 
 
52 
 
 4. Tbe reasons put on record for declining his request for a Mutual 
 Council, and that these are all the record of proceedings in his case up to 
 the 20th of Nov, 1849. 
 
 I also certify that on the 26th day of October, Mr. Goss desired an 
 opportunity in Church meeting to make some communication to the Church, 
 touching their objections to granting him a dismission, which was refused by 
 the pastor and Church, on the ground that so far as Howard Street Church 
 was concerned, the action of the Church could not be changed, and, second, 
 that the Church had no charges against him that demanded any communica- 
 tion from him. It was repeatedly said to him, we have nothing against you. 
 
 Humphrey Cook. 
 Salem, Dec 26, 1849. 
 
 No. 7. 
 REQUEST OF MR. GOSS FOR A MUTUAL COUNCIL. 
 
 To the Tabernacle Church. 
 
 Dear Brethren : — I have repeatedly requested of you a dismission and 
 recommendation to the Howard Street Church in this city. My request has 
 as often been refused. I do not now wish to present further reasons for my 
 request, for I am assured by your pastor that there are no charges against 
 me, and still my request cannot be granted. I therefore respectfully request 
 that you will unite with me in calling a mutual council according to the 
 usage of the Congregational Church, to consider and advise with reference 
 to the following questions, viz.: 
 
 1st. Was I in good and regular standing as a member of the Tabernacle 
 Church on the 25th of August, 1849 ? 
 
 2d. Has any thing taken place in reference to the question of my request 
 for a dismission since that time that renders it improper that I should have a 
 letter in the usual form ? 
 
 3d. Is the standing of the Howard Street Church such that the Tabernacle 
 Church ought not to recommend members to its communion ? 
 
 I would propose that the Council should be composed of churches whose 
 ministers have never been called to act in the case of the Howard Street 
 Church during its last difficulties. 
 
 I will be ready to meet your Committee at any suitable time on a few 
 hours' notice, for the purpose of selecting the Council and preparing the 
 letters missive. 
 
 From your brother in Christ, 
 
 Ezekiel Goss. 
 ■Salem, Oct. 30th, 1849. 
 
 N. B. On account of business arrangements I would earnestly request 
 that the Church would act on it on Friday evening next at the close of their 
 preparatory lecture. 
 
53 
 
 No. 8. 
 
 ACTION OF THE TABERNACLE CHURCH DECLINING A 
 MUTUAL COUNCIL. 
 
 Salem, Nov. 9, 1849. 
 
 At a meeting of the Tabernacle Church, Friday evening, the request of 
 Br. Goss for a mutual council was acted upon, and the following vote was 
 passed, viz.: 
 
 "Whereas our Br. Ezekiel Goss, has requested this church to unite with 
 him in callino; a mutual council " to consider and advise with reference to 
 the following questions, viz. : — 
 
 1st. Was I in good and regular standing as a member of the Tabernacle 
 Church, on the 25th of August, 1849? 
 
 2d. Has any thing taken place in reference to the question of my request 
 for a dismission, since that time, that renders it improper that I should have 
 a letter in the usual form ? 
 
 3d. Is the standing of Howard Street Church such, that the Tabernacle 
 Church ought not to recommend members to its communion ? — 
 
 Therefore, voted, that the following answer be given to his request, viz. : 
 
 In regard to the first of the questions, which it is proposed to submit to a 
 mutual council, the Church has not taken action in a judicial manner, and 
 the hope has been cherished, and still is, that both the expediency and the 
 necessity of such action may be entirely precluded. If, however, the long 
 absence of Br. Goss from the communion and meetings of the church previous 
 to Aug. 25 should ever be brought before the Church, in the regular process 
 of discipline, the Church has no reason to anticipate any such difficulties in 
 the case, as would give occasion, in the smallest degree, for the advice of a 
 council. 
 
