,c..... ^) , Hl" the Soiiili (Jluircli. Due ullowaiice imist of course, be initde tor llie pcn'soual l)ias of the writer. But althouizh there are two sides to every legitimate question, yet the essential truth must be ou one side only. And this may be so Tuliy and fairly exhibited, that the conclusion is not to be invalidated by any argument on the other side, however ingenious or plausible. We siiould probably have published this review, if it had not been for our unwillingness to appear before the comniii- uity, in any mode of controversy with brethren, between whom and ourselves there should always be a mutual and cordial aim, "to consider one another to provoke (only) unto love, and to good works." We also believed, that with the public at large, there really is no question in the case. And further, it never was supposed, that in any contingency there would be a direct collision of the claims of the two churches. Por these and similar reasons, the work which we now undertake, has not been performed at an earlier day. We arc still no less unwilling to appear in the attitude of con- troversy, and we intend none other 'provocation," tliiin that which is scriptural in precept and apostolic by example; while we assert our liberty and our duty to es- tablish historic fact, and vindicate the rights and proprie- ties of our ecclesiastical standin?. By formal request of the Tabernacle Church, the pastor prepared, at his convenience, a full Report upon the claims of the Church, as the true succession or continuation of the (Church of 1735.* The pastor of the South Church being then absent, there was no further action, until after his return. As we wished to "deal kindly and truly," in all respects, we proposed to our brethren, that they should meet us in a friendly conference, or unite with ns in some measure, by which the qu(>stiou between us might be ami- cably and effectually settled. We were entirely ready and desirous to refer it to mutual l>iends, although in our simplicity we had thought, that our brethren might be convinced by ourselves alone, that they were cherishing an erroneous and imwarrantable claim. — We were of the opinion, that not any among them had ever thoroughly and fairly investigated its actual founda- tion. We could not suppose, that their venerable pastor liad himself ever considered it, except as a matter, which, it was to be presumed, others had decided. We liad no evi- dence, in a word, that the intrinsic merits of the (]uestion were at all imderstood, and appreciated. On the contrary, ' See Appendix A. our belief was, that under the influence of tradition and imperfect knowledge, much had been taken for granted as true or proper, which will bear no candid examination ; and that general impressions from a very limited and inad- equate attention to the subject, had been allowed the high- e8t authority of undoubted fact and indisputable justice. What has since transpired, has thoroughly confirmed us in our opinion and belief. In proposing to our brethren the friendly consultation by a Committee, we felt assured, that at least we should per- suade them, that we have no other than kind and magnan- imous feelings in the action, which we contemplated ; and that if we have misjudged our claims, or mistaken the mode of appropriate procedure, it is an error in regard to Avhich we would open our whole minds and hearts for cor- rection and conviction. They very emphatically declined our proposal. They could not think it expedient to have any conference with us. We then repeated our proposal, urging also a few considerations, to show them, that they ought not to regard the question, as having been long since settled, as they alleged ; and that they ought not, from any fear of disturbing "peace, harmony and fellowship," to decline a conference^ if a formal and final reference, upon the subject. They reaffirmed their decision not to meet us. As if taking our communication for our argument upon the main ques- tion, they returned an elaborate and spirited rejoinder. — We have surmised, that it was considered by them as a triumphant refutation of our claims. The effect, however, was hardly such as may have been anticipated. Such a document we had not expected ; although as- sured of " no imwillingness, in itself considered, to engage in an investigation of the subject." It was not investiga- tion that we sought, " in itself considered" but discussion, candid, conciliatory and christian, with a view to a set- tlement of all disputable matter. Yet as our brethren, or those who prevailed as the majority, would not confer with us, or accede to any suggestions which implied, that by any possibility they may be in an error, it was no small satisfaction to us, to obtain so full and so earnest a vindi- cation of their cause. It has aided us very materially. When it was read to the Tabernacle Church, it was fol- lowed by some critical, and perhaps occasionally some stringent remarks, upon its statements and reasonings. If our object were controversy^ we should certainly have much pleasure in reviewing it at full length. It could not be expected that we should continue the correspondence. No reply, therefore, was sent to the last communication of our bretlirrn. li was promptly voted, however, tliat the Report of the pastor, previously men- tioned, and the Correspondence, with the Remarks, should be published. On some accounts we should now prefer to carry this vote into effect, without any modification. Ihit as wc have since had the privilege of seeing ior ourselves the Records of the South Church, we lind that the wliole discussion may be greatly simplified; and have been persuaded, that the object of this vindication can be better accomplished, by a diflerent kind and manner of appeal. It may be regretted by some, that any appeal like the present should be made. Our regret is, that such occasion has been given. It was not of our seeking, and wc mis- take very much, if any impartial reader will not be entirely satisfied, that the occasion is too urgent to be unheeded. One single thought is enough. The origin of a church, like the birth of an individual, is a fact of time, which in cases of law may involve questions of very serious moment. In courts of justice and in all legal processes ailecling churches, the date of the formation of a church, and other dates, like other facts, may be indispensable to appropriate procedure. Names, too, may be of no small importance. In a legacy, for example, bequeathed to the Third Church in Salem, it would be a fair question at law, whether the South Church or the Ta1)ernacle should receive it. Besides, we shall be under the necessity of exposing some errors and inaccuracies, which are found in the dis- course, published in 1813; from which we are very sure, that any one who has a just sense of the value of historic truth, will not deem it strange, that we should be unwilling any longer to keep silent as we have. And if there be any implcasant consequences, the responsibility is not with us. We liave waited long, in hope that the necessity of this vindication would be superseded. The main ([ucstion to be settled is. Which of the two Churches in this city, commnnhj called the Tabernacle and South Churches, is entitled to be considered the Third Church of 173.5 1 The settlement of this question obvi- ously determines another, — Which has the chronological precedence or jtriori/ij, in relation to the oth/r Churches / The South (Jhnrch claims to be the Tiiird Congregational Church of Salem. This claim cannot be sustained, unless the ( /hurcli can ho identified, as the direct and legitimate continuation of the Third Church of 1735. It must be that Church, or it caimot be the Third Congregational Church. Of the Third Church of 1735, really and moi>t truly, the Tabernacle Church claims to be the uninterrupted and perpetuated organization. If it did not begin in 1735, it never had any beginning. No man is authorized by any known facts, to assign any other date. The term Third, however, it should be remarked, is not properly ?, fixed name. Relatively, like its kindred niimeri- ical terms, it should denote the comparative age of a church. But it may, or ought to be transferred from one Church to another, in a change of circumstances. What is now the Second Church in fc^alem, was originally the Fourth. It became Second when the original Second and Third in ISalem, became First and Second in Danvers. Hence, whatever may be said of the presbyterian admixture of government in the Third or Tabernacle Church, nnder Dr. Whitaker, the numerical term Third is its appropriate, and the only appropriate designation oi the time of its origi?i or constitution as a Congregational Church. But we would state explicitly, that we do not contend respecting the name Third Church, or the style " Third Congi^egational ChnrchP We object and protest against •ivhat is claimed nnder the name^ Third Church. For al- most seventy years we have disused, and perhaps it should be said, discarded the name altogether. The name Tabernacle, which was substituted for it, has become known in all the earth. In the kind providence of God, the Church has numbered among its pastors, those whose praise is in all the churches, and whose memories are a priceless treasure, at home and abroad. The name is associated in our hearts, and the hearts of thousands else- where, with the most endearing and thrilling of all earthly remembrances. We should, therefore, as soon think of parting with a right arm or with a right eye, as with our present ecclesiastical name. Let the present issue, then, not be misunderstood. Our brethren of the South Church claim the right to call themselves Third Church, and also to be considered the Third Congregational Church in Salem, as being the origi- nal Third Church of 1735. We, on the other hand, claim to be none other than that same Third Church. And in vindication of our proper ecclesiastical standing and our true history, we now call attention to THE ORIGIN OF THE TABERNACLE CHURCH. The two churches, as at present existing, are both rec- ognized in the community, as Congregational, in good and 8 regular standing. As organizations, they arc complolf. Siip|)oso now a disinterested inquirer wished to dtsterniine which of thetn lie himself ouglit to consider the (,'hnrch of 17:i;"), and by consecjuence which the oldest organization. With the Records of both Chiu'ches in his hands, let liini first examine those of tlie Tabernacle. Tracing back the history of this latter Church from the present hour, he Avill come to the period when the Rev. Mr. Fisk, the first minister, retired from his pastoral rela- tion, retaining in his possession the records of about eight years previous. The first date of the existing records is February 20, 1743. The book is called the "Book of Re- cords of the First Church in Salem." Elsewliere it may be learned that the Church, holding these records under the name of the First Church, had originated in a separation or ejection of the majority of the true First Church, by an act of discipline termed the Third Way of Communiott. This was in 1735. The minority liad remained upon the premises, but were not recognized by the majority in their proper ecclesiastical character, until 1762. Thus, for twenty-seven years, there were nominally two First Churches in Salem. All equal division was finally made of the plate and other "interest," or property. The name or style First Church, was formally and forever relinquished by those, who, after consenting to call themselves, " the Church of which the Rev. Dudley Leavitt vms late pastor ^^^ voted in May 1763, that " this Church be called the Third Church of Christ in Sale7n, from this time forxcardP It may be added, that although Mr. Fisk was at the head of the majority, at the time of the separation, it was found necessary to install him in 1736. And such concessions were made, about the time of the dissolution of his con- nexion with them, that the neighboring churches received them into fellowship, and put an end to the disabilities, which had been justly imposed upon them in 1735. Let an inquirer search the Records, from the first page of the first book, through all the 500 pages, as also in the second book, and he will see the acts or proceedings of one and the same identical.^ orrranised body, in regular and unbroken series. He will find that the original covenant as a Congregational Church, was never renounced, although at the settlement of Dr. Whitaker in 1769, there was an unanimous consent, tliat the Church should be governed by the pastor and a session of elders, with the right of appeal to a Congregational Council, until another Judica- ture should be appointed.* He will find also, that five • Appendix. 