6/~~~~~~~~~~ t) ~ I i #4 REPLY OF THE e/4"" CHUiRCH OF THE PURITANS TO THE PROTEST OF THEIR LATE DEACONS, ALSO TO A "LETTER" ADDRESSED TO THE CHURCH BY SUNDRY INDIVIDUALS, JULY 15, 1857, WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO. NEW YORK: WN, C. BRYANT & CO, PRINTERS, 41 NASSAU ST., COP. LIBERTY. 185 7. /' 1, -, i.., i 7,?gg-% INTRODUCTION. SOME brief account of the occurrences, which led to the adoption of the paper herein contained, is needful for the right understanding of it. On the 11th of May, 1857, Rev. G. B. Cheever, D. D., Pastor of the Church of the Puritans, received from certain members of the church and congregation the following letter: NEW YORK, April 27th, 1857. REV. GEORGE B. CHEEVER, D.D. Dear Sir:-The undersigned members of the church and congregation of the Church of the Puritans, 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 beipromoted 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 fiom 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 yours 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, D. HODGMAN, . B L. M. KINGSLEY, A. T. DWIGHT, Hi A. HURLBUT, J. K. JOHNSON, J. LINSLY, M.D., R. N. HAvENs, RICHARD BROWN, , CHXAS. TAYLOR, WILLIAM WAY, S. CONOVER, Jr., E. J. OWEN, 'J. WALTER GAMP, CHAS. H. IsHA1M, P. E. MATaEL. A. CHESEBRO, J. N: BRADLEY, S. J. BACON, S. T. HYDE, STEPHEN PAUL, L. N. COWLEY, O. E. WooD, iv. On the next Sabbath, Dr. Cheever called a special meeting of the church, which was held May 18th. At that meeting he laid the above letter before the church as a party concerned in the matter, whereupon the following resolution was offer ed: "Resolved.-That our pastor, Rev. Dr. Cheever, 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." Pending the consideration of this resolution, the following was offered as a sub stitute for it: "Resolved.-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, 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 requiring 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 pastor and people may be submitted." This resolution was lost-ayes 20, nays 48-and the former was then adopted nem. con. At the annual meeting of the church, held June 4th, amendments were made to the standing rules, by which the number of deacons was enlarged, and their term of office limited to three years. A new election of deacons was also ordered, which resulted in the choice of an entirely new board; the former incumbents, Messrs. Wood, Kingsley and Johnson, failing of a re-election. A special meeting was called, by requisition of ten members, on the 16th of July, at which the late deacons offered to the church their written PROTEST against the proceedings of the annual meeting, which protest was received, entered on file, and referred to a committee for reply. At the same time a document purporting to be a " Letter" addressed to the church by the signers of the communication to Dr. Cheever, of April 27th, giving their "reasons" for sending that communication, was presented, and a motion offered that it be read. This motion was by vote laid on the table. The "Letter," together with the "Protest" thereupon appeared in the newspapers the next morning and were subsequently distributed, in pamphlet form, throughout the country. At a meeting of the church, in October, after the summer vacation, the committee to whom the protest had been referred, were by vote requested to take note of the letter also, and prepare such reply to its allegations as seemed to them necessary. Said committee consisted of Rev. ISRAEL P. WARREN, E. W. CHESTER, Esq., F. W. KING, Esq., DEXTER FAIRBANKS, and Prof. BENJAMIN N. MARTIN. On the 5th of November, a special meeting of the church was held, when the committee reported through their clerk, F. W. King, Esq., the following REPLY, which on motion was unanimously adopted, and ordered to be printed for the use of the church REPLY. The Church of the Puritans, at their annual meeting in June, 1857, after prayerful consideration, did, by vote and in due form, amend the third of their Standing Rules, so that the tenure of service in one of the permanent offices of the churchthe deaconship-which before had been undefined, was made definite and limited. This amendment, with the new election had thereupon, effected a change in the incumbents of said office. Our brethren, Mfessrs. O. E. Wood, E. M. Kingsley and J. K. Johnson, the late deacons, feeling themselves aggrieved by said action, have laid before the church their protest against it-a protest since published by them to the world-pronouncing that action a wrong to themselves, a departure from the established principles and usages of the Congregational churches, and a violation of the teachings of-the Scriptures. It might be a question whether a church which, in common with the entire body of churches with whom it is associated, holds as a cardinal principle the independence of Christ's house, ought, either in conscience or honor, to reply to these charges. Convinced of our irrefragable right to do as we did, and conscioIs of the rectitude of our motives-especially considering that our alledged misdoings have been spread before the public, appealing to its prejudices against the church and its pastor, with that elaborate show of candor which sometimes gives the' grossest error the semblance of truth-we might assert our independence and be silent. We prefer, however, a different course. Since not only our own reputation, but the honor of Congregationalism in this city is assailed in consequence of our action, we feel it due to both to reply to the charges against us. We shall endeavor to show that said action 6 was legitimate in itself, in strict accordance with Congregational usage, and demanded by the best interests of the church and of religion among us. I. The first objection offered by our brethren to the action of the church is as follows: "We protest against said action 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." To this we reply: The amendments in question were proposed in writing at three several meetings of the church preceding the annual meeting. The first was that of May 18th-at which Dr. Cheever laid the letter requesting his resignation before the church. At that meeting Mr. Seth B. Hunt read a notice that at the ensuing annual meeting he should move to change the standing rules so as to make the deacons elective once in three years. This meeting was called by the pastor from the pulpit on the preceding Sabbath. Such is the usual mode of calling business meetings in Congregational churches. In some cases, other modes may also be specified by the rules of a church, but never, so far as we know, to the exclusion or prohibition of this. Further, this is the mode which has always been in use in this church. Whenever any business requiring attention has presented itself. the pastor has, ex-oflcio, given notice of a meeting for its consideration, and a meeting so called has always heretofore been deemed legal. Never, until the present case, has a special meeting of this church been called in any other way.* An amendment of the rules being thus resolved upon, it was thought best to appoint a committee to revise the whole code, and consider whether any other changes were advisable; also, to nominate the church officers for the ensuing year. This committee was appointed at a second special meeting, held May 26th, when the proposed amendments were a second time an * Appendix, Note A. ? nounced, and the meeting continued, by adjournment, to June 2d, when the committee reported them again, the third time, in form as they were adopted at the annual meeting. To obviate all possible objections to the legality of this second special meeting,,it had been determined to call it in exact ac cordance with the rule, which is in these words: Ad Special meet ins for business shall be called by the clerk by notice from the pulpit, upon requisition of any ten male members presented to him in writing." The intent of this rule was not to supersede or prohibit the other and usual mode of calling business meetings by the pastor; it was designed only to meet those rare cases when he should be absent, or should refuse to act when requested.,The requisition, accordingly, was prepared and signed by ten male members. On looking, however, for the clerk, to put it into his hands, it was ascertained that he was absent from the city, and would not return in time to issue the notice, whereupon it was passed directly to the pastor, who notified the meeting in conformity with it. The only particular in which the rule was not followed to the letter was that the call in its transmission to the pulpit did not pass through the hands of the clerk. Did this failure vitiate the legality of the notice? We say no. First: Because it is evident that the rule does not contemplate his action as one of the essential requisites for a meeting. The only essential thing was the written demand for it signed by ten male members. It was designed to be secured to them as one of the franchises of membership, that they might have a meeting whenever they should say in writing that they desired it; and the mention of the clerk in connection therewith was only to designate the proper channel through which, in the absence or refusal of the pastor, said call should be notified to the church. Secondly: The clerk has, by the rule, no discretionary power over the requisition, either as to its terms or as to issuing the call demanded by it. The rule is peremptory: "SShall be called by the clerk," &c. He has no control over the matter in any way. His office in this respect is the mere mechanical one of transmission to the pastor. The requisition took precisely the same direction which it must have done had he been present to carry it into the pulpit in his own hand. 8 A different interpretation of this rule would make the rule defeat the very end for which it was enacted. It would give the clerk as absolute a veto over the calling of a meeting in this mode, as the pastor was supposed to have in the other. The rule, which on its face was designed to prescribe a mode of calling legal meetings, would make any meeting impossible. Such an interpretation, obviously, cannot be the true one. It is a dictate of common sense that a law shall not be so construed as to nullify itself, or to forbid the very thing which its authors are known to have intended by it. The history, then, of this matter is briefly this: The changes in our standing rules effected at the annual meeting, were notified to the church in writing, in three preceding meetings, the first called by the pastor ex-oycio, the other by the pastor, in compliance with the requisition prescribed by the rule; the former valid by common Congregational usage, and by the uniform and never before disputed practice of this church; and the other valid by an exact compliance with every essential particular of the rule itself. Through each of these notificationsmuch more through all-the intention of the proposed changes was fully made known to the church-the only object designed to be effected by the rule. And the attendance at the annual meeting was proportionably large. It is presumed that not a resident member can be found who did not know the nature of the business to be done, or who on this account was absent. In the best sense of the term, it was a mass meeting,-a convocation of the whole body. Yet the protestants, suppressing all these important facts, solemnly accuse the church of violating their own rules in this proceeding; conveying, of course, the inference that it was done to inflict a wrong upon them which could not have been carried by an open, orderly and regular method of legislation. We can but marvel exceedingly at the whole statement. These brethren were deacons of the church, conversant with all its usages and modes of action. One of them (Deacon Kingsley,) had been himself chosen to that office, at a special business meeting, which was not called by a requisition upon the clerk, but simply agreed upon at a former meeting, neither clerk nor requisition having had anything to do with the same.* * Appendix, Note B. 9 Did they not know at the very moment of penning this charge, that there was never a meeting for business called in this church in any other way than by a simple notice from the pastor? Can they point to a single instance before this, in the whole history of this church, when a requisition was resorted to for calling a meeting? Did they not know that a requisition was employed in this instance, complying with the very letter of the rule in every essential particular, and failing only in a perfectly unessential one, because the clerk was absent from the city? Is this the way in which a church of Christ, in its most deliberate and solemn proceedings, is to be arraigned, and' published as having departed from the principles of our faith and order? Are suppressions and quibbles, which would meet instant rebuke in a court of law, to be used to vilify a church by those who have covenanted to walk with it as brethren, and have been honored by an appointment to the highest office but one in their gift? Though not mentioned in the protest of our brethren, yet, because related to the present topic, and because so strenuously urged elsewhere against the proceedings of the annual meeting, we desire to speak briefly of the mode in which the vote was taken. It is claimed that this should have been done by a call of the yeas and nays. To this we reply: First, the printed manual of the church expressly prescribes a different mode. " The moderator says, 'those in favor of the (resolution) will please to say aye;' then, 'Those opposed to the (resolution) will please to say no.' Then he declares the result thus:'The resolution is adopted, or the resolution is lost.' If any member thinks the moderator in error as to the vote, he has a right to demand a count immediately; in which case the question must be put again, and the vote carefully counted." The vote on the adoption of the amendments to the standing rules was taken in precisely this mode. It is remarkable that brethren, who so vehemently cry out against a mere technical departure from one rule, should at the same time seek with equal ardor to ignore or override another. The constitutions of the United States and of several individual States are quoted, to show how great an "outrage on all propriety, and on the rights of 10 the minority was committed." Why was not our own manual also quoted?-a guide to our proceedings, under which the church has acted many years without a word of dissent till now, from them or anybody else. We submnit that this would have had at least equal pertinency to the matter in hand. Further, the vote by yeas and nays is contrary to usage in Congregational churches, and to the very theory of their organization. Such vote is a device by which representatives, in a representative body, are held to a due responsibility to their constituents. This is its sole legitimate use and intent; It was never designed for meetings of the people themselves, in their primary capacity. It is prescribed for Congress and for State legislatures; also for representative church judicatories and the like. But who ever heard of it in a town-meeting, or a primary political convention? Now, a Congregational church is a democracy. Its members, assembled in lawful meeting, are the people. They are themselves the constituents-they represent nobody. Of what legitimate use or purpose would be an enrollment of the yeas and nays in such a meeting? It might serve to deter members, through dread of odium, from honest voting, in the fear of God alone, or to enable the disaffected to invite the world to a meddlesome intrusion into the private business of God's house. It would almost inevitably stereotype brethren, who chanced for the time to vote differently, into fixed and opposing parties; to kindle heartburnings among them, and foster incurable strife and schism. It is from considerations like these, that the Congregational churches have never allowed this mode of voting as a usage among them. Our own manual accords precisely with Punchard, whose work is professedly the record of the usages of these churches, and is everywhere recognised substantially as such. Possibly an instance may here and there be found to the contrary; but we are sure, that among churches who are well acquainted with the principles of their own order, and free from the biases and habits arising from familiarity in their members with representative forms elsewhere, it not only never has become a custom, but would be universally repudiated by them as having no legitimate place in our system, and as tending only to evil. 11 II. Our brethren protest against our action, "Secondly, as revolutionary and dangerous, being an unwarrantable subver sion of another and fundamental article of the church constitu tion (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 reply-The only "constitution" of this church is the Bible. Congregational churches recognize no other. (See Camb. Platform, ch. 1, sec. 3. Heads of Agreement, VIII.) The protestants can mean only when their language is freed from the strong terms which conceal the simple facts of the case, that this church have changed one of their standing rules. This we acknowledge. We have rendered the term of office of our deacons a definite instead of an indefinite one. Is it gravely contended that a church has not the right to alter a standing rule? Express provision is made in the XIIIth of those rules, for any change in them which may be thought necessary, "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." Precisely in this mode the change was effected. Such a change, made in exact compliance with the code itself, cannot be called a " revolution" any more than the repeal or modification of any other law in the usual mode of legislation. Whether it be "dangerous" and "unwarrantable" or not, is to be determined by the nature of the change, not by the fact of it. We regret that the protestants should have allowed themselves in the use of terms calculated to throw odium on a measure, rather than to state precisely what that measure is. III. Our brethren proceed: "We protest against it, thirdly, as unjust and detrimental to a portion of the permanent officers of the church, 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." Here, too, the protestants, by using language tending to ex. cite odium, have obscured,-perhaps even to their own view,the precise thing done in the case. They say the church va cated their office by an ex post8 facto rule, an act, the very name of which is odious. But is this so? Whatever was done was effected by a simple change of rule, defining and limiting what before was indefinite; and that too in exact compliance with the form for such case made and provided. If this be ex post facto, then any alteration or repeal of law in the most regular manner is an expo8stfacto enactment, and may be branded by this term of odium. They say this was done "without their consent." We point them in reply to their covenant, in which, by the very act of uniting with the church, they engaged to " submit to its rules of government and discipline." Is not the XIIIth of the standing rules one of these? And if the church, in strict accordance with this, effect a change not otherwise unlawful, have they not pledged their "consent" thereto? What higher consent, we ask, is possible than their own covenant, publicly and voluntarily assumed? The brethren may not indeed have approved of said alteration; they may have preferred to retain their office still; but if the church, nevertheless, by an orderly process do adopt such change, their only proper course is to "consent," or remove their connection with the body. The only possible alternative is, that they have under their covenant a reserved right of schism and insubordination. They say further, that this change was made " in violation of the rules under which they accepted office." We suppose they mean that rule which left the deacon's term of office indefinite. Of course, it could not be made definite without a change in it. But by what propriety is a change of rule called a violation of the rule? Do our brethren intend by such extremely loose and incorrect use of language to mislead the public, or are they simply misled by it themselves? Besides, one of the "rules under which they accepted office" was that any rule might be changed, and therefore that the term of that office itself might be altered if it should be found expedient. We weary of pursuing these repeated allegations and objections as to the form of our action ill this case. It is time to come directly and fairly to the main points at issue. These may be resolved into three: the right of the church to make such changes as they did; the reasons they had for so doing; and the mode in which it was done. 12 18 1. Had the church a rght to make the change which they did in the tenure of the deaconship and in its incumbents? In considering this inquiry, we remark that, in general, the right of the church to regulate its own internal affairs at pleasure, provided it violates no law of Christ, is a fundamental principle of Congregationalism. " Each'particular church-hath authority from Christ for exercising government-within itself."