 Upon the second question, which it is proposed to submit to a mutual 
 council, — the Church has taken no action whatever, neither has any been 
 contemplated, so far as is known to the Church. As, therefore, the subject 
 matter of neither of these questions, has been adjudicated in the Church, 
 nor even introduced into the Church for the purpose of adjudication, there 
 can be no propriety in calling a mutual council in such circumstances " to 
 consider and advise with reference " to them. 
 
 In relation to the third question, it is true that the Church has taken 
 action, and such action as may be inferred from the language used in the 
 letter of Br. Goss. The action of the Church however by which the disso- 
 lution of the Howard Street Church, May 4th, 1847, has been recognized, 
 was taken with much carefulness and under a constraining sense of duty, 
 to vindicate and support the fundamental principles and the accredited 
 usages of the Congregational order, — as affecting the independence of each 
 Church respectively, and the inalienable rights of majorities in each church. 
 Until tlio^e who now profess to be the original Howard Street Church, as 
 if no dissolution had ever been voted, shall take a different ground upon 
 which they will urge their claims to recognition and fellowship as a sister 
 
54 
 
 church, — the Tabernacle Church cannot, with any consistency or propriety, 
 acknowledge their title to such recognition and fellowship ; so far as known 
 to the Tabernacle Church, there is no existing occasion to submit its doings, in 
 respect to this subject, to the revision of a Council ; neither is there any such 
 occasion apprehended, in the changes of the future. While, therefore, the 
 Church has none other than the kindest feelings towards Br. Goss, and there 
 is not the least desire to prevent a removal of his relation of membership to 
 some sister church, whenever it can be accomplished in an orderly and 
 satisfactory manner, the request of our Br. Goss, that the Church should 
 unite with him in calling a mutual council, must be declined. 
 
 Humphrey Cook, Church Clerk. 
 
 No. 9. 
 
 ACTION OF THE ESSEX SOUTH CONFERENCE OF 
 CHURCHES. 
 
 In October of the year 18-17, the Essex South Conference of Churches 
 met at Swampseot. The Howard' Street Church sent Brethren B. A. Gray 
 and D. Brainard Brooks, as delegates, and at the call of the names of mem- 
 bers they handed us their names as delegates. Objections were made to 
 their having a seat by R. P. Waters, Esq., on the ground that there was 
 no church there. Their claim was referred to a committee of five under the 
 following vote : 
 
 "Voted, that a committee of five be appointed to consider the question 
 pertaining to the relations to this conference of the brethren claiming to be 
 the Howard Street Church, Salem. Messrs. Lawrence, Cooke, Field, 
 Tolman, and Trask, of Beverly, were appointed the Committee." 
 
 Danvers, October 8, 1848. 
 
 Voted to hear the report of the Committee on the questions pertaining to 
 the relations of the brethren claiming to be the Howard Street Church, to 
 this conference. 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 Whereas, It is an admitted principle that in the action of Congregational 
 churches laid down in the New Testament, and in the records and symbols 
 of our churches, that majorities govern : and whereas we find no accredited 
 precedents in the usages of the church to the contrary, and do not feel 
 willing to institute one — Therefore, Resolved, That tho claim of our 
 brethren to be the late Howard Street Church, ought not to be allowed and 
 it is not allowed. 
 
 After a protracted discussion (from 9 1-2 A. M., to 4 P. M.) of the 
 subject, the Report of the Committee was adopted. 
 
 A true copy of the records, made by M H Wilder. 
 
55 
 
 No. 10. 
 RESULT OF COUNCIL ADVISING TO THE DISSOLUTION. 
 
 Salem, April 14, 1847. 
 
 It appears that the pastor's request for a dismission arises from embarrass- 
 ments which have rendered, in a great degree, abortive his earnest and 
 self-denying efforts for a course of years, and which embarrassments have 
 now come to a crisis, so that we can do no less than accede to his request, 
 and we hereby declare his pastoral relation dissolved. 
 