9 years afterwards, a majority by an irregular mode of pro- ceeding adopted the Boston Presbytery as that Judicature, and the Church, for a season, was taken under the watch and care of that body. Three months after the connexion had begun, a disaffected minority, having maintained a controversy with tlie pastor for two years and upwards — a contvovcvsy personal^ much more than ecclesiastical — during wliicli they had mostly retired from the communion of the churcli — were dismissed under direction and by authority of the Presbytery. This was in Sept. 1774. (See Appendix C.) They were thus understood to be, and were, as effectually separated from the Third Church, as any individuals were ever separated from any church ; and the Third Church as it was in 1769, when Dr. Whitaker was settled, remained, with the vast majority of the congregation, with the pas- tor, the Records, the property and the whole essential or- ganization, just as it had been for forty years previous, and with no modification of its internal management differing from the agreement with Dr. Whiiaker in 1769. To that a- greement theseceders who were dismissed, then unanimously consented, and were the foremost to carry it intoefiect. And those " uneasy brethren" were now, in Sept. 1774, just as much dismissed from the Third Churcli, and were so con- sidered by the majority, as were the members, who, in 1802, were dismissed to the Church in Rowley, before they were organised as the Branch Church, since called How- ard Street. They were of course no longer a part of the church, unless as dismissed members, in ordinary cases, they may have been regarded as somewhat amenable to the church, until formed into a new church, or recognized as members of some other church. Dr. Whitaker, according to the Records, continued in his pastoral relation, until he was removed by an act of Council, February, 1784. Mr. Spaulding was his succes- sor, in 1785, and the Records contain the proper notice of his settlement, as of his predecessors, Messrs. Leavitt and Huntington, with Dr. Whitaker, and his successors, Dr. Worcester, Mr. Cornehus, Dr. Cleaveland, and the present pastor, who was installed, Dec. 3, 1834. These all are duly noticed in the Records, as installed or ordained in reg- ular succession from Mr. Fisk, and as the pastors of the Church of 1735, excepting that Dr. Whitaker was receiv- ed, without the usual formalities of clerical installation. It was not until after the removal of Dr. Whitaker, in 1784, that the name Tabernacle happens to occur in the Records, as the name of the church. It was introduced by no vote or act of the body, and was never afterwards 10 so recognized, as was the name Tliird Chuvcli, wliicli it liad gradually disjilaced and ultimately superseded. The n;yne origiuated J'rom the house of worsiiip, which was dedicated in 1777. IJut it neither denoted nor indicated any change whatever in the administration of the ( 'liurch ; still less any hegimiing, re-organization, or re-ostahlish- ment ; and nowhere in the Records can be seen the small- est perceptible trace or the faintest intimation, tliat the present organization, known in Church and State, as the Tahernnclc Churchy was ever dissolved, or had any other heginning, than that which is identified with the separation from the f^'irst Church, in 173."). No Council was ever called, and no minority or majority ever acted for any such purpose, as a dissolution or reorganization of the body. If such evidence as this he not sufficient to prove the identity of the Church, as the continued organization of 1735, then no Church in the land can prove its identity, be- fore a Court of Justice or an Ecclesiastical Council. What- ever opinions or pretensions, therefore, may be entertained by others, it seems to us that any candid inquirer would he entirely persuaded, that if any church in existence has the legitimate title to consideration as the Church of 1735, subsequently called Third Church, it must be the Taber- nacle Churcli alone. An anomaly indeed it would l)e, in all history from the beginning hitherto, that a Church should have the Jicco?'ds of its acts, in rcu;ular order, a whole generation, for exam- ple, before it had any being; or that a Church should have, as its own, the Records of any other Church ! ! ORGANIZATION OF THE SOUTH CHURCH. Let the inquirer now take tlie first book of the Records of the brethren, who claim for their Church the name and the consideration of the Third Church of 1735. He will find that the title and style of the Records are in corres- pondence with this claim. But he will of course not re- gard this as any proof of its being tlie real Third Church ; for he will not be likely to forget the name and style of Pii'st Church, in the early Tabernacle Records. And lie need not be reminded, that the same name or style might have continued to the present hour, if there had been no higher sense of historic truth and ecclesiastical propriety among the members, than prevailed for nearly twenty-sev- en years. IJut if it had so been, and wdiether or not the First (-'hurch had taken another name, it would obviously be an entirely distinct body from the Church of KVil* : and 11 have no legitimate title to be called, any more than to bo considered, the First Church m Salem. What is wrong at the beginning, there is no virtue in the lapse of ages upon ages to make right. The first page of the Records now in hand, introduces us to the Result of a Council, bearing the date at the head, Feb. 14—16, 1775. Why it is not simply Feb. 14, does not appear. All the transactions and proceedings which are recorded under the date Feb. 14 — 16, would seem very clearly to have belonged to one day only, and that Feb. 14. This is the date of the vote for moderator of the brethren themselves, who had called the Council ; and also the date of their signatures to the Covenant which they sub- scribed, previous to their recognition as a church in reg- ular standing. When the inquirer has read through the whole record of the Result of the Council, with a small part of the page following, we should not be surprised, if he should shut up the volume with perfect astonishment. We are very sure, that he would have occasion to say, that he had nev- er seen or imagined the like before. The Council, as he perceives, was but a small body, con- sisting of four ministers, with the accompanying delegates and the delegates also of one other church. Two church- es in Bostonhad been invited, but were not represented. No church in Salem had part in the Council. The members had assembled agreeably to Letters Mis- sive , not from the Third Church of Christ in Salem, — but from Benjamin Ropes, John Gardner, etc., fourteen in all, " representing that the Boston Presbytery, sitting in Sa- lem, in September last, had declared them (together with many sisters of the church, provided they did not re- turn in the time limited, now past,) to be dismissed from the Church noio under Dr. Whitaker''s pastoral care, but without censure ; and requesting advice and assista7ice in a re-establishment of church order ^ And to this part of the document, we have no objection to make. At an early stage of their proceedings, the Council at- tended to some statements concerning the doings of a pre- vious Council, which was convened Jan. 10, at the call of the same brethren. Some of the members of the first Council were evidently a part of the second. And from what is said concerning Dr. Whitaker's strictures upon the first Letters Missive, of which he had complained as con- taining " a wilful misrepresentation of matters," and from intimations in regard to an expected or proposed Mutual Council, to be agreed upon between the Doctor and "the fourteen brethren." it may be inferred very confidently, 12 tliat the Council of Jan. 10, dissolved their session, boranso of inability to find "light," for the rccogniiion of the brethren as the Third Church, or as any church. The present Council, however, this of Feb. 14, make numerous inquiries, as they say, consult divers papers, and conclude to act, according to the request of the Letters JMissive. We very strongly suspect, that during ilic inter- val between Jan. 10 and Fel). 11, one member of the Coun- cil, Rev. Mr. Cleavcland, of Cbcbaceo, who was probably of the first Council also, had fully prepared himself for tlie emergency, so that there might be no insuperable obstacle in the Avay of the contemplated proceedings. He was the most skilful and formidable antagonist, that Dr. Wlii taker ever had to encounter. It requires no very searching analysis of the proceedings of the Council, to trace two dillercnt and really incompati- ble o])jects as the apparent end in view, and two corres- ponding modes of inconsistent operation. The brethren doubtless wished to be recognized as the original Third Church, and the Council were solicitous to gratify them fully in this respect. At the same time, they had no or- gnnizat'wn as any cimrch whatever, — accordins: to the usages of the churches, \\'\\\\ which they desired to be in fel- lowship. They had not only long been absent from the com- munion of the Third Church, previous to its being placed under the care of the Boston Presbytery, but, for about five months, they had also been declared to be dismissed. The Cambridge Platform says: — " 1. ! church, and, as such only, entitled to he considered, to he called, or to he nutnerlcally distinguished ? Not to anticipate, we will just add in this connexion, that, if there had been but two older Congregational Church- es, the new organization might have been styled, under existing circumstances, the New Third Congregational 14 Churrli. Hilt as there wore already three — leaving out ol account the Third C'Imrch of 1735 — there was no more propriety in their heinu; called the Third Church, or the Third CoiiLirviiatioiuil Church., than in their being called and also coiisiilered the First Church. The Council had a perfect competency to organize the l)rcthren and sisters as a Congregational Church, in regu- lar standing. Beyond or above that, they had no power to proceed. It was not for thetn to take away the rights of others, which were inalienable without consent. And neither from the words of the (ucat Head of the Church, nor from the accreditcti usages and established liberties of the New England Congregationalists, could they derive any authority or ability, to impart to the new organization of Feb. 14, 1775, any other rights or immunities, than such as are the common and legitimate possession of nil Con- gregational Churches, when duly constituted or recognized. Unhappily, they entirely transcended the limits of their prerogative, and vcMitnrcd upon an innovation, which we find it dilHcult to characterize, in terms'of becoming mod- eration and forbearance. In the midst of otherwise regular and satisfactory pro- ceedings, the following resolutions were unanimously a- dopted by the four pastors, with the delegates : — "It appears to us, after serious and careful attention to the best li?;ht which could be obtained, iliat the above named Benjamin Ropes, etc., toffcther with tliose sisters above referred to, are, in a reasonable and just construction, The Chimh, which existed in the Rev. Mr. Leavitl's day, and was under his pastoral care, and which, before the ordination of the Rev. Mr. Huntington, consented to take the name of the Third Congregational Church of Christ in Salem, and that they are entitled to all tiie privileges of that Church" ! " We find nothing that ought at all to deprive them of the Com- munion of the Churches ; and we recommend to them the renewing of their Covenant with God and with one anotiicr, at this time; and agree that the fellowship of the Churches be rencwedly given to them, as a Church in good standing. We earnestly recommenil to them that forgiving spirit, — that benevolent, inollensive, prudent conduct, — which becomes Christians and is their defence and glory : and our prayer is that the God of love and peace may be with them" ! Mr. Leavitt was settled in April, 1745, and Mr. Hunting- ton, in September, 17G3. The Council, then, it will be noticed, did not see '• light" enough, rcasunaJjly and justly to "construct" the fotirteen brethren and twenty-four sis- ters, as " The Church,^^ which existed when Dr. ^Vhitaker was settled in 17G0 ; btit " in the best light which could be obtained, the above named brethren and sisters" "ap- peared" to them to hi;, and therefore, it would seem, they were " 2Vlc Churrh,'' which existed ihirti/ years before, as 15 in " Rev. Mr. Leavitt's day," and ten years before, when Mr. Huntington was pastor ! And yet Dr. Whitakcr was settled as the pastor of the same Church, — the successor of those same pastors, — and with tlie heartiest approval of the same "above named brethren" ! It will be perceived, also, from the second resolution, that although the Council organized the brethren and sis- ters, in such form and manner as we have seen, they yet nominally endeavor to represent — they really disguise — the proceedings, as if they were only what would be suit- able, in a renen-nl of CovenanthY any Church which had long been constituted. But when did any Church thus re- new their Covenant? When were witnessed such formal- ities of organization in presence of a Council; and yet the members of the body having no need of organization, be- ing already a Church which had existed for forty years 7 The second resolution was evidently moulded to agree with the first, and in combination with it was adapted to give a greater semblance of consistency, to the whole pal- pable inconsistency between what was pretended and what was done ; and a delusive show of reason to the utter ab- surdity of the attempt to create a fact, — to " construct" a new organization, and so ^^7-esolve'' it, or "resolve" con- cerning it, that it might be received as identical with the old, — and as the old formerly was, in the times of the pas- tors who had fallen asleep ! If the like was ever known, before or since, in ecclesiastical history, — when and where was if? And yet here is the whole foundation of the claim of the South Church, in opposition to that of the Tabernacle ! As the successors of the " fourteen brethren," they assume to be the very individual Church of 173.5, — upon the sole basis primarily of this first and this most extraordinary resolution of the small Council of 1775 ; — assembled too in circumstances of highly prejudiced excitement, and of very violent hostility to Dr. Whitaker and the adhering majority. Can it be that there has been a calm and considerate view of the intrinsic merits of the opi7iion of those few ministers and delegates, one of whom probably was the director of all? Is it to be believed, that the facts have really been understood ? Has the reasonableness and the justice of the unprecedented " constructioyi^'' ever been sub- jected to a candid and truly enlightened examination, by those who now insist, that, not in name only, but in real- ity and right, they are the Third Church of 1735 ? 