N A R RA T I V, E L
OF SOME'  
RECENT OCCURRENCES  
I'N  THE
CHIURCH OF THE PURITANS,
NEW  YORK;
! 
WIT I DOCUMENTS RELATING TlHERETO.
.
0
NEW YORK:
WILLIAM S. DORR, PRINTER, 101 NASSAU STREET.
1857.,
i~..D   -t                                                                            
.               __   _,
,.P                                                                                         _ 
I '
T
II
I
i,II
ij
i
i
I
I
!. l p   1,! t 1;            -I.,              -.  
I
* * ol 
A
N A R R A T I V E
OF  SOME
RECENT OCCURRENCES
IN THE
CHURCH OF THE PURITANS,
NEW YORK;
WITH DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO.
NEW YORK:
WILLIAM S. DORR,IPRINTER, 101 NASSAU STREET.
1857.
* *.
a 
TVERSITY OF MICHGAN
GENEEAL LIBRARY
,: — L 7. IS
NARRATIVE, &c.
BUT little need be said by way of introduction to the Documents which
are here submitted to the judgment of the Christian public, but especially
to Orthodox Congregationalists; as the Documents will interpret themselves.
It may be proper to state, however, that this method of bringing our
g(rievances to the notice of our brethren of the Church of the Puritans, was
not decided upon by the signers of the letter of April 27th to Rev. Dr.
Cheever, until we wore virtually denied by the Church the opportunity of
a personal presentation of the reasons which prompted that letter.
All the business meetings of the church held subsequent to the delivery
of the letter to Dr. Cheever, and prior to the Annual Meeting, were inform al; not having been convened in accordance with the provisions of the
Standing Rules. To have presented ourselves before either of those meet ings, with statements of so grave a character as those we now makle, would
have been a consent on our part to proceed contrary to our fundamental
law.  This we certainly would not do; especially as at these very meet ings, illegal in themselves, our brethren of the majority were loud in their
complaints of the ecclesiastical irregularity of our letter to the pastor. As
between us, if our action was irregular, all that can be said of it is, that it
was specclatively so; theirs was a violation of plain, written law.
We could not bring our reasons before the church at the Annual Meeting, as the whole time, even until near midnight, was spent in a strugglefruitless, it proved to be-against what we felt to be a violation of our rights
under the Standing Rules.
At the special meeting, convened on our call on July 16th, we were not
permitted to place our communication before the church, nor would the
church even pledge itself to hear us at a future, fixed day. Two reasons,
chiefly, were assigned by the speakers of the majority for this denial. The
first was the absence of the pastor. But the pastor himself, four days previous, read the call for the meetlng.  Whatever may have been the occasion
of his absence, we were not responsible therefor.  Their other reason was,
that the church had already, in effect passed judgment upon us; and we
had no claim to be heard. To which, our brief reply is, that if they had
done so, it was without investigation or trial. And to both of these reasons
we make the further reply, that when Dr. Cheever placed the letter. in the
hands of the chu-ch, lie in terms committed the whole matter to them, and
~ 
4
they assumed and acted upon this trust at the Annual Meeting. The
church was therefore competent to act on our communication, according to
their own virtual acknowledgment.
We now give a summary of the proceedings of the church, connected
with this matter, including those bf the meeting of July 16th.
The letter to Dr. Cheever, bearing date April 27, 1857, (which is recited
on page 17,) was presented to him on Monday, May 11th, by a Committee of
the signers, who indicated to him the medium through which we would look
for his reply. The reason for the delay in presenting the letter to him, after
it was prepared and signed, was that the Sabbath immediately preceding
was the regular Communion season, with the solemnities of which we had
no disposition, in any manner, to interfere.
Dr. Cheever disregarded our intimation as to a reply; but on the ensuing
Sabbath morning, May 17th, at the usual time for reading notices, he informed the church that he had received a letter from seventeen members,
which in his judgment called for the action of the church, and he therefore
invited all the members to be present in the Lecture Room on Monday evening, the 18th, urging the attendance both of males and females. The
former only, by our Rules, are entitled to vote.
The result of this announcement was to draw together not only those
members of the church whose faces are familiar in our social meetings, but
others, whom we could not so readily recognise; nor these alone, but very
many of the congregation, and strangers also, who either heard, or were informed, of the notice.
After the meeting was opened by prayer, Dr. Cheever said, that the object
of the meeting was to consider and take action upon a document that he had
recently received, signed by seventeen members of the church. The document he characterized as irregular, and not in accordance with ecclesiastical
rule; but said that he had determined to throw it upon the church, in
whose love and confidence he implicitly relied.
Mr. William C. Gilman having been called to the chair, Mr F. E. Mather
asked attention to the Rule relative to special business meetings, urging that
the church had been irregularly convened. No attention being paid to his
remonstrance, he asked that his protest be entered on the records.
Immediately on the reading of the letter to Dr. Cheever, Mr Charles
Abernethy offered the following resolution:
"Resolved, That our pastor, Rev. George B. Cheever, D. D., has our entire and undiminished confidence and affection, and we hereby express our
desire and determination that he continue in his present position as pastor of
this church."
To which Mr. Elisha C. Wilcox offered the following amendment:
"That Christian charity, the peace of the church, and the development of
the truth, all require that the signers of the letter produced by Dr. Cheever
'i 
5
be requested to present to him a written statement of the reasons which in
their judgment call for a dissolution of the present pastoral relation; and in
case that Dr. Cheever should not regard the same when presented, as re quiring such dissolution, that he be and hereby is requested to unite with
said signers, and call at an early day a Council according to Congregational
usage, to which all matters of dissatisfaction concerning the relation of pas tor and people may be submitted."
After considerable discussion, in which the irregularity of the letter to Dr.
Cheever was the principal topic, the question was taken on Mr. Wilcox's
amendment, and it was declared lost by a division, 20 ayes to 48 nays.
Mr. Mather here called attertion to the 14th Standing Rule, which forbids
the adoption of any resolution at the same meeting at which it is introduced;
and provides for its final consideration at the next regular meeting.
Rev. I. P. Warren (who had recently joined the Church,) moved to sus pend this Standing Rule; but the Chair decided that the motion to suspend
could only be received as a substitute for the original resolutiou of Mr.
Abernethy!
The question was then called for on Mr. Abernethy's resolution, which
was taken, and the resolution adopted without dissent-the minority declining to vote.
An attempt was made by Rev. C. J. Warren, (a member of a few months
standing,) to introduce a resolution reflecting on the signers of the letter to
Dr. Cheever, but after discussion it was withdrawnii. A conciliatory resolution
offered by Dr. Ball was adopted in its stead, and the meeting adjourned.
After the usual religious services on the morning of Sabbath, May 24th,
Dr. Cheever read a call for a special meeting of the church for business, on
the ensuing Tuesday evening, the 25th-so the notice, doubtless an inad.
vertance, as Tuesday was the 26th.
This call was addressed to the Clerk, but was never placed in his hands,
nor was the meeting convened by his instrumentality, as provided by our
Standing Rules.  Subsequent investigation disclosed the fact, that the call
had only been made out and signed on the Saturday  evening preceding the
Sabbath. The brethren who had the movement in hand, endeavored to find
the Clerk on the morning of the Sabbath when the call was read, but he was
not to be found. He had left the city at five o'clock the day previous on an
absence of two or three days. a
As the informality of te subsequent proceedings rests mainly on the fact
of this call not having been properly made, and as the objection raised by us
has been pronounced trivial and technical, it may be well here to show the
necessity for this Rule, and the duty of adherence to its provisions.
The Clerk holds the records of the church. He knows who are, and
who are not, members. He,thus stands guard, as it were, to prevent the
first intrusion of wrong. It is not a sufficient answer that the members of
I-  - a
-7  q 
6
the church are acquainted with each other. However this may be in small
country parishes, this is not so in our city churches.   Here the constant
changes which are taking place, additions and withdrawals by letter, render
this general acquaintance impossible.  We have nothing to rely upon but
our records, and of these, the Clerk is the custodian. Hence the propriety
of the Rule.
If, as is asserted, the Rule be so trivial as not to require a strict compliance with its provisions, then it should have no place in the C'onstitution.
On this theory, it serves no other purpose than to blind and delude those
who conscientiously look to the Constitution for guidance in their ecclesiastical duties and relations. But in all associations which profess to be governed by law, forms are things; sometimes, things of a most vital character.
Forms are but the media through which principles act.  The  cry  against
technicalities, is that of an unreasoning mind. The disregard of adjusted
forms unsettles every social and civil relation. And we have now the evidence amongst ourselves, that church relations may be equally thrown into
anarchy and confusion by the contempt and disregard of rules and modes of
action to which all have given their assent. It is by such disregard that
minorities are oppressed, and the arbitrary will of majorities is made to supercede the provisions of written law. Indeed the only security which minorities have, is the faithfulness of majorities to their self-imposed obligations.
Thus much we deem it right to say, for the strenuousness with which we
have opposed the informal, arbitrary proceedings of our brethren of the majority.
According then, to the irregular notice from  the pulpit, on the 21th of
May, the church organized for business after the prayer meeting on the
evening of Tuesday, the 26th.  Dr. A. S. Ball was appointed Chairman.
Mr. E. W. Chester opened the business of the evening by stating that
the object of the meeting was to prepare for the Annual Meeting, when the
officers of the church were to be elected. He therefore moved that a Committee be appointed to nominate these officers.
Mr. R. N. Havens obj cted to the passage of the Resolution, as it would
be a departure from the uniform practice of the church during the entire
eleven years of its existence, and its practical operation would be to throw
the appointment of the officers into the hands of the two or three brethren
who might chance to compose the nominating Committee.
Mr. Seth B. Hunt offeed an amendment to the effect that a Committee
of three be appointed to report at the next annual meeting what amendments
to the Standing Rules, are, in their opinion, expedient; and also to submit
the names of suitable pers ns'or the office of deacons, as well as a list of
officers for the ensuing year. 
In explanation, Mr. Hunt said that the present condition of the church
called for some action; and it was, he believed, generally conceded that it
would be necessary to appoint additional Deacons.
- iii
"' -mq 
Mr. Havens inquired, what was the object aimed at?  Was it in contei —
plation merely to alter the number of Deacons; to throw out the present
brethren and put others in their places; or to change the tenure of the
office? As to adding to the number, that could be done by Resolution. If
the object were to alter the terms of the Deaconate, he trusted that the
church would vote down that proposition. Our present Rule was adopted
after long and earnest discussion, the pastor of the church having done
more to ensure its adoption, than any one member of the church. He could
see no good reason at the present time for this subversion of our Rules.
Mr. Hunt said, that although Dr. Cheever had thus labored for the existing Rule, yet his experience for the past year led him to regret it; and hlie,
Mr. Hunt, was authorized to say that Dr. Cheever had now changed his
mind.
After further discussion, the motion as modified for the appointment of a
Committee to report amendments to the Standing Rules &c., was carried.