 We tenderly sympathize with the Rev. Mr. Mann, in his afflictions and 
 disappointed hopes, and most cordially recommend him to the churches of 
 Christ, as sound in doctrine, earnest, able and faithfid in preaching ; kind, 
 amiable and acceptable in the relations of social life, and heartily devoted 
 to the true ends of the mi?iistry. And we deem it due to him to say, that 
 his failure of the desired success in extricating this church from its embar- 
 rassments should not be used in disparagement of his ministerial character 
 in any respect. 
 
 And since the embarrassments which have so far frustrated his ministry 
 still exist, without prospect of change, while the Church retains its present 
 organization, we would suggest the inquiry whether the best good- of all 
 concerned would not be consulted by a dissolution of that organization, and 
 the members connect themselves with other churches in this city. A step 
 so uncommon, we think, is made expedient by reasons as peculiar. It is 
 not that we think that there is not ability and piety enough to sustain the 
 enterprise in favoring circumstances. There are materials of great value in 
 this Church, but they stand in such relations as to hinder their efforts for 
 good. Nor is it true that our denomination in this city have churches 
 enough without this. The prospect rather appears to be, that if this is 
 dissolved, a new one will soon take its place. We would, therefore, advise 
 that the present organization, if it sees fit, vote a dissolution, and if the 
 proprietors of the meeting-house see fit, to close it awhile and wait for the 
 movements of Providence, we feel persuaded that the time will soon come 
 when the way will be made to open it under better auspices. A new 
 organization formed for the purpose, would of course stand clear of most of 
 the embarrassments of the present. 
 
 We deem it to be our duty in concluding this Result, to call upon some 
 of the individuals of the Church to reconsider the manner in which they 
 have treated their pastor, during the existence of the difficulties which have 
 given occasion to the calling of this Council. Saying nothing of those who 
 have been in fault in other matters, there has been a disposition on the part 
 of these, to push some favorite points to extremes ; — a want of charitable 
 construction of the pastor's motives and conduct in relation to points on 
 which there existed a difference of opinion between him and them ; and a 
 deficiency of that kindness and courtesy which he had a right to claim as a 
 Christian minister, and particularly as their pastor. 
 
 The Council hope that they will see their error, and that in whatever 
 future ecclesiastical connection they may be placed, they will seek to be 
 
56 
 
 possessed of a spirit of wisdom, and of a sound mind, and will remember, 
 that charity, kindness and forbearance are as important parts of Christian 
 character, as zeal in suppressing the errors and vices of society. 
 
 Parsons Cooke, Moderator. 
 E. A. Lawrence, Scribe. 
 
 No. 11. 
 VOTE OF THE MAJORITY TO DISSOLVE. 
 
 Tuesday evening, May 4, 1847, Church met by adjournment. 
 
 Voted to choose R. P. Waters, Moderator, pro tem. 
 
 A. T. Brooks withdrew his motion for the previous question. 
 
 On the motion of indefinite postponement, Voted in the negative. 
 
 A. T. Brooks offered the following amendment to the main question, 
 which was accepted by the mover, as follows, after adopt, to read thus : 
 
 Voted to adopt the remainder of the Result of Council and by and with their 
 advice, this organization is hereby dissolved — and that Deacons Smith, Foster 
 and Driver, be a committee to grant letters of dismissions and recommenda- 
 tions under date of May 4, 1847, to all the remaining members of the 
 Church, to any Orthodox Congregational Church they may direct. 
 
 The yeas and nays being called for, the result was as follows : 
 
 Yeas. — A. T. Brooks, Thomas Brooks, Amos Henfield, Aaron Smith, 
 Jr., John Kimball, Wm. R. Warden, Joseph G. Porter, John H. Grush, 
 Alexander McClay, Moses T. Upton, George B. Stedman, Gideon B. 
 Monarch, Charles Goodrich, Eibridge Guilford, E. W. Fabins, Isaac P. 
 Foster, R. P. Waters— 17. 
 
 Nays. — Daniel Millet, Joseph Hale, S. Driver, Benj. A. Gray, Thacldeus 
 Osgood, D. B. Brooks, E. B. Osgood, Benjamin Trask, Eben. Cleaveland, 
 Wm. P. Fuller.— 10. 
 