16 TlII^ FIRST RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF FEHR'Y 11, i:::.. hi'eciai.i.v f-xamim:!) and anai.vzf.d. The Council, it should be distinctly noticed, rv.'f.s/ifn vo reasons ir/iafcvcr, and do not in the least allude to any, for their "construction." Thero is not a syllable of the kind, in any part of their recorded Result. The "light" whicli they found to walk in, when they travelled out of tjie highway, and the more excellent way of the fathers, is all " darlcuc^ss visible" to us, for anything that " ap|)ears." Why now that concealment, that di])l()niatic phraseology. instead of an open, ingenuous, intelligible declaration of their reasons 1 "In a reasonable and just construction, it appears to us," etc. — Construction of irkat, we ask, — words, — persons, — things that were, — or things that were not.' Who ever before heard of a '■'■ construction^'^ by which to decide a simple question, in regard to a matter of fact 7 And is the individuality or identity of a church to be determined by an opinion, from an appearance in a constrvction, any more than the personal individuality or identity of any one of the members 7 What would be thought of a verdict of a jury, by which a matter of fact, especially aflectiug a man's identity, was alllrmed or denied, according to a " construction" 7 It would be impossible for us to account for this extraor- dinary resolve, were it not for the known opposition to Dr. Whitaker and the adhering majority of tbe Third Church. W^e can hardly suppose that the Council were so far infat- uated, as to imagine that they could thus invest the new organization with the lea^al title to the property of the Third Church. Yet it may so have been, or liave been hoped. Jiut " the fourteen brethren" bad been defeated in their conflict with Dr. Whitaker ; having been overmatched or circumvented, by his dexterous and clandestine manage- ment. They liad the strong sympathies of the members of this second Council, if not also of the first. And now we have not the slightest doubt, that this e.rtra-J7/(liciaf, — if we may borrow the term from the Courts of Law, — this entirely unprecedented procedure in the first resolution of tliis Result, was aimed at Dr. AVhitaker and the adhering majority, partly, if not chiefly or entirely, as a kind of mer- ited retaliation or reprisal, for tlie wrongs which they con- ceived themselves to have sutlered at his hands. It must liave been known, that it would be annoying in the ex- treme. We should have, been wholly at a loss for the idea or abstraction, as the jyrinciple assumed by the Council, in re- solviug as they did ; if it were not for the following pas- sage in a pamphlet by the leading member, Rev. Mr. Cleaveland, published nine years afterwards : — " In be- coming a Presbyterian Church, the Third Church," he says, "ceased to be a Congregational Church, and relin- quished all their peculiar rights, properties and claims of t5ie Third Congregational Church in Salem ; and the re- linquished style and claims returned to such of their mem- bers, as afterwards re-assumed the Congregational form." This passage, doubtless, refers to the action of the Coun- cil of February, 1775. In another paragraph there is also an allusion to the Result of this Council, as having " found light" to resolve as they did; with not a word, however, of explanation or vindication. Lest we should perplex the reader, by entangling the question before us, we pass over the occasion of this pamphlet and its general state- ments ; only remarking that it was a conclusive reply to Dr. Whitaker's defence of himself against the Council which removed him in 1784. Mr. Cleaveland was a very worthy man, and esteemed a good adviser. But in the Council of 177.5, he was betray- ed into an egregious error, Avhich afterwards embarrassed him not a little. Greater, if not better men, have committed mistakes, which have much surprised their friends and others. And unfortunately, when a public man makes a mistake before the public, he is, in general, very slow to correct it or to confess it. Let it be observed, that Mr. C. speaks of ^^ the Third ChurclC as '■'• ceasing to he CongregationaV ; not of indi- vidual members^ as separately ivithdrawing from the church and becoming presbyterian, nor of their thus re- nouncing Congregationalism. So far as tlie church had been Presbyterian, he knew which part remained so, and substituted the Boston Presbytery for a Congregational Ju- dicature. " The rellnqidshed siyle,'^ etc., he says, ^^ returned to such of their members," that is, of the Third Church, — ■ "as afterwards re-astsiimed the Congregational form." Thus we have his testimony that the fourteen brethren had not contliLued, but re assumed the Congregational form. And when did they re-assume this form, but at the time when " re-established in church order" ; or, more correctly speaking, when organized and recognized by the Coun- cil of 1775 ? Assuredly they could have had no organization separate from the majorityof the Third Church, at any time antece- 3 18 (lent to their withdrawal from the Communion ; unless there wore two churches in one body, or one church with- in anotlier. If they had any organization previous to their dismission by the act of the presbytery, it has never come to our knowledge. And if after their dismission they were the Third Church, or were any church ])roperly, then they could have gone forward as such, without any " rt- cstaUishment i/i church order. ^^ " The peculiar rights, properties," etc., of wliich Mr. Cleavcland speaks, must include the title to the Records, the plate, and all other pecuniary interest, if the amount had equalled the vast funds of the Trinity Church in New York. All this, it would seem, is " relinquished" by a church, becoming presbyterian, " to such of its members as afterwards re-assume the congregational foriii'^ ! ! It is amazing, that any sensible man could have ever been beguiled by such a shadowy and delusive assumption. We should think from the form of expression, that there was an established law, or some ecclesiastical canon, well understood, and which could at once be cited. But it is ASSUMPTION, — ecery irord of it. There is no law in Church or Commonwealth, no usage or precedent, to which an appeal could be made for author- ity, or example. Beyond a doubt, such law or precedent would have been cited, if there had been any, in all the previous history of New England, or of Christendom. It was the mere opinion or sentiment^ the abstraction and im- agination, probably of I\Ir. Cleaveland alone; which " ap- peared" "reasonable and just" to himself, and in which others acquiesced. But as a conceit or device of the hour, to give plausibility to a new and indefensible procedure, — it answered its purpose far too successfully. As a principle^ however, we can put it to the test at once. When the Branch Church in Salem became Co7i- grcgational, there were some who were unwilling to sur- render their presbyterian preferences or rights. Suppose that after being dissatisfied and dismissed, or otherwise separated from the church, they had called a presbytery to "re-establish them in church order," as presbyterians. Could any presbytery, larger or smaller, have made them the old Branch Church / Could any presbytery liave put a minority in just pos- session, or invested them with a valid title to all " the pe- culiar rights, properties and claims" of that church, as ex- isting in the days of Rev, Mr. Spaulding and Rev, Mr. Blalchford? The funds of the church, for instance, if any there were? And has not a presbytery, as much legal or 19 ecclesiastical authority, as any Congregational Council, whether ex-parte or mutual 7 The present Howard Street Church, as the Brancli Church has smce been called, dates its existence as a church, from its original organization, as presbyterian, in 1805, — and not from the time it became congregational, in 1827. The pastor of the South Church has so recognized this church, in the Appendix to his Sermon in 1843. If now n. presbyterian church does not change its identity^ as an organized body, by becoming congregational^ — how does a congregational by becoming presbyterian ? If the South CImrch were now to adopt the presbyterian mode of government entirely, according to the standard of the General Assembly, Old School and New ; — would the brethren say, that this church began in the year 1847 '? And if they should re-assume the congregational form, three years hence, would they date their beginning in the year 1850? Is not the river Jordan the same river, although in its course it passes some miles under ground? Did Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate in Great Britain, make any differ- ence in the identity of the throne and the realm of Charles Second, — as the continuation of the sovereignty of Charles First 7 Or did our City Charter alter the identity, and change the date of /SV/Zem? Are we not the same people as before, instead of being a new or another community? About as justly might the contrary be maintained, as that every man puts on a different identity, when he changes the fashion of his apparel. The vote of a church to administer its affairs by a ses- sion, instead of the whole brotherhood, — and also to refer difficulties to a presbytery, instead of a congregational council, — cannot dissolve the organization, nor in any re- spect make it a new body, in point of time. A church might be presbyterian and congregational, every alternate year, or month even ; without at all affecting the date of organization, or the ordinary constituents of ecclesiastical identity. The Boston Presbytery, which had received the Third Church of 1735, under its watch and care, June 1774, re- viewed the proceedings of the Council of Feb. 1775. In reference to the " construction''^ of that Council, the fol- lowing minute was passed at the meeting in Seabrook, June 1, 1775 : " By the representation made to this presbytery in their session at Salem, last September, it was made abundantly to appear by Dr. Whitaker in the presence of his adversa- ries, that those and those only who adhered to the agree- 20 merit and covenant produced (exhibited) by Dr. Whila- ker, arc the Third Church in Salem, of which the Rev. M*cssrs. Dudley Leavitt and Jolm Huntington were former- ly pastors; and that they and they only arc entitled to all the privileges and immunities belonging to the said Third Church. ALEXAnNKK McliKAN, Pres'y Clerk." This witness is no more ex-parte, than the Result of the Council, which it was designed to cojitravene. There were three times as many clergymen and twice as many delegates, as composed that Council. It was a very differ- ent body from the ^Salc/n presbytery, afterwards formed by Dr. "\\ hitaker. And to say nothing of the ]ii2li charac- ter of some of the members, — their testimony certainly is of some validity, in establishing our position, that presby- ter ianisni never changes the identify of a church as an or- ganized body. We will suppose again, that a Congregational Church, has, in some way, regular or irregular, become Presbyteri- an ; and that a minority are divided into tiro or three dij/'cr- cnl parties or companies, who are unwilling to act in con- cert, for a new organization, or for any other futnre eccle- siastical relations. They call their ex-parte Councils re- spectively, and are formed, or " re-established in chvrch or- der^ They each, however, "appear" to themselves "in the best light" which they profess to be able to fmd, to be entitled to all " the peculiar rights, properties, and immu- nities" of the church, which still claims to be the original church, as a regular, undissolved organization. And each Council decides accordingly ! After all "constructions," "resolutions" or "results," ever so unanimous and emphatic, — how many original churches would there be, — in addition to the church, from which these subdivisions of the minority had been dis- missed ; or WMth which they were no longer in regular standing as members? — The Crombie Street Church was formed by a separation from the Howard Street, in 1S32. The majority of the church, and of the congregation, with the pastor at the head, were organized in due form, as a new church and society. "What would have been thought of the Council, if after organizing the chinch, as it now exists, a vote had been passed, signifying the opinion of the bmly ronvened, that, in a reasonable and just con- struction, those brethren and sisters are the IJouard Street Chinch, as it existed in 1827, under the pastoral care of the Rev. Mr. Williams'.' With how much more propriety could such a vote have been passed, than the resolution of the Council of 17757 Any necessity o( JC-eslablishtJicni or rc-organizeition, ini- 21 plies the begimiing of a neio ecclesiastical body. The dil- i'erent bodies in the case just supposed, might each take the name of the original church, and claim all the rights of the church. They might dismiss members under that name, and send letters missive. Other churches, in igno- rance, or courtesy, or from honest supposition of propriety, might call them by the same name. But whether this were done for seven years or seventy, would make no man- ner of difference, in the matter of reasonableness and justice. The laws of the land, in any question of property, would defend the Old Church, against all other organiza- tions, by whatever name they persisted in calling them- selves. If it were not thus, the powers of irresponsible ecclesiastical councils, would be above those of the Legis- lature. The enactments of the Legislature and the de- cisions of the Supreme Court would be completely under their feet. A beautiful state of order we should have, if a few of the clergy of tlie land could thus, at their pleasure, ^'lord it over God's heritage." The simple historical fact i5, that the resolution of the Council of 1775, had no more effect upon " the rights, properties," etc., of the majority adhering to Dr. Whitaker, and sustaining the organization of 1735, than if no such Council had ever been called. The church of Dr. Whitaker,— the church of 1735,— of which he was still the pastor by the contract of 1769, re- tained all " the rights, properties," etc. of the Third Church, — in actual possession and legal protection. Some of the dismissed members held property in their hands, which was regularly and formally demanded and recovered. (See Appendix D.) And when, in April, 1784, the church plate was in the hands of Dr. Whitaker, now removed from office. — and the church wished to take it from him, — a committee was empowered to demand it, and to use all necessary measures to obtain it. And it was obtained by a writ of replevin. It was obtained of course, as the property of the Third Church of 1735, — the same of which he had been pastor. If the Rev. Mr. Hopkins's Church were the Third Church, why was there no such action on their part 7 How came the laws oj the land to be on the side of the Tabernacle Church, as the church was then commonly called? Such was the feeling towards Dr. Whitaker, at the time of the separation, that if by " writ of replevin," or any le- gal measures, the fourteen brethren could have obtained any part of that plate, there is not a shadow of probabili- 22 ty that they wouhl have permitted the sun to v^o down, many times after Feb. 14, 1775, — before they would have assorted their rights. The fact that they did not, nor even formally demand any part of the plate, any more than the Records, — is proof demonstrative, that they were fully aware, that the resolution of the Council was in law a mere nullity. They had a claim in cf/uihj. as the Third Church for- merly liad, in their settlement with the First Church. And when Dr. Whitakcr had fallen to the dust, and his church and congrci^ation were fast meliing away, a committee of the church of Mr. Hopkins made some private etVort to procure a recognition of their title to a share of the plate, belonging to the Third Church of 1735. How they pro- ceeded, is not known, neither can be conjectured from what appears in the South Church Records; unless they did, as individuals were said to have been doing, — to wit, '■'■con- versing loitli some of the members of Dr. Whitaker^s churc/i. in a soft, tender^ and christian manner^ It was by such manner only, that they coidd have had the least liope of success. Whatever tliey did, — they failed en- tirely. This effort was about seven years after the Council of Feb. 1775, and two years before the plate was taken by *' the writ of replevin." on demand of its legal owners. But in (October, 1785, when the church at the Tabernacle were about settling Mr. Spaulding, they consented to an equal division of the plate and all other interest of the kind, — Rev. Mr. Hopkins"s church paying one half of the expense. It was a token of conciliation in brotherly kind- ness, but not at all the recognition of any IcL^al claim ; and whatever may now be said of it, was understood at the time, but not in an invidious sense, to be a peace-offering. We have living testimony. (See Appendix E.) The legal aspect of the question under consideration is so plain, that we do not at all wonder, that the fourteen brethren never presumed to try the experiment of an ap- peal to the law. Centlemen of the highest eminence as jurists among us, have had it under their cognizance, in its essential points and connexions; and they have unani- mously decided against the claims of the South Church. One recently deceased, — who was of the very lirst respec- tability, — kindly gave attention to the subject, and deliber- ately said : — " 1 am willing to give my opinion, as a law- yer, and to have it known as my judgment, that the South (.'hurch has vo claim at all to be considered the Third Cliurch in Salem, 17:55 !"' IJut look again at the doings of the Council of 1775. It 23 may bo obJGCted that the fourteen brethren, etc., were not jnopcrlij dismissed ; and that the action of the presbytery was invahd. Whatever may now be objected, — the pre- amble of tite Result of the Council shows that the Council was called in consequence of their being " declared to be dismissed,^' and as no longer in regular standing with Dr. Whitaker's Church. The Council recognize this fact ex- pressly ; and as a warrant for tlieni to proceed to business, agreeably to letters missive from the brethren. Mr. Cleave- land's pamphlet, also, proves that the Council considered Dr. Whitaker, as having no proper claim to them, as mem- bers, they having all been " dismissed from the church, so as to be no part of it,''^ — according to his own admission. But we will admit, for the sake of argument, that the four- teen brethren, etc., had not been dlsmisstd from the Third Church. Were they, then, — that is, the fourteen brethren iJie Third Church of 1735, or were they not? If the Third Church, how had they become so, to the exclusion of their breth- ren and sisters, — who were a majority of nearly two to one of the former, and about five to one of the latter? These, the majority, never left the church ! They had never withdrawn from it in any mode whatever. They were in the same organized body, of which Dr. Whitaker took charge, about six years before, and which came down through the ministries of Messrs. Huntington, Leavitt and Fisk. Let the vote be produced, if there be any, or any ecclesiastical act of any description, by which the prede- cessors of the members of the present Tabernacle Church were dismissed from the Third Church of 1735. Let the day or month or year be authentically shown to us, in which their relation as regular members of the Third Church, as Dr. Whitaker found it in 1769, ivas dissolved! At the time of the Council of Feb. 1775, the majority, by a vast preponderance of numbers, were worshipping together in the same place of temporary accommodation ; they had the same Covenant as ever; the pastor settled in 1769 was still their pastor, without any change of his re- lation to them ; they had the book of records, the plate, and every thing which legally pertained to the inheritance of the Church of 1735, in its distinctive organization and perpetuation. How then is it possible, that a minority of that church could be the Church ? Take a case from among the majority. Two sisters of the Third Church, A. B. and X. Y., became members in 1766, — before Mr. Huntington's decease. Enjoying the or- dinary privileges of members in good and regular standing ; and without ever asking a dismission, or ever leaving the 24 communion of thn church, — they loimd thcmscivos in 1770. under Dr. NVhitaker.s pastorul care, just as in 1773 or l7G9. Of what church were they mcmhers in 1770, if not tlio same church which they joined in 1760 I If not of ifiat identical hody, hcfore called and then called Thiku Church. — how had they hcen separated from it I W^ere they no longer members, without knowing it? AVerc they con)miniing with l)rethren and sisters, the same as ever, and yet did not belong to their own cliurch '? Had they been transferred from one organization to an- other, while doing as Martha or iMary, or while they slept? Had they lost or changed their original chinch member- ship, without any more consciousness or suspicion of what had befallen them, than that they were no longer the same persons ? We will take the same individuals in 17SG, — the year after Mr. Spaulding's settlement as pastor of the Taberna- cle. They have now been communing for twenty years, as regular members of the Church of 1735, — according to their covenant. Were they or were they not ine/nOcrs of that chiircJi / If so, why not their sisters and their breth- ren who were in like circumstances ; and why were they not as a body, — how could they be otherwise than, — the Third Church, really and truly 7 Dr. Whitaker, too, the pastor. — how had liis relation to the Third Church been terminated? Was there any dis- mission of him in Salem, previous to his removal from ollice in disgrace, in 1784? Did "the fourteen brethren,"' as bein^ the Third Church, ever dismiss him '? Did any Council of theirs ever depose him '? Had they not tried in vain, for more than two years previous to Feb. 1775, to compel him to take a dismission ; although not by any means as being, or professing themselves to be the Third Church, — to the exclusion of the majority who stood by him ? In Xov. 1778, these brethren settled Rev. J\lr. Hopkins as their pastor, and called him pastor of the Third Church. Dr. Whitaker, was still in his place, continuing his office, as the pastor of the same church which settled him, and which as before called themselves the Third Church. Of this name, it may be added, he was very tenacious. Now it will not be contended, that both these ])astors were over the same identical church, at the same time. lint if Mr. Hopkins was the regular pastor of the (Jhurch of 1735, which had come down under the charge of Messrs. Leavitt and Huntington to Dr. Whitaker, by what magic or en- chantment had Dr. "Whitaker given place to Mr. Hopkins, without bcingat all aware of the cliange ? Could he have 25 ministered to two dilTerent churclies in one organic body, or as two ditierent organic bodies, while never suspecting it, even to the day of his death 7 Where, we would fain know, was the churcli of Mes- srs. Leavitt and Huntington, not in 1755, nor in 17G5, but in July 1709, — when Dr. Whitaker was settled? Where July 1770, or 1771, 1772, 1773, or 1774? Was Dr. Whitaker ecer the pastor of " the fourteen brethren" ? When he was their pastor, were they the whole church, or they and the twenty-four sisters'? If not the whole church, of what churcli were they a part, except tlie very churchy which, undissolved, continued to sustain him as their pastor, according to original settlement, until he was deposed in 17S4 7 Further, — if '• the fourteen brethren," etc. were not in their own right the Third Church of 1735, we do ask most seriously, how could they become so ^ by any action of them- selves alone, or by the aid of any Council 7 Could it be by cnUiiis; themselves Third Church, and obtaining the ap- proval of four ministers and half a dozen delegates 7 Just so a miserable wreck of human nature may claim to be, and really be, George Washington^ by being named for him, and indomitably affirming that he has been called George Washington as his proper name, ever since he was born ! A church may come to consist of one member only ; and, if we mistake not, there is an example very near us. And although no Council, except possibly that of Februa- ry 1775, would organize one member, whether male or fe- male, — as a sister church, even by "construction" ; yet one member of any church in regular standing is just as much the church, as any other, and as all others, individ- ually considered. The Council of Feb. 1775, resolved that "the fourteen brethren, etc. are in a reasonable and just construction theclmrch, which existed in the Rev. Mr. Leavitt's day." Would it have made any diflerence, if there had been but seven brethren and twelve sisters 7 Or what if but four brethren and six sisters 7 Or two brethren and three sis- ters 7 — Reduce the number to one brother and one sister, or one brother alone, or one sister alone. In their oton right, they were each, in all respects, one as much as an- other, the Third Church of 1735. In other words, the fourteen brethren were fourteen Third Churches, as '^ ex- isting in Rev. Mr. Leavitt'' s day,'''' and the twenty-four sisters were also twenty-four more Third Churches, in a "construction" as "reasonable and just," as that all to- 26 gcthcr were the one Third Church, — the rights of more than a hundred others to the contrary notwithstanding ! In no way wliatever, then, can the " construction" of the Council of 1775 be shown to be " reasonable and just." Their very word conslrudUni, used as it was in the circum- stances, is fatal to every pretext of reasonableness. They had no right from any source, no authority by any law or usage, to do anything else than simply to organize *' the brethren," etc. by whom they were called, and "re- establish them in church order." Just as much power liad they to pass elfectual sentence of bonds or death upon Dr. Whitaker, as to iinrhurch the " adhering majority," and dispossess them of all their rights in the Third Church of 1735, — in order that the new organization of the minority might have the whole inheritance. The majority were not upon trial by the churches, — according to " Third Way of Communion," or in any way. Councils, especially ex-parte, were no more infallible, seventy years ago, than at the present day- ^Ve Avonld not speak unkindly or uncandidly of that Council of 1775. We will award to them the merit of good intentions; but with all deference to their sagacity, we must say of their preposterous "construction," that a greater mistake or a more inexcusable blunder could hardly have been com- mitted. It was the duty of that Council to give " advice and as- sistance," according to /«d5. Of Mese and by these we too can judge. Some advantages we have, which they had not. And we have no question, that if the members had as well understood the diliiculties and the proceedings of the Third Church, in 1775, as they did in 17S4, that tirst resolve in their Result would have forever remained where it should have remained, — among the things which never were. We have never had anything like it, in our churches. There have been hundreds of cases, in which both mi- norities and majorities have withdrawn, seceded, been dis- missed, or exiled from the place where their fathers wor- shipped. But however much in any circumstances, those thus wiihdrawin<^ or scccdinf^^ dismissed or exiled, may have been alHictedor wronged, it is the invariable custom to consider them, as of necessity requiring a new organi- zation in some mode, and recognition as a distinct church, in order to enjoy a proper standing ecclesiastically, and avail themselves of the constitutional protection of the laws of the land. And we unhesitatingly aflirm, that there is not a congregational clergyman in iXew England, who would put his name to such a resolve, as that to 27 which our brethren of the iSouth Church would refer us, as if an immoveable foundation for their claim as the Church of 1735. If there be any such clergyman, we should be happy to see an argument from him, to the point of " con- slnictioii" and without any evasion or ambiguity. Let this be defended, if it can be, upon its intrinsic merits : and by some one, who is willing to be known among his brethren, as responsible for his opinions, and his expositions of New England Congregationalism. If the Council of 1775 had confined themselves to their appropriate business, the re-estahlishnient of the fourteen brethren hi church order, we should have had a respect for their Result and for them, which it is not possible for us now to cherish. CHURCH OF 1735. PART II. DISCREPANCIES IN PUBLISHED STATEMENTS, RESPECT- ING THE THIRD CHURCH DURING THE MINISTRY OF DR. WHITAKER. In present circumstances, the reasons are urgent for an exhibition of some historical facts, from which it may be seen, that the Tabernacle Church had cause to desire a settlement of the points of controversy between them and their brethren ; — not only from the liability to unpleasant direct collision, but still more from the palpable and irre- concileable discrepancies in the publications of the respec- tive pastors. In April, 1835, the pastor of the Tabernacle preached a discourse, in commemoration of the " First Centennial Anniversary" of the church, as being the Church of 1735. He gave an outline of the history of the church, with a particular notice of the series of pastors. It never entered his mind, that he was performing a service, which any person in the community v/ould consider, as properly be- longing to the pastor of the South Church. Yet if what has since been published by the latter, be a correct view of the subject, it was his place and not that of the pastor of the Tabernacle, to deliver such a centennial discourse. Before it was given to the press, it was read to the pas- tor of the South Church, for his friendly criticisms. No objection whatever was made to the discourse. 28 As It contains a condensed snnniinry of the most ini- ])()ftant ])articnlars of the ministry of Dr. ^VIlitak(•r, jmkI was prejiared under so mncli less of that bias of partiality, which the writer luiirhtnow be suspected of feeling, — wn Avill extract the whole of that part of the discourse, word tor word, just as it was published, twelve years since. " Dr. Nathaniel Whitaker succeeded Mr. Huntington. When he hnd received the inx'ilation of the Church and Society to take the ovcr*ic;lil of them in the Lord, he prc-scribed certain important conditions of set- tlement. One of these was, that a new form of church ijovernment should be substituted for the Congregational ; and another, that lie should enter upon his duties without the accustomed ceremonies of in- stallation. The conditions were accepted. The 2Sth of July, 17G9, was appointed for public services at thecom- menceiuont of his ministry here, and several clergymen were invited by the Cliiircli to he present, " as friends to the Society and the com- mon cause of religion." The Rev. ]\les;rs. Dimond, Barnard, and Holt declined giving their countenance to such an irregular proceed- ing. In a very friendly letter they rerrmnstrated agHinst the course. But the people were so charmed with the man of their choice, that tliey went forward as if under tlie reckless impulse of infatuation. After a sermon by the Pastor elect, one of the members of the Churcij read the invitation which had been given to him to settle with them in the ministry, and the Pastor read his answer to the invitation. In this manner was the Rev. Dr. Whitaker inducted into his office as Pastor of this Church ! Dazzled by the brilliancy of his intellect and elo- (jnence ; captivated " by fair words and goodly speeches," they threw up their ecclesiastical liberties, and took upon their necks a yoke of bon- dage, which they soon found to be grievous bevond endurance. The Constitution of Church Governinent presented by Dr. AVhita- ker in the Articles of Agreement between him and the Church, was essentially Presbyterian. It went beyond Preshyterianisni, by giving to the Pastor a right to negative the votes of the elders and uf the whole Church. (Jn the contrary, it fell short of Presbylerianism, by providing for a reference of dilliculties to congregational councils, un- til a stated Judicature should be determined. That this Judicature was intended by Dr. W. to be a Presbytery, is evident from the measures which he took in 1774, to bring the Church under the Boston Presbytery. Hardly had the Church begun to experience the effects of the new mode of administration, when a very respectable number were aroused to make a determined efVort to return to the former state. They en- deavored, but inefVectually, to avail themselves of an article in the Constitution, by which the existing government might be modified or abolished. Some proposals, liowever, were made by the Pastor to pre- vent " the fourteen uneasy brethren" from prosecuting their opposi- tion. Those mem!)ers of the Church who preferred to be governed by the Constitution, and those who chose the t'ambridge I'latform, were to liave their option. The Pastor was to preside at the meetings of each party in the Church. He was not to have the power to urga- live any votes of such meetings; milhcr was la to be nblisrtd to execute a)U/ jiulfrtnent tcliirU tluj/ should tiuikc, uvlcss lir should tliiuk btst! It is amazing lh;it l>r. Whitaker should have supposed it possible, tliat a Church would consent to be thus virtuallv divided into two bodies, or that the aggrieved brethren would be ensnared by such a frivolous artifice. They replied to him with great force, and not a lit- 29 tie of stingingf severity. At the close of their letter, bearing date No- vember 18, 1773, they express "their earnes^t desire, thai lliis plan of Church Government be totally demolished ; and that the Church be allowed to return and rest upon the stable basis of pure and unmixed Congregationalism." (See Appendix F.) It was not long before these brethren proposed to the Pastor to take a dismission i'rom the Church. He at first waived the subject, being as unwilling to resign his office, as to demolish his favorite Constitu- tion of Church Government. If at this time the brethren had demand- ed a Congregational Council, they would have acted in full accordance Avith the terms upon which that Constitution was received by the Church. Having, by an adroit and clandestine process, placed the Church un- der the jurisdiction of the Boston Presbytery, he proposed to bring the subject before that body, in May, 1774. (See Appendix G.) Hisplan did not succeed. In September, the Presbytery held a meeting in this place. They recommended a reference of the difficulties to a mutual council, consisting equally of Presbyterians and Congregaiionaiists. The recommendation was not accepted ; and in consequence, the four- teen aggrieved brethren were dismissed from the Church by an act of the Presbytery. It may be added here, that these brethren were in February of 1775, regularly constituted a Congregational Churcli. Hence tiie origin of the Church now under the care of the Rev. Dr. Emerson. When the new Church was formed, a very respectable Society soon surrounded and sustained the brethren. Pveports unfavorable to Dr. Whitaker's moral character, were so current and so credible, that his congregation constantly decreased. It should also be mentioned, that it Avas only a few months before the formation of the new church, that the meeting house erected for Mr. Fisk in 1735-6, was entirely consumed. Nothing but the pulpit bible and cushion were saved from the flames. By very great eiforts, the frame of the present house Avas erected in 177(3. It Avas covered, and pews were made in J777. But itwas Avithout galleries, Avithout pulpit, and Avithouteven plastering upon the Avails, In this condition, so emblematic of the miserable circumstan- ces of the people, it Avas dedicated as a house of God. It VA^as fashion- ed after the model of Whitefield's Tabernacle in London, and received its name in honor of his memory. He had preached for Dr. W hi taker but a short time before his sudden decease at Newburyport. Dr. Whitaker when in England, a few years previous to his settlement in Salem, had also received marked attentions from some of the most in- timate friends and patrons of this eminent evangelist. Soon after Whitefield's death, he rendered an appropriate tribute to his character in two very able sermons. And when the present house Avas opened for the Avorship of God, he gave it the name Avhich has ever since de- signated the edifice, the Church, and the Society. Dr. Whitaker's feelings Avere much enlisted in the revolutionary contest. By his sermons he endeavored to animate the people to great exertion, and in various other ways, some of Avhich Avere very uncleri- cal, he labored to promote the cause of American Independence. While thus engaged in other employments than those Avhich pertained to the warfare of a soldier of the cross, his christian character became more and more questionable. In the autumn of 1783, the Church Avere compelled to investigate the current reports, so unfavorable to their Pastor. They had long been accustomed to frown upon them Avith indignation and contempt. They now applied to Dr. Whitaker to take some proper measures to 30 rt'lievp himself ami llic Church from (lie sii^ma of general reproach. They were answeir-d wilh severe rebuke, and were bicJilen to continue ihfir alienilnnce upon his ministry ; riieanwhile preparinij their charges anil proof, if they jileased to present the case before the Presbytery. Of the l're>bytery Dr. Whitaker was himself the moderator. It consisted of but a very few ministers ; and not more than two or three of them had any pastoral chr.rire. They were to meet at Groton in June of the next year. The lenj^th of tune which must elapse before the Church could have a hearing, the distance of the place of meeting, and consequent inconvenience and expense of appearing there with the requisite committee and witnesses, and the improbability of obtaining nn impartial and righteous adjudication, filled the minds of all who were specially interested, with impatient dissatisfaction and painful solicitude. Besides, the number of worshippers in the Tabernacle di- minished with such appalling rapidity, that the building soon became a frightful picture of moral desolation. According to the testimony of a venerable member of the Church, still living among us, and to whom 1 am much indebted in the compilation of this narrative, "the whole congregation, except the families of Ihrte, individuals, had scat- tered themselves among other religious assemblies." (See Appen- dix H.) The attention of the Church was now directed in solemn earnest, to the nature and tendency of that form of government, by which they were so enibarrassed and alllicted. The result of their deliberations w^as a full persuasion of the expediency of returning to the privileges of Congregationalism. Wishing to have a regular action upon the sub- ject, they requested the Pastor to warn a Church meeting. This was refused. A meeting was then called by the elders. Votes were pass- ed, abjuring all allegiance to any Presbyterian authority, adopting the mode of administration prescribed by the Cambridge Platform, and in- viting a Council to inquire whether the Pastor had not forfeited his ofTice, by his disorderly life. When the Council assembled, they made some investigation of the subjects referred to them, and then proposed to Dr. Whitaker to unite with the Church in a mutual Council, consisting equally of Presby- terians and Congregationalists. He would listen to no such proposal, and utterly refused to acknowledge their title to sit in judgment upon the case. They met on the lOih of February, 17S4, and adjourned to meet on the 24th. Their Result vindicates the right of the Church to appeal to a Congregational Council, confirms the doings of the Church in renouncing Pre^bvlerian government, and declares Dr. Whilaker's connexion with the Tabernacle to be dissolved. (See Appendix I.) This Result was hailed with great satisfaction throughout the com- munity. Dr. Whitaker's labors were brought to a close on the 25th of March. The doors of the Tabernacle were barred against him. Such was now the situation of the man who, in ITG'j, was settled by accla- mation. It is true, that the Presbytery at Groton, in June following, honored him as their head, and listened to him as their father. They excommunicated the Tai)ernacle Church, and gave Dr. Whitaker a certificate of their approbation and confidenre. (See Appendix J.) He also obtained from the proprietors of the Tabernacle, a considera- ble sum of money, as an award for alleged losses and arrearages du- ring his ministry here." Ill the more recent and far more thorough investigation of tlie foregoing transactions, tlic writer has liad the satis- faction to find, that there is scarcely a sentence, wliich needs any modification in general or particular. If, how- 31 ever, he had anticipated the present state of the snbject, he would probably have introduced some other matters of in- formation, and perhaps have been a little more precise in defining the space between some of the landmarks of lime ; so that the cursory reader might have been more sure to receive the intended impression. (See Appendix K.) About eight years after the Centennial Discourse at the Tabernacle, a discourse was published, entitled, "A Ser- mon delivered in the South Church, Salem, on the Thirty- eighth Anniversary of his Ordination, by Brown Emer- son, D. D." One paragraph only in the body of the sermon, relates to the history of the Third Church : " The Third Church was formed from the First in 1735, and pros- pered under the labors of its three first pastors, Messrs. Fisk, Leavitt and Huntington. But under the fourth pastor, Dr. Nathaniel Whita- ker, a sharp contention arose between him and a part of the church, during which their house of worship was burnt, and a majority of the church adhering to Dr. Whitaker, became Preshjlerians, built the house of worship now called the Tabernacle, and took -the same name as their ecclesiastical designation. Their present pastor is the Rev. Samuel M. Worcester. After this withdrawal of the majority, which took place in 1774, entering another denommation and taking another name, the minority, in 1775, called an ecclesiastical council to decide the question, whether the minority, remaining on the Congregational platform, ought to be considered as the original Third Church formed in 1735? The council unanimously decided that it ought to be thus considered. The church that I have the pleasure to serve, has, ac- cordingly, from that lime to the present, been considered and called the Third Congregational Church in Salem" In the Appendix we find an extract from the Result of Council, which has been already cited in these remarks. There is also a list of the pastors of the Third Church, as follows : — « Third CiiiTRCH.— Samuel Fisk, [settled in] 1736; resigned 1745, Dudley Leavitt, 1745; died 1762. John Huntington, 1763; died 1766. Nathaniel Whitaker, 1769 ; withdrew 1774. Daniel Hopkins, 1778; died 1814. Brown Emerson, 1805." The Tabernacle Church and the pastors, are thus dis- tinguished in the Appendix : " Tabernacle Church.— Nathaniel Whitaker, [settled in] 1774 ; re- signed 1784. Joshua Spaulding, 1785; resigned 1802. Samuel Wor- cester, 1803 ; died 1821. Elias Cornelius, 1819 ; resigned 1826. John P. Cleaveland, 1827 ; resigned 1834. Samuel M. Worcester, 1834." How far these two discourses agree, we would say it very pleasantly, it may be more difficult to determine, than how far they differ. And if such conflicting documents are fair examples of history, or the materials of history, no one need be surprised at its proverbial " uncertainties." In commenting, as we must, our position is that of self- 32 tlofcnco. The piil)Iic liavo a rii^lit to know the facts. Wo should be anioiii; tlio last to iiitiiiialc; or to suppose, that th(^ vriiiMahlc author of the " 'J'hirty-Eighth Anniversary Sciinon" had any intention of doing violence to the trnth of history. And tlie carcfnl reader cannot fail to notice, that the whole paragraph quoted from it is very peculiarly constructed. There is an evident purpose to establish the claims of the South Church, while in the (irgicment which is so incor[)orated with the narrative, there is no expres- sion of the i)reachcr's personal opinions or individual con- victions, lie appears only as the organ of others, and as having no responsibility beyond that of a simple narrator of events and occurrences. He could not have been unaware, however, that, in some very important particulars, liis statements were in marked contrariety to those, which he had repeatedly lieard, and wliich had boon formally published. It is much to be regretted, that ho did not goto the original sources of authentic information; and by appropriate research en- deavor to verify, or to correct, liis general impressions and very natural and allowable partialities. However sincere- ly he may have written, the mistakes and errors are none the less ; neither are other persons any the less liable to be misled, and to credit or to publish, as upon the very best authority, what really is a radical or entire mistake in point of fact. The sermon was occasional, and was given to the pub- lic, as a contribution to the history of Salem, as well as an aflectionate acknowledgment of the very agreeable rela- tions of the pastor to a people, who have so comniendably and so long fulfilled their pledges of respect and esteem. It was quite extensively circulaFed, and was read by hun- dreds. It is to be found on the shelves of many clergy- men and others, and most probably in the libraries of all our Historical Societies. Even to this day, after all the ob- jections which have been made known, as it respects the ([uestion before us, copies are still distril)utcd, as if it were most veritable and unexceptionable. It has begun to be ([noted as such, in compilations of ecclesiastical statistics. Again and again, have we bern asked, " Is that state- 7nent correct, in rcgai'd to the Third Church ? We have always had a different impression," — was the accompany- ing remark, or sentiment. We of course have answered in the negative. And what we have said privately and freely, yet not unkindly, as we trust. — we nuist now be per- mitted to say publicly, while not at all insensible to the ex- ceeding delicacy of this part of our vindication. To the historic sketch of the Third Church, and to the 33 Appendix of the Sermon in 1843, — we have one objection, which inchidcs all the rest. It is, that no person can here obtain any jnst idea of the origin and history, either of the T'abcniacle Church or the South Church. The whole nat- ural and inevitable impression is erroneous. 2. Bat to be more specific, — we object most unqualified- ly to the date of the origin or beginning of the Tabernacle (Jilurch. This is given, as 1774. We suppose it was by inference from the " construction" of the Council of 1775, and to present an appearance of consistency with the claim of the South Cliurch. But may we write history by inference from assumptions or imaginations, to harmon- ize our hypotheses or theories, or accommodate " any pri- vate interpretation"? Never before did we see it pub- lished, or hear of its being written or spoken by any per- son, that the Tabernacle Church beganiu 1774 ! It would have been equally correct to have said 1794, or 1S24, or 1854, or 40U4. 3. The Church is also made to appear, as if formed by a well known and undisputed "withdrawal of a majority" of the church, which is now generally called the South Church. Such a license of speech, we must be allowed to say, is unauthorized in history, both civil and ecclesiasti- cal. For a " majority" to consent to a change in the rela- tion of a church to other churches, — by Avhatever method of expressing their Avill, — is no ^^ wiilidrawal,'^ in any sense, from the church itself. The " majority" never moved a hair's breadth from the organization, which was known in Salem as the Third Church. We know not how those could withdraw, who remained in the same place. In the Sermon, therefore, the expression '■'■ witli- drawnl of the majority,''^ is a misnomer altogether. It would in every respect be as true to say, in a history of our country, that, in consequence of the Stamp Act and other grievances. Great Britain revolted from the Thirteen Colonies, and declared independence, July 4, 1776 ! 4. It is equally an unauthorized statement in the Appen- dix, that Dr. Whitaker withdrew from the Third Church, in 1774, and resigned as pastor of the Tabernacle in 1784. He never was settled over but one church in Salem, from 1769 to 1784. With as good reason might it be said, that he never was pastor of the Third Church, " no, not for an hour," — as that he loithdrexo from the church ! And a very extraordinary " resignation,''^ as well as " withdrawal," Dr. Whitaker would have accounted it, if in his life-time, he had seen himself thus represented. In 1784 he was removed from his pastoral office, and was de- posed from the ministry, by a course of measures, which he 5 34 resisted to the last extremity of infatuation nnd despera- tion. If as a member of the clinrch he had been cxcoin- TrAinicalcd for gross intemperance, it might as properly have been said, that he was " dismissed in good and regu- lar standing?." 5. The Third Church is described, as if the " fourteen brethren" had never been upon any other than a purely " congregational jtlatform ;" but as tliey were before Dr. Whi taker's settlement, and in the days of his predecessors, so they had " remained." Yet those identical brethren received Dr. Whitaker, with all his presbyterian condi- tions ; and three of them were among his five ciders or session, in 17G9, 1770, 1771, and one of them in 1772. The statement, moreover, is entirely irreconcileable with the witness of the brethren themselves. (See Appen- dix L.) 6. The "majority," we are told, "became prcsbytcri- an5," during the progress of the " sharp contention" be- tween Dr. Whitaker and " a part of the church ;" and that too, as is implied, aflcr the burning of the house of worship, Gth of October, 1774. Boili " the majority" and "the minority" were "presbyterian," the one as wiick as the other, when the " contention arose." The presby- terian admixture in the Congregationalism of the church, was introduced by the whole body of the church, with one consent. It was neither an effect nor consequence, nor cause, nor occasion of the " sharp contention." The fourteen breth- ren were a thousand fold more dissatified with Dr. Whita- Ker himselt', than with the form of government, which, " with fair words and goodly speeches" he " persuaded them to adopt." Presbyterianism was one plausible pretext for the " contention ;" but the " sharpness" of it was their en- tire personal loathing of " the proud, the arrogant, the haughty man," " the violent and overbearing." The choice of the Boston Presbytery as a Judicature, instead of Congregational Councils, would not of itself have made the adhering majority, — that is to say, the Third Church, presbyterian. There are hundreds of Con- gregational Churches, on the Western Reserve, which are thus connected with presbyteries. When the Boston Pres- bytery accepted the petition of the majority, in June 1771, it was undoubtedly with the understanding, that the Third Church was already presbyterian, and had been so virtu- ally, from the settlement of Dr. Whitaker. And it was the Third Church, which they took under " their watch and care;" not sundry seceding members of that church. But all the measures, every one, which resulted in the 35 dismission and separation of " the fourteen brethren" from the Third Church of 1735, preceded the fire of the 6th of October, by several months, or by wliole years. And what ctiect could a fire have had upon church-membership 1 Beyond question, however, these brethren were stimu- lated to attempt what they did, for "a re-establishment in church order," by a separate organization, in consequence of the disaster of the fire, which very greatly embar- rassed Dr. Whitaker and his friends. Although, as in- dividuals, "the fourteen" and some others had previ- ously retired from the house of worship and the ordinan- ces, as administered in the Third Church ; yet it was not until after this event, that the strong wall of partition be- tween the majority and the minority was thrown up, in the sight of all the inhabitants of the place. Hence it has been common to speak of the separation^ as occurring after the fire of the 6th of October. 7. Between the 6th of October, 1774, and February 15, 1775, a period of less than five months, — "the majority," as represented in the history before us, — " built the new house of worship, called the Tabernacle, and took the same name for their ecclesiastical designation." This is the ob- vious meaning, as the sentences are written, designating chronologically the "contention," "the burning of the house," the "becoming presbyterians," "entering another denomination," and " taking another name." It was, ac- cording to the Sermon, after and in consequence of these events and proceedings, that the minority called the Coun- cil of Feb. 1775. No mention is made of the Council of Jan. 10, — which must have been called by the same "mi- nority," in less than three months after the fire ! " The house of worship called the Tabernacle," so far from being built in mid- winter of 1774-5, — and so suddenly in that period of severe pecuniary distress, — was not even in frame of being, until more than a year after the time of the Council, which organized the fourteen brethren. A plan had indeed been devised, and arrange- ments for it were in progress. But the name, as "the ec- clesiastical designation" of the majority, could have been no more a reason for the calling of that Council, than it was for the settlement of Dr. Whitaker in 1769, — or of Dr. Worcester in 1803. Such errors do not in the least affect the merits of the main question at issue. But beyond a doubt those several events would not have been narrated as they were, in suck anachronistic grouping or connexion, if it had not been for a supposed argumentative value. We know that some who heard, or who havx3 read the Sermon, so considered 30 llioin; ami roftMTcd to ihcm, as very tsubstantial jnoof.^, cviou, that the Tabcriiaclc Cliurch ought not to he legaiil- cd as the Tliird Church of 1735. As if " another name"' could make a new church; or as if Jacob could have been changed in his personal identity, or have sustained any loss in his rights or inheritance, by being called Iskael ! Wo have always understood, that he was still Jacob, no less aflcr than before he was so distinguished. We feel (]uitc confident, that at least he wns before. 8. According to the Sermon of IS13, the Tabernacle Church is sli/l jjrcsbi/icriun, and also their pastor. It is said, " their present pastor is the Rev. Samuel M. Wor- cester;" — that is, the pastor of those "presbyterians," who " built the new house of worship,"' etc. Not a word is said of tlie church, as ever having become congregational, or being otherwise than presbytcrian, as in the days of Dr. Whitaker ; — while in a note concerning the Howard Street Church, it is expressly stated, that that church was formerly presbytcrian, but became congrega- tional in 1S27. Any person, a compiler of statistics, for example, would conclude, of course, unless otherwise informed, that the Tabernacle is a presbytcrian church, at this very day. Should it be thus ?- Was it necessary to refer to tiie Tab- ernacle Church in an oblique, incidental manner, instead of such a notice as was taken ot the other churches.^ There would have been a more serious dilficulty, as we must think, in sketching a separate notice of this church, than in the course adopted. IJut not to liave named the church, nor in any way to have alluded to it, in the Ser- mon or tiie Appendix, would have been more satisfactory to those most concerned. Wc were astonished and deeply aggrieved. It was too much to presume, that we should submit in silence. 9. From the statement of the call of the Council of 1775, it would be inferred, that their sole business was " to de- cide the (juestion whether the minority remaining upon the congregational platlbrm ought to be considered, as the original Tliird Church of 1735." But the preamble of the Result of the Council states, with special distinctness, that they were called to give ^^ advice and assistance in a re- establislnncntof cJiurck order T^ lU. It would also be inferred, that tlie Council took no measures whatever, such as are customary in the forma- tion of churches. This was doubtless supposed to be true. IJut we liave demonstrated from their own doings, as rela- ted in llie South Church Records, that that very Council organized the brethren, according to every essential rc([ui- 37 site of the approved constitution of congregational church- es. The Council evidently meant to liave them stand firm as a church ; whether or not the other " construction" would stand. We had never heard of the Council of Jan- uary 10, and were nuich surprised to find the references to it, in the same Records. 11. "The Council," it is said, "unanimously decided, that it ought to be so considered ;" that is, the " minority," as we understand the antecedent of "i^," "ought to be considered as the original Third Church formed in 1735." We mast object to this sentence, as imparting a deeper shade of error to the natural impression, from the previous parts of this unfortunate paragraph. We have heard of utianimoiis votes^ to give popular el- fect to resolutions, as if the voice of a multitude were speaking; when, in sober fact, there was but a chairman, secretary, and, perhaps, one other individual, for the whole assembly or convention. The Council of 1775, we have seen, were not a very numerotis body, and as we under- stand the resolution referred to, they did not express them- selves, as if their light was " as the light of the morning, when the sun risetli, even as a morning without clouds." Besides, it would seem to be implied, that the Council had final power, legislative or judicial; so that whatever they might decide, would be as binding as a statute of the Commonwealth, or a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in full bench. And of course no one, it would also appear to have been taken for granted, would presume to go behind their Result, and scrutinize the pro- priety and the validity of their proceedings. But there is a tribunal, which has reversed or annulled very many er- roneous and unrighteous decisions. It is higher than all Councils, all Courts of Justice, and all Legislatures. To that we claim the privilege of appeal. It is the tribunal of unsophisticated, unprejudiced, unimpassioned common SENSE. 12. In the conclusion of the narrative concerning the Third Church, it is said : — " The church that I have the pleasure to serve, has, accordingly, from that time to the present, been considered and called the Third Congrcga- tiojial Church in Saletii." It is thus very significantly im- plied, that the "construction" of the Council received very general approval, and that all which is claimed by the South Church as the Church of 1735, has been ratified by the concurring voice of the community. We do not deny, that they of the South Church have " called themselves Third Church;" as Mr. Spofibrd, in his Gazeteer for 1828, has very precisely and emphatically 38 stated. Wc moro than siispoct, from tlio comploxinn of liisiarticle upon Salem, that lie had Dr. Jiontlcy"s "Des- cription," before him, and thence derived the hint lur that very trne and very snggestive remark. Neither do we deny, that tlic Sonth Chnrch has some- times been called Third (/luH"ch by others, — in courtesy or throngh ii^iiorancc, — principally, by those not resident in Salem, and those who had no particniar knowledge of the veritable history of the clinrch. IJnt that the chnrch has been intelligently and generally, in Salem or ont of it, both ^^ called and considered the Third Congregational Chnrch" of 1735, — we mnst use the liberty oi" doubting, without reserve. Wc care not how many witnesses may be brought a- gainst us, if we can only have the privilege of a fair and honorable cross-examination, before an upriglit, impartial jury or judge. And no written or printed testimony, of any name or nature, which could be at all regarded as countenancing the claim of the South Church, has ever yet passed under our eye, which cannot most easily be re- pelled, neutralized, or resolved into nothingness. The evidence of historical documents, properly so call- ed, is very limited. Dr. Bentley's "Description of Salem" brietly, but very accurately, records the separation from Dr. Whitaker, and the establishment of the minority as the church Avhich settled the Rev. Mr. Hopkins, in No- vember, 1778. " They who separated themselves from Dr. Whitaker, purchased an assembly house, built in 17GG, and took the name of Third Church. Dr. Whitaker with his friends erected a new house called the Tabernacle, in 1776." " He had claimed to be under presbyterian gov- ernment since 1769." As an authority^ worthy of real respect, in the decision of the present question, this is the earliest, if not far the best of all historical testimonies, from impartial and inde- pendent witnesses. " They who separated themselves from Dr. AVhitakcr tnnk the name of Third Chwcli.'^ It was not Dr. AVhitaker that separated from them; but they from Dr. Whitaker. They were not the Third Church ; were neither considered, nor called the Third Church : but they " tonlc'^ wliat did not belong to them, " the name of Third Church." Dr. IJentlcy knew the prominent facts, as well as any other man, who has left any written witness concerning them. Although his notice is very brief, it is strictly accu- rate, we believe, in every particular. It outweighs all tes- timony of every description, in favor of the South Churcli. as being the identical Third Church of \loo. 39 Rev. J. B. Felt, in "The Annals of Salem," first pub- lished in 1S2S, — very correctly represents the Council of Feb. 14, 1775, as convened '■'■ to form, a chiircli''' of the brethren and sisters, whom he sty ies '^ secede?'s from Dr. Whilaker^ s church.'''' He also describes them as " d'ls- in'issecV according to a decision of the Boston Presbytery. After extracting from the Records of tlie South Church, what he conceives to be the substance of the "construc- tion," he has elsewhere referred to some incidents or tran- sactions in the church then formed, which, however, he follows the Records, in calling Third Church, — as if it were properly so called. The Third Church, he had previously stated, ^'- became i)reshijttrian in 1769." In the Quarterly Register of the A. E. Society, there may be found a complete list of the " Congregational and Presbyterian ministers, who were settled in the County of Essex, Mass., from the first settlement to the year 1834. By Rev. Joseph B. Felt, late of Hamilton, Mass." For the ministers of the Tabernacle and South Churches, we have the following series : "Tabernacle Church. — Samuel Fisk. 1735; Dudley Leavitt, 1745; John Huntington, 1763; Nathaniel Whita- ker, D. D., 1769 ; Joshua Spauldina:, 1785; Samuel Wor- cester, D.D., 1803; E. Cornelius, fS19; John P. Cleave- land, 1827; Samuel M. Worcester, 1834." South Church. — Daniel Hopkins, D.D., 1778; Brown Emerson, D.D., 1805." We have no need of comment upon the difference be- tween this series by the compiler of the " Annals," and that of the Appendix to the Sermon of 1843. Very cer- tainly both cannot be correct. " The Essex Memorial," 1836, has the correct date and style of the two churches ; and it is a work, which is as ac- curate, we believe, as any of its class. " The Salem Di- rectory," has the same. Although published by a mem- ber of the Tabernacle Society, it is not, we trust, any the less credible or creditable. The " Congregational Register for 1847, by Rev. Parsons Cooke," — which is the latest compilation, in which we have seen any notice of the churches, — gives the number of years since the constitu- tion or beginnmg of all the Congregational Churches in Massachusetts: — for the Tabernacle Church, 111, and for the South, 71. There is one notable exception to this class of testimo- ny, and the only one of which we are aware. It is that of "Hayward's Gazeteer, 1846," in which the South Church is styled Third Church, and four of the pastors of the Tabernacle are placed in a series, as if the predeces- 40 snrs of Dr. Tlopkins and Dr. I'^mor.^on ; — prrriscly ns fust piiJ^lit^Iiccl ill tlic Appendix of ISK^. 'I'lio 'rabf-rnnclf < 'liiircli, and all the other clmrclies in Salem, even to "Mormon Church, 1842, Elder Snow," are exliibited in tabular views -which, up to the very date of the Sermon, are, as any one may see at a glance, most raitht'idly copied from thai s(i7iic A/>/)cii(/i.v ! — There is a sniirlc omission of a term, for which we can divine a- sig- Milirant reason in the mind of the copyist; and also one abbreviated variation, which may be a misprint, but very probably was used as a synonyme, by which Dr. Whita- ulcer is made to " re.s/^v«" at the Third Church in 1771, in- stead of " withdrawing," as stated in the original, 'i'hns ■\ve have an entire mislalce, foimded upon an entire inven- tion or imagination. If any think highly of the conclu- siveness of an argimient of liistory, or the strength ot" con- firmation, from such a transcript, wnth such an almost ex- act coincidence to an iota, in errors and originalities, we shall not contend with them. AVc ourselves must admit, that, in all that we have read or heard, we have never found anything iJiofc decisive, historically and logically, against the claims of the Tabernacle. Perhaps we ought to except the remark upon Mr. Hunt- ington's Sermons, in the little " Catalogue of the Library of the First Church," — among divers other brief sugsestions, biographical or critical; and wdiich directly connects Dr. t^mcrson as a successor of Mr. Huntington, — just as they would seem to be, especially to a comparative stranger in Salem, — who, with the " Sermons" of that revered min- ister, whose iVagrant memory is so dear to us, should also have before him the title-page of the discourse at the fune- ral of Dr. Hopkins, or some kindred publication. This, therefore, may be of very great weight, as authority! If it should ever be quoted against us, we may think it wise to be silent, until we recover ourselves. But if we may be pardoned a little relief of episode, we wmII pass to another kind of historical evidence, that of ?/w- ])uhJislicd manuscripts. We are acquainted with several different sketches or memorials of the churches and pas- tors of Salem ; which are (|uite as credible and valid, as if they had been issued from the press. There is the one, c. g. which, with the " Salem Directory," w\as under the eye of the gentleman, who drafted the order of procession on the •lih of .Inly. Its witness, Uke others that might be named, is true for the right. 41 We mast refer more particularly to that which we our- selves have, in the handwriting of Dr. Worcester, and Avhich was prepared, not long after the death of Dr. Hop- kins. Hpeakiug of the South Church, which he never al- lowed himself to call Third Church,— he says :— " That part of the church and congregation which separated from Dr. Whitalcer in 1774, purchased the x\ssembly House, and titted it up for a place of worship, and v.ot with 'perfect propriety assiuned the name of the Third Church.^'' Again he says, — '• When the separation took place, fourteen male members left the church, d^nd formed tJie church, over which Rev. Mr. Hopkins was ordained," etc. The reader will not overlook such terms, as "separated," " formed," and '• assumed." Those who are conversant with Dr. "Worcester's manner, need not be told, that '■'■ not with perfect propriety'^ means, that, in his judgment, there was an essential impropriety. Neither have we occasion to inquire if any one, living or de- ceased, is entitled to any higher regard, in his opinion upon the merits of the question before us. — No man in all New England had a more profound and enlarged understanding of the rights and usages of our churches. And so thorough- ly persuaded was he of the unsuitableness, the ecclesiasti- cal falsity of the title Third Church, as assumed by those who separated or seceded from Dr. Whitaker, that he even made a correction in the record of a missionary con- tribution, which had been sent as from the Third Church, — so that the public acknowledgment of it should be from the S'outh Church. And this he did, doubtless, under the constraint of the refined delicacy of his moral feelings and judgments ; — which made him keenly sensitive to all deviations from the strictest truth and correctness. In the hearing of those, who still survive, — he expressed himself in terms, neither equivocal nor very mild, as disallowing every particle of the claim of the South Church to the title of the Third Church; and as marvelling, that any vestige or shadow of such a pretension should be suffered by themselves to re- main. We speak advisedly. We have been reminded, however, that in the publication of the Sermon, etc., at the Installation of Mr. Cornelius in 1SI9, — the Rev. Dr. Emerson, who gave the Right Hand of Fellowship, — is printed "as the pastor of the Third Church in Salem." And what does it prove?— Dr. Wor- cester could not have put that title there; and if he had seen a proof-sheet, he would have altered it. Mr. Cornelius had but just come to Salem, and if he had seen the title, would not iiave been likel v to ask any question concerning it. By 6 42 vote of tlic church lie was directed to procure for the press a «opy of Dr. IJcechcr's .Sermon, J)r. Worcester's Charge, and Dr. Emerson's Rii:;ht Hand of Fellowship. Tlie print- ing was done at Andover ; — and it is not very probable, that tlie proof-sheets passed at all under his eye. Dr. Emerson may have forgotten the circumstance ; but we have no (lucstion, that, according to custom in such cases, he wrote his own title forliimself, at the head of the copy which he sent to the press. And in any event, the Tabernacle C'hurch are no more responsible for its appear- ance in the publication, than they are for the inscription, TnuiD Church, 1735, which "not with perfect propriety," has a place over the pulpit of the South Church. In no case whatever, is it known that the Tabernacle Church ever designed to acknowledge the claim of the Soutli Church, to the style and consideration of the Church of 1735. It is not impossible, that, in some instances, the name Third Church may have been used by members of tlie Tabernacle, when the South Church was meant. But never for one moment did any one of them imagine, that the church, called Third by themselves, had any claim to be considered the church of which Rev. Messrs. Fisk, Leavitt and Huntington were once pastors. And as " strange things to our ears" was the sound of " Third Church,-' at the be- ginning and end of a short communication in November last, in answer to one which, as usual, was addressed to the South Church, If the present, or the former pastor of the South Church, printed their names on the title-page of their sermons, as of the Third Church ; if letters of dismission have at times or always been made out in the same style ; if, though very ambiguously, as in the Sermon at the funeral of Dr. Hop- kins, it is implied that the South Church is the old Third Church ; and especially, if the whole claim is put forth unreservedly, as for tlie first time, in the Sermon of 1843; — it would be expected, that the church would, at least sometimes, be called by others the Third Church, and not unnaturally be " considered'^ by some, as " the Third Con- gregational Church in Salem." But this by no means proves that this church is the Third Church of 1735, or lias been so considered by the public. We should now be willing to submit the question to all the oldest inhabitants of Salem, and to all of middle age, who have been conversant with the history of the place. And we should feel quite safe in pledging ourselves, never a- gain to open our mouths or write a syllable upon the sub- ject, — if there can be found, out of the limits of the South 43 Church and Society, as many as ten persons in this whole community, of the classes specified, who ever thought or heard of more than two ministers, as the ministers of that Church and Society, until the Sermon of 1843 ! And none are more competent to decide such a question ; a question of fact, of observation, and not of imaginary "construction," or metaphysical abstraction. One living witness may be worth a whole library of compilations, as usually prepared. And if now the general impression in this city, be not most decidedly and assuredly, that the Rev. Dr. Hopkins was the only predecessor of Rev. Dr. Emerson, — then the writer can place no reliance whatev- er, in regard to any fact, upon the uniform and invaria- ble witness of his observation and experience, which is not very limited, — for more than an entire generation. Can any one point to the native inhabitant among us, — who, having reached the age of four score years, and having never been a member of either church or society, — has the least idea of the South Church, as being the Church, of which Rev. Messrs. Fisk, Leavitt and Huntington were once pastors, — to say nothing of Dr. Whitaker 7 The descendants of Mr. Leavitt always speak of their ancestor, as one of the former pastors of the Tabernacle Church, and no more associate his memory with the Church of the South Society, than with that of the Crom- bie Street. The common or popular name of the Church, is not Thirds but iSouih Church. The Church is so called in public solemnities by the pastor of the church, as well as other pastors ; and almost invariably in printed documents. And in all letters missive to the Tabernacle, from church- es abroad, in which that church is mentioned, it always is the South Church, or Dr. Emerson's. And until 1843, or until the occasion arose for the present discus- sion, — it may be questioned, Avhether twenty persons, un- der forty years of age, not connected with the South Soci- ety or the Tabernacle, could have told on the instant, which church in Salem is meant by Third Church ; so ob- solescent, if not obsolete, has the name really become. " Upon Mr. Fisk's dismission from the First Church," says Dr. Bentley, "another house of worship was raised, and it may be called the Third Church, though it refu- sed the name." There are circumstances in which a name is imposed by the community against the wishes of all who are specially interested. And if there be an obvious reason in " the fitness of things," it may ultimately, if not very soon, prevail over every other received or desired de- signation. Our brethren of the South Church, therefore, 44 slioiilj not l)c surprised, tliat tho remark lias so fwr bcni vviriliod jii their own liistory. W'c of the 'Pabenmcle hud au early experience, in full demonstration of its truth. CONCLUDIXC; HEM ARK 8. There is no power in a name or title to make a church "what it is not, as it respects tlic date of its beginning, or any of the rights, whicli belong to such an organization. Numerical terms, however, Jirsl, second, {liird.. etc., otight not to mislead us. As a part of the name or stylo ot' a ])articiilar church, tliey should agree with events of histo- ry, in chronological order. In tiie settlement of New England, the terms first, sec- find, etc., denoted congregational churches invariahly. But as churches of other denominations grew and muliiplied. there was an obvious dilFiculty in prescrvini^ the truth nf history, according to the primary ])rinciple of designating the relative age of Churches. The dilRculty was increas- ed, by changes of boimdary lines. And Ave think it not milikely, that the necessary changes of mnnerical designa- tion, when "Salem Village"' and "Middle Precinct' be- came Danvers in 1757, may have had an influence in de- termining the name, by Avhich the North (.'hurch. 1772, lias ever been distinguished. ^Ve never heard of its liav- ing been called Fourth Church. It now so liappens, that all tlie congregational churches in the city, excepting the First, are known by other desig- nations, than numerical, — as East, Crombie Street, etc. And in popular usage, the Smith (-Inirch is just as much established as a distinctive and appropriate designation, as North (vhurch. "Whence originated the nnme. but from the South Meeting- House, just as the T/io iai'c //le Records? Have they? I know that in Dr. Whitaker's time, they used to pretend to be the Old Church. But they never had any claim ; not the hast in the icorlJ .'" We have another venerable witness, who also w\as then an active member of the church, and who most emphatically confirms this testi- mony. Both were then in the fullest vigor of early manhood, when things of deep interest make indelible impressions.— Add now the in- disputable fact, that from the division of the plate, no less than before, the members of the Tabernacle Church have ever considered their church, as did Dr. Worcester in his profoundest and sincerest judgment, none other than the legitimate, the real Third Church ia Salem, or the Church of 1735. The legal gentleman allud?d to at the bottom of p. 22, was the Hon. Mr. Saltonstall. The late Hon. John Pickering expressed the same opinion; which is the more worthy of notice, because his father was so prominent among " the fourteen brethren" Note F. p. 29. See Note C. Note G. p. 29. We must omit what we purposed to add; as also in subsequent notes, Note H. p. ;^0. After Mr. Spaulding's settlement, the society soon recovered its ascendant influence. Note I. p. 30. The Result, with a few com- ments, we should insert here, if the space had not been preoccupied. — Note J. The presbytery and the procedure were alike Dr. W. Note K. p. 31. At p. yS, it might be understood, that prrshj/lcriauism disaf- fected the minority. It was in some cases of discipline, that the Dr. alienated them by his arbitrary and obstinate will. The disaffection would probably have been just the same, under a pure Congregational- ism, if he had claimed the right, as afterwards did Mr. Spaulding, to ««g-a/ifc the voles of the church. Note L. See letter in Note C. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 014 110 644 2 Y^^ »/ w4:A:-i.,