Mr. E. W. Chester then read a list of proposed amendments to the Rules;
in submitting which, he said that he did not believe that the Deacons now
represented the church, but that he would not propose to remove them, but
to add to their numbers.
Mr. Hunt expressed his astonishment, and ignorance of these propositions
of Mr. Chester; and moved a reference of the paper to the Committee just
appointed, which was done.
The Committee, as finally arranged, consisted of Messrs. Charles Abernethy, E. W. Chester and Charles R. Harvey. The meeting then adjourned
to meet on Tuesday evening, June 2nd.
The adjourned meeting was held on the 2d of June, Dr. Ball in the chair.
Mr. Chester, from the Committee appointed May 26th, presented an abstract of the amendments proposed by the Committee to the Standing Rules;
closing with the remark, that at the Annual Meeting the Committee would
give their reasons for action under the present emergency. They also deferred reporting a list of nominees until that occasion.
The Annual MAeeting was duly held on Thursday evening, June 4th.
Its proceedings are so fully set forth in the letter to members of the
church which is hereinafter submitted from the signers of the communication
to Dr Cheever of April 27, t10t it is deemed unnecessary here to enlarge
upon them. The important fact however should be stated, even at the expense of repetition, that the merits of the Report made by Mr. Chester, and
the amendments to the Standing Rules recommended by the Committee and
adopted, were not considered, evten to the utterance of one word of comment, for or against either or any of'them.  Nor were they read but once;
and on this solitary reading, without even the slightest examination, they
were adopted in the gross, by a vote of 42 to 17; a sufficient number of
- I-SIlJ
f
7 
8
members, however, known to be opposed to them, to have prevented their
adoption had they been present, being absent from the city. The struggle
on the part of the minority, was to induce their brethern of the majority,
simply to proceed according to the provisions of our Rules; but it was all in
vain.  Our appeals and remonstrates were heard; but they were both unanswered and unheeded
A few days subsequent to the Annual Meeting a printed sheet, headed
"Report and Action of the Church of the Puritans, upon the letter addressed
to the pastor, Rev. George B. Cheever, D. I)., asking him to resign his
pastorate," was distributed to the members of the church at one of the
wveekly social meetings, and has also been extensively circulated throughout
New England. This paper purports to give the letter of April 27th, to Dr.
Cheever, but omits the names of the signers. It also gives a copy of the
Report signed by Messrs. Abernethy, Chester and Harvey, but omits the
proposed amendments to our Standing Rules.
It makes allegations respecting the signers, quite at variance with facts.
But we are debarred from a further notice of this document, as it is put
forth anonymously.
With a view to ensure the preservation of the Protest of the Deacons and
of our Letter to the church on the Records, we procured a call for a special
meeting on July 16th, by requisition of the Clerk, signed by the following
members of the church.
ELISHA C. WILcOX,              WILLIAM ALLEN,
ELISHA PECK,                   W. S. THOMPSON,
SAMUEL CHURCHILL,              J. WALTER CAMP,
WM. B. ISHAM,                  JARED LINSLY, M. D.
R. N. HAVENS,                  EDWARD M. MORGAN,
L. N. COWLEY,                  A. T. DWIGHT,
WILLIAH WAY,                   W. R. DONAG(HE, M. D.
O. E. WOOD,                    J. COOKE, I. 1)D.
E. M. KINGSLEY,                S. CONOVER, JR.
HENRY A. HURLBUT,              B. F. EASTMIAN,
ALBERT CHESEBRO,               G. S. CHAPIN,
RICHARD BROWN,                  E. J. OWEN,
J. K. JOHNSON,                 F. E. MATHER,
* STEPHEN PAUL.
This was read by the pastor, from the pulpit on Sabbath, July 12th.
The members of the church responded to our invitation by their presence,
and Mr. Wm. C. Gilman wag called to the chair.
A ready and patient attention was yielded to the preliminary statements
of Deacon Wood  and to the protest of Deacons Wood, Kingsley and Johnson, which was read by him.
t
0,i oq 
9
At the close, Mr. Havens asked on behalf of the signers of the letter of
April 27th, that he be then permitted to lay before the church their Reasons
for addressing that letter to the pastor. His request was denied.
Rev. Israel P. Warren then moved that the Protest of the Deacons be
ordered on file, and that a Committee of five be appointed to consider and
reply to it, if they deem it advisable.
After considerable discussion, and various proposals to amend, this Reso lution was adopted in its original form.
Mr. Havens again renewed his application, stating that he acted by
direction of the signers of the letter of April 27th, whose names he read,
and asked the opportunity of submitting their Reasons to the church.
Mr. Mather moved that the signers have leave now to present and read
their Reasons.
This Resolution occasioned a long debate; pending which, Mr. F. W.
King proposed an amendment to the effect that on Dr. Cheever's return, the
church would receive any respectful communication these brethren might
wish to make.
This was opposed by several members, on the ground that it was unbe coming the church to pledge itself to receive a paper, of the contents of
which they were ignorant.
The Rev. B. N. Martin, (who had been a member just four days,) then
submitted the following Preamble and Resolution, as a substitute for Mr King's motion
"Whereas, This church has already, by a deliberate vote expressed its
"judgment upon the action of the signers of the letter which requested the
"resignation of our pastor, therefore,
"Resolved, That while as a church we are ever ready to entertain any
"proper paper or remarks which any member may desire to submit to our
"consideration, we cannot receive from those gentlemen any statement re"fleeting upon the pastor."
Finally, the whole subject was laid on the table by a vote of 46 to 19
quite a number of members in the minority declining to vote, in consequence
of the chairman refusing to entertain a call for the ayes and noes.
VWe have thus been denied the right universally recognised as fundamental and inalienable by the civil law, of answering to the allegation of wrong
doing. By no formal vote, either at a regular or irregular meeting, has the
church ever intimated a wish to know why we addressed the pastor on the
subject of his resignation.  Theythave refused to give us any assurance that
they would hear us at any future day. Yet in a variety of ways, and by different speakers, they claim to have already condemned our proceeding.
We are shut up therefore to thenecessity of using the Press to present
to the eyes of our brethren, things to which they would not open their ears.
We do not prefer this medium of access to their understanding and their
judgment.    Having however, succeeded in bringing ourselves thus into
-    -                                                 - A_
'I' W -4 
direct contact with their conscience, all we have now to ask of them is,
' Judge righteous judgment."
We precede our own Letter to the Members of the Church, and the Protest of the Deacons, with the Re'port of Messrs. Aberiethy, Chester and
Harvey, made at the Annual Mleeting.
REPORT.
The Committee to whom was referred the subject of amending the Standing Rules of the Church of the Puritans, respectfully report:  That they have looked carefully at these rules, as they have existed for
some years.  They find a small number of these in need of amendments, not
of great importance, but yet such as the convenient transaction of business
seems to require. Indeed, the proposed amendments do little more than
conform the rules to the practice of the church.
The only rale of great importance, whether considered on general principles, or with reference to the present necessities of the church, is the one
from which a life tenure is inferred in the deaconship.
Such a tenure implies rule rather than representation. This is not in
happy accordance with the fundamental constitution of Congregationalism.
According to this all the power of the church resides in the body. Whoever
is appointed to perform any service, acts by authority of the body, and as its
representative. His is a delegated power, in the exercise of which he is
responsible to his constituents.
The evil of a life-tenure, or a tenure which can be terminated only by a
direct vote of displacement-always delicate, and usually regarded as a hostile act-is that the deacons of the church often come to feel themselves a
distinct order, having an authority beyond the functions of their office, a
right to lead the opinion and the action of the church. and to expect a deference on account of their official position. In the infirmities of our nature
this tendency is unavoidable.
Another and co2nate evil is, that deacons, though they may represent the
sentiment and will of the church when appointed, may cease entirely to represent the sentiment and wishes of the present.
The changes in our cities of the membership of a church are  rapid, and
deacons come to be in a very few years the representatives of a past generation.  When a large proportion of the present members have had no voice
in their election, they are likely to look upon them as official persons, and
not as representatives of the church in living sympathy with its pulsations.
It is of importance to accustom as large a number of members as practicable to the discharge of the duties belonging to the deaconship. The proportion of those fitted for such duties will depend  much on the  demand for
them, and the demand Mill be increased by the necessity of periodical
changes.
Your Committee deem it wise to render deacons ineligible for one year
after their term expires. If eligible, a reelection will be expected, and if
not accorded, the omission wilt-be regarded as a censure. The same persons must be continued for ear of wounding feelings, when a change would
be expedient. These are reasons which induce your Committee,on general
principles to advise a short term of office and ineligibility.
But there are considerations which render it specially important to apply
these principles in this church at the present time. And your Committee
!O
14 
ll
deem it the part of Christian frankness to declare, without disguise, yet in
all courtesy, the reasons why they believe what is fit and wise at all times
as to this office, is of imperative necessity in this church and at this time.
It is well known that our deacons, without invoking the advice, or consulting the wishes of the church, have attempted to drive its pastor to a resignation. The letter addressed to himn by these and others has been laid
before the church, and, through the press, has become known to the community. It is irregular. partisan, and unjust to the church. Two, at least,
of the deacons are generally understood to have been active in getting this
up and in procuriug signatures. The church cannot safely confide in men,
as its representatives, who thus seek, of their own will, and without the
voice of the church, or even calling for an open expression of its wishes, to
sunder the ties of pastor and people.
But, aside from the impropriety of the proceeding in its very nature, there
are objections to it at this time of gravest import.
In the midst  f abounding treason against God  and humanity, of silent
consenting, or of striking hands with the oppressor, there  are ministers in
this city who stand up unfaltering in the power of truth and the gospel. All
honor to such.  Their outspoken words shall go down to future ages.  They
are doing their part to redeem the nation from error and falsehood and wickedness and shame. They know too well that this redemption will never
come from political parties without a holier fire in the heart than can be
caught from the fitful torch-light of expediency. To these political parties
present success is everything. Not so with those who proclaim to the understanding and the heart the great truths of righteousness. They know
that these truths belong to God and are lasting as his throne. They fight a
bat,tle with a certainty of victory, though a thousand fall at their side and ten
thousand at their right hand.
Among the champions of right against wrong-of the oppressed against
the oppressor-of Christian principle against selfish cupidity-the pastor of
this church has taken a prominent stand. Here, on Union Square, in the
heart of the city, he has fought the battle against Slavery, its abettors and
apologists, with a brave heart.  With powers of logic and illustration rarely
matched, raised up by God to do a work for the nation, for mankind, and for
the age, hie has sent his thunder-tones from the Atlantic to the Pacific-from
our northern to our southern border-calling men to be true to themselves
and to their God-holding up to scorn, contempt, and loathing, the principles
and sentiments which brand our nation with  infamy, and make it a reproach
among all people.   His tones have reverberated beyond the Attantic, stirring
the best blood of the heart, wherever that heart is true to freedom.
