South Congregational Church history and catalogue, 1852–1865 · scan page 151

Searchable source text

THE  EX-PARTE  COUNCIL.  141
the  formation  of  a  new  Church  they  have  said  very  little,
and  that  little  of  a  very  indefinite  character.  Who  these
"  advisers  "  were,  may  be  safely  inferred  from  an  inspection
of  the  roll  of  Council.  That  several  of  them  had  long  been
aching  for  a  chance  to  whip  the  South  Church  into  their
Abolition  traces,  was  well  understood  by  members  of  that
Church  ;  who,  while  they  would  do  nothing  intentionally  to
invite  or  provoke  such  interference,  were  not  disposed  to
purchase  exemption  therefrom  by  the  surrender  of  their  just
rights  as  an  Independent  Congregational  Church.  But
leaving  what  we  have  further  to  say  on  the  subject  of  the
Council,  and  of  Councils  generally,  to  the  closing  part  of
this  article,  we  pass  to  another  extract  from  the  petitioners'
Rejoinder :
'•The  petitioners  of  course,  are  not  to  bo  held  responsible  for  the
action  and  finding  of  the  Council."
"Why  not  ?  Was  not  the  Council  a  thing  of  their  own
creating  %  Did  not  its  decisions  rest  mainly  on  their  own
assertions  ?  To  this  extent  they  are  responsible  for  "  the
finding  and  action  of  the  Council ;"  and  they  wi.l  not  be
permitted  to  escape  from  that  responsibility  by  throwing
the  whole  burden  upon  the  shoulders  of  men  who  have
as  much  as  they  can  carry,  with  all  the  help  the  petitioners
can  give  them.  Do  the  petitioners  mean  to  repudiate  the
action  of  their  own  Council  ?  Besides  the  slur  above  indi-
cated, one  of  them  has  applied  to  the  South  Church  for  a
letter  of  dismission  and  received  it,  since  the  meeting  of  the
Council,  notwithstanding  the  generous  offer  of  the  latter
body  to  give  them  letters  of  jts  own,  thus  usurping  or
superseding  the  powers  of  tlie  Church  in  that  matter.  But
it  seems  that  at  least  o\e  of  the  petitioners  prefers  to  re-
ceive his  credentials  from  the  Church,  although  resting
under  the  ban  of  the  Council,  rather  than  from  the  Council
itself.     We  commend  the  wisdom  of  his  course.
'■  The  peiitioncrs  did  not  cUiim  boforo  the  Council  that  liie  n.-mu-a
signed  to  the  Memorial  vicrc  a  majority  of  the  brethren  of  the  Chinch,
but  that  thev  represented  a  majority  of  them."
12*

Cite this page

Silent Grounds Collective, Church Burial & Death Records, CH-P004-0151. South Congregational Church history and catalogue, 1852–1865, printed page not verified, PDF page 151. Hallock, Gerard, 1800-1866; digitized copy contributed by University of California Libraries https://archive.org/details/historyofsouthco00hall/page/n155/mode/1up Accessed September 8, 2026.

Historic U.S. publication before 1931; public-domain assessment based on publication date. Internet Archive does not necessarily provide an explicit license. Preserve publication and digitizing credits.