(Heads of Agreement, I., ~ 6.). "If the church have power to choose their officers and ministers, then in case of manifold unworthiness and delinquency they have power also to depose them; for to open and shut, to choose and refuse, to constitute in office and remove from office, are acts belonging to the same power."(Canmb. Platform, ch. 8, sec. 7.) " No body of believers can be considered ail entire, complete church which has not the power and right to do all that is essential to its personal well-being and usefulness."-(Punchard's View, p. 192, note.) Under this general principle it is clear that this church had the right to make the changes in question, unless some special rule of recognized authority forbade. Where shall we find such prohibition? Is it contained in the Scriptures? The narrative of the appointment of the first seven deacons gives no intimation that they were to hold office during life, nor is there any evidence that they did so in fact. All that we know is, that they were chosen and set apart to a service-then required to be done. Nothing whatever is said of the duration of that service, and all inferences which individuals may make concerning it one way or the other are pure conjecture. Is said prohibition found in any rule of this church? Our brethren say yes, and point to the IIId in proof: "The permanent officers of this church shall be a pastor or pastors, and deacons." But this rule, as already shown, was subject to repeal or modification, after which its prohibitory power ceased. It was not, however, the intent of said rule to give a necessary life-tenure to either of these officers.* Certainly the protestants will not claim this, for they were themselves taking steps with the avowed purpose of removing the pastor, and that, too, without impeachment or any assigned reason other than the general welfare of the church. Their letter to the pastor, requesting * Appendix, Note C. 14 his removal, is their own express testimony to their understanding of the rule, that the permanence spoken of does not forbid a limited tenure of said offices, if the interest of the church require it. It cannot be permitted them to interpret the rule one way when applied to the pastor, and a wholly different one when applied to themselves. Is the church restrained from the limitation in question by regard to the established usage of Congregational churches in general? This has been very strenuously asserted by the protestants and others, but we fail, as yet, to see the proof of it. Undoubtedly the deacons of our churches are, for the most part, retained in office during life, or till disabled by age and infirmity. But the point to be established is, that they are so retained because the churches do not think themselves authorized to have it otherwise. It was once held that a pastor was settled for life, and even now it is extensively claimed that any stipulations to the contrary are unscriptural and wrong. Yet when was a church, or council, ever debarred from dismissing a pastor on this account, if there existed good reasons for so doing? If we concede that deacons now are for the most part continued in office through life, it proves only a usage of convenience, based on the generally excellent character of the men themselves; it establishes no principle of binding authority. The tenure of the office of deacon is in practice abridged in Congregational churches in various ways. By resignation, by a dismissal to another church, whether of the same or a different denomination, by removal of residence and the like, it is frequently effected. Sometimes when deacons have lost the confidence of their brethren, or have come into a position repugnant to the feelings of the great body of the church, they have, by vote, been requested to resign, which vote has always been considered as an indirect removal from office. The same thing has been done by a formal rule, limiting the tenure of office to a term of years. Such rule exists in not a few instances. Some of the most prominent churches in New England, as well as our own State, have adopted it. Indeed, under the discussions growing out of the present case, new instances are continually coming to public notice showing a prevalence of the custom greater than we our selves had previously supposed.* * Appendix, Note D. 15 We ask, then, in view of these facts, how it can be pretended that a limitation of the tenure of the deaconship is a violation of Congregational usage. They all show directly the reverse. Churches have allowed their deacons, just as their pastors, to remain so long as the best interests of the church required it; and when there arose good reason for the change, they have caused their removal. And the fact that they have done so is their own testimony that they claim the right to do so, and never relinquished it. This is the true Congregational usage, and our own action in the present instance is in accordance with it. Indeed, there can be no position taken more abhorrent to the general sentiment of the American people of every class than that offices exist for their incumbents, and not for the people who created them. They are created only that the people may be served by them. They are no hereditaments of a family, no proprietary right of individuals, which, as in old monarchical countries, cannot even be abolished without an equivalent pension being first secured to those who hold them. In the Christian church the very names of office, ministry, and deaconship, signify literally service. If, then, office exists for the people and not for the officeholder, who, but the people (under Christ) shall say what shall be the conditions of it, what shall be its functions, its tenure, and, above all, who shall fill it? Who but they can tell whether they are so served by it as to receive the benefit for the sake of which it was instituted? Who shall deny their right, if convinced that they are not thus benefited, to make such changes in it as shall secure that benefit? Such denial would sound strangely in a descendant of the Puritans; and we are sure that when a church holding the polity as well as the name of those founders of Congregationalism put in practice only a principle of their own faith, they will not, by candid men, be deemed to have departed from the foundation of their fathers. 2. Had the church good and sufficient reasons for making the changes which they did? This is denied in the last clause of the IIId specification of the protest. We are pained to be called upon to adduce in reply the following facts: First.-On the 27th day of April last, the protestants being 16 deacons of this church, did for themselves and in connection with others address to our pastor a written communication, in which they say they "are painfully convinced that the spiritual interests, both of the pastor and people, as well as the stability and prosperity of the society, will be promoted by the dissolution of our connection." They assign no reasons for this opinion. "It is sufficient," say they, " 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." This communication the pastor, without reply and without comment, laid before his church, as a party interested in the affair, and having a right to be heard in relation to it. The statements made therein were duly weighed by themtheir truth was not denied. Conceding tacitly the necessity of the proposed "separation," it was for the church only to consider how it should be effected. To the suggestion that it should be by the dismission of the pastor, they felt constrained to give a prompt and decisive negative. They declare, without a dissenting vote, that he has their "entire and undiminished confidence and affection"-of course, that the best interests of the church and society do not require his removal, and, therefore, as was proper, that it was their " desire and determination that he continue in his present position as pastor of this church." All which, obviously, they had a right to do. Who shall judge what the best interests of the church require but the church themselves Still, a "separation" was necessary. "An enforced union could but result in growing alienation of heart." So our brethren affirmed, and they surely had a right to know. None so well understood the strength and persistency of such alienation, and the direction in which it was "growing," and their explicit testimony that it was such as to jeopard the peace of the church, and the prosperity of both church and society must be received as of weight. What, then, was the unavoidable inference from these premises? Why, manifestly, just that which the church derived therefrom, that the deacons themselves ought to retire from their office, and the office itself be so changed in its tenure as to preclude any such painful necessities from arising again. The separation which was so em 17 phatically pronounced to be necessary was effected, and that, too, in the mode which, by a very great majority, the church judged the best interests of Zion to require. The truth undoubtedly is, that our brethren, by participating in this attempt to dislodge our pastor, to say nothing of antecedent acts, had placed themselves in such relations to him as to preclude their harmonious co-operation as officers of this church. They had lost their confidence in him in many important respects, and he in them. The church also, without judging of any matters personal between him and them-in view of the irregularity of said proceeding, and the wound inflicted thereby on their pastor and themselves, had had their confidence in their brethren much impaired. They intend, by this, no imputation upon their character. They put it, as the deacons did against the pastor, on the ground only of the "infirmities and diversities of human nature." They could feel no longer such assurance of their wisdom, and their views of policy, as to continue them their representatives and servants in the administration of the delicate yet important duties of said office. Who can doubt that in these circumstances, separation was the only " rule of peace," or deny that there was ample and cogent reason for applying it as they did? Secondly-The protestants having thus formally taken the ground of avowed "alienation" from their pastor, came into the church meeting of May 18. The letter which they had addressed to him was laid before the body for their opinion and action. The first and test vote taken concerning it, was on the motion looking to the call of a counsel to which "all matters of dissatisfaction" might be submitted. This, after long debate, was rejected by a large majority. The question then recurred on the motion to which the above had been offered as substitute, viz.: "Resolved, That our pastor, Rev. Dr. Cheever, 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." What now might reasonably have been expected of brethren, who remembered the vows of their covenant, and were truly seeking the peace and welfare of the church? 2 18 They could no longer doubt what were the sentiments of the church in regard to the issue they had made with their pastor, Neither could they fail to see that the practical alternatives before them were, to take dismissions from the church, to concur with them in sustaining the pastor, or to maintain a position of discord and schism. The first of these they did not do, neither have they done it to this day. There was never a moment from the first day of their alledged grievances, in which they could not have been remedied in this way, and that, without endangering the peace of the church, or violating their covenant. The second they refused to do. On the question of sustaining the pastor, though they did not positively vote in the negative, yet neither did they vote affirmatively. They would give no assurance of the future, no intimation that they recognized the right of the church to decide on retaining their pastor, or that they deferred their wishes to the clearly expressed judgment of the very great majority. Though distinctly invited by the mover of the resolution to concur therein, and thus restore the church to its former harmony, they would not do it. When the question was taken, and the irrepressible burst of voices proclaimed how deepl) and heartfelt was the church's love for their pastor, the deacons sat i?ute! Let it not be said that a refusal to vote either way, was simply no vote at all. In circumstances like these, it was impossible to be neutral. The brethren in sending the letter, had taken their position. The church and the pastor had a right now, in view of the manifested sentiments of their brethren, to know whether they receded from it. They had a right to so much of a pledge as is involved in a vote, as to what might be expected of them hereafter. To refuse this was virtually to maintain the position befbre taken. It was that "expressive silence," far more eloquent than words, which placed them distinctly in the third alternative of declared non-submission and schism. We ask whether such a position was compatible with their continued acceptableness and usefulness, in the office which was divinely ordained to be a "help" to the pastoral work, and not in incurable opposition to it. TlAirdly-We are pained to be compelled to notice the views 19 disclosed by our brethren, of their official prerogatives and powers as deacons of this church. In the report adopted at the annual meeting it was remarked: "The evil of a life-tenure is that the deacons of a church often come to feel themselves a distinct order, having an authority beyond the functions of their office, a righit to lead the opinion and action of the church, and to expect a deference on account of their official position." Such evil we think has been experienced in this church, and has been one important cause of our troubles. For the evidence thereof, we will only refer to the language of the protestants themselves, and of those who have acted with them. In the prefatory remarks of our brother who presented the protest, after speaking of the deacons being " compelled to differ from our pastor," he denominates this "an unquestionable right of private and official judgment." Subsequently, he says: "When, in an honest exercise of private judgment, and in discharge of official duty, I see cause to differ from my pastor, and candidly tell him so, I am disowned and dishonored." Also, in the pub lished statement of the signers of the letter to the pastor, after what purports to be a description of his preaching, they add: "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"-a charge which, in the summing up of his alledged delinquencies, they designate as " his impatience of all admonition." Is this, then, we are constrained to ask, the true idea of the provi nce of the deacons, to be a board of" church officers," charged with the "official duty" of "admonition" of their pastor in respect to the manner and matter of his preaching, and holding it as an offense in him worthy of removal from his pastorship that he does not yield thereto "with docility and meekness?" Is this the manner in which our brethren, coming to us from another denomination, learned from the Scriptures, or from our standards, the functions of their office in a Congregational church? Do the excellent men who throughout New England serve the churches as deacons so acceptably that age alone is usually permitted to release them, recognize this as the work which they have been called to do? Do the pastors assent to such duty of docility and meekness under diaconal admonition? If not, then let not the Chureh of the Puritans be condemned of "radicalism" because they, too, dissented therefrom; or because when their deacons had confessedly plied their admonitions till a sensitive pastor had, as they affirm, been goaded into personal discourtesy, and the peace of the church had been broken thereby, the church preferred to serve themselves by other men-not superior perhaps in piety or any estimable personal quality-but having juster views of their office, and reminded by the briefness of its tenure, that they are the servants of the church, not its rulers. These, then, were the reasons which impelled the church to take the course they did in respect to their deacons. From their own letter, and by their own act, (not to mention abundant other evidence known personally to the members,) they stood before the church in an attitude of declared alienation from their pastor, and of non-submission to the church in its expressed purpose of adhering to him. They claimed official prerogatives and powers which neither the church nor the Scriptures had given them. For both these reasons, they could no longer serve the church acceptably in their office. The one was schismatic, the other an offense against both the ministry and the church. And our guide and authority for our own action in the case was plain-the express word of God. " Now, I beseec'h you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them." 3. Was the mode in which the changes in question were effected by the church a lawful and proper one? Our brethren declare, not-making this the IVth specification of their protest. IV. "As unscriptural and unchristian, in virtually and by implication, disciplining and censuring the officers, without notification or privilege of trial, for alledged offenses, as the rules of the church and Christian fellowship require." We reply, this language entirely misrepresents the facts in 20 the case. It charges the church with neglecting two very important formalities in a procedure of discipline, whereas the church has admuinistered no discipline whatever. As heretofore, they confound two things entirely differentthe admonition or expulsion of a member, which