God has honored the pulpit of this church, by making it a great watchtower for the nation. Its guardians have a duty to perform before the
world. All eyes turn to us to inquire whether we will be faithful to our
trust. It is ours to shield, to sustain, and to encourage the man whom we
have placed in this pulpit.  Shall we ask of a heartless despotism-of those
who, in the stolidity of their hirts, fear not God nor regard man-leave for
our pastor to speak for -right, for truth, for equity?  Are  we so lost to
manly courage as to take counsel of our fears?
Dr. Cheever is pastor of this clhurch; but he is more.    His mission
extends beyond the little precinis of Union Square. He is a watchman
on the walls of our Amnerican Zion, proclaiming truths to the nationtruths as enduring as eternity.  A little hamlet of Germanay-a contracted parish in Edinburgh-ijight as well have  claimed  Luther and Knox
for their sole property, as this church the man who stands in its pulpit.
. IN,I,-,",, 
12
His mission extends wide beyond the precincts of a little parish. Through
him and in him we owe a duty to the  nation-the duty of upholding,
sustaining, and encouraging. And to this sentiment of duty this church,
before the eyes of Christendom, watched and noted by the good and the
wise-nay, by the tyrannic and the wicked-this church, set, by the power
and God-given fidelity of its pator, on a pinnacle so high, will not, call
not, be false. Your Committee call on you, brethren, to dare and to do
whatsoever God in his providence shall demand of you.
The great mistake of the fifteen or twenty men who have attempted
to remove the pastor of this church from his pulpit and his people, is
this, that they have never measured themselves and their pastor by the
right standard-have never considered his mission either in its breadth, or
height, or depth; in its reach of power, or the greatness of our nation's
need. They profess to sympathize with him in his principles, and yet, so
far as on them depends, they would hush his voice in silence.  They would
honor him for his fidelity to truth, but would drive him from our midst.
Well, it was possible that these mistaken brethren, acting in secret conclave, might prevail.   They believed they could.  They  attempted the
task-whether successful or in vain, this church must say. D)r. Cheever
can afford to be driven out from the midst of us-to go naked, penniless,
friendless. Of his honor as the champion of liberty and right-as the messenger of God to the nation-he will go unshorn. He has made a mark
which we can not blot out.  He has proclaimed truths which shall live when
we are forgotten. He can afford to be driven out. And we, too, brethren,
can afford to be scattered, all of us-to go down, one by one, to the silent
grave; or, if God so will, to be dashed by some sudden calamity, all of us
together, from earthly life. Pastor and people can afford to go down together to the grave, to be buried in the ruins of the edifice where we worship. Like a pebble dropped in mid ocean, the tiny circles marking for a
brief moment the place where it fell, and then ships with their living freight
pass on, all unconscious that aught had disturbed the waters.
But can we afford the other?  Can we afford to seem to the world false
to all the principles we profess to honor? Can we face the reproaches of
the just, the brave, the large-hearted, throughout the world?  Can we afford
to leave our children to blush for our cowardice? Can we afford them the
legacy of a dishonored name?
Brethren, these things we can not afford. Let us gather round our pastor.
Let our hearts beat in unison with his, warming, cherishing, upholding him.
Let us, at least, go down in memory with him to posterity as not unworthy
the man whom God, in his providence, has set in our midst. And so may
God succeed us, as we are true to Him and to the cause of the oppressed.
Respectfully submitted.
E. W. CHESTER,      )
CHARLES ABERNETHY,  Committee.
CHARLES R. HARVEY,
NEW YORK, Thursday,June 4, 1857.
The amendment introduced into the Standing Rules, relative to Deacons, is in these words:
"From and after the present Annual Meeting the number of Deacons shall be six.  They
shall be elected at the present meeting; two of them for one year, two for two years and
three for three years.  At each futlre Annual Meeting, two shall be chosen for three years
in the place of the two whose time thall then expire. Vacancies occurring before the end of
the term, are to be filled only for the remainder of it. At the expiration of their terms of
office, Deacons are ineligible for one year." 
13
PROTEST
OF DEACONS WOOD, KINGSLEY AND JOHNSON.
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF THE
PURITANS:
DEAR BRETHREN:-We  the undersigned, Officers of the
Church of the Puritans, feeling ourselves aggrieved by the
action of the Church, at its late annual meeting, in the adoption of the report signed by brothers Chester, Abernethy, and
Harvey, and with a view to the alteration of the Standing
Rules in accordance therewith, hereby submit to the Church,
and ask to have entered on the Record our respectful and
solemn protest.
We protest against said action:
First-As illegal, null and void, inasmuch as the meeting
at which the amendments were originally proposed, was itself
illegal, not having been properly called, by a requisition upon
the Clerk, as expressly provided for in the rules for such
cases, and consequently the proceedings referred to, were in
direct violation of the rules established by the Church for
the transaction of business.
We protest against it:
Secondly-As revolutionary and dangerous, being an unwarrantable subversion of another and fundamental article
of the Church Constitution, (third,) by which the office of
deacon was made not less permanent than that of pastor, viz:
* The permanent officers of this Church shall be a pastor, or
pastors and deacons."
We protest against it:
Thirdly-As unjust and detrimental to a portion of the permanent officers of the C'urch, vacating their offices, as it
does, by an ex post facto rule, without their consent, and in
violation of the rules under which they accepted office, and
that too, without formal charges or trial, and with no valid
reason for such procedure. [See Art. 10, Standing Rules.]
We protest against it: 
14
Fourthly-As unscriptural and unchristian in virtually and
by implication, disciplining and censuring the officers, without notification or privilege of trial, bfor alleged offences, as
the rules of the Church ari4d Christian fellowship require.
We protest against it:
Fifthly-As singularly inconsistent and irreconcilable, not
only with the practice and principles of this Church from its
foundation, but especially with its action on a former occasion, when the identical rules, now subverted, (or attempted
to be,) were, after a thorough discussion, deliberately established, the present pastor taking part in the discussion, and
contributing to that result, by his earnest advocacy of the
measure from the pulpit.
We protest against it:
Sixthlly-As directly contrary to the well established principles anrid usages of the Congregational Churches in the
United States, is well as to the general principles of government in the Christian Church, almost without exception.
Seventhlly-V-We protest against not only the leading position taken in the Report, but equally against the arguments
adduced in support of it;-against the allegation that permanency of office "is not in happy accordance with the
fundamental constitution of Congregationalism," as without
a shadow of support either in the practice of Congregational
Churches past or present, (with an isolated exception or two,)
in the history of the Christian Church from the beginning, or
in the teachings of the New Testanment itself:
Against the argument from the alleged difficulty of removing officers by trial and deposition for just cause, as unfounded in fact, and tending to establish a method of discipline, unprecedented and dangerous, and by no means recognized by our Savio* in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew:
Against the'argument also "that it is of importance to accustom as large a number of members as practicable to the
discharge of the duties belonging to the deaconship," and the
conclusion "that the proportion of those fitted for such duties,
will depend much on the demand for them," as degrading 
15
the office, and makling it a mere object of ambition, to be
regulated by the commercial rule of "demand and supply:"
In short, against the consideration that life tenure implies
"rule" rather than "representation," or representation of the
"past" rather than of the "present," and others of like tenor;
against these we protest, not only as fallacious in themselves,
but as aiming a direct and fatal blow against the perma  nency and stability of the pastoral office itself, which, both
in the New Testament and Congregational usage, stands pre cisely on the same footing as the deaconship, as respects per manency;-a course of reasoning which virtually reduces
the permanent pastor to a mere stated supply, and the office
of deacon to that of a temporary Church committee; and
what is worse, in the present instance, to a committee ineli gible to re-election, however  "good a degree" they may have
"purchased to themselves."
We protest against the Report further as laboring to place
the brethren whom it censures in a false position before the
Church and community-constantly assuming or asserting,
in opposition to fact, that they are hostile to freedom of
speech and of the pulpit, and unwilling that the Christian
pastor should perform his whole duty, "rightly dividing the
word of truth" and applying it to every species of iniquity
among men, whether private or public.
We protest against it liklewise as wrongfully misstating the
position and misinterpreting the motives of the brethren whom
it condemns, and as unwarrantably holding up their conduct
as factious, and their professions in respect to it as insin.cere
and unworthy of confidence.
We protest, finally, against the assumption throughout that
the difficulties which have so unhappily arisen in the Church
and Society had their origit primarily or mainly in the faithfulness of the pastor, in advocating the great principles of
freedom and right; on the contrary, we fully believe that
his recent efforts on the subjct of slavery have served not
only to strengthen him in his fposition, but have prevented
an earlier outbreak of dissatisfaction. 
16
While we thus by our earnest protest oppose what we regard as wrong in the action referred to, and seek to make
known to the brethren-with many of whom we have so long
walked in friendly and Ohristian intercourse-how deeply
we feel aggrieved by it, we are disposed, nevertheless, to
make due allowance for the widely different views which,
through human infirmity, equally good men sometimes entertain on the same subject; and hence would neither rashly
judge the motives nor unnecessarily wound the sensibilities of
those whose action we cannot but regard as hasty, inconsiderate and ill advised-no less so, certainly, than that which
they assume to censure on our part-and as greatly lacking
in that Christian courtesy and kindness towards us, which
it is our prayer to the Great Head of the Church, that we
may never fail to exercise towards all who love our Lord
Jesus Christ."
']'he second standing rule of our Church provides, "that
this Church wvill extend to and receive from other Evangelical Congregational Churches that fellowship, advice and
assistance which the laws of Christ require.  It holds itself
bound to regard the decisions of mutual councils and to seek
the promotion of peace and brotherly love with all the Church
of our Lord Jesus Christ"
In accordance with this rule we ask that you will now
unite with us in calling a mutual council at an early day, to
which this action of the Church, so important as well as unjust to us, may be referred.
Requesting again th t this our solemn protest may be elntered at length on the record of the Church, and wishing
grace, mercy and peace to be multiplied to you all      We remain your brethren in Christ,
O. E. WOOD,            57 Broadway,  )
E. M. KINGSLEY,  38 Park Place,   Deacons.
J. K. JOHNSON,    63 Pearl street.
NEW YORK, July 7th, 1857. 
17
LETTER
FROM THE SIGNERS OF THE COMMUNICATION OF APRIL 27, 1857.
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF THE
PURITANS.
DEAR BRETHREN:-On the 11th of May last, the undersigned, in connection with the three deacons of our Church,
delivered to our pastor a letter, of which, for your information
and guidance, we here give you a transcript.  It was  as
follows:
NEW YORK, April 27, 1857.
REv. GEORGE B. CHEEVER, D.D.
DEAR SIR:-The undersigned members of the church and congregation
of the Church of the Purit'ns, after a prayerful consideration of the condition of the church, and its relations to yourself, are painfully convinced
that the spiritual interests both of the pastor and the people, as well as the
stability and prosperity of the society, will be promoted by a dissolution of
our connection.
It is not without extreme reluctance, therefore, that we now suggest to
you the expediency of a tender of your resignation of the pastorate. By
the adoption of this course, pleasant recollections of our Christian fellowship will be maintained. A dissolution, which seems to us inevitable, will
lose its sting.  The intercourse of the future, as Providence may permit it,
will be free from painful memories of the past.
We do not dwell on the reasons which impel us to the suggestions we
make. It is sufficient that the infirmities and diversities of human nature
often indicate separation as the rule of peace, when an enforced union could
but result in growing alienation of heart.
That you may not, however attribute our suggestions to the wrong
cause, we assure you that we all sympathize in your views of the freedom
of the pulpit; and the duty as well as the right, of its ministers, at proper
times and occasions, to discuss before their people all questions affecting or
involving moral truth.
Ever invoking( for you and youis the blessing of the Great Head of the
Church, and with fervent prayers for your growing influence for good, so
long as the Master shall spare you to work in his vineyard,
We remain, dear sir, your friends and brethren,
J.K    OHSN
A. CHESEBRO,
J. N. BRADLCY,
S. J. BAcon,
J. N. BRADLEY, J. K.           JINSSON,
J. LINSLY, M. D.
R. N. HAVENS,
2 
18
RICHARD BROWN,
CHAS. TAYLOR,
WILLIAM WAY,
S. CONOVER, JR.
D A    E. J. OwEN,
J. WALTER CAMP,
CHAS. H. ISHAM,
F. E. MATHER.
This letter was not sent, but after prayerful and deliberate
consultation.  It was not the device or the act of a moment.
The request it preferred was not the result of recent or immediately preceding occurrences. Nor was the cause of it
to be found in a single indiscretion, a sudden, overpowering
temptation, a solitary sermon, or in any particular series of
pulpit discourses.
The propriety, not to say necessity, of a change in the
pastorate, had been for a period of two years or more, the
subject of frequent, often of earnest remark, with members of
the church; not only those whose names are appended to
the letter, but with some who have been active and prominent in their opposition to the course now taken by the signers, and with many others who have left the church rather
than be involved in unpleasant controversies with their
pastor.
But the undersigned and their associate signers, believing
that their obligations were rather to the church than to the
pastor; that duty, however unpleasant, was imperative, even
where ease prompted to its omission; that in the service of
Christ we are bound by our covenant relations to know no
man after the flesh; yet with feelings of entire kindness
towards our pastor personally, and in language and terms
designed to be courteous and not unworthy the character of
Christians, suggested the propriety of his tendering the resignation of his office to the church.
Our object in communicating our views by letter was
threefold: First, we desired to remove the impression from
his mind, that the discontent in the church-of the existence
of which he was aware-was not serious in its character,
t
S. T. HYDE,
STEPHEN PAUL,
L. N. COWLEY,
0. E. WOOD,
D. HODGMAN,
E. M. KINGSLEY,
A. T. DWIGHT,
H. A. HURLBUT, 
19
and was restricted to two or three individuals; second, if
successful in convincing him of these facts, we desired that
he might have the opportunity of himself initiating before
the church the proposal for his retirement, or perchance of
so modifying his ministrations as to remove existing difficulties, and awaken anew the love and confidence which animated us all, as together we laid the foundation stones and
raised the walls of our Bethel; and third, we aimed to avoid
the public controversy, with its almost inevitable alienations
and heart-burnings, of a church council.
To assure his reception and consideration of the letter in
a corresponding spirit, we presented it to him by a Committee, who called his attention to its informal character, and
indicated the medium through which he might reply to our
suggestions.
Great then was our surprise when, at the close of the
morning service on the first ensuing Sabbath, our pastor informed not only the church, but the strangers and the indiscriminate congregation assembled within our walls, of his
receipt of the letter, and invited a meeting for its consideration, in such terms and manner as could not fail to secure
the presence of a curious and excited crowd. And such, in
fact, was the result. And more still: a notoriety has thus
been given to the proceedings, which, if it subserves no other
purpose, will at least summon as spectators to the issue now
forced upon us, Christians of all names and of every clime,
and sinners everywhere who delight to "eat up the sins of
God's people." The thing which we aimed to avoid is forced
upon us; and a public exposure of the reasons which influenced us and our associates in our action has become necessary. The course which we designed for peace has been
made an occasion.for strife. Whether it shall in the end
prove that with wise forecast we counted the cost, or that
we spake unadvisedly with our lips, is now to be determined.
Conscious, however, of our integrity of purpose, we now
place before you some of the facts and reasons on which we
acted.  
20
It has been quite magisterially charged upon us that "we
have never measured ourselves nor our pastor by the right
standard."* We will not stop by the way to comment on the
self-sufficiency of the assumption manifested in the utterance
of this judgment; but will give you the standard by which
we venture to form an opinion as to the duties and obligations of a Christian pastor. It is right that we do this here,
as it is by this standard we have been governed in our
actions.
The great Apostle to the Gentiles, on his way from Philippi to Jerusalem, when at Miletus sent for the elders of the
Church at Ephesus. On their arrival, he gave them a charge
as to their duties, prominent in which is this memorable injunction: "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves and to all
the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you
overseers, to feed the flock of God, which He hath purchased
with his own blood;" the Apostle having in mind, it can
scarcely be doubted, the thrice repeated command of
the risen Savior to the Apostle Peter, "Feed my lambs,
Feed my sheep."
What sheep these are that are to be fed, is plainly enough
indicated-those over whom the Holy Ghost appoints elders
for overseers.   Small flocks they may be; their numbers
very few; only lambs perchance; yet though feeble, weak,
few or young, being the purchase of the blood of Christ, the
oversight and care of even such, to a rightly regulated mind,
ought to satisfy the highest and noblest ambition. Here we
conceive lie the duties of the Christian minister-to the flock
over which the Holy Ghost makes him an overseer. We
know of no rule of interpretation by which such very plain
directions can be construed to justify the dispersion of a pastor's energies. and the extension of his mission over an area
not even restricted by the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans,
the Lakes of the North-and the Gulf of the South, but reaching "beyond the Atlantic;" in short, without any restriction
* These quotationfts, it may be well to note, are from the Report which
may be found on page 10. 
21
save "the nation, mankind, the age and the world," to the
neglect of the few souls gathered within " the precincts of
the little parish" whence he sends forth his "thunder tones."
Nor do we comprehend that rue of interpretation, by which
the calling of a miraculously anointed shepherd boy, from
following the sheep of his father to be ruler over God's people, can be accommodated to sanction the soaring away of
a Christian minister from the proper work of feeding the
sheep and lambs over which the Holy Ghost has made him
overseer, "to high pinnacles," thence to scatter his feed-grain
over a nation.  If we have failed properly to "consider the
"mission of our pastor, either in its breadth, or height, or
"depth; in its reach of power or the greatness of our nation's
"need," it is because we have no other line to stretch upon it,
no other standard by which to measure it, no other plummet
wherewith to sound it, than such as the Apostle gives us;
nor have we yet seen the warrant by which he is commissioned to the nation, rather than to ourselves and our families.
Even David laid aside the crook before he assumed the
sceptre.
Besides this Scriptural standard of a pastor's functions,
equally explicit is the revealed standard of personal character to which he is commanded to attain Thus writes the
same Apostle, whose words we have already quoted, to Timothy: "The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle
to all men; apt to teach; patient; in meekness instructing
those who oppose themselves."
Taught as we have been, from the cradle to the maturity
of life, to go "to the law and the testimony" for our rule of
judgment in all things, we have felt it our duty, under the
pressure of present circumstances, there to seek for guidance
and direction. Our rule lnd aut'hority we have thus given
you. lt is now to Be seen, in view of the facts which we
present, whether we have misconstrued or misapplied the
rule, or abused herein the right of private judgment.
I I 
22
ORIGIN, PROGRESS AND PRESENT CONDITION OF THE
CHURCH OF THE PURITANS.
The Church of the Puritans was organized April 12, 1846,
with forty-five members, received from seventeen churches,
and of seven different denominations.  Most of the members
were just in the ripe vigor of their days.  The majority of
them were of New England origin. Trained up under a
form of church government which the experience of two
centuries and a half has proven to be peculiarly elevating on
the individual character, teaching habits of self reliance, in    culcating the formation and exercise of independent judg    ments in all things, whether connected with the church or
the state, alike in personal, family or social life; they banded
together with the determination to demonstrate the adapted ness of Congregationalism to the exigencies of Christian life
in a large city, in direct and daily contact and contrast with
other forms of Protestant church government, which with    draw the administration of affairs from the whole body of
associated members, depositing and concentrating power in
selected and, practically, self-perpetuating agencies. They
were one in heart and purpose. They were perfectly harmo    nious in their choice of a pastor. Nothing, indeed, seemed
wanting to secure, with the presence and blessing of the Great
Head of the Church Universal, the success, expansion and
permanency of their enterprise.
Dr. Cheever was installed as pastor on the 18th May, 1846.
The site which was secured for the church edifice was un    surpassed by any other in the city. The concentration of the
great thoroughfares at this point; the rapidity with which a
new population ws then settling in the immediate vicinity;
and the want.of other places of public worship for their ac    commodation;-all gave warrant to the belief that the church
would speedily be filled: In their pastor they had every con    fidence; nay, proud of his acknowledged abilities, they did
not doubt that multitudes would throng to enjoy the benefit
of his ministrations.
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0                                                                                                                                         _ _ 
23
How far their expectations have been realized the following facts will show:  In the 1st year, 1846-7, the net increase of church members, both by
letter and profession-deducting deaths and dismissals-was       -    66
In the 2d year, 1847-8,       do.       I      do.      -    -    92
Do.  3d year, 1848-9,       do.              do.       -    -    27
Do.  4th year, 1849-50,      do.             do.       -    -    32
Do.  5th year, 1850-1,       do.             do.       -    -    28
Do.  6th year, 1851-2,       do.             do.       -    -    33
Do.  7th year, 1852-3,      do.              do.       -    -    38
Do.  8th year, 1853-4,       do.             do.       -    -    11
Do.  9th year, 1854-5,       do.             do.       -    -    12
Do. 10th year, 1855-6,      do.           decrease     -    -    12
Do. 11th year, 1856-7,      do.              do.       -    -    12
And at the date of our annual meeting in June, 1857, there
were but 351 members connected with the Church; of whom
40, at least, were but nominally such; consisting of missionaries and permanent absentees in various parts of the world.
Of the remainder, many are not regular attendants upon the
church services.
The state of the congregation for the last five years, including the present, is also shown by the number of pews rented
and occupied in each year:
On the main floor of the house, th
In the galleries,      -    -
Total, -                                                 220 "
In which there are comfortable sittings for 1300 persons.
There were pews, in whole or in part, occupied at the date of the annual
meeting in 1852,   -... -       -    -     -     -    -     -       133
In 1853,   -  -               --—. -133
In 1854,. —... ——.                                       126
In 1855,  -  -  -  -              -     -    -     -        111
I  tnt 186 —--------------------— 0
- 1     O —
a-~ -,
It should be stated in this co)nnection, that a considerable
number of pews were renter in the years 1855-6 and 1856-7,
at rates very much under their assessed annual value.
At the annual meeting of the Society in March, 1857, only
148 pews.
702  " 
24
32 pews were occupied by their owners; whilst 21 pews belonged to persons not connected with the church. Of the 67
pews owned by individuals, more than one half belong to those
who sympathize with us. There have never been a half dozen
pews rented in the galleries, in any one year since the erection
of the church edifice. Of the gallery pews, it may not be amiss
to remark, that they are lined and cushioned, and are in all
respects as comfortable as those on the main floor.
Not in a single year, since the formation of the church, has its
legitimate income from the rental of pews, been sufficient for its
ordinary support; the total deficiency, apart firom the $3,000
contributed to the repairs and alterations of the building, having
been over $9,000.
Whilst our enterprize has thus been stagnant, if not retrograding, other churches, sufficiently convenient to the population from whom we might reasonably expect to draw a considerable membership, have been fully maintained; some of them,
indeed, not being able to accommodate the members desirous of
unitingwith them. But we will institute no special or invidious
comparisons. We rejoice in the success of these and all other
enterprizes for building up Christ's kingdom. Our puirpose is to
ascertain the cause of our own comparative failure.
The inquiry will here very naturally occur, How has the
church been sustained with so small an attendance?
At the time of the completion of the building, there remained
upon it a mortgage of $t5,000, for part of its cost, falling due
in 1853.  Down to the same time, 1853, there had also accrued
a debt of between $3,000 and $4,000, making the total debt
over $18,000. Principally through the indefatigable exertions
of Tlieodore McNamee, Esq., then President of the Board of
Trustees, but pot now connected with the church, and of deacon O. E. Wood, this debt was paid off. Considerably more
than one half of the amount was contributed by somne of the
signers of the letter ol April 27, 1857, to Dr. Cheever, and by
friends who sympathize'with us in our present views and action. On the other hand, we cheerfully record the liberality
t 
25
of Dr. Cheever himself in his contribution to the fund, and also
the fact of his now holding three pews in the Cl-hurch.
In 1855, we were again in debt over $3,000.  This also was
raised by voluntary contributions; over two-thirds of the amount
being paid by ourselves and friends.  And  again, in 1856,
there was a deficiency to be provided for of about $3,200; of
this about one half was given by those who are now branded as
disorganizers.
We would rather make no mention of these things. But
when we are held up to the world. as mistaken brethren, acting
in secret conclave," who would " drive" their pastor out " naked,
penniless, friendless," we may confidently appeal to these facts,
to rebut the unmerited reproach.
We have at all times rejoiced with our pastor, in whatever
success, spiritual or temporal, has crowned our united labors.
Hence it was, with sincere gratification, that in the spring of
1856, one of the deacons was able to allay much of the discontent which was already manifesting itself, by referring to the
average annual addition to the church of about 13, on profession. It was then, too, made the subject of coingratulation,
that, althouglh onr income was insufficient for the support of
the church, yet besides meeting the deficiency, the annual
contributions to objects of Christian benevolence had risen to
over $10,000, chiefly through the active exertions of a few
individuals. These statements greatly subdued the rising disaffection, and the fiinds needed for repairs on the building were
promptly contributed.
Still, facts pressed upon us, leading the minds of the more
thoughtful of our brethren to the inquiry whether our pastor
was adapted to the work he had undertaken, of ministering
to us in sacred things.  There was a steadily diminishing attendance, both on the Stbbath and weekly services, except
on special advertised occasions. Little or no interest was
manifested in the church or-its pastor by the children and
youth of the congregation.' There was a sad lack of vitality
in the Sabbath Schools; which, indeed, were quite neglected
by the pastor.   Many of our earliest and most reliable
I 
26
friends were leaving us; friends on whose liberality we could
count in all emergencies, as we could upon their presence
whenever we met for prayer and praise. Saddest of all, too
many were leaving, by reason of personal dissension with
their pastor.
— Whilst many had doubtless for some time seen and felt
whither we were drifting, yet few would acknowledge the
truth, even to themselves. At length, however, full expression was given to the feeling, at a business meeting of the
society, in the spring of 1856; but one individual present expressing dissent.
We are now led to the inquiry, What are the causes of
this condition of our church?
It pains us to enter upon this investigation. To be faithful, we must refer to facts over which we would rather drop
the mantle of oblivion. We would not open a leaf in the
great record book of the past, whose revealings would cause
even an emotion of regret. Yet how shall we escape or avoid
the necessity? We are impelled to it in self-defence. The
cause of truth demands it. Our pastor himself, by the course
which he has seen proper to adopt, seemingly requires it of
us. Our duty is, first of all, to Christ and His church. The
interests of His cause we must regard as paramount to all
considerations of time or of earthly ties. But as we enter
upon ihis investigation, we do not attempt to conceal from
ourselves our own manifold shortcomings; nor do we say
that we may not, by our own lukewarmness in the Master's
service, too often have failed to hold up the hands of our pastor in his trials and his duties. We do not deny that too often
have we failed in that urgency at the Throne of Grace which
would have securedboth for him and for ourselves the blessing of the Spirit's converting and sanctifying presence.
But whatever blame may justly attach to either or all of us,
for want of faithfulness to our covenant obligations, this will
neither excuse, palliate, or remove, that which has been injudicious, imprudent, neglectful or rash, in him who occupies 
27
towards us the responsible relation of a minister Of the Lord
Jesus Christ.
First, then, as to his pulpit ministrations.
We have no Procrustean bed.,by which to adjust the intel lectual and emotional nature of a minister of Christ. Nor, in deed, would it be possible, even were it desirable, for a people
thus to stretch or to cramp a pastor's mind or heart; especially
if he be of an active, inquiring, impressionable character. Ney ertheless, we claim it as the right of every congregation of
Christian believers, to see to it that their pastor does not shun
to declare the whole counsel of God; and that hie does this in
the spirit of Him who wept, as he announced to Jerusalem,
"The things which belong to thypeace, are now  hid from
thine eyes!" It is the duty of the minister of Christ to proclaim
the': severity" of God; but none the less so, and in conjunction
with it, His "' goodness."
Herein do we judge lies one chief cause of our pastor's want
of success in his ministry. With all his skill in wielding the
artillery of Sinai, and in launching forth the terrors of the law,
he yet fails in the tender presentation of a Savior's sufferings
and love, and the attractions of His cross, to dying men.
He has been so often engaged in warfare with various political sins of the times, that the denunciatory style in which he has
accustomed himself to address his audiences on these topics,
has, insensibly perhaps to himself, come to be characteristic
of his ordinary ministrations; more especially, however, in
his discourses to the indiscriminate Sabbath evening congregations.
The habit of denunciation, like all other habits, grows, and
at last becomes dominant, by use.  And when this exists in
combination with the faculty of ridicule and satire, it is repulsive in the extreme.  Suce, unfortunately, is the case with our
pastor. Whether it be sinners in general, or sinners in particular, who fall under his animtnadversions, they may be sent
away angry with the preacher for the scorn, the vituperation, the ridicule, with which they have been visited, but not
much inclined to fall in love with the truth, for the exhibition
_ -                                                                                                                                                                                                              
28
of it to which they have listened. Nor has it been only liquor
dealers,slave owners,'"partisal judges," who have thus been held
up in the pulpit of our church as the embodiment of all that
is unholy and unclean. O   Episcopal friends, who, innocently
enough, indulge in gowns and bands, and hold to three orders
in the ministry, have too often been remarked upon in the same
spirit.
Again; no man occupying the position of a public teacher,
that indulges in the habit to which we have referred, can fail
sooner or later, to fancy himself a special messenger charged to
utter forth Woe, woe, to the inhabitants of earth. It is a result
as inevitable, as that power always grasps after that just beyond
its reach.  Hence, such a man will never find satisfaction, or
feel that his mission is fulfilled, by contracting himself to small
spheres, or limiting himself to the guidance and instruction of
a few of the humble ones of earth. And this diversion of mind
to outside matters, does in fact measurably incapacitate him for
the minor and more homely duties of his station. His thoughts
being occupied with the affairs of a continent, cannot readily be
brotught downt to the familiar teachings of the conference room.
And when he attempts it, the ruling theme of thought and of study, will unhappily, and often grotesquely, force itself into the very
midst of the colloquial intercourse of the hour.  Suelh, practically, has been the case with our pastor. And too often, as the
members of the church cannot fail to remember, has he come
amongst us at the weekly lecture, manifestly unprepared for
the duties of the occasion; filling up  the allotted hour with
rambling, unconnected and pointless remarks; making up for
this want of preparation, by lonrg, desultory readings from the
Sacred Scriptures, prompted in his selections, apparently, by
the marginal references, which happen to be under his eye.
We think such ministrations unprofitable, and not at all
calculated to edify "the body of Christ," or to win sinners to
repentance.
We grieve to say that there have been other things in his
public ministrations, even more objectionable still, if this be
possible. He hag used the pulpit to hold up to ridicule members
f
p - I 
29
of his church, who have ventured to differ from him. And this,
confessedly. It seems impossible to believe that a minister
of Christ should thus far forget the duties and proprieties of
his station; that, availing himself of the immunities of a
pulpit, where no response is allowable, he should launch forth
his invectives against those whose hands are tied, and whose
mouths are shut. But such is the sad truth. If he has not
called members of the church by name, he has so far indicated them by circumstances, that their brethren could not
fail to recognize the designation. And he has done this, as
he has admitted, for the express purpose of driving away
those who were obnoxious to him, or protested against his
arbitrary, denunciatory, course.
On Thanksgiving Day, in 1855, he spoke of one of the
members of the church as "mean and contemptible," not
mentioning his name, but under circumstances which left no
doubt of the application. And when afterwards, the Prudential Committee requested him to meet the offended brother
half way, with a view to reconciliation, he refused, saying
that it was "beneath the dignity of his station."
After the meeting of the Society in 1856, when the money
was subscribed to repair the church, and meet the deficiency
of the treasury, when informed of the result of the endeavor,
instead of expressing his thankfulness, or even congratulating
his brethren, he replied, with peculiar emphasis of manner,
'Now  I'll give it to them!" and on the ensuing Sabbath
morning, occupied the attention of his hearers, with his
"muzzled ox sermon," as it has been called, abounding
throughout with personalities, epithets, sarcasms and vituperation; thoroughly succeeding in the strange work of alienating from himself the alfec ion and respect of many of his
people. 
Such epithets as "snakes irr the grass," "rusty old guns,"
"rats," "barnacles," "bilge Nvater," are but samples of the
epithets which in this public manner, he has applied to some
members of the churchi, of which he is the pastor. 
30
We will not longer dwell on this unwelcome part of our
duty.
Second.-Such a course on the part of a pastor most naturally calls forth remonstrance on the part of church officers,
who feel in any degree the responsibility of their position;
and the deacons of our church have not, in this respect, been
unfaithful to their trust. Instead, however, of being met by
our pastor with docility and meekness, they have been rebuffed and abused. In short, the language and manner of
the pulpit to sinners, impersonally, has been applied to them
in the parlor, personally. One of them has been repeatedly
and violently charged to his face with "falsehood."  And
this term has been applied to him behind his back, within a
brief hour of placing in his hands for distribution to the disciples of Christ, the emblems of His dying love.
To another of the deacons he has applied the term "treacherous," and spoken of the third as a "malicious calumniator."
Subsequently to the delivery of the "muzzled ox sermon,"
to which we have referred, speaking of what he called "the
few remaining disaffected ones in the congregation," he said
that he " intended to make it too hot for them."
We will not mutiply these evidences of his want of appreciation, not only of the common courtesies of life, but of that
grace and suavity of speech and demeanor, so eminently
requisite in one appointed to administer the Word to the flock
of Christ.
And Thirdly, We are constrained to remark upon his assumption of arbitrary power in the administration of the affairs of the Church.
Congregationalism is not a hierarchical despotism. It has
no independent priesthood.  It is, in the broadest, truest
sense of the. wor, a republic; its affairs all passing under
the eye and review of all the members. A Congregational
pastor may not, therefore, without arrogance, assume to him self the right to originate measures of church polity, or arbi trarily to set aside the directions of his church, speaking
through its regularly appointed organs.
ol 
31
From the organization of our church to the present day,
there have been differences of opinion between our members,
as to the expediency of holdingthe second service of the Sabbath on the afternoon or the evening. The pastor himself
has uniformly preferred the evening; and it has been in the
evenings, principally, that he has occupied himself with the
exciting political topics of the day.
At a meeting of the Prudential Committee, about the month
of November, 1856, when the question of evening services
was considered, and one of the officers called his attention to
the recorded proceedings of the church directing an afternoon
service, Dr. Cheever replied that "he would have an evening
service; that no power on earth should stop him from preaching in the evening; and that if the church wanted preaching
in the afternoon, they must get other supplies than he could
furnish."
And it was observed that when the service was held in the
afternoon, by direction of the church, it seemed as though he
so conducted it as purposely to divest it of interest, in order to
drive the church back to the evening service.
Just as little heed was paid by him to the wishes of the Prudential Committee in relation to the management of the Bible
Class, in the spring of 1856. This class had been for some
time previous conducted by Prof. Howard Crosbv. Circumstances seemed to indicate to him the propriety of his retiring; but on the special request of the Committee, the pastor
being present, he consented to continue the service. Dr.
Cheever immediately directed the clerk of the church to notify Prof. Crosby that he would take charge of the class himself; but the clerk declining to deliver so discourteous a mes
sage, directly in the fac!of the resolution of the Committee,
Dr. Cheever went tQ the class when in session, and there so
conducted himself as to compel Prof. Crosby at once to retire.
Soon after, Mr. Crosby left the church.
At the annual meeting op the church in 1856, Dr. Cheever
assumed the chair, without vote or invitation; and on his
attention being drawn' by a member present, to the Standing 
32
Rule which directs the calling of the church to order by the
clerk, and the nomination and election of a moderator by
the church, he acknowledged the Rule, but continued
to preside. To avoid a, public altercation, the question
was dropped. At the same meeting, he ruled the sufficiency of a plurality of votes to elect members of the
Prudential Committee; and when directed to the uniform
usage of the church to require a majority to elect, he paid no
regard to the statement, but insisted on the correctness of his
ruling. Under this ruling, the only member of the Prudential
Committee who has sustained Dr. Cheever in his arbitrary
proceedings, was then elected, by a mere plurality vote.
Without further multiplying details, it may suffice here to
say, that his overbearing treatment of the officers of the
church,and utter disregard oftheir wishes and representations,
has led a number of them to seek other and more congenial
church relations. He has shown no spirit of conciliation or
compromise, towards those who have at various times expostulated with him on his conduct.
You will thus see, Christian brethren, that our reasons for
addressing the letter of April 27, 1857, to Dr. Cheever, may
be classified under four heads:
1-The condition of the church, under his pastorate, both
as to its numbers and its finances;
2-The character of his public ministrations;
3-His uncourteous and bitter mode of speech towards
those who do not coincide with his admiiiistration of the duties
of his office; and his impatience of all admonition;
And you,vil especially observe that none of these reasons
are such as have been assigned, as prompting our communition, by Dr. Cheever himself, and by Messrs. Charles Abernethy, E. W. Chester, and Charles R. Harvey, in their Report
presented at the recent annual meeting.
In relation to the attempt made by the pastor to hold up to
f 
33
the church and the public, the Slavery issue, as the ground
work of our action, we are constrained to say that it has
greatly excited our wonder. Of the existence of the dissatis  faction in the church, Dr. Cheever has been long aware. Re  peated representations have been made to him to this effect,
though he has steadily professed to doubt their correctness.
We presume that this letter to you will dissipate his doubts
as to the cause of our action.
We must confess our surprise that two of the brethren who
si(gned the Report, should not have first inquired into the truth fulness of their allegations against the deacons of the church
and ourselves.  Andof the third, it pains us to say that he not
only knew our motives, but approved them, and signed tihe
letter himself, as " the Doctor's best friend," to use his own ex pression; although he subsequently erased his signature.
Can the brethren of that Committee honestly say that they
have not borne false witness against us?
WVe do not feel ourselves called upon to express our opiniolns
on an issue which we have not created; or rather, which we
have expressly repudiated. Nevertheless, to avoid misrepre sentation or misapprehension, thus much we will say, in regard
to the vexed question of Slavery and the relations of the pulpit
thereto.  We adhere then, to the terms of our letter to Dr. Cheever; that we hold the pulpit free "1 to discuss all questions affecting or inrjvolvincrg moral truth." We hold io opinions which
we are not willing to have subjected to the most thorough and
searchling scrutiny and analysis, so that it be honestly made; and
thurs do we claim it as our privilege to investigate the opinions of
others.  So then, we do not object to the discussion of the Slavery question.  But we do not believe, that good is to be gained
to the cause of Freedom byjiolent objurgation, by abusive epithets, by elaborate sarcasm, by impetuous denunciation, though
piled mountain highon its opposers.  " Speaking the truth in
love," we think a better way of securing love for the truth.
The pulpit, at any rate, we do notthink the place for the filmination of suchli rhetorical artillery; whatever necessity or propriety there may be, if anly, for this mode of conducting the
3
40 
34
warfare on the common and open battle field of the press. Nor,
until the command, "thlius saith the Lord," is as direct and
personal to the Christian minister, as it was to Moses, Jeremiah, Ezekiel or John, or until he can speak with like divine
intuition and authority as the Lord  Jesus Christ, do we think
it his right to denounce those who differ from him on questions
of morals or politics, as "hypocrites,"" "whited sepulchres, full
of dead mens' bones and all uncleanness," or to threaten thenm
with the vengeance of Jehovah.
Nor do we believe that our church is to bebuilt up and strengthened by the constant intrusion of so exciting a theme into the
ears of its members, out of season as well as in season, in the
ordinary services of the sanctuary, and in the prayers, exhortations and talks of the Conference  Room.   There are other
things and themes of more direct and pressing importance to us
and our families. We drop this subject.
Our letter to Dr. Cheever was placed before you. A ser-es of
events has grown out of this fact, too important in their character and bearing to be passed without notice or comment.
But first, we must ask your attention to some circumstances
connected with these subsequent events, which confirm the
correctness of our judgment on the preceding occurrences to
which we have already invited your attention.
These subsequent
CONFIRMATORY CIRCIJUMSTANCES,
we now briefly recapitulate.
1. The public use made by our pastor of our letter of April
27th. The whole tenor of that communication, and the mode
of its presentationto him-as we have before had occasion
to remark-roth indicated our expectation of a courteous
private reply, and our wish for friendly conference.  Instead of this, we were, in the faice of the congregation, in
manner, if not in terms, defied to a trial of strength and
numbers. 
2. At the meeting which he thus invited, our pastor was 
35
present, listening to discussions of which himself was the
subject; ready, as the event proved, to mingle in the strife, if
occasion presented.
It was on this occasion, wheh deacon Wood, speaking of
a letter which had been prepared by himself and other breth
ren relative to the spirit with which the editorial controver sies of some of our religious newspapers had been conduct ed, and which was published about the month of September,
1855, remarked,  "When Prof. Crosby and I called on Dr.
Cheever, and read him the letter, he said that he would sign
it, if we would address it also to the Evangelist, and Prof.
Crosby is my witness,"  Dr. Cheever sprang up, and, with
great warmth of manner, retorted, "I never said any such
thing," occasioning calls to order from many in the meeting.
Whether deacon Wood did or did not speak the truth-of the
fact that he did, however, he has unimpeachable evidence we yet cannot but think that our pastor's manner of reply was
not becoming in one who should be " a pattern" to the flock.
3. At a subsequent (informal) meeting of the church, held
on the 5th May last, when the proposal was first made to
modify the standing rules of the church, so as to depose the
deacons who had become obnoxious to the pastor by their
faithfulness and independence, it was announced by brother
Seth B. Hunt that he was authorized to say that Dr. Cheever
approved the course that was recommended; and this was established beyond all denial at the annual meeting by his
presence, and by the countenance which he gave to its
strange, disorganizing proceedings. We shall presently be
compelled to recur, and more fully, to this point. Here we
refer to it as an incident confirming our judgment on his previous conduct in office. *
4. In the same decant manner, in which he has heretofore
treated his people, on the occurrence of anything not consistent with his ideas of Se submissiveness becoming in
those who were merely "occupants of pews," immediately
after the annual meeting he delivered his "David sermon;"
printed in the "Independent" newspaper of the ensuing week, 
with a textual, in fact with a literal, punctuate accuracy,
marking its reporter as a consummate adept in his profession.
Had it indeed, been copied from the manuscript of the author,
it could not have been rrbre true to the original. This sermon, it is scarcely necessary to say, to those who heard it, or
to those who read it, displays the same arrogant assumption
of power and authority for his pulpit, and the same marked
disregard, not to say contemptuous treatment, of his people,
which characterized the "muzzled ox sermon;" and in it were
likewise to be found the same unwarrantable quotations and
comments on remarks made to him in private conversation.
5. At a meeting of the Prudential Committee on the 24th
June, deacons Wood, Kingsley and Johnson, presented themselves by their right of office; not acknowledging the lawfulness of the proceedings of the annual meeting, and never
having been notified of their deposition.
On entering the room, deacon Wood, addressing the pastor
as the lawful moderator of the meeting, said,
"Dr. Cheever, we have called to ask you, as chairman of
the Prudential Committee, if you consider the action of the
church, at its annual meeting, as vacating our office as
deacons?"
To which enquiry Dr. Cheever replied, "I do, most undoubtedly."
Mr. Wood then said, "We  consider the action of the
church towards us, as its officers, as revolutionary, unjust
and contrary to its principles and rules, without our resigna.
tion or deposition after trial." The deacons then retired
When passing out of the house, Dr. Cheever said to these
brethren, that the action of the church "was entirely revolutionary according to the rules, and that it was designed
from the start, to displace the deacons."
If this frank avowaldoes not bring the pastor and those
who thus "designed" with him, into the attitude of conspirators against the peace and harmony of the church of
Christ, against the respect and veneration always due to law,
against the characters, influence and good name of Christian
0
36 
37
brethren, invested with high and holy functions-then are we
at a loss how to estimate the moral bearing and relations of
any act evidently devised and executed in the spirit of the
unholy maxim, that " the end justifies the means."
Thus much have we to say of circumstances transpiring
since the delivery of our letter of April 27th, and which we
conceive do most fully demonstrate the correctness of our
judgment on antecedent events.
Hiere would we fain rest. Our task thus far has made us
sick at heart.  And could we, with justice to the cause of
truth and righteousness, here close our appeal and vindication, most gladly would we drop the pen.  But the collateral
matters growing out of the use made of our letter to the
pastor, are scarcely second in importance to the question we
submitted to himn.  To these we must now address ourselves.
OF THE ANNUAL MEETING.
You are aware, dear brethren, that our pastor, announcing
the annual meeting of the Church, in the month of June, urged
the attendance of all, both males and females. You are aware,
too, that the call was heeded, according to his wish; and that
there were present, not only a large portion of the female members of the Churclh, but many strangers. And not these alone,
but that reporters were there from the secular press of our city;
and that the proceedings of this meeting have been published
far and wide.  Our doings have thus gone before the whole
world for revision and judgment. A necessity is therefore laid
upon us, to see that the record and history of that hour be true
and impartial.
We invite your attention then, first of all, to the singular ruling and conduct of the Chair. An unsettled clergyman, who
had but quite recently connected himself with our church, was
selected as thie presiding officerof the evening.
l
The pastor of the church, who was present at the organization of the meeting, having left temporarily, the chairman, although properly requested, refused to call upon one of the dea 
cons who was present, for the Antnual Report of the Prudential
Committee, assigning as his excuse, the absence of the pastor,
who is the Chairman of that Committee; and after his return
to the meeting, the chliairnmn, when his attention was  agaii
called to this matter, still persisted in his refusal.
The provision of the 6th Standing Rule, that the records of
the last year shall be read at the Annual Meeting, was thus arbitrarily set aside; and information, which ought first of all to
have been placed before us, for tguidance in the duties of the occasion, and without which we could not legislate intelligently
on any subject, was'entirely withheld from the church.  This
record, by the 3d and 5th rules, is designed to furnish  the
church with a statement of its condition and its history dtirit(ng
the year, a chronological list of members, &c.
Tile 6th rule provides that at the annual mneeting, the catalogue of meml)ers shall be revised.  To this duty the attention
of the chair was also invited; but lie persistently refused to call
the church to the performance of it, alleging for his justification,
that the records were not there; for whichl, as we have just
stated, he refutsed to ask.  We were thus debarred the opporttinity at a subseqtuent stage of the proceedings, of calliinC fo)r the
aves and noes.
He was in haste, however, to say to the meeting, that the
Special Committee appointed at a previous  (irregularly
called) meeting of the church would present their" Rieport."
Having succeeded in forcing this business upon the meeting,
he arbitrarily refused to pay the slightest attention to the
question of its reception, which was raised by a member of
the church, deciding that this never was considered in parliamentary practice. How far this ruling is in conformity with
parliamentary law,aay be seen by reference to Sec. 27 of
Jefferson's Manual, where it is distinctly laid down that
when the chairman of a committee offers a report "he or any
other member may move that it now be received."  This motion always legitimately.opens up every consideration affecting the propriety of action on a report.
Pending the discussion on its adoption, in reply to an in
38 
39
quiry, he said that the motion would be first on the adoption
of the "Report" proper, and that afterwards the question
would come up separately on the adoption of the amendments
proposed to the Standing Rules; but when the adoption was
carried, he then ruled that the vote carried all these amend ments! The discussion having been conducted with sole
reference to the formality of' the antecedent proceedings, not
one word was then said, nor was there a chance afforded for
it to be said, for or against the amendments proposed by the
Committee."
Here it is also proper to remark, that so careless was he
of the manifest duties of his station, that he allowed, or at
least overlooked, the withdrawal of the "Report" from the
table and the meeting,  bv which occurrence it happened
that the meeting acted upon this (locumlent after but one
solitary reading even of the radical amendments proposed
to the Standing Rules, and when it was not, in fact, even
before them, for reference and information.  Apart from the
select few who had been concerned in the concoction of
this document, it ulay be safely sai(d that the church did
not know upon what they were voting.  Whether this be
the usage of the Congregational churches of New England,
we are not informed.  We should rather suppose that in all
wvell-regulated associations, religious or otherwise, there or
elsewhere, such  proceedings would be  considered  somewhat arbitrary and loose.
To  still another outrage on all propriety, and on  the
rights of the minority, we must ask vour attention.  The
Chair utterly refused to sutiffer a call of the yeas and nays
on the adoption of this "Report."  Thus, although it lnowV
appears by the minutes tat the amendmients to the rules
wvere carried by a tl,o-thirds vote, yet we have no evidence
of the truth of the record.  It was a standing vote, and,
doubtless, the result appeared to be as declared by the tellers
* From the fact of its appearance in the pal)ers of the elisuilig morning,
it is presumable that it was entrustcd to a reporter, for the enlightenment of
the public mind. 
40
but who voted, we know not.  This we do know, that there
were many persons in the meeting who were not members of
the church, or even of the congregation. And this we verily
believe; could the church be fairly polled, the legal members
only voting, there would not be found the number necessary to
amend the rules.
But this refusal to allow the yeas and nays, is an act of too
serious a character to be allowed to pass without a word of
further comment. So fundamentally important is this right
to require a record by name of votes in assemblies of a selfgoverning community, regarded by wise and considerate
men, that even the Constitution of the United States provides, Art. 1, Sec. 5, that "the yeas and nays of the members
of either House, on any question, shall, at the desire of onefifth of those present, be entered on the journal." And the
Constitution of our own State still more carefully guards the
rights of minorities.  Art. 3, Sec. 15, provides that "no bill
shall be passed" unless, inter alia, "the yeas and nays be entered on the journal."*
* If additional testimony be required to confirm the correctness of our
judgment, we find it in the unvarying recognition of this right in the Constitutions of all the States in the Union, save three, Maryland, Virginia
and South Carolina.  We give an analysis of their respective provisions
The Yeas and Nays are to be entered on the Journals of either House
of the Legislature, on the demand of
one fifth of members present-UNITED STATES                and States of Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New Jersey and Michigan;
one sixth of members present-Wisconsin;
any one member-New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware;
two    "   -Pennsylvania, North Carolina, G(eorgia,
Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa;
three   "   -Mississippi, Texas and California
five    "   -Missoiri, Arkansas;
on the vote on all bills returned by the Governor-Massachusetts
on thefinlal vote on all bills-NEW YORE.
No provision on the subject-Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina.
When this testimony was alluded to at the church meeting of July 16th,
one of the brethren of the majority (a lawyer,) attempted to parry its force
by replying, that State Legislatures were only representative bodies! As
though there were some abstract right in the uncertain, capricious despotism of chance majbrities in a pure democracy! Admirable ethics for a
Christian church! 
41
Thus, in total disregard of a rule of action to the righteousness of which such emphatic testimony stands recorded,
did the chairman of our meeting force upon the church his
own judgment, in a matter involving some of our dearest
rights as Congregationalists, and affecting the good name of
the three brethren who have for years faithfully performed
the work of deacons to us all and our families.
Before calling your attention to the Report itself, and to
the amendments it recommended to our Standing Rules, we
must ask your consideration of the character and effect of
the proceedings by which the " Revolution" has been accomplished.
Long and anxious were the discussions of the brethren
who, in the infancy of our enterprise, prepared the Rules under which we have lived harmoniously to this day.  They
saw clearly that the good order and peace of the church, its
purity of doctrine, and the maintainance of its position
amongst churches of different forms of government, could
only be secured by so guarding our Rules as that they could
not be rashly and hastily overthrown. hIence the provision
of the 13th Rule, that "The confession of faith, covenant,
rules and declaratory principles governing the church,
shall not be altered, except by a vote of two-thirds of the
members present and voting, at an annual meeting; such
alteration having been proposed in writing at a previous business meeting." Hence also the provision in the 6th Rule,
that " Special meetings for business shall be called by the
clerk, by notice from the pulpit, upon requisition of ten male
members, presented to him in writing." Hence, too, the so]emn obligation incorporated into the "Covenant," which
candidates are required to assume on uniting with the
church: "With this church, into which you now enter in
communion, you engage, by the grace of God, to walk according to all the instructions of the Gospel, earnestly seeking its peace, edification and purity, submitting to its rules
of government and discipline, and constantly endeavoring to 
42
grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ."
Now, it was acknowledged at the annual meeting that the
requisition for the special Mneeting, at which the alteration
of the Rules relative to the officers of the Church was initiated, was not prepared until the evening of the Saturday preceding the Sabbath when the meeting was called.  On the
morning of the Sabbath, when inquiry was made for the
clerk, he could not be found; and thus the call, as read from
the pulpit, was in manifest violation of the Rule which we
have quoted. This should have been observed at the time
by the pastor, and the notice suppressed. But this, it seems,
was the public "start" of the scheme to get rid of the obnoxious deacons. And all who participated in it seem to
have been heedless of the manner in which they accomplished
the work.
The attention of the Church was called to these irregularities at the annual meeting; but here, too, laws seemed to go
for naught, and covenant vows were regarded as no hindrances to the success of the "Revolution."
Consider now the effect of these doings. The only security-your Rules-for the maintenance of your Confession
of Faith is gone. The church has virtually decided that the
expediency of the hour, the triumph of a party, the blind support of a pastor, may justify the overthrow of these safeguards.
So likewise it has devised and established a scheme by
which an artful majority may get rid of a pastor who has
become distasteful to them. The third Rule provides that
"The permanent officers of this church shall be a pastor or
pastors, and deacon*." The church claims to have amended
this, so far as the deacons are concerned. But by the same
process by which this result is secured-if it be secured-the
pastor may be as sumnmarily turned out of office, "naked,
penniless, friendless." Remember, that your pastor holds his
relations to you by no other tenure than your mutual assent
to the Rules of the Association. 
43
And let us remind you, too, that a single decision of the
church, legally had, is final in all questions of our internal
polity. The only possibility of a review, is such a presentation of truth to the conscience of the majority as will lead
them to retrace their steps. Our only Court for the correction of Errors is this conscience of the majority. But the
evidence lies strewn all along the pathway of history, that
no fortress is so impregnable as the conscience of him who
holds power in his hand.  And tils is as true of communities
as of individuals. Alas! too seldom is it that Grace throws
back the bolt, even when Truth knocks at the gate, if her
entrance does but intimate capitulation.
Christian brethren, your triumph is dearly purchased.
THE REPORT OF MESSRS. ABERNETHY, CHESTER
AND HARVEY.
It remains for us to ask your attention to some of the allegations contained in this Report, and matters intimately connected therewith.
And Fiirst, as to its strangely frank and unguarded avowal of
the motives which prompted these brethren to recommend  the
alteration in the Standing Rules, relative to deacons.
Their first pregnant remark is —" The only rule of great importatnce, whether considered on general principles, or with
reference to the present necessities of the chulrch, is the one
from which a life tenure is inferred in the deaconshlip."  And
again they say, " Your Committee deem it the part of Christian
frankness to declare, without disguise, yet in all courtesy, the
reasons why they believe what is fit and wise at all times as to
e.
this office, is of imperative necessity in this church, at this
time." They then proceed with averments respecting the action
of the deacons-especially of two of them-the truth of which
it would have been well for them to have more carefuilly investigated, before venturing to make them thus publicly; and they 
44
conclude this paragraph with the remark,  " Tile church cannot safely confide in men, as its representatives, who thus seek,
of their own will, and without the voice of the church, or
even calling for an open expression of its wishes, to sunder the
ties of pastor and people." Divested of their apologetic verbiage,
the simple meaning of these paragraphs is, that to get clear summarily of the deacons whose faithfulness and independence had
made them unacceptable to the pastor, the church would be
justified in overthrowing its fundamental law; in other words,
for the gratification of the wishes, passions and prejudices of the
moment, it is right to tamper with principles eternal and unvarying in their nature! —" If the foundations be destroyed, what
can the righlteous do?"  Of what value is any Rule which you
have established, or obligation which you have assumed, if they
may thus be blown about with the changing winds of the hour?
Has the church a " sure foundation stone," or like the tent of
the wandering Arab, may its principles be folded up and pitched
anew, wherever expediency suggests, or human passion dictates?
The Report throughout aims to affix a stigma to the signers
of the letter; and especially points to the deacons as the originators and managers of our movement. We will relieve
them from the obloquy. The dissatisfaction in the church,
as we have already had occasion to remark, is of long standing.  MIany have left on account of it.  But the signers of
the letter chose a different course. They met and counselled
with each other. They discussed the propriety of "invoking
the advice of the church." But they concluded that this
would be tantamount to invoking a feud with the pastor.
The suggestion of opening our feelings to him by a letter, did
not originate with either of the deacons, and it was only
after much consideration that they assented to its propriety.
Instead of their "activity in getting it up, and procuring signatures," nearly all the names were signed on the spot when
the letter was considered and adopted. Thus much for the
truth of the charges against the deacons; and for the pre 
45
sumption of making allegations, the truth of which was
never investigated, the ground work of such radical action as
that of the annual meeting.
Rtespecting these brethren, who have been treated with so
much contumely and injustice, we deem it a privilege to bear
witness. IMr. Wood was one of the originators of the church,
and the first one chosen of its officers. He had already won
for himself a "good report" as a deacon in the Presbyterian
church, under the care of Rev. Dr. Spring. Mr. Kingsley
was set apart to the office in the year 1852, having served as
a deacon in the Presbyterian Church, under the pastorate of
Dr. Thos. MeAuley; and Mr. Johnson was appointed to the
office in the year 1854, having just previous to his uniting
with us, been elected an elder in a newly formed Presbyteirian Church in this city.  These brethren have been faithful
to the duties entrusted to them. In ministering to the sick
and the needy; in their intercourse with the families of the
congregation; in their remarkably uniform attendance at the
public and social services of the church; by their judicious
demeanor, their faithfulness and punctuality in the discharge
of duty, and their personal co-operation in the Sabbath
Sehools,-they had secured for themselves the respect, confidence and affection of those still in our connection, and of
the many families who have, first and last, made our churlch
a temporary resting place. If ever there was a whisper
against their character, their discretion, their judgment, until
a sense of duty impelled them to remonstrate with our pastor
in matters which they deemed rightly coming within the
range of their office, we have yet to learn it.  That they, in
common with all the members of the last Prudential Committee, save one, three-fourths of the Trustees, and others,
who have felt constrained to make the same complaints, and
some of whom have left us indespair, should now be found
call to be in the wrong, is one of the anomalies which now
and then startle society, but whose delusive appearances are
apt soon to pass away.,
It should not be overlooked that the deacons are of co-ordi
i 
46
nate appointment with the pastor. Equally with him, they derive office from the church. To it, they are accountable; not
to him. The interests and welfare of the church, they are primarily to consider. And whatever in their judgment, militates
against its welfare, is properly under their cognizance. If they
believe that the personal character or the public ministrations
of the pastor, are obstacles to the influences of divine truth on
the members of the church or congregation, it is their duty, in
a Christian spirit, to endeavor to remove these obstacles. For
the right exercise of their judgment in the premises, they are
amenable, doubtless. to the church. But the church, in requiring an account of their stewardship, has no right to pass judgmlent before trial, or to seek to compass a judgment without
the forms of trial, by special, ex-post-facto, invidious legislation.
Second. We ask you to consider the character of the amendments, recommended bythe "Committee."   The Report slurs
over all, save that relating to the deacons, with the following
allusion: " They find a small number of these rules in need of
"amendments, not of great importance, but yet such as the con"venient transaction of business seems to require. Indeed the
"proposed amendments do little more than conform the rules
"to thie practice of the church."
It would scarcely be supposed, judging from these lines, that
an amendment has been introduced, which throws into the hands
of the pastor, a power altogether new and unheard of amongst
Congregationalists, in relation to business  meetings of the
church. As the Rules have hitherto stood, special meetings
for business could only be called by the clerk, by notice from
the pulpit, on the requisition of ten members (6th Rule.) But
the proposed amennent throws away this right of the people,
or rather subjects it to the ordeal of the pastor's judgment.  It
provides that such meetings shall be called by the pastor; but
if he refuse, then the clerk, on demand of ten members, may call
them. The operation 9f this is, to secure the prestige of the
pastor's    opinion and wishes, for or against any measure, that
members of the church may deem worthy of consideration! 
Into what kind of a prelacy is Congregationalism relapsing in
the Church of the Puritans?
We shall enter into no argument as to the propriety or impropriety, in the abstract, of the changes proposed in the tenure
of the office of deacon.'; The life tenure," says the Report, " is
"not in happy accordance with the fundamental constitution of
"Congregationalism."  It is greatly to be regretted that our
brethren of the Committee, with their facile adaptation to pastoral opinions, had not submitted this dictum to Dr. Cheever.
Doubtless he would have referred them to the Journal of the Pilgrims, chap. 8, pp. 185 and 186, where he says:
"The points illustrated in the letters to Worstenholin were
"touching the ecclesiastical ministry, namely, of pastors for
teaching, elders for ruling, and deacons for distributing the
church's contributions, as also for the two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper." In regard to these, "we do
wholly and in all points," said Robinson and Brewster,
"agree with the French Reformed Churches, according to
their public confession of faith, though with some small differences."  The differences were said to be "in some accidental circumstances," such as
3. Their elders and deacons are annual; ours perpetual.
"Independent scriptural principles," these are called, inter
alia, in a part of the ensuing paragraph, editorially.
Again, same chapter, page 191, the editor remarks, "The
office of deacon, our fathers, in contradistinction from the
French Reformed Churches, held to be for life, or during the
continuance of that fitness in the incumbents, in reference to
which they were originally chosen. And this, also, has been
the usage of Congregationffism, with some individual exceptions, ever since.'
And, doubtless, he would have referred them also, to his
more elaborate demonstration of the point, in his sermon
preached to our church in the sear 1848, when this question
was warmly discussed hmongst us, and the rule, as it has
since then existed, was adopted.  In that sermon our pastor
47 
referred us to the Jewish synagogue as the type of the Christian church; thence arguing that, the perpetuity of office
which prevailed in the synagogue was transferred to the
church; then, also, he established the fact by ecclesiastical
history, pointing us to the usage of the primitive churches;
then, too, he planted his position on the Word of God, insisting
that the scriptural warrant for the perpetuity of the eldership,
was the same precisely for that of deacons. From this there
can be no appeal; nor from this would he ever swerve, even
for the purpose of ridding himself of obnoxious associates in
office.
How great therefore was our surprise, when brother Hunt
informed the church, that he was authorized to say, that our
pastor approved the change, yout may judge.  And sorely were
we perplexed, when at the annual meeting, we saw him sit, a
deeply concerned spectator, apparently acquiescing in and favoring the change that was sought to be accomplished.
Has Congregationalism any " filndamental constitution?"'
Or is its constitution like the sand-bars of the Missouri river,
which change their position with every flood?
We offer no comments oni the preposterous claims that are
made in the Report, for the position of our pastor in the war
against Slavery. Such extravagancies simply over-reach them
selves.
We have thus, Christian brethren, placed before you, in all
directness and frankness, the reasons which prompted our
letter of April 27th to our pastor. We have endeavored to
rebut some of the allegations and charges that have been
made against us, in connection therewith. We have ireviewed the events which have grown out of its delivery.
For those thing.which we have stated as facts, we hold
ourselves responsible, both to the church of Christ and to our
pastor. For the opinions which we have expressed, we hold
ourselves responsible to no man, but to God only.  We entertain them in sincerity; we would publish them in no other
spirit than that of Christian love, and with the self distrust
which is always becoming in fallible men.
48 
49
Our duty is discharged. It is for the church or the pastor
to say whether the allegations which we have made are such
as to demand investigation by a Council of Christian brethren, convened according to Congregational usage, and in the
spirit of the 2nd of our Standing Rules. The decision of
such a Council, after full and impartial inquiry, we hold ourselves bound to regard as final. We desire nothing but peace
and brotherly love amongst ourselves; and would ever seek
the promotion of this spirit with all who call themselves
Christians.
NEW YORK, July 15th, 1857.
HENRY A. HURLBUT,
SAM'L T. HYDE,
JARED LINSLY, M. D.,
S. J. BACON,
R. N. HAVENS,
ALBERT (',HESEBRO,
L. N COWLEY,
RICHARD BROWN,
A. T. DWIGHT,
F. E. MATHER,
E. J. OWEN,
CHA'S H. ISHAM,
WILLIAM WAY,
JOHN N. BRADLEY,
STEPHEN PAUL,
J. WALTER CAMP,
S. CONOVER, JR.,
NoTE.-Two of the signers of the original letter have left the church.
As members of the church, or society, of the Church of the
Puritans, we concur with the signers of the foregoing letter.
SAM'L CHURCHILL,
EDW'D M. Mt)RGAN.
SAM'L ISHAM,
ELISHA PECK,        4
W. B. ISHAAM,
E. C. WILCOX,
W. S. THOMSON,
I It will be observed that the deacons have not affixed their names to this
letter. This is at our own Suggestion. The propriety of their omitting to
join in statements in which they have so much personal concern is obvious.
207 Pearl street.
27 Cliff street.
22 Lafayette Place.
27 Cliff street.
39 Wall street.
34 Twelfth street.
245 Wooster street.
645 Broadway.
55 Chambers street.
74 Broadway.
72 Wall street.
91 Gold street.
72 Murray street.
22 Broad street.
14 Wall street.
10 Water street.
298 Broadway.
108 Broadway.
3 Pine street.
70 Gold street.
4 Broad street.
93 Gold street.
27 Park Place.
233 Broadway. 
0