 No. 12. 
 
 VOTE OF THE CHURCH UPON THE PASTOR'S REQUEST 
 FOR A MUTUAL COUNCIL. 
 
 Tuesday evening, April 6, 1847. — A communication from the pastor 
 requesting the Church to unite with him in calling a mutual council to 
 dissolve the pastoral relation being read, voted unanimously to comply with 
 his request. 
 
 Voted to invite the Crombie Street Church, Salem, churches in Marble- 
 head, Lynn, South and North Danvers, and Washington Street Church, 
 Beverly, to meet in council at the vestry, on Wednesday, April 14th, at 
 9 o'clock, A.M. 
 
67 
 
 Voted to choose George H. Smith and Isaac P. Foster the committee of 
 the Church to draft, sign and send the letters missive, and also to appear before 
 the Council in behalf of the Church. 
 
 No. 13. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHURCH SUBSEQUENT TO THE 
 VOTE TO DISSOLVE. 
 
 A meeting for business was held in the vestry on Tuesday evening, May 
 11th, 1817. The meeting was organized by the choice of Daniel Millet, 
 Moderator, and D. B. Brooks, Clerk. 
 
 Voted, That we choose a clerk for the Church, our former clerk having 
 taken a letter of dismission to another church. 
 
 Voted, that E. B. Osgood be Clerk. 
 
 Voted, to choose a Committee to supply the pulpit. 
 
 Voted, that Joseph Hale, Benj. A. Gray and John P. Jewett bo this 
 Committee. 
 
 Voted to choose a Treasurer for the Church, the former one having taken 
 his dismission. 
 
 Voted, that Dea. Stephen Driver, Jr., be Treasurer. 
 
 Voted, that a Committee be appointed to wait upon our former Treasurer 
 to request that the communion service be put into the hands of our present 
 Treasurer. 
 
 Voted, that Dea. Driver and Joseph Hale be this Committee. 
 
 Voted, that the Clerk be requested to call upon Dea. Foster, our former 
 Clerk, and request the records belonging to this Church. 
 
 Voted, that an Ecclesiastical Council be called to examine the doings of 
 the last church meeting. 
 
 Voted, that the Council be requested to meet on the 26th day of May 
 
 At a meeting of the Church held May 17, the vote calling the Council to 
 meet on the 26th was reconsidered, and it was voted to fix the time to the 
 28th of May. 
 
 The following is a copy of the letter missive : 
 
 Rev. and Beloved : — Whereas for a year past difficulties have existed in 
 this Church which have resulted in the calling of two Ecclesiastical Councils 
 the second of which dissolves the relation of the pastoral connection with 
 the Church and Society, and also recommended that the Church take into 
 consideration the expediency of disbanding its organization, — The result 
 of the Council having been read to the Church, the former part, which 
 dismissed the pastor, was unanimously accepted ; a motion was then made 
 to adopt the closing part of the result, and by its adoption to consider the 
 Church disbanded. This was strenuously opposed by a large minority of 
 the members present, and various arguments were presented for the consid- 
 eration of the Church, tending to prove the impossibility of thus disbanding 
 8 
 
58 
 
 a church of Christ without a unanimous vote. But notwithstanding all the 
 protestations of the minority, the vote was passed, seventeen voting in the 
 affirmative, and ten in the negative, three of those voting in the affirmative at 
 previous meetings of the Church, having been dismissed to sister churches, 
 yet they still persisted in voting on the question, though protests were 
 made against it. Several members, five at least, would have been present 
 to have voted with the minority, had not Providence prevented. Under 
 these circumstances the vote was passed and a committee of three persons was 
 chosen (two of whom had been dismissed at their request from the Church) 
 to give letters of dismission and recommendation to all the members — 
 whether they asked for them or not. This is a brief statement of facts in the 
 case. We are deeply grieved, and placed by this vote of the Church in 
 peculiar circumstances of trial and affliction, and need judicious Christian 
 advice in the matter, and therefore ask you to meet in Council, by your 
 pastor and delegate, at the vestry of the Howard Street Church, on Friday, 
 May 28th, at 10 o'clock, A. M., and review these proceedings, and adjudi- 
 cate thereon. 
 
 Note. — On the day appointed for the meeting of the Council, Friday, May 2Sth, it 
 was decided that as the number present was not sufficient for a quorum, the time of 
 meeting be postponed to Tuesday, June 15th. 
 
 At the above meeting Dr. Perry was Moderator. 
 
 No. 14. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL TO WHICH THE QUESTION 
 OF ACTUAL DISSOLUTION WAS SUBMITTED. 
 
 A copy of the Result of the Council, Salem, June 15th, 1847. 
 
 An Ecclesiastical Council convened at the vestry of the Howard Street 
 Church, pursuant to letters missive from the Howard Street Church, for 
 t 1 e purpose of giving advice in regard to certain proceedings purporting to 
 be a dissolution of said Church against the wishes of a minority. 
 
 The Rev. Gardiner B. Perry was chosen Moderator, and Joshua Leavitt, 
 Scribe. 
 
 The churches present were as follows : 
 
 Salem Church, Boston. — Br. David Pulsifer, Delegate. 
 
 East Bradford Church. — Rev. G. B. Perry, D. D., Pastor; Dea. Ira 
 Hopkinson, Delegate. 
 
 Second Evangelical Congregational Church, Cambridgeport. — Rev. 
 Joseph C. Lovejoy, Pastor; Rev. Joshua Leavitt, Delegate. 
 
 Hopkinton Church. — Dea. Samuel Nurse, Delegate. 
 
 East Abington Church. — Rev. H. D. Walker, Pastor; Dea. Elijah 
 Shaw, Delegate. 
 
 Free Church, Andover. — Rev. E. C. Winchester, Pastor; Br. John 
 Smith, Delegate. 
 
 Third Church, Danvers. — Rev. Richard Tolman, Pastor ; Dea. Frederick 
 Howe, Delegate. 
 
59 
 
 Prayer was offered by the Moderator. 
 
 The Committee who had issued the letters missive presented the record of 
 proceedings had subsequent to the vote of dissolution passed by the Church. 
 
 The records of the Church prior to the vote of dissolution were read by 
 Mr. Foster, the late Clerk, in whose hands they remain. 
 
 The Committee were fully heard on the subject of the dissolution of the 
 Church ; and then several of those who had voted with the majority were 
 heard at length. The people then retired. 
 
 Voted, That the members of the Council be called upon to express their 
 views individually on the case as it stands before the Council. 
 
 The members were nearly unanimous in the opinion that it is not com- 
 petent for a Church to dissolve itself by the vote of a majority, depriving 
 individuals of their covenant rights and privileges without their consent. 
 "We are of opinion, therefore, that this Church is not disbanded and those 
 members that remain ought to sustain the rights and responsibilities of the 
 Church. And they should humble themselves before God, and confess their 
 faults one to another, and pray one for another, until they come to be of one 
 mind, so that the Spirit may come down upon them from on high as in 
 times past. Thus may the Howard Street Church be maintained to the 
 honor of religion and the salvation of many souls. 
 
 Voted unanimously that the above be accepted as the result of this 
 Council. 
 
 (Signed) Joshua Leavitt, Scribe. 
 
 Note.— The Rev. Mr. Tolman, of Danvers, was the member alluded to above as at first 
 dissenting. He told a brother in the Church the same afternoon in returning home 
 from the Council, that previous to the discussions of the Council in private session he 
 •was of the opinion that a majority vote could disband a Church, but after hearing the 
 discussion of the question by the members, he gave in and voted with them. 
 
 At a meeting of the Church held in the vestry on Wednesday evening, 
 June 16th, after the result of Council was read to the Church, it was 
 
 Voted, That the report of the Council be accepted and recorded in tho 
 records of the Church, and also be published. 
 
 No. 15. 
 CHURCHES COMPOSING THE INSTALLING COUNCIL. 
 
 The following is a list of the churches represented in the Council at the 
 installation of Rev. M. H. Wilder as pastor of the Howard Street Church 
 and Society, July 10th, 1849. 
 
 Third Congregational Church, Salem.— Rev. Dr. Emerson, Pastor. 
 
 Church in East Bradford.— Rev. Dr. Perry, Pastor ; Dea. Ira Hopldn- 
 son, Delegate. 
 
 First Church in Braintree.— Rev. Dr. Storrs, Pastor ; Br. John Wild, 
 Delegate. 
 
 South Church, Ipswich.— Rev. Mr. Fits, Pastor; Josiah Kimball, 
 Delegate. 
 
60 
 
 Second Evangelical Congregational Church, Cambridgeport. — Rev. J. C. 
 Lovejoy, Pastor ; Alfred H. Orcutt, Delegate. 
 
 Park Street Church, Boston. — Rev. A. L. Stone, Pastor ; Dea. Edwin 
 Lamson, Delegate. 
 
 Third Congregational Church, Danvers. — Rev. James Fletcher, Pastor ; 
 Br. Nathan Tapley, Delegate. 
 
 Dane Street Church, Beverly. — Br. Israel Trask, Delegate. 
 
 First Congregational Church, Manchester. — Br. Henry Kitfield, Delegate. 
 
 Bethesda Church, Reading. — Br. David Emerson, Delegate. 
 
 Church in Hopkinton. — Rev. J. C. Webster, Pastor; Br. S. D. Daven- 
 port, Delegate. 
 . Church in West Medway. — Rev. Dr. Ide. 
 
 No. 16. 
 LETTER OF DR. OSGOOD. 
 
 Springfield, Dec. 13, 1849. 
 
 Dear Brother : — I received your kind letter of the 10th, and I sincerely 
 regret that it is impracticable for me to be present at the adjourned council. 
 It would give me great pleasure to meet so noble a Phalanx of Congrega- 
 tional brethren, as are on that council. I wrote to Mr. Goss at first, stating 
 the inconvenience under which I should labor, and desired him to make my 
 excuse to the brethren, intimating, at the same time, that I would have 
 consented, but for the fact that they had a very large and efficient council 
 without me. I never have declined a clear course of duty, and would not 
 in the present instance, but I have made such arrangements that I cannot 
 be with you without making a sacrifice which I do not deem to be necessary. 
 My counsel is not needed to strengthen any position, which I presume this 
 large and respectable and clear-sighted body would probably assume. I 
 fully agree with you, that no church should be crushed, which can sustain 
 the ministry. A minority have ecclesiastical rights as well as a majority. 
 If they desire to keep their organization, why should they be compelled, by 
 stronger bodies, to abandon it ? I recollect the case of the church in Kings- 
 ton, N. H., under the venerable Dr. Thayer, in which I think there was 
 but one male member and about twelve females ; and when the sacrament 
 was to be administered, in one instance at least, a deacon of a sister church 
 was invited to officiate. That church lived, and soon after the death of the 
 good pastor, the seed he had planted for half a century or less, sprung up in 
 a glorious revival. I do not understand why the sister churches wish to 
 cast this church out of the family of our Lord. I have full confidence in 
 that promise, " if any man lack wisdom, let him ask it of God," &c. I feel 
 that the great Head of the church will be with his ministers, will lead them 
 into all truth, and make their decision, whatever it shall be, the means of 
 promoting the glory of his name, and the good of his kingdom. 
 
 Present my affectionate regards to the brethren, and accept the assurance 
 of my confidence in yourself and all connected with you. 
 
 Rev. Dr. E. Beecher. Saml. Osgood. 
 
PHOTOMOUNT 
 PAMPHLET BINDER 
 
 MarmfactufJ by 
 
 \ ©AYLORO BROS. Im. 
 
 fyi*<uf, N. Y. 
 
 Stocfcton, G»M. 
 

 
 
 
 h , 
 
 I 
 
 
 ij>kl 
 
 
 LjJ 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 mj 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 ?■ 
 
 \£ 111