alone is discipline, and the dismissal of an incumbent from office. When a pastor is dismissed, either voluntarily or against his will, is he disciplined I If our brethren had succeeded in effecting the removal of our pastor would they have called this an act of discipline I And shall they complain of and apply reproachful epithets to that when done to themselves which they were at the very same moment striving to do to him? Even if this were a case of discipline, in which a trial is customary, yet what trial in this instance was necessary? If an accused person pleads guilty in court, or commits the offence coram judite, the trial does not proceed. He stands convicted on the spot in his own act. So here, our brethren, in open meeting, avow, in the most expressive manner, that they are in a state of incurable alienation from their pastor, and non-submission to the solemnly declared will of the church, claiming at the same time their unlawful official prerogatives over him. Of what use, then, would be a trial? To establish the fact of the offense I But this is already established by themselves. Further formalities in such a case would be but a mockery. Even when life is at stake, no court whatever stultifies itself by the farce of a trial after confession. But this was not discipline, consequently none of the forms of discipline were pertinent to it. The right to office is not conferred by the personal character of the incumbent, nor even by official faithfulness. It depends simply on the will of the people-on the fact whether, as a whole, they are satisfied with the service rendered them in it. The deacons were not satisfied with the service which the pastor was rendering to the church, and consequently claimed it to be their right to remove him. If the church is not satisfied with tie services rendered by the deacons, why have they not equally a right to remove them? If the former may be done " without notification or privilege of trial," why not the latter? But why so hasty I Why not wait for the deacons to resign, 21 22 and save the church the necessity of so extreme a measure? We reply, we knew not that they had any purpose of resignation. Two weeks had passed since the church had voted to retain their pastor. The time of the annual meeting had arrived, and if the change of rule was not effected then, it could not be for a whole year to come. We are now told that the first steps of discipline having been taken against them, prevented their resignation. But of this we had no cognizance, and for aught we knew or suspected, no such resignation was probable. It was understood indeed that Deacon Kingsley had distinctly announced that he should not resign. The only alternative ret maining to the church seemed to be, either to do nothing about the matter, or to do it at said meeting. We are free to say here, that there were those among us, who, while fully concurring with our general views of what the peace of the church demanded, would have preferred a somewhat different mode of attaining it,-one less summary and direct. We have learned that some were prepared to move an amendment to that effect, and were deterred only by the course pursued by the opposition. Nearly the whole time of the meeting was consumed in frivolous motions and violent speeches upon mere technical points, aside from the true merits of the matter in hand. No opportunity was afforded for the introduction and suitable discussion of such amendments and we found ourselves at midnight shut up to the alternative of adopting the measure as reported, or of doing nothing. If the protestants complain of the manner of our action, they owe it in a great measure to the unhappy mode of advocating their cause taken by their supporters. V. The fifth specification of the protest pronounces the act of the church "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." 23 The force of this objection, like some' of the preceding, lies in the declaration that the church has changed one of its standing rules; and that all change is inconsistency. The change we admit-the name is of little consequence. If the church or its pastor, years ago, held different views from what they now do, it is, possibly, only because they have grown wiser by experience. It is not the first time that abstract theories concerning an office, founded on what it ought to be, have been compelled to be modified in practice in view of what it actually has become. VI. "Sixthly, As directly contrary to the well established principles and usages of the Congregational churches in the United States, as well as to the general principles of government in the Christian church almost without exception." This has already been answered under the preceding specifications. We see no occasion to say more on the subject. VII. The seventh and last specification is a protest, not against our action, but against certain arguments said to be contained in the report, in support of said action. We do not care to reply to this. We had supposed that protests have properly to do with acts, not arguments. The arguments may be unsound or inconclusive, yet the measures adopted be, notwithstanding, right. It may seem, however, due to our brethren to notice their complaint against the church and pastor, that their position and motives in seeking his removal have been misunderstood and misrepresented. The impression which has gone abroad, that they were, in part at least, influenced by his preaching upon certain matters of public interest, they pronounce to be erroneous. They declare it to be "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." In reply, we have to observe that this statement of their views is very ambiguous-we will not say purposely so. It contains nothing that would not probably meet the approbation of every slaveholder in the country. Who is there that would 24 not say he is in favor of the freedom of the pulpit, and of having the Christian pastor perform his whole duty, &c.? But what is his whole duty? What was our pastor's whole duty in relation to the well-known sins of our land? Do they mean to say that they approved the manner in which he has preached in relation to them? Will they affirm that they have felt no opposition to it, and expressed none? If they intend to say this, then their declaration is in point, whatever their prospect might be of gaining credit to the assertion; if not, their vague generalities about the freedom of the pulpit and the duties of a pastor are irrelevant and vain. We ask our brethren to consider again, what impression the very act of sending their letter to our pastor was, in the circumstances, adapted to convey. A moral conflict was going forward in the land, the severest, the most momentous, which the nation has ever witnessed. Hundreds of faithful pastors, our own included, recognizing the responsibilities of the crisis, were raising their voices in solemn reproof of the wrong. Conspicuous both by his position and eloquence, hlie attracts the eyes of the whole country to his efforts. For these he is denounced and reviled; every odious epithet is heaped upon him, and his very name cast out as evil. And now, in the midst of the conflict, we look to see the "sympathy" which his deacons, the Aarons and furs, who should stay up his hands, manifest for him. He receives from them and others a letter. What call it be but the expression of that sympathy-the encouragement which is so refreshing to a faithful pastor's heart? What less can he look for, at the very moment when his church is resounding with the spontaneous greeting of the assembled pastors of New England to the tribute paid to him in his own pulpit by their eloquent orator? He opens, then, and reads a request that ohe resign hAis pastorate / No reasons for said request are given; they can be inferred only from the circumstances of the time and subject. Is it surprising that the universal impression was received that his preaching had something to do with the matter? At least that if they had personal reasons other than this to influence them, they were still willing to select the exact moment of all others when many were most violently clamoring against him, to render their own movement the most effective 25 They tell us, as if to confirm their declaration, that they "believe his recent efforts on the subject of slavery prevented an earlier outbreak of the dissatisfaction." But if his efforts had such prophylactic power, how was it that such outbreak occurred just when they were at their height? Are antidotes least effective when most rigorously operating? In the absence, then, of all assigned reasons for the very responsible step which they took, in sending him their letter, and reading their motives as we alone could in the nature and circumstances of the act itself, to say nothing of the impressions resulting from years of personal and official intercourse with these brethren, as members of the same church, we do not think the public will hold us greatly criminal for judging as we did of the real intent and significance of their movement. We can only wonder that individuals professing so strongly to "sympathize " with him in his views should have chosen so very remarkable a mode of manifesting it. It remains only that the church reply to the request of the protestants for an Ecclesiastical Council to be called in reference to these proceedings. This church, as is expressed in its second standing rule, recognizes this well-known principle and usage of Congregationalism, and is ready to seek the advice of its sister churches whenever proper occasion requires. Has such occasion arisen among us? It would greatly aid us in deciding this point if our brethren had specified precisely what things they would have the council do. They ask that the action of the church at the late annual meeting be "referred" to such body; but whether to secure simply a verdict as to the proper term of office in the deaconship, or as to the right of the church to change their standing rule in respect to it, or to affect also their own restoration-to office in the church, they do not say. It cannot be too much, surely, that the church, before it consents to go with its troubles to a council, should be informed, precisely, what it is to go there for. In the absence of such information we can only consider several conjectural matters which may possibly be intended by our brethren. Is it that the question may be submitted as to the continu 26 ance of our pastor in his office? To this the church cannot consent. As heretofore declared, he has our full confidence and affection. If a few individuals desire his dismission, we cannot think this a good reason for his removal from a church who still wish to retain, and are as ready as ever to support him with their hearty cooperation, sympathy and prayers. We are sure that no council would assume to separate, without their consent, a church and a pastor thus bound to each other. Should it be summoned to adjudicate in respect to our standing rules? We do not think this a matter coming properly within the jurisdiction of such a body. The standing rules of a church are solely their own affair, unless they are such as to forfeit their right to fellowship among Congregational churches; which we presume will not be claimed in the present case. The difference between us and the protestants is one of opinion, in which the majority should govern. We see not how a council is needed now any more than in every case where a minority dissents from the opinions of the majority. Should it be called to reinstate the late deacons in office? We are constrained to answer in the negative. Whatever the causes which have brought matters into their present position, it is undoubtedly true that those brethren could not now serve the church acceptably in said office. This being so, it cannot be thought expedient that they should, through the pressure of outside advice, be restored to it. We are sure that in these circumstances they cannot themselves wish to return to it. Even if the church erred in removing them, we cannot see how it would retrieve that error to attempt to replace them, when immediate resignation must inevitably follow. We think it better for all parties-for the protestants themselves as well as the church-to permit the matter to rest where it is. Should the council be called to pronounce on the conduct of our brethren in sending their letter to our pastor? We think this unnecessary. Our brethren are not on trial for said act except before the tribunal of public opinion. We have made no arraignment against them, and pronounced no impeachment. So far as their formal standing in the church is conB cerned, it remains as it has heretofore been. It will be soon enough to call a council to adjudicate upon their conduct after the church itself has taken action concerning it. 27 We can see, then, nothing for a council to do, should one be called. We take it that it is not the appropriate province of such a body to be an umpire of opinions merely; to come to a church where some diversities of feeling and sentiment exist, and say who is right and who is wrong; or if all have erred, who have erred the most and who the least. No business being suggested for their action by the protestants, and none existing in which their aid is needed by the church, there seems to be no reason for calling them. We presume that, if called, in the present circumstances, they would themselves decide that there is no legitimate occasion for their action.* Entertaining, then, these views, we must, until we have further light, kindly and respectfully decline the proposition for such council. We pass from the protest of the late deacons to take some notice of the " Letter" addressed to the church by the signers of the communication to Dr. Chleever, and published both in the newspapers and as a pamphlet, containing serious allegations against the character and ministrations of our pastor and against the proceedings of the church. It is not our purpose in so doing, to pronounce any judicial decision respecting the conduct of these brethren in the matters adverted to, as we have instituted no judicial investigation of them; but to show such facts as may be necessary to correct the erroneous statements of said letter. We confine ourselves chiefly to matters withlin the personal knowledge of most of the members, or contained in the records and files of the church or other written documents; or which may be gathered from the pamphlet of our brethren itself. 1. The first point in the "Letter," which it is important to notice, is the justification put forth by its authors, for their very extraordinary act of publishing it. They affirm that it was because " the signers of the letter, of April 27, to Rev. Dr. Cheever, were denied by the church the opportunity of a personal presentation of the reasons which prompted that letter." * Appendix, Note E 28 (P. 3.) This allegation we are constrained to pronounce abso. lutely untrue. For, first, until after Dr. Cheever had left the city for his usual summer vacation, they never asked to be heard as to their reasons. They withheld them from him in said letter. During this period of almost three mouths, not less than four business meetings of the church were held; but in neither of these did they offer any such reasons to the church. If these meetings, as they contend, were all irregular, they had it in their power, by requisition, to call others at any time and in any number they chose; but this they did not do. Had they at any moment in all this period, sought to be heard as to their reasons, it is believed that both permission and opportunity would have been promptly accorded to them. Further, at the meeting of May 18th, when our pastor laid their letter before the church, the signers thereof were repeatedly and explicitly urged to state there, in open meeting, why they had sent it. This fact they endeavor to conceal by saying it was not done "by formal vote." (P. 9.) But, they surely will not deny that it was done in direct personal appeal to them, particularly to the deacons, by various members of the church, and that with the obvious concurrence of nearly all present. But the appeal was unavailing, the only reply made to it being that the present was not the proper time for such statement. The "proper time," however, at length came. On the 13th of July, our pastor, according to custom, left the city for a vacation of several weeks, having certain appointments to fulfil during his absence at Cincinnati, and other places at a distance. Having prepared then, under cover of a professed statement of their reasons, an elaborate assault upon his character and administration, they select the 16th of the same month, juest three days after he had left the city, on which to launch it against him. A requisition was prepared by them calling a special meeting on that day, yet withholding even then any mention of the object for which it was to assemble. No one but themselves knew that they were about to make such an assault on their pastor; and he, if he had known it, could not have been present, his engagements requiring him to be that very day many hundred miles distant. The call being per emptory, the meeting was held, and the document offered to the church. Objections were of course raised to its reading, chiefly on the ground of the pastor's absence. The brethren were urged to consider this fact, and reminded of the indelicacy of pressing their request in such circumstances. They were assured by various members that if they would wait till his return they should be heard in any proper statements they wished to make. But no-the "time" has come-the advantage of assailing a man behind his back cannot be foregone. A pastor's honor-the sacred treasure of his people-entrusted to their care with loving confidence, and guarded only by their own high sense of justice and duty to him, can now be thrust at in his absence with fatal effect. The tale of his delinquencies sent abroad through the press, will have ample time, before it can possibly be answered, to root itself in the public mind as a statement of undenied and undeniable facts. Therefore there shall be no postponemnent —neither generosity nor justice, nor even the right guarantied by law to the vilest criminal, of meeting an accuser face to face, shall avail anything. And when the church, not willing to be accessory to the glaring injustice, simply laid the matter upon thie table, neither assenting nor refusing-or, at most, only refusing to grant the hearing then-the whole is brought out in the newspapers next morning, and the indecency and wrong of the publication cloaked over by the plea, "We are shut up to the necessity of using the press to present to the eyes of our brethren things to which they would not open their ears." We have learned from a reliable source that this entire statement of reasons was already in type before i was offered to the church in the aforesaid meeting, and was furnished from thence in printed slips for publication in the Journal of Commerce of the next morning. Yet its authors affirm that this method of bringing their grievances to the notice of their brethren of the Church of the Puritans "was not decided zon" until they were "virtually denied" a hearing in said meeting I (Page 3.) 2. We come in the next place to consider the reasons adduced by the signers of the letter to Dr. Cheever for seeking his removal. They are comprehensively four in number. 29 30 1. The first of them is summed up thus: " The condition of the church under his pastorate both as to its numbers and finances." Under this head a table is presented showing a small net decrease in the niembershlip of the church for the last two years; also a falling off in the number of pews rented, with certain vague allegations of a diminishing attendance on the regular services of the church, the Sabbath school, &c. In respect to this subject, we have to remark, that, conceding for the present the facts as stated, it does not follow that the responsibility for them rests altogether, or at all, ul)on the pastor. Success in the arduous work of building the kingdom of Christ on earth is not at man's command. Even an inspired apostle was constrained to say, "I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase; so then neither is he thatplanteth anything, n,either he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase." In relation to how many other pastors of most undentiable fidelity, both in the city and country, might not similar statements be made, if anybody had the heart to hunt after the materials and a conscience so to use them. There can scarcely be grosser injustice to a pastor than to publish him to all the world as responsible for a want of success, until it is proved that it is his fault; that no part of it lies at the door of the church, or of those who make the charge; and that there is not beyond all and over all a divine sovereignty, consulting its own all- wise but oft inscrutable counsels in the bestowment of his blessings. ATe will venture to suggest some influences which alone would be miiore than sufficient to cause such a decline as the one alledged, and those wholly apart from the administration of the pastor. One of them is the change in the situation of the church, as related to the population of the city. At its organization it was far "up town," in a position most favorable to growth. Our brethren have spoken truly of the advantages of its location, and of the expectations which were based upon it. These ex. pectations were realized. But in a few years circumstances changed, The flow of population northward not only filled all the vicinity, but advanced far beyond. New Presbyterian and 31 Dutch churches were built, which accommodated in their turn the peop)le that were thronging to the new portions of the city, and many of our own members even were nearer to them than to us. Let it, then, be remembered how largely people in a city like this are inrfluenced by convenience in selecting their place of worship, and we may see in these changes alone? a cause fully adequate to account for the difference in the rate of growth during the early and later years of our church. Another- adverse influence has been found in the high price of pew-rents in this church. Besides the usual heavy expenses of maintaining a large church establishment in a city, there have been special reasons, (presently to be mentioned,) to increase the aggregate of our own. The price of pews, therefore, has been high, too high, for the means of multitudes of families, who, but for tlis, would gladly have made a home with us. Surely, it would not be surprising if there were some difficulty in maintaining the full number of rents while so many other churches have been opened in the vicinity. But a still more potent reason than either is found in the fact, that for two years past, during the identical period of this alledcged decline, these brethren have, many of them, been attending to the 1' dissatisfaction" against the pastor. From their own testimony, it appears they were beginning to question whether he was "adapted to the work lie hlad-undertaken of administering to us in sacred things," and to consider whether they were not called to take steps for his removal. Such misgivings, by the natural law of growth, soon ripened into full conviction, and subsequently into open and determined measures to effect said result. In consequence of this, it soon began to be noised abroad that there were " difficulties" in the church, and this alone, no matter how it originated, could not fail to injure us. Many would be deterred from joining us, and some already among us, dreading any omen of dissension, would leave. With the rumor of our troubles industriously spread through the community and ever growing as it went; and a portion of the church, with the deacons at their head, plotting his removal, instead of strefingthening his hands by their cooperation and prayers, it would transcend the ability of Paul himself, were he our pastor, to secure the continued growth of the church. 32 It is not when a Christian minister is assailed by the world without or by the enemies of the truth, but when he is wounded in the house of his friends that his strength is taken from him, and his ability to build the spiritual walls of that house is destroyed. Thus much has been said, conceding for the moment the representations of our brethren as to the decline of our prosperity as a church. We are now compelled to take issue with them as to the fact itself. In attempting to show, as they term it, "our pastor's want of success in his ministry," our brethren speak first of the rate of growth in the church. The truth in relation to this point will be seen from the following statistics. At its organization, April 12th, 1846, the church numbered forty-five members. The whole number of additions and removals in each successive year since has been as follows: ~~~~..................i... Yea~ ~ ~~~. 0;i,<>LQ: Original Members.............45 45....... 45 1846-7................ 2 66 68 2.. 2 66.. 1847-8................ 21 78 99 4 6.. 10 9.. 1848-9................ 8 53 61 5 26.. 31 30. 1849-50............... 23 42 65 1 31 1 33 32.. 1850-1................ 17 32 49 4 17.. 21 28.. 1851-2................ 12 53 65 1 81.. 32 33.. 1852-3................ 9 48 57 1 1.. 19 88.. 1853-4................ 9 29 38 6 21.. 27 11.. 1854-5................. 18 40 58 4 42.. 46 12 1855-6................ 11 23 34 1 44 1 46.. 12 1856-7................ 12 15 27 4 41.. 45.. 18 4 months of 1857-8..... 5 13 18. 8.. 8 10.. Total............. 147 537 684 31 287 2 320 394 30 It should be remarked here that it is not the net increase, but the absolute number of additions to the church, by profession and by letter, especially the former, which affords any just criterion of a pastor's success. Multitudes of causes which have nothing to do with his fidelity, operate to effect the removal of 33 members. Indeed, it is the honor of many a church, which has shared most largely the Divine blessing, that instead of increas ing the number of its members, it sends forth its sons and daughters to be witnesses for Christ, and to plant the germs of new churches through all the land. We find, then, that under the ministry of our pastor, the aver age annual additions to the church from the first have been sixty-one, of whom thirteen were by profession and forty-eight by letter. Also, that the average number of additions by pro fession during the last three and a-third years (the period of the alledged decline) is as nearly as possible fourteen, which is great, er than the average of all the preceding period. We submit that a ministry which can show such results, under God, attending it, is far enough from being a failure. Let them be compared with the statistics of other churches, either in our own denomination or elsewhere, and we cannot fail to see how much more becoming were a grateful acknowledgement of God's goodness in bestowing them, than a censorious and abusive assault upon our pastor because they were not greater. It is stated in the Letter (pp. 25, 26,) that "many of our earliest and most reliable friends were leaving us; friends on whose liberality we could count on all emergencies, as we could upon their presence whenever we met for prayer and praise. Saddest of all, many were leaving by reason of personal dissension with their pastor." This statement has respect to the "spring of 1S56." Now, on referring to the records of the church, we find that the whole number of dismissions during the year, from June, 1855 to June, 1856, was forty-three, of whom all butxfve were dismissed to churches in other towns and state8 of the Union-churches out of the city. Will it be claimed that these thirty-eight who left the church by reason of a removal of their residence, removed their residence also by reason of personal dissension with the pastor? Of the five remaining to be accounted for, one was a young woman whose parents worshiped in another church; a second, a young man who, by reason of employment, had been absent from the city nearly the whole time of his connection with the church, and the three others were Mr. - - and his family who, as is well known, left the church in consequence of the pastor's preaching on slavery. 3 34 Our brethren next speak of the finances of the society, and offer a variety of statistics designed to convey the impression that under Dr. Cheever's administration the regular income has always been inadequate to meet the expenses, and was of late greatly diminishing. First: They attempt to show that the number of pews occupied has been decreasing; and declare that "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 from the $3,000 contributed to the repairs and alterations of the building, having been over $9,000." (P.24.) The character of these statements will be seen from the following facts, extracted from the successive annual reports of the trustees of the society, and now on record. The annual rental of pews, (rents and taxes on pews) for each year has alone been as follows: 1847-8................... $3,150 1848-9.................... 4,740 1849-50................... 6,300 1850-1.................... 6,135 1851-2.................... 6,703 1852-8.................... 7,082 1853-4..................... 7,434 1854-5.................... %,007 1855-6..................... 7,615 1856-7..................... 7,237 [ The "signers" say flOur enterprise has been stagnant, if not retrograding," p. 24.] In their report, March, 1854, the trustees say:-" The society was never before in so prosperous a condition." In 1856, "the total amount of receipts from all sources during the past year is $11,403 50, of which $7,615 are from pew rents and taxes, (pew revenue,) being $180 96 more than has been received fromn this source in any previous year." In 1857, the number of pews rented was two more than in the previous year. - (This is the verbal testimony of one of the trustees.) The pew revenues for the last two years (the period of the alledged decline) were $1t,852 63, exceeding those of any other two years by the s8um of $336 18. The trustees say that there 50 70 39 01 39 42 03 86 00 63 35 were besides, March 1, 1857, $1,124 52 of pew rents uncollected. Under the phrase "ordinary support," the authors of the letter include the following items: " ORDINARY SUPPORT." Ground rent on land occupied by church edifice, 11 years at $1,500 per year....................................................$16,500 00 Interest on debt of $15,000, incurred in erecting the house, 5 years, at $1,050 per year.............................................. 5,250 00 1848.-Rent of organ and incidentals............................. 550 00 1851.-Pew bought of an individual................................ 37 50 1853.-Unpaid balance on cost of organ........................... 140 00 Pew bought............................................ 112 50 Do. (Paid Union Theological Seminary)...............105 55 1854.-Pew bought............................................. 72 00 1855.-Two pews.............................................. 199 75 1856.-Repairs, (new skylight, &c.,)..............................1,069 70 Balance of original debt unpaid............................ 325 00 Pew bought............................................ 150 00 1857.-Pews bought............................................ 331 88 Balance on repairs of house............................... 305 10 Amounting to......................................$25,148 98 Average, per annum, (11 years,)...................... 2,286 27 The pastor's salary has been from the first only about forty per cent. of the income from pews alone. The deficiency in the income of the society to meet all these "ordinary" expenses lias been as follows: ACCORDING TO THiE " SIGNERS." 4' The total deficiency, apart from the Floating debt in 1853, paid by $30,000 contributed to the repairs and subscription.............$3,155 00 alterations of the building having been Floating debt in 1855 $3,393 over $9,000." i 98, of which paid by sub scription................... 2,980 00 Total deficiency......... $6,135 00 The balance on the floating debt of 1855 not paid by the subscription ($413 98) was charged in the current expenses of the next year. The cost of "repairs and alterations" in 1856 was $3,140 10, of which only $2,835 was paid by " contribution," ACCORDIN-G TO T.UE TRusTEEs. 36 the balance ($305 10) being charged as usual in "ordinary" expense account. The authors of the "Letter" next profess to explain "how the church has been sustained with so small an attendance." They represent the society as being compelled to resort to frequent subscriptions to bring up the deficiencies, and give the impression that the greater part of these were given by themselx es and their "friends." Three times they make this statement, (pp. 24, 25.) We do not know precisely, whom they mean by these generous "friends," but we do know what those gentlemen subscribed who signed the letter requesting the dismissal of the pastor: ACCORDING TO THE " SIGNERS." " Considerably more than one-half of the amount was contributed by some of the signers of the letter of April 27th, 1857, to Dr. Cheever, and by friends who sympathize with us." ACCORDING TO THE]i RECORDS. For the payment of the original debt of $15,000, only five of the "signers" contributed, and their united amount was $2,750.* For the $3,155 floating debt subscrib ed by twenty-five individuals, three only of the "signers" contributed at all, and their amount was $175. The floating debt in 1855 was $3,393 98. The amount subscribed for its payment was $2,980, by thirty-two persons. Of these, eleven were among the "signers," and their united amount $685. The amount subscribed in 1856 was $2,835, by thirty persons. Of these, nine were among the "signers," whose united amount was $765. This expense was for the repairs and alterations of the building. " 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." In the Trustees' Report for 1849, we find the following: "Through the efforts of some members of the congregation, some 441 copies of the' Journal of the Pilgrims,' edited by our pastor (Rev. Dr. Cheever) and published by Mr. John Wiley, * The original subscription list can not now be found. The above statement is given on the authority of a former Trustee of the society who was active in procuring said subscription, but not now a member of the church. "In 1855 we were in debt over $3,000-over two-thirds of the amount being paid by ourselvefj and frieiads." 37 have been disposed of, the profits of which, amounting to $348 66, have been generously given to the society by the editor and publisher, for the purpose of procuring an iron fence to inclose the church, which will cost from $600 to $650. The trustees recommend that another and more general effort be made at once to raise, by the sale of these books, or in some other way, the balance required, viz., $300." Nothing need be added by way of comment on the above declarations of the "Letter" addressed to us by our brethren. Yet we cannot refrain from calling particular attention to the items of expenditure mentioned, included in what our brethren have denominated "ordinary support." Their aggregate amount, it will be seen, is $25,148 98. Deducting the actual deficiencies which have been supplied from contributions, ($6,135,) and there remains the sum of $19,013 98, which has been received from the pew revenues over and above the ordinary expenses of the society as that term, in the absence of all explanation, must be understood, viz.: salary of pastor, sexton, organist, fiuel, lights, insurance, taxes, ordinary repairs, &c. What shall be said of the character of such representations? What of the suppression of the fact that $1,500 have to be paid, annually, for ground rent? The ground rent alone, is equivalent to a permanent debt of over $21,000. The truth, then, is, that Dr. Cheever has had to labor from the first against the equivalent of a permanent debt of $21,000, which, for five years, was $36,000. Yet not a whisper of all this is uttered in the "Letter!" If this society were a mercantile establishment, and these brethren in negotiating a sale thereof should willfully suppress the fact that there were such incumbrances upon it, what would a court of law pronounce concerning the morality of such an act? And is the wrong less weighty when, instead of a few thousand dollars at stake, the intent is to blast the character and drive ignominiously from his post a most laborious and faithful Christian minister? We cannot wonder that, after giving the above statements, these gentlemen add: "We would rather make no mention of these things,"-a regret in which we heartily concur. It is proper also that we should advert in passing to the test which these gentlemen, in arraying these pew-statistics before 38 the world, present of ministerial faithfulness and success; the theory they seem to have of the appropriate end and function of preaching. They acknowledge (p. 25) the "average annual addition to the church of about thirteen on profession," and that "the annual contributions to objects of Christian benevolence had risen to over $10,000," yet in the very moment of recount ing these, they intimate that the "more thoughtful" among them were seriously inquiring whether the pastor was "adapted to the work he had undertaken of ministering to us in sacred things." What, then, if the conversion of souls and the promotion of enlarged Christian benevolence give no evidence of adaptation to the ministerial work, do these "thoughtful" brethren regard as such? Why, manifestly a large " rental of pews." Observe how carefully they have given us an enumeration of the pews, and brought out as a prime count in their indictment against him, the number not rented, the comfortable sittings, the uncomfortable vacancies, and the unprofitable occupancy of the galleries. See how the schedule of profit and loss is flourished before the public; and the withering proof of the pastor's delinquencies given in the statement that "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." Thirteen souls gathered from the world annually, and $10,000 paid to spread the Gospel through the earth, are well enough, but all these avail us nothing so long as we see those lined and cushioned gallery pews paying no rent 1 Reason enough for sending a solemn message to such a pastor that "the spiritual interests" of the church require his dismissal! We refer now, in the third place, more particularly to the benevolent contributions of the church. They have beecn follows: 0. - -i Year ending. D E June 1. -Co 0 o _o. ..,... _~~~~~~,. *1843....................................................... $1,314 00 t1849....................................................... 2,630 65 1850....... 825 00 266 9 2 241 50,1100 00 175 00 380 00..... 836 57,324 99 1851....... 1,516 26 504 44 297 00 1,7T18 00 3863 67 624 41 178 75 1,006 00 6,2()8 58 1852......... 289 86 714 21 52T 00 2,026 50........ 754 63 175 00 1,454 51 5,941 21 1853....... 2,434 06 742 78 526 00 1,700 00 874 88 575 00 247 25 3,037 13 9,667 10 1854....... 1.973 61 1,503 82 1,685 00 1,657 89 478 23 800 00 211 18 1,399 49 9,708 72 .855....... 1,863 84 1,217 00 1,195 00 905 00 375 70 335 00 120 00 676 50 6,188 04 1856....... 1,113 00 851 00 1,162 00 1,754 00 464 00 744 00 100 00 1,882 00 8,070 00 :1857.................................................... 8,000 00 Total..... $60,453 24 The above table embraces only the objects of charity outside of the church. If there be added to these the sums contribut ed for various charitable and religious purposes within the congregationr, the aggregate undoubtedly has equaled in some years the amount reported by our brethren of "over $10,000." The foregoing are some of the principal facts in the history of this church by which we are enabled to judge of the representations made by the "Letter" concerning its prosperity and the success of our pastor's ministry among us. And let it be remembered that Dr. Cheever is the only pastor that this church has had. He entered here into the labors of no other man. He did not find furnished to his hand an established, large and wealthy church which he has barely retained in its usual strength. Of course, the honor of its prosperity is to be ascribed to God alone. At the same time, when our pastor is so cruelly assailed as an unsuccessful minister, it would be injustice to him not to state the facts as they are, and recognize him as the earthly instrument through whom our prosperity has been gained, and a church not small in numbers nor strength, and least of all ashamed of its past history, stands in the heart of this great city to-day, bearing the name, and, we hope, exemplifying in some good degree, the faith and order of the Puritans. * Particulars not reported. t Particulars not reported. t Particulars not ascertained-assumed to be as above. 39 40 BBut there is other evidence still, on this point, which we can not withhold, and which our brethren will not, probably, contest. At the several annual meetings of the church, except the last, the Prudential Committee (of which the deacons are, ezo,fcio, members) have reported in writing the condition of the church for each preceding year, which reports, with one or two exceptions, are preserved on our records. The following are extracts from these reports with the names of those members of the committees attached to them, who have now solemnly asserted the failure of our pastor's ministry. 1847. The first annual report was presented by Deacon 0. E. Wood, chairman of the committee. It states that "the committee rejoice that our external mercies are not the only indications of God's blessing. Evident tokens of his presence have followed us, yes, preceded us, in all our ways. Instances are not rare where God has moved upon the heart with His still small voice, accompanying the truth dispensed from Sabbath to Sabbath with his convincing and converting power." " The encouragements to prayer and personal labor, as well with the church as the pastor, are of the most promising chiaracter." 1848. The report was again submitted by Deacon 0. E. Wood. It says: "The committee would recognize with devout gratitude the evidences of Divine favor with which we have been blessed, as well in the conversion of souls, and the edification of saints, as in that which relates to our outward condition. The ministrations of the public altar, and other ordinary means of grace, have to an unusual degree been followed with the influence of God's Spirit, and we rejoice in Yhe conversion of a goodly number of our friends, and their addition to our particular communion." 1849. Deacon Oliver E. Wood and Mr. Henry A. Hurlbut on the committee. The pastor was requested to read the report to the church on the Sabbathl for its encouragement. This report is not on record or on file. But the above request may be taken as sufficient evidence that it did not proclaim, "the pastor's want of success in his ministry." 41 1850. Deacon O. E. Wood and Mr. R. N. Havens on the committee. "The Prudential Committee feel that We, as a branch of the Church of Christ, are especially called upon to erect our Ebenezer, and say,'Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.' No year since its organization has the church enjoyed so largely the influences of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of souls, and more especially since-the 1st of January.- It has descended like the gentle dews upon the congregation, and week after week there has been rejoicing among us and in heaven over those who have believed in Christ. Although the work has been mainly among the youth, yet it has not been confined to themn. Our hearts should be filled with devout thanksgiving to God that He is thus gathering into the Chureh those upon whom our mantles may hereafter rest. As the fruit of this work of grace, three ill March and eleven in May separated themselves from the world, and were received into church fellowship, and we look for a much larger accession to our numbers from those who are now cherishing the same precious hope. Our pastor has been enabled to discharge his duties with few exceptions, and his ministrations have been owned of God, to the conversion of sinners, and the encouragement and growth in grace of the people of God." 1851. Deacon O. E. Wood and Mr. E. M. Kingsley, afterwards deacon, on the committee. This year's report states that "the religious interest during part of the year, both in the church and congregation, has seemed to be deep and promising. The Holy Spirit has been manifestly present, and cases of awakening and conversion have occurred." "The Lord has dealt bountifully with us, not measuring His mercies by our unbelief. He has gone before us continually, and has been leading us on by blessings; encouraging, animating and impelling us earnestly to seek, and confidently to expect, still greater blessings." On motion of Deacon Wood, the pastor was requested to read this report from the pulpit. 1852. Deacons O. E. Wood and E. M. Kingsley and Messrs. R. N. Havens and J. K. Johnson. "The committee desire cheerfully to acknowledge the goodness and mercy of the Great Head of the Church, in continuing 42 the evidences of His favor, in both our spiritual and temporal interests, by which we have been distinguished in years past." "There have been pleasing indications of the presence of the Holy Spirit during a large portion of the year." "The peace and harmony of the Gospel has prevailed in the Church, and, so far as is known, no root of bitterness exists among its menmbers." "The Sabbath school and Bible classes remain about the same as last year; while the increase of the congregation would lead us to anticipate a corresponding increase of scholars." "As we review God's dealings with us, and especially His favor recently alluded to, (the raising of $20,000 to pay off the debt,) we are called upon forrenewed zeal and devotion to our blessed work." 1853. Deacons O. E. Wood and E. M. Kingsley this year testify as follows: "We have much reason for gratitude to God for the prosperity, both temporal and spiritual, which we have enjoyed, .nd for the harmony and brotherly love which has prevailed among the members." "The congregation and church have both gradually but steadily increased, and the Sabbath services have been, throughout, very fully attended. The preaching of the Word, though not followed by any copious effusion of the Holy Spirit, yet has not been without manifest effect, and we can rejoice in a harvest of souls converted under its influence. 1854. Eighth annual meeting.-Deacons O. E. Wood and E. M. Kingsley. "The effort made two years since to raise the amount required to discharge the mortgage on the church, and for other debts against the society, has before been reported as successful, and it is a matter of grateful praise that the mortgage was canceled at maturity a few days since." "The attendance in the sanctuary has been larger than ever during the past year, although the committee regret the afternoon service in the lecture-room has not exhibited a corresponding increase." " It is a subject of gratitude to the great Head of the Church that He has not left us without a witness of His presence-that we enjoyed, to some degree, the influence of His Holy Spirit upon 43 our services and the labors of our pastor, who has been spared to occupy his post almost without interruption." 1855. Deacons Wood and Kingsley, and Mr. Jonathan K. Johnson, afterwards deacon. "The Sabbath services of the sanctuary have never been more fully attended. Our pastor has labored unremittingly and with all fidelity in his public ministrations, in visiting the sick, the afflicted, and the bereaved." "The Sunday school has been well attended generally." "The Mission Sunday school, corner of Sixth avenue, which has been sustained principally by members of this church for several years, has also been more fully attended than usual, and has been supported with a zeal and an earnestness truly delightful to contemplate." The authors of the "Letter'" say that "in the spring of 1856," less than one year afterwards, "there was a sad lack of vitality in the Sabbath schools; and a steadily diminishing attendance on the public services!" 1856, Deacons Wood, Kingsley, Johnson and Messrs. E. O. Wilcox, and J. Walter Camp. "One of the most gratifying features in the history of this church is found in the records of its Christian benevolence; and the amount contributed during the past year exceeds that of any previous one, except that wherein by a noble effort the mortgage of $15,000 on the church property was entirely removed." "We have no special manifestations of Divine favor to record, yet we have enjoyed the constant care of a kind Providence, and some evidences of the presence of the Holy Spirit, with all the inestimable privileges of a faithful ministry, and the uninterrupted use of Gospel ordinances." We learn also what were the opinions of Deacon Wood, July llth, 1856, respecting the prosperity of the church, and the true character of the complaints against our pastor from a letter addressed by him to Dr. Cheever, of which the following is extract; 44 Extract of a letter of r. 0.. E. Wood to Dr. Cheever, qf date July 11, 1856: " I feel that I have been reproved, and perhaps justly, for not denying at once that any cause exists for all these things. Certainly we have grown from a little one to a large church, and that under adverse circumstanees of no common character. I have a sincere desire, yes, a pride, that we shall keep together, pastor and all the people, until we are separated by a cause more potent than belongs to the list of human frailties. We cannot expect to please in all respects, but our motto is, or ought to be, to agree in essentials, and agree to differ in non-essentials." Such has been the real history of the Church of the Puritans. The authors ofrthe " Letter"' have misrepresented it; they have totally suppressed some of the most important items, and arranged the whole so as to convey an impression directly the reverse of the truth. Their statements are refuted by the records of the church, and contradicted by their own written testimony from year to year. It is a melancholy example of what men otherwise honorable will do to justify themselves in an act of wrong. Regardless of the disastrous consequences of such misrepresentations, they deliberately set themselves to depreciate the prosperity which God has bestowed on us, to deny the success of our enterprise, and to prove that a church, which eleven years ago sprung from nothing, and has been blessed with an average annual accession of sixty-one members, one-fourth of them new converts, and has contributed to benevolence an aggregate amount of about $60,000, besides paying all its own expenses, is a failure; and our pastor, under whose sole ministry these results have been gained, is unfit for his work and must be driven from his post. We cannot but feel that such an attempt is a dishonor to the Christian ministry and ingratitude towards God. II. The second alledged reason for the attempt to dislodge our pastor is " the character of his public ministrations." This respects both the matter and manner of his preaching. The matter of his preaching which is so obnoxious, after all the disclaimers which our brethren have put forth, seems to have been the subject of slavery. Let us bring together what they 45 say themselves on this point. "He has been so often engaged in warfare with various political sins of the times." (Letter, p. 27.) "Diversion of mind to outside matters;" "being occupied with the affairs of a continent," (p. 28.) " The pulpit, at any rate, we do not think the place for the fulmination of such rhetorical artillery, whatever necessity or propriety there may be, if any, for this mode of conducting the warfare on the common and open battle-field of the press." "1 Nor do we believe that our church is to be built 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 to our familios." (pp. 33-34.) What do our brethren mean by all this? What "political sins" has he warred against? There is but one answer, Slavery. What " outside matters," what affairs of a continent," has he meddled with? Slavery. What is it that the pulpit is' no place for?" Slavery. What " exciting theme" has he obtruded on unwilling ears? Slavery. " Things and themes" other than what? Slavery! How can language more plainly or directly declare, notwithstanding their professions elsewhere, that the pastor's preaching on slavery was one, at least, of their reasons for seeking his removal. To the same effect are their complaints against the manner of his preaching. The personalities, denunciation and sarcasm about which they have so much to say, have been employed, if at all, against slavery. Once, indeed, they mention " liquor dealers" and " the gowns and bands of Episcopacy"* as suffering from his invectives, but evidently this does not constitute the burden of their grief. It is because this impassioned and effective energy of the pulpit has been directed against slavery and its defenders that it is complained of. This is the "rhetorical artillery" which has no place in the pulpit, and the use of which is alledged as the habitual and heinous sin of our pastor. What shall be said, in view of all this, of their assertion that they "sympathize" in his views of the freedom of the pulpit? * Appendix, Note F. 46 Ilis views are that the Christian minister should preach upon slavery just as he preaches upon any other sin. Theirs are that the puipit is "not the place for it" at all; that it should be ex cluded from the ordinary services of the sanctuary, and the prayers, exhortations and talks of the conference-room; that if the pastor ventures to read his commission for himself, and speak fearlessly on the subject, he should be admonished by the church officers for the same; and if he will not submit "with docility and meekness," he should be removed from his pastorate. We cannot think that these views are identical. The very language of our brethren in affirming their sympathy, itself unccnsciously affords demonstrative evidence of the opposite. It is not to be forgotten that, often, men are little aware of the true character of their own feelings in relation to exciting subjects. We have been in familiar intercourse with these brethren for years. We have heard them often express their sentiments. We have known the position they have taken as the subject of slavery has presented itself in various ways before the public. And we declare it to be our firm conviction still, notwithstanding their disclaimers, that our pastor's discussion of this subject, in the mode he has done, has been,. in fact, the "head and front of his offending." We can, if necessary, adduce the names of not a few among them with circumstances of time and place who are known to have declared their dissatisfaction on this account. Indeed these expressions of dissatisfaction began as far back as 1850. In that year Dr. Cheever preached a sermon, in the course of which he set the word of God in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law, whereupon a member of the church (the same before referred to as having left the church with his family on occount of the pastor's preaching on slavery,)* addressed a letter to Dr. Cheever, under date of December 30, in which he wrote as follows: "Must I go to a church where I feel sure of having doctrines and sentiments thrust upon me which I believe to be unscriptural, and subversive of the peace of the church and the welfare of my country? By the same course of reasoning, you might urge my duty to remain in the church though you were to preach Universalism, Romanisnm, or Swedenborgianism. All the * Page 31. 47 advocates of these doctrines profess'to preach the Gospel,' and I assure you that very many good men in this community believe the doctrines of abolitionism and' the higher law,' (strangely so called) are quite as unscriptural and offensive to God, and as detrimental to society, as either of those referred to above. "Still more have I always objected to your preaching'The Higher Law' and Abolitionism, and have repeatedly told you that I could not hear it. But now another reason has occurred. The public announcement of your connection with the Independent newspaper, is of itself, and alone, a sufficient reason for my wishing to leave your church. * * * "Before closing, it is proper that I should state that since the 13th inst., until to-day, I have studiously avoided conversing with any one out of my family except Mr. Wood, and I have cautioned him against giving me advice, or in any manner becoming implicated in my affairs. In doing so, I have forfeited much good advice, which I much desired to have; but now it seems to me there can be no impropriety in seeking the counsel of others." In respect to the charge that he is personal in his preaching, we declare, firom our own knowledge, having been accustomed to sit under his ministrations, that he has not been such in any other sense than is common to every faithful preacher of the Gospel. Our brethren have manifested a sensitiveness in this matter not called for by the facts. If he has adverted in his discourses to opinions and statements which happen to have been uttered at any time by individuals, he has been regarded as holding up such individuals for ridicule or assault. The terms employed in strong and glowing figures to illustrate a truth have been taken as epithets applied to persons. It is precissly thus that the words quoted on page 29 of the "Letter" as examples of personalities, were emnployed, if at all. Our brethren know perfectly well that the same mode of reasoning would find personalities in every sermon that has had to do with the sins of men from the days of Paul to the present time. We subjoin in the Appendix some extracts from the "muzzled ox sermon," so called, that it may be seen by an inspection of the offensive phrases in their places how far they are from being, in any just sense of the term, personalities.* * Appendix, Note G. 48 The authors of the " Letter" have cited (p. 29) a particular instance of personality in the pulpit, which calls for a particular notice. "On Thanksgiving day," they say, " in 1855, hle spoke of one of the members of the church as' mean and contempt ible,' not mentioning his name, but under circumstances which left no doubt of the application." The facts of this case are as follows: On the occasion mentioned, Dr. Cheever in his discourse made some allusion to the subject of slavery, and during the delivery of the paragraph Mr. arose and left the house. Dr. Cheever proceeded with his discourse, which was written, in which occurs this passage: "And although this is a sore spot for us, and the whole region of the sore very tender to the touch, and easily irritated, yet I will not think so poorly of a congregation in the Church of the Puritans as to deem an apology necessary for presenting any of God's messages," &c. It was immediately reported to Mr. - that Dr. Cheever had inflicted a public reproof and insult upon him, accusing him of a "mean and cringing spirit." He at once addressed a note to Dr. Cheever, inquiring if the report was true; and was promptly and explicitly answered in the negative, and a copy of the passage as written and delivered was sent to him. This disclaimer, however, was not satisfactory, and taking the quotation sent him as a new insult, he shortly after sought a dismission from the church. The charge is now brouglht forth anew, notwithstanding Dr. Cheever's explicit denial, and the evidence of the passage itself as quoted verbatim from the sermon.* IlI. The third alledged reason for sending the letter to Dr. Cheever, is " his uncourteous and bitter mode of speech towards those who do not coincide with his administration of the duties of his office, and his impatience of all admonition." So far as respects the latter part of this charge, enough has been said elsewhere. The accusation that he has " repeatedly and violently charged one of his deacons with falsehood," and that immediately before a communion season of the church, deserves a more particular notice. It appears from the evidence afforded us, that in the autumn * Appendix, Note H. 49 of 1856, Rev. L. H. Angier, of Concord, Massachusetts, preached, in the pulpit of the Church of the Puritans, a sermon which, from its applicability to the state of feeling in the church, gave some offense. Deacon Wood reported to a gentleman shortly after, that the sermon was a castigation of the people, and Dr. C. had selected it from among several discourses which Mr. Angier showed him, and requested him to preach it for that purpose. Mr. Angier was at that time at the residence of Mr. E. C. Wilcox, and it is the concurrent testimony of Mr. Angier and Mr. Wilcox, that no such selection of the sermon was made, and that with the exception of the text, Dr. Cheever knew noting of its contents whatever. This statement of Deacon Wood was reported to Dr. Cheever, who, at once, called upon him to ask what it meant. Deacon Wood said he received it from Mr. Wilcox. The latter, on inquiry, denied having made such statement. Dr. Cheever thereupon informed Deacon Wood that the statement was false, and, inasmuch as Mr. Wilcox disclaimed it, it rested with Deacon Wood, although he did not mean to charge him with intentional untruth. Some time last spring the matter was again mentioned in a conversation between Dr. Cheever and Deacon Wood, in which the former spoke of the statement as untrue, and an injury to him. Thereupon, on the Saturday preceding the communion, Deacon Wood sent a note to Mr. Wilcox requesting him to call that evening on Dr. Ciheever, and ascertain whether Dr. C. intended to charge him with falsehood. This call was made unnecessary by Dr. C. calling on Mr. Wilcox, who delivered the message, and Dr. C. said that Deacon Wood had mnisrepresented the matter, but did not intimate that it was intentional. Mr. Wilcox expresses himself pleased with the spirit and manner in which Dr. C. spoke of the subject, and reported the conversation to Deacon Wood that evening. The next day, Dr. Cheever requested Mr. Wilcox to stop after morning service, and requested Mr. S. B. Hlunt also to be present at the interview. Dr. C. then asked Mr. W. to report again what was the import of the message which Deacon Wood had sent. Hie did so. Mr. Hiunt asked Mr. Wilcox whether he had told Deacon Wood the facts in respect to the selection 4 of the sermon. Mr. Wilcox said he had. Dr. Cheever then replied that in these circumstances there was no alternative left him but to say that if Deacon Wood persisted in the statement, after knowing the facts, he was telling a falsehood; although he (Dr. C.) did not charge him with deliberate falsehood, yet the statement was a falsehood, and Deacon Wood was the author of it. Mr. Wilcox informs the committee that he did not hlear this qualification, yet admits that other conversation followed, but that he was so much affected by the reply that he cannot say precisely what Dr. C. may have added. Mr. Hunt affirms unequivocally that said qualification was uttered. Mr. Wilcox, after the service, reported to Deacon Wood the reply, without the quali,cfation, whereupon the latter accused Dr. Cheever of sending him an abusive message on the solemn occasion of the communion season. From the above, it appears that Deacon Wood did report an allegation against Dr. Cheever which was untrue in fact, and which, on information, he acknowledged to be such. Also, that his resentment against Dr. Cheever, from the supposed wrong of his reply to the message, was occasioned by an incorrect report'of that reply, through an imperfect apprehension of the same on the part of Mfr. Wilcox.* As to the remaining mnatters embraced in this third count of the indictment against our pastor, little need be said. The allegations are vague in everything but their obvious intent. Neither person, place, nor time, is specified to give them definiteness, or make it possible to meet themn with disproof. What pastor is there living however, faithful or honored, who has not been made to suffer from such anonymous imputations, or against whom a similar array of faults could not be exhibited, if the sewers of public calumny were searched with equal assiduity? IV. The fourth and last alledged reason for sending him the letter is, " his assumption of arbitrary power in the affairs of the church." This charge is expanded in several particulars. We notice them in order: * Appendix, Note I. 50 51 The first is that, "at a meeting of the Prudential Committee, about the middle of November, 1856," Dr. Cheever expressed his determination, contrary to the previous vote of the church, to hold the second public service of the sanctuary in the evening, rather than on the afternoon of the Sabbath. We turn to the records of the church, under date of November 18, 1856, and find there as follows: "After some preliminary remarks on the part of Dr. Cheever, in reference to a change of the services of the church on the Sabbath, it was uranimously "Voted, upon motion of Dr. Ball, seconded by Mr. J. C. Woodruff, that the vote establishing afternoon services of public worship be rescinded, and that the regular services of the church be held morning and evening through the year. "On motion, adjourned. 4"J W. COAMP, " Clerk." We submit that an" assumption of arbitrary power" over the church, which, as the record shows, had the unanimous approval and sanction of the church itself, cannot have been a very oppressive or culpable one. Where were the brethren who now complain of it, that they did not on the spot protest against it, or at least vote against it? Or, is the whole charge an afterthought, brought forward at this day to criminate an act which they then did not even think of opposing? It is added to this accusation (p. 31,) 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." We have no words fitly to characterize an assertion like this. The quality of a public service is a matter of opinion, and we but reiterate an oft-expressed sentiment of many members of the church, that those afternoon services have been no less rich in evangelical truth, and in the inculcation of practical godliness than others, while to many in our families they have been even more attractive and beneficial than the profounder and more elaborate discussions of the morning. Yet these gentlemen, because they think otherwise of the quality of these performances, found on this mere matter of opinion, the charge of a deliberate and willful intention on the part of our pastor to make the regular services of the sanctuary uninteresting, and thus defeat the high and holy ends of the Gospel ministry. He is "purposely" false to his solemn ordination vows in order to effect indirectly certain arbitrary and selfish designs of his own. On a basis so utterly vague and intangible, they allow themselves to proclaim him guilty of what ought, if true, not only to dislodge him from our pulpit, but from the ministry itself, from the church, and from all Christian society. There can be no mistaking of the spirit and intent with which such charges are made against a faithful Christian minister. The true character of this assertion becomes painfully evident when laid by the side of the official statement of Deacons Wood, Kingsley and Johnson, and Messrs. J. W. Camp and E. C. Wilcox, members of the Prudential Committee, in their annual reports for 1855 and 1856, the two years in which said afternoon services were held. 1855. —" The Sabbath services of the sanctuary have never been more fully attended. Our pastor has labored tnremittingly and with all.delity in his public ministrations, in visiting the sick, the afflicted and the bereaved." 1856.-" We have enjoyed the constant care of a kind Providence, and some evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit, with all the inestimable privileges of a faithful ministry, and the uninterrupted use of Gospel ordinances." The second instance, specified as an assumption of arbitrary power, has respect to the Bible class and Dr. Cheever's alledged treatment of Prof. Crosby in connection with it. It is first charged, that after the Prudential Committee had requested Prof. Crosby to continue to instruct the Bible class, Dr. Cheever sent to him a message that he would take charge of the class himself, which message the clerk deemed discourteous, and refused to deliver. (P. 31.) The following appear to be the facts in this case: Prof. Crosby being about to remove his connection with the /2 53 church, requested the Prudential Committee to appoint some one to succeed him as a teacher of said class. The Committee were not able at the moment to find a suitable person for this post, and desired Prof. Crosby to remain with the class till they could do so. Dr. Cheever, on learning of Prof. C.'s request, and recognizing the instruction of the young as one of the official functions of the ministry, resolved that he would add to all his other labors on the Sabbath, that of teaching this class; and accordingly sent to Prof. Crosby, offering to take charge of it, if he could not conveniently continue, but must adhere to his determination to leave. We cannot see how such a message was either discourteous or arbitrary; or why it was not a compliance with this very request which Prof. Crosby had so solemnly and tenderly addressed to his pastor. It is next asserted that "Dr. Cheever went to 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." (P..) The impression evidently designed to be conveyed is, that Prof. C. withdrew from the church because he felt himself abused and insulted by his pastor. We find on inquiry that Dr. Cheever having concluded to take charge of the Bible class, as just related, entered the room while it was in session, thinking-to aid himself in the undertaking by an observation of the manner in which its exercises had been conducted. What took place on that occasion may be learned by the following statement of one of the members of the class: " I hereby certify that I was present at the session of the Bible class referred to, there being but three individuals (members of the class) present, according to my recollection. And I affirm that there was no disturbance of the exercises whatever, but Dr. Cheever came quietly in, took a seat near the door, and very soon withdrew without having uttered a word to any one present. And so far from there being any interruption of the services, I have reason to believe that the others did not even know of his having entered the room. Nor is there the slightest ground for the assertion that "Prof. Crosby was compelled at once to retire." This was not the fact, but he continued the exercises of the class in the ordinary manner and at the usual length. "THEO. D. WARiEN. "New York, October 1, 1857." 54 As to the intimation that Prof. Crosby withdrew from the church because of any insult or ill treatment from the pastor, we suppose that Prof. Crosby's own letter to Dr. Cheever will be conclusive. "72 WEST 21ST STREET, N. Y., March 25, 1856. "My Dear Pastor,-Circumstances having occurred which call for a dissolution of my own and my wife's connection with the Church of the Puritans, I feel it due to you to acquaint you directly with the fact. Although I do not feel at liberty to mention the causes of this action, I can assure you they are such as in no wise affect the high respect and warm affection with which we have ever regarded you. I feel a strong attachment to the church where many,Christian acquaintanceships have been formed by me, which I greatly prize, and where my dear wife first publicly professed her faith in our Saviour. Although I shall not ask for letters until my return from the country in the fall, I write you thus early in order that my name may not be proposed again on the Prudential Committee, and that my post in the Bible Class may be filled in time. "With sincere regard, I am, "Yours, in the bonds of Christ, " HOWARD CROSBY.7 We may appropriately, in this connection, allude to the declaration of the "Letter," (p. 25,) that the Sabbath schools had been "quite neglected by the pastors" We know not on what grounds this charge is made, or what these brethren regard as the duties of a pastor towards the Sabbath school. But if frequent addresses to it; if his occasional presence in it as the pressure of other duties would permit; if his habit of preaching to the children in discourses specially intended for them, which hardly one pastor in a hundred attempts to do; if his public prayers for the Sabbath schools and Bible classes, and his frequent and earnest appeals to the church as to their importance evince a pastor's interest in them, then we pronounce the charge to be totally unfounded. Hiowever much we, as a church, have neglected this important means of doing good among us, we are sure that this fault is not justly chargeable upon our pastor. The third charge alledges various misdemeanors of the pastor at the annual church meeting in 1856. One is that he assumed the chair without vote or invitation, (a custom which is all but universal among Congregational churches,) and when "a member present" objected, he "continued to preside." The fact is, no such objection was made, at least within the hearing of the 55 church. It is not even pretended that the " member" pressed his objection, and the meeting proceeded and closed without attempting to appoint a different moderator, or making any allusion to the subject. The other imisdemneanor was, that he gave such a ruling as moderator, that one of the members of the Prudential Comnmittee was "elected by a mere plurality vote." Why, then, did they not appeal from such ruling? Why did the church by their acquiescence therein sanction it? The clerk of the church recorded the action thas: "The following brethren were ehosen mtembers of the Prudential Corn. mittee. "David S. Dodge, "Joseph A. Sweetser, Not a hint was recorded that there was any difference in the manner of electing these gentlemen, as indeed there was none; nor is any clue given by which it can be guessed who said "' plurality" member was. Why do Mr. J. W. Camp and his associates denounce as irregular, an election which Mr. J. W. Camp, as clerk, recorded as regular? Such, then, we are informed, were the reasons which led these genitlemen to address their letter to our pastor, asking his resignation. They were-besides the alledged decline of the church-comprehensively his violeince of speech and conduct. The following are some of the terms in which they describe and characterize these improprieties: "The habit of denunciation;" 'scorn, vituperation and ridicule;" "holding up to ridicule members of his church in the pulpit;" "arbitrary and denunciatory;" "personalities, epithets, sarcasms and denunciations." The officers of the church have been " rebuffed and abused;" one of them "repeatedly and violently charged to his face with falsehood;" "want of appreciation of the common courtesies of life;" "assumption of arbitrary power;" "hierarchical despotism;" "arrogance;" "arbitrary proceedings;" "overbearing treatment;" "uncourteous and bitter mode of speech;" "violent objurgation, abusive epithets, elaborate sarcasm and iImpetuous denunciation;" "defiant manner;" "arrogant assumption of power and authority for his pulpit;" "contemptuous treatment of his people." A very grave catalogue, indeed! Seth B. Hatit, E. C. Wilcox." The pastor who is guilty of all this surely deserves to lose the confidence of his people, and to be driven ignominiously from the sacred office itself. Yet, let us lay alongside of this very formidable enumeration of his offenses the letter, for the sending of which these were the reasons: "We now suggest to you the expediency of a tender of your resignation of the pastorate. By the adoption of this course, pleasant reeolleetions 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 fron ainful memoris of the past." We confess that we cannot understand the consistency of these statements. According to the former, the ministry of our pastor has been an intolerable despotism, abounding in insults, oppressions and abuse of his people. According to the latter, it will, if now terminated, leave only pleasant recollections of Christian fellowship, and be firee from painful memories of the past. When our brethren wrote their letter to our pastor, they either had this long series of outrages in mnind, or they had not. If they had, then what did they mean by such assurances respecting the past, and by fervent payers for his "growing influence?" As well might the wounded and bleeding pilgrims in Doubting Castle promise the giant'"pleasant recollections of Christian fellowship" if he would resign his pastorate over them, and pray for a blessing on his labors upon his next victims. If they had not those oenses in mind when they wrote, then what do they mean by saying that these were their reasons for writing it If their letter was honest, what shall be said of their "reasons?" If their " reasons" were true, what shall be said of their letter? Having finished the statement of their reasons for seeking the dismissal of our pastor, these brethren subjoin some fifteen pages of miscellaneous comments and charges, criminating in various ways both the pastor and the church. They are most of them of no great importance, save as being further manifestations of the spirit and purposes of the authors, but a few of them seem to demand a brief notice. We inquire, first, why they have published these? They were 56 not among the reasons for sending the letter to Dr. Cheever, having reference to matters only which have taken place since then. They have never offered these to the church in a private way, according to the directions in Matt. xviii. to secure correction or obtain redress. Why, then, were they printed? What justification have they which would not cover any publication of accusations against their brethren, in utter violation of their covenant, and of the express injunctions of God's word? They complain (p. 34) that the pastor laid their letter before the church, instead of treating it as a private communication It needs only to be said in reply, that they had themselves made it known, by circulating it for signatures in the church until its existence was a matter of public notoriety. Also, that the pastor laid it before the church as a party to the change contemplated, who had a right to be consulted in reference to it. Is it a matter of wrong that he acted in the case frankly and openly, in the simple discharge of his duty, and was not ashamed nor afraid to throw himself in full confidence on the wisdom and affection of his church? The proceedings of the annual meeting are elaborately censured. First: Because the annual report of the Prudential Committee and the records of the last year were not read when they called for them. But the rule doesnot prescribe the order in which the business of the annual meeting shall be considered. This is a thing for the meeting itself to determine. In refusing to hear the report and records, at the moment when they called for them, the church simply declined to follow the order which these gentlemen dictated, deferring these less essential matters for the weightier business in hand, which at length, through the protracted opposition of these brethren, crowded them out of the meeting altogether. Besides, the Prudential Committee, every member of which, except one, was opposed to the pastor, (see p. 32,) hadprepared no annual evort. These same gentlemen now complain because it was not read, knowing perfectly well that they had none to read! So of the reading of the records. The clerk, Mr. J. W. Camp, was absent with the book of records, at least if they 67 58 were in the room, it was unknown to the meeting. Yet Mr. Camp and his associates now complain of the omission of that which he himself, by his absence, rendered impossible to be done. These are samples of the fairness with which the entire proceedings of the annual meeting are spoken of. In commenting on the changes made in the standing rules, they denominate the power conferred on the pastor of calling meetings of the church for business " a power altogether new and unheard of amongst Congregatiionalists." And they declare that the operation of this rule is "to secure the prestige of the pastor's opinions and wishes for or against any measure that members of the church may deem worthy of consideration!" This, surely, will be news to the great body of Congregatioital churches and ministers, among whom, as we have elsewhere remarked, the practice of this very thing is in all but universal use, as it has always been in our own church. If, in consequence of such a power exercised by the pastor, Congregationalism is "relapsing into prelacy in the Church of the Puritanis," we still have the consolation of knowing that in our journey to such bad end, we travel in very good company! We have. now finished what seemed necessary to say, to rebut the erroneous statements which have been published concerning us and our pastor. Much more, indeed, might be saidmany subordinate points have been passed unnoticed, but we have endeavored to reply to everything of importance. We have spoken kindly, though we do not claim to have spoken without feeling. We have felt deeply. Imputations so gross, wrought into an elaborate assault, and published and circulated with the utmost industry through the whole country, constitute an injury under which it were mere affectation to pretend to indifference. We appeal for our vindication from this wrong to the unbiased judgment of our fellow-Christians of every name. We appeal to all Christian ministers to frown upon this attempt, by a defeated and disappointed minority, to strike down in the midst of his usefulness a pastor, whose greatest fault is that he cannot be torn from the midst of a confiding and affectionate church. We appeal to our sister churches to give no sanction 59 to a proceeding in such utter disregard of the covenant, and of the commands of Christ, and such open contempt of the divinely given authority and independence of the church. Whose character is safe, whether of an individual or of a church, if it may be assailed with impunity by accusations such as these? We call upon the brethren who have done us and our pastor this great wrong to reconsider their act. We ask especially those among them who have lent their names to this document, not knowing its contents, and still less knowing the truth. in respect to its allegations, to reflect whether it is a statement which they wish to abide by. If not-as we think they will see it is not, if examined with prayer and with earnest desires to learn the truth-will they not do themselves the honor, and us the justice, to redress the wrong a Even if the church have erred, if our pastor has erred-and we are sure that he will be as far as ourselves from claiming immunity from human imperfection-is it any justification for such an assault upon us as this We refer this whole subject to their own consciences, as it must be submitted to a tribunal infinitely higher, where we and they and our pastor must stand together in the unveiled light of Eternal Truth. APPENDIX. NOTE A, p. 6.-SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETINGS. No allusion to any requisition having been used for calling a special business meeting can be found on the records of the church. Repeated instances occur where it is apparent that it could not have been used. The language of the record is commonly like this: "At a special meeting of the church held after the prayer meeting," or " after the lecture," &c., &c. On such occasions delegates were appointed to ecclesiastical councils, members were received and dismissed, and other important business was transacted without a hint of irregularity in the meetings, or incompetency to do any business whatever. One of these records is as follows: "A special business meeting of this church was held at the close of lecture Thursday evening, June 13." Mr. R. N. Havens' letter of resignation as a member of the Prudential Committee was presented, and a successor elected. Mr. H. is one of the gentlemen who now so strenuously urge that a special meeting not called by requisition is illegal. Did he think so then? NOTE B, p. 8.-ELECTION OF DEACON E. M. KINGSLEY. The following is the record of Deacon Kingsley's election: "On motion of Bro. Kingsley (June 15, 1852,) the following resolution was adopted, viz: " Resolved, That the election of an additional deacon (which was to have taken place at this meeting) be postponed to a special business meeting, to be held on the 2d Tuesday (12th day) of October next." "Tuesday Evening, Oct. 12, 1852. "Special business meeting held pursuant to a resolution adopted at the meeting held June 15, 1852." * * * *1 "The church then proceeded to ballot for an additional deacon, pursuant to resolutions adopted June 1st and 15th; and thereupon Bro. Ezra M. Kingsley, having received a majority of all the votes cast, was declared duly elected." 62 It is thus a matter of record that this special meeting was not held pursuant to a requisition signed by ten male members, and addressed to the clerk of the church. We do not view Dea. K.'s election as invalid in consequence, neither does he seem to have so regarded it. But let us hear the opinions of the gentlemen who now accuse us carried back and applied in such oracular phrase to that transaction. "As the informality " of this election " rests mainly on the fact of this call not having been properly made, and as the objection 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." "If, as is asserted, the Rule be so trivial as not to requite a strict compliance with its provisions, then it should have no place in the constitu tion. * * 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 civil and social relation," &c. (Narrative, pp. 5, 6.) NOTE C, p. 13.-TENURE OF THE DEACONSHIP IN THIS CHURCH. The doctrine of a limited tenure in the deaconship is not a new one in this church. At its organization this was a subject of long and earnest discussion,-some of the most active and influential members contending strenuously that the deacons should hold office but for four years. The opposite opinion, however, prevailed. The next year a committee of three was appointed on motion of Deacon Wood, to revise the rules, when the same question was discussed again, but with no different result. Again, the year following (1848) a committee of five was chosen for the same purpose, two of whom were Messrs. H. A. HIurlbut and F. E. Mather, which committee reported an amendment to the 3d Standing Rule, striking out the word " permanent," limiting the term of office to four years, and making the deacons ineligible to re-election for one year thereafter. A long debate followed upon this amendment, when its adoption was lost by a vote of Ayes 20, Noes 34. Mr. Mather, nowise discouraged by this defeat, immediately offered the following preamble and resolutions: "Whereas, there is a diversity of sentiment among orthodox Christians as to whether it is essential or expedient that deacons hold their offices and officiate as such for a limited or unlimited period of time; and "Whereas the matter has been fully discussed and considered by us; therefore, "Resolved, That it is essential and expedient that the deacons of this church, whether now in office, or hereafter to be chosen, should hold their office and officiate as such for a limited period only. "Resolved, That such deacons will promote the purity, harmony, and prosperity of this church by resigning their office at the expiration of four years from the time when they shall have been chosen respectively." This paper was put on file, and at the same meeting Deacons Wood and Lewis laid before the church their letter of resignation, as follows' "' NEW YORK, June 7, 184&. *' To THE CHURCH OF THE PURITANS "That th e church may be unembarrassed in the choice of officers at the present election, and in compliance with previous intimations by us, we do hereby resign our respective offices as deacons of this church. *k * * * * * "Your Brethren in Christ, "O. E. WOOD, "WM. E. LEWIS.11 This resignation was accepted and a new election held, when Messrs. Wood, Lewis and A. G. Crane were appointed. Mr. Crane, however, was in favor of the limited tenure, and it is recorded: "Deacon Crane stated to the meeting that he would accept the office only with the understanding that at the end of four years he would resign and give the church an opportunity either to re-elect him or to choose' another." It thus appears that from the first, a large portion of this church have contended for the limited term of the deaconship; among them, several of the gentlemen who now so strenuously denounce it as radical and uncongregational;-also, That Deacon Wood himself," that the church might be unembarrassed" in choosing, if they preferred, a new board of deacons, resigned his office; thus sanctioning, by his own act, the principle against which he now protests;-and That the church, in accepting his resignation,-and in consenting to Deacon Crane's acceptance for four years only, with the express understanding that his continuance should then depend on a new election,sanctioned the same principle, and that now they have only, in a more formal manner, recognized and adopted it as one of their standing rules. Perhaps some will ask, in view of the progress of opinion on this matter thus recorded, how it has happened if the administration of the late as deacons has been so perfect as is represented-("Letter," p. 45)-that such a change of sentiments has been wrought in the church in so brief a space of time? NOTE D, p. 14.-LIMITED TERM OF OFFICE IN OTHER CHURCHES. The Church of the Pilgrims, in Brooklyn, one of the churches in Norwich, Ct., one in New Haven County, the church in Brookline, Mass., the Mount Vernon and Winter street Churches in Boston, are some of those which have a limited term of office of the deacons. The case of the latter is very analogous to our own. Between the pastor and deacons a difference of opinion arose which came within the cognizance of the church, and the latter, in the exercise of their independent right, resolved to limit the tenure of the deaconship, thus virtually vacating the office. We never heard that the deacons felt themselves called on to protest against it, or that said church was stigmatized as "radical" and "revolutionary" for their action. It is believed that the practice of a rotary deaconship prevails among the Reformed Dutch Churches, and to a considerable extent among the Presbyterian Churches of this country. NOTE E, p. 27.-SHOULD A REQUEST THAT A PASTOR WOULD RESIGN BE ACCOMPANIED BY REASONS? A large and able Ecclesiastical Council-convened at Quincy, Mass., Oct. 5, 1857, expressed, in reference to this point, the following opinion: "If it be said that the pastor was under obligation to accede to the wish of the society for a mutual council, whether supported by reasons or not, the council deny altogether the propriety of such an affirmation. The principle which Mr. C. maintained we conceive to be eminently justifiable, that whenever a disaffected society or church, or any part of them, make a proposition to a pastor to unite in a mutual council to consider the question of his dismissal, the proposal should be sustained by clearly stated reasons. And if no reasons are presented, he is under no obligation to accede to it, or pay it any official attention. The reasons for desiring a council might be so exceedingly frivolous, or notoriously false, and grossly abusive, as would not entitle them to the least consideration or notice. And any pastor to whom such a proposal is made, can rightly claim to know what they are, that he may treat them according to their true character." 64. - 65 NOTE F., p. 45, EPISCOPACY. This allusion to the "gowns and bands" is another example of those vague and groundless, yet injurious allegations with which the letter of our brethren abounds. We know of no instance in which "our Episcopal friends" have been remarked upon at all by our pastor, or the subject of gowns and bands ever hinted at, or any controversy or denunciation in regard to Episcopalians ever undertaken. Dr. Cheever has presented and defended the features of Congregationalism as they are found in the New'Testament, and the excellence ard claims of the system growing out of those features and based on that authority; and he has rejected the hierarchical assumption that no church can be a church without the sanction and rule of a bishop. If our brethren esteem this instruction and defense of the faith and order of the Gospel, denunciatory or injurious towards other denominations, and themselves hold to the truth and scriptural propriety of three orders in the ministry how is it they can have ranked themselves as Congregaticnalists NOTE G., p. 47.-THE "MUZZLED OX SERMON." This sermon was founded on 1 Cor. ix., 9-10. Its object is thus stated: "I shall take occasion fiorni this text to inquire how he that ploweth ought to be sustained in order that he may plow in hope; and in what ways a people may, sometimes almnost unconsciously, be muzzling the mouth of the ox that treadeth out their corn, and preventing his success and their own benefit. 1. By withholding from him their prayers. 2. By not attending the prayer meetings and the lectures. 3. By the indulgence of a carping and fLult-finding spirit, instead of'the spirit of tenderness, forbearance and love. 4. By not permitting him to speak his mind freely as the light of the word of God may fall upon it. 5. By making him feel that the church and society hold him accountable for pew revenues. He must fill the house; he must draw, as the theatricals say, or he is not the light preacher. He must let all the pews on the floor of the house, no matter if some of them be in the line of so many pillars, that by no possibility the preacher can be seen in them, and others so dark that the hymn books cannot be read in them. iHe must let all the pews on the floor, and most of those in the gallery, or he can not be a smart and popu 5 66 lar man; and he must be smart and popular or his preaching will be voted unsatisfactory. If his preaching brings in $7,500 revenue from pew rents, that may be counted a tolerably satisfactory kind of preaching, so long as no extra expense calls for more revenue; but so sure as it does, if the church needs repairing, or the revenue cannot be collected, then the preacher is not the man for the place. If a hole is broken in the roof it must be stopped by sending for Apollos to fill the pulpit. The pew re venues may be sufficient this year, but they are not likely to be so for the * next, and somebody must be got who will secure them. Now, dear brethren, hearken unto me. Was ever mortal man, in his senses, settled in the ministry on such grounds? Did I ever agree that by my preaching I would bring you in seven thousand five hundred dollars annual revenue, and place this enterprise on such a level that all necessity of your ever paying something more than your ordinary pew-tax for its support would cease? Did I ever agree to meet not only the ordinary current expenses incident to any and every respectable church in this city, but to pay also by my preaching the additional incubus of fifteen hundred dollars ground rent, over and above what any other pastor is called to provide for? Tell me, moreover, brethren, did I ever enter into a covenant with any of you, when you and I were both small and poor in this enterprise; that I would work with you and for you as a partner in this concern ten or twelve years; and that when our pew rents had risen from the gradual increase of the congregation to nearly eight thousand dollars; when you on your part had amassed one or two hundred thousand, and God in his providence made it necessay to raise three or four thousand dollars folr an extra contingency, you should then button up your pockets and say,' We are not going to give anything more. It is time this concern was out of hot water, and if it cannot support itself, the difficulty must be in the pulpit. We have given enough, and if we give again this year we shall have to do it next year, and it is time that Apollos or Paul, or Gabriel were sent for, and the pews in the galleries rented, and every sitting in the house sold, and then the society would have money a plenty." I ask you, did I ever eniter into any such contract? If I ha(l done it, the stormn from God must have fallen on my head and not on the roof of the building And certainly God would not send Paul or Apollos or Gabriel to raise more money or to rent more pews for your relief after so great a degree of blessing and success as has been granted to our labors. 6 There is another way in which you may muzzle the mouth of the ox, and seriously impede and injure the enterpise, and that is by raising doubts and spreading reports and predictions against its success. If by saying that the ship is sinking you could make the rats abandon 67 her, you would do well; but the difficulty is that by such a report you pre vent the passengers from taking passage, and the merchants from sending freight, while the rats, barnacles and bilge-water, the superfluous ballast and the ground rents stick by. They are not so easily discharged; but the mischief is incalculable and sometimes irreparable, that may be accom plished by prognostications of disasters. Nothing is more injurious than a croaking disposition, and the report of anticipated failures. Predict a fail ure and you may be the cause of it. Tell me. my brethren, if an enemy professing to be your friend, injures your credit in business, goes about declaring with great apparent sympathy for you that you must inevitably fail; that your expenses run far beyond your income, and your profits cannot even support your clerk hire; tell me, if you could nail the author of such reports, would you not bring him into Court for his conduct, and would not the laws of your country award you large damag,es done to your credit, and the blow struck at your business? Apply, then, to a minister's reputation, and to the standing of a church, the same principles upon which you act in mercantile life; for just what we lhave described is the conduct we have sometimes known to have been pursued towards churches and ministers. Men go up and down whispering and backbiting, and with sad expressive sympathy tell you it is quite impossible they can hold together; the congregation is dwindling away; the young people are all dissatisfied; the best supporters of the enterprise are about leaving; twentyfive families are going off this spring, and not a soul is coming in to fill their places.. Now, my friends, it were much better if-Satan were among us as a roaring lion than in this shape of whispering and backbiting. You cannot mistake the roar of the lion, and when you hear it, you are on your guard. When the young lion roared upon Sampson, the Spir;t of the Lord came mightily upon him and he rent him as if he had been a kid. But if Samipson had been unsuspectingly walking in the meadow, or weedinr his wheat field and a silent creeping adder had stung him in the foot, lo strength nor courage would have availed him against such an enemy. Certainly I would rather meet a roaring lion any time than a whisperer and a backbiter. It is very easy for men, if they wish to do it, to raise a report of dissatisfaction. The method is laid in Psalms. "Report say they, and we will report it"-it only needs reverberation. The whisper you set a goingr will come back to you from a hundred quarters; and then you can say that you have heard, much to your grief and sorrow, from many directions, the story which you yourself set in motion. The manufacture of opinion in this way is sometimes very convenient, but also sometimes it can be traced to 68 its source and exposed in its littleness. If you stand in a proper position among the Alps, and give a boy sixpence, he will touch off a cannon for you in such style that a prolonged and reiterated war of reverberations shall come back to you from the mountains, as if all the artillery in the world had been fired off against you. And a stranger ent;irely unacquainted with the facts might be very much agitated, supposing that really an im mense park of cannon must have been discharged near him, when coming to find out, all the noise proceeded from one little old rusty gun that al most burst itself in the effort. There are occasions when the manifestations of uneasiness and discontent are inevitable. Some consider the pew rents inordinately high, but it is difficult to find a church where they are lower; and indeed cheap preaching in a commnunity able to pay for it is very poor economy. Some again find fault if the pastor writes books; but I can tell you, dear brethren, from experience, that the making of books is not necessarily the making of money, especially if the avails be given away. But if any of you will take the trouble to buy or borrow my publications, you will find them composed of labors performed in your service. My volumes are mostly my own sermons preached to a larger audience both in England and America than they could possibly have within these walls. You will perceive this )y examining the "Powers of the World toCome," the "Windings of the River, &c." the' Voices of Nature," the "Bible in Common Schools," and some other volumes. Now, dear brethren, pardon I beseech you my plainness of speech, for I have been compelled to it. It is the first time in my life that I have ever found myself driven to preach on such subjects; but I am sure you will not count me your en,emy because I tell you the truth. You cannot deem it strange if an enteFriise in which I have been engaged firom the outset should be dearer to me than to those who have more recently come into it. It is dear to me, very dear, and you all are dear to my heart: how can it be otherwise? Many of the children of your households have been gathered into this Fold of Christ under my ministry. Of some of you I can say, "The seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." Of course I love you-how could it be otherwise? And God giving me grace, I would very cheerfully spend and be spent for you, though the more I love you the less I be loved. But I do not doubt your love any more than I do my own, having confidence in you that my joy is the joy of you all. Alid it is out of much affliction antid anguish of heart that I have to speak, and in Paul's words ask you to bear with me in my foliy, and indeed bear with me. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy, knowing hlow well you have labored firom the outset, how freely, how unitedly, how generously, how patiently towards I mtne. And I know that neither in you nor in me can there have been that sudden change, which now, in some quarters, has been reported. I say of you, my brethren, what I would the Lord Jesus may be saying of us all, " I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and patience, and works; and the last more than the first." There is not a single congregation in these cities that has done more nobly than you, all things considered; perhaps not one that has done so much. Now, then, let us hold fast the beginning of our confidence, steadfast unto the end, and by no means get tired of giving and laboring just when God is granting us greater ability and better openings than ever. Let us still consider to provoke not unto wrath, but unto good works. Cast not away, therefore, your confidence which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience that after ye have done the will of God ye might receive the promises. My beloved hearers, I am to stand with you at God's Bar of Judgment. Nor man nor human statutes, but God and God's Word is to be judge between you and me at that day. If I am faithful to Him and to His word, then I shall be faithful to you, to your children, to my country. But if I am unfaithful to Him and to His word, then I not only peril your salvation but my own. The word that I have spoken to you, the same shall judge you in that day. I appeal to you that I have preached Christ, and Him crucified. I have endeavored to blend the law and the gospel, and to give each his portion in due season. When I have preached the law, I have aimed to preach it as our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ. When I have preached the gospel, I have endeavored to preach it as my Lord and SaviouP preached it, to the contrite and broken-hearted. I have preached the gospel as the end of the law, and the law for the sake of the gospel. And I say with Paul, "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family of Heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God." NOTE H., 48.-CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DR. CHEEVER AND MR. The Thanksgiving Sermon on occasion of which Mr. left the Church was on the care of the poor, from the text in Proverbs, "The king that righteously judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established in righteousness." At the beginning of the sermon Dr. Cheever illustrated the 69 subject, and prepared for its full and practical consideration by inquiring from the Scriptures what, in God's view, was a righteous care of the poor, and what, on the contrary, was that oppressive treatment of them, which had brought down his wrath upon the Jews, and would again on any other nation guilty of the like oppression. He instanced the attempt of the Jews, as recorded in the 34th chapter of the prophecy of Jeremiah, to make slaves of their servants, compelling them to serve as chattels and without hire, and the consequent immediate wrath of God in the destruction of the nation, and remarked that slavery was itself one of the greatest causes of pauperism wherever it has been permitted to prevail. This illustration of the subject occupied but a few moments of the discourse, yet at the very beginning of,sit Mr. and one or two other persons left the church. The following correspondence thereupon ensued: "NEw YORK, Nov. 30th, 1855. REV. GEO. B. CHEEVER, D.D.: DR. SIR,-Will you be so kind as to inform me whether the remarks made by you soon after my leaving the church yesterday, and in which the epithet "' craven spirit" was introduced, were a part of your written sermon; and if not, whether those remarks were intended to apply to me, personally? Your reply, at your earliest convenience, will much oblige, Yours, very respectfully, "NEW YORK, Dec. 3, 1855. DR. SIR,-Your note dated Nov. 30th, is this day received. In answer to your inquiry I have simply to say, that my sermon was intended for the whole congregation. The epithet "craven spirit" was not used in it, and of course, could not be applied to any individual. That is not the style in which I am accustomed to addres my people. The following are the remarks which occurred "soon after your leaving," and they were written: "Now, although some may wish that all reference to such a subject as that of slavery could be avoided on every such occasion as this, (and would to God there were no such thing as slavery, so that there never need be any occasion to mention it?) yet all must be compelled to acknowledge that the view of that subject which we find in God's word, is God's own view in regard to it, and is put there for His creatures' guidance; and it is neither wise nor safe for us to hide ourselves from God's judgment on that or any other subject; and after all our circuitous political turnings and windings we shall have to present ourselves at the bar of God's word. It 70 )Y must come to that, for God is the Judge, and promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south; but God is the Judge, he putteth down one, and setteth up another; and although this is a sore spot for us and the whole region of the sore very tender to the touch and easily irritated, yet I will not think so poorly of a congregation in the Churchof the Puritans as to deem an apology necessary for presenting any of God's messages, historical or preceptive. On the contrary, you love to hear God's whole word freely and boldly spoken, and for this cause also, we may with Paul, thank God without ceasing, because ye receive his word, not as the word of men, but of God, which effectually also worketh in you that believe." Yours, very respectfully, GEORGE B. CnEEVER." " N. Y., Dec. 5th, 1855. REV. GEO. B. CIIEEVER: Dear Sir,-Your favor of 3d instant was handed to me last evening. Had it appeared to me an ingenuous reply to my simple inquiries, I should have dropped the subject there; but I do not see how I can now do so, and not subject myself to the epithet of a "mean and cringing spirit." Immediately after my last note was despatched to you, I discovered that I had made a slight mistake in quoting the words used by you on the occasion referred to, but as the difference was merely in form, and not at all in spirit, I did not deem it of sufficient importance to trouble you with a corrected note, and I certainly did not suppose that you would avail yourself of that slight verbal error to evade my question. I am still more surprised that you should make use of the occasion to add to the injury you had already apparently intended to inflict upon my better feelings. You will recollect that ot0 a former similar occasion I conceded to you the riyht to preach abolitionism, or any other "ism," whenever you pleased, -but at the same time I informed you that I should also claim the same right to leave the church whenever any such dogmatical doctrines were thrust upon me. In accordance with this implied agreement, when I found my jud eient trampled upon and my better feelings wounded, I exercised the prerogatives of a man, and quietly left the house to avoid losing my respect for my p)astor. Was that the manifestation of a "mean and cringing spirit?" Would not the term better apply to those whose temerity prevented their showing their deep-felt displeasure; and to him who in the absence of a husband and father could improve such an opportunity to cast odium upon him, and thus lacerate the feelings of an unoffending and helpless wife and children who were too timid to save themselves by running I Ill Had I consulted my choice and gone to a church where I had been invited, and where I knew a political sermon was not to be preached, it would have been better; but I was restrained from that course solely from a desire to please my pastor by my presence on that occasion. Had my right to leave the church without rebuke been granted me, this matter would have rested there; or had the circumstance occurred on the Sabbath, I should not have left the church. Under these circumstances, it seems to me unkind, to use the mildest term, that I should thus forcibly be driven firom a church which I have tried to do so much for, and for whose interests I may certainly claim to have made some sacrifices. The quotation firom your sermon, with which you voluntarily, (not to say obtrusively), favored me in your last note, was, apparently intended by you to justify your course and to condemn mine. It seems strange that a man of so much learnling and acknowledged talent, could concoct so weak an algument, or rather that he should offer such simple declamation as an argument. Is it anything but begging the whole question? Swedenborgians, Millerites, Universalists, Spiritualists, with the authors and advocates of all similar "isms," assume to have their support from the same source, and make their appeals in a similar manner, and for aught the masses see, with as much force and propriety While the wisest and best men in all ages and in all countries have differed upon the question of the sin of slavery and its remedy-it seems to be but little less than arrogance for any man to set himself up as the interpreter of God's Holy Word on that exciting subject. I claim to be as great an enemy to slavery, and as good a friend to the poor slave as you, or any other man, and I believe I have done quite as much to abolish the one, and to liberate the other, as you have done; but because my judgment has led me to pursue a different course, must I therefore be denounced? I have not so learned Christ, or his precious Gospel. I was early taught, and I have always desired to exercise a deep and sincere respect for the sacred office of the ministry; but I fancy I have sometimes seen the incumbent and the office so far separated, as to encourage, if not to justify a suspension, of this principle of veneration; and if anything in this communication should seem wanting in respect to the office, I beg you will excuse it on the hypothesis above suggested. I am quite aware that this letter may bring down upon me the powerful and withering invectives of both your pen and tongue-but my wife and children are dear to me-so are my church relations. To suiffer the best affections of the one to be trampled upon, and the other ruthlessly broken up without one word of justification or defense, would justly subject me to 2 73 the imputation of being that "mean and cringing spirit" which I also "utterly despise," and the application of which term to me is the occasion of this unwelcome correspondence; and desiring and intending that this shall end it, I remain, very respectfully, yours, &c., - The closing paragraph of this letter peremptorily forbidding a reply, necessarily terminated the correspondence. Stortly after Mr. took a dismissal for himself and family firom the church. NOTE I., p. 50. The documents relating to this topic may serve as answers to four inquiries. 1. Did Dr. Cheever select the sermon preached by Rev. L. H. Angier in the Church of the Puritans? LETTER OF Mr. ANGIER. CONCORD, Mass., October 16, 1857. "My dear Brother,-This morning's mail brought your note of the 12th inst. I hasten to reply and say, that you had no more agency in selecting for me the sermon which I preached for you a year ago than the man in the moon. '" Our friend, Mr. Wilcox, with whom I was stopping, had intimated to me Friday evening that you might wish me to preach for you Sabbath morning; said he had invited you to tea at his house Saturday evening You called between 6 and 7 o'clock, I should think. "Said you would not stop to tea, as you had an engagement for the evening. You asked me to preach for you. Said it would be an accommodation, as you were to preach on a special subject in the evening. "The sermon I preached for you was fresh in my memory, being the last one I had preached to my own people, and I thought as suitable for you as anything I had with me. I recollect mentioning the text, thinking you might wish to select the hymns with some reference to it; but gave no further hint as to the nature of the discourse. "We had no further conversation upon the subject. Your call I think did not exceed ten minutes. -I gave Mr. Wilcox last spring a similar statement of this matter, and found that it accorded with his recollection of the interview. "Most truly yours, "L. H. ANGIER. "Rev. Dr. CHEEVER, New York." 74 2. Did Deacon Wood report that Dr. Cheever selected said sermon, and selected it to secure a castigation of a portion of his people? LETTER OF MR. R. P. WATERS TO DEACON O. E. WOOD. "CHERRY HILL, (near Salem,) May 5, 1857. "My dear Mr. WOOD: Yours of the 30th ult. was duly received. Engagements away from home Have prevented an earlier reply. "It will be quite impossible for me to state "precisely" what you said respecting Rev. Mr. Angier's sermon, for the subject has not passed my mind for months; but the impression I received from your statement is still vivid as ever, both as respects Mr. Angier and Dr. Cheever. "You gave me to understand that Mr. Angier had preached a sermon in Dr. Cheever's pulpit so strikingly applicable to the then existing state of feeling in the Church of the Puritans, that by somebody's agency, besides Mr. A.'s, it must have been prepared and intended for your church. You thought it exceedingly impolitic, notwithstanding its applicability, and you stated that.Dr. Cheever selected the sermon from several others which Mr. Angier had with him. You spoke of it as indicating, on the part of Dr. C., a wrong state offeeling towards those members of the church who differed from him on the great questions which agitated the public mind. * * "I felt it my duty to communicate to Dr. C., either that day or the day following, what I had learned from you, which was the last time, I believe, that anything on this subject has passed between us. He will remember far better than myself what I said to him, for he has a very tenacious memnory. "Very truly yours, "RICoiARD P. WATERS." 3. Did Dr. Cheever charge Deacon Wood with falsehood on communion day? STATEMENT OF MR. S. B. HUNT. "The month of May, 1857, Communion Sabbath. After morning service Dr. Cheever asked me to come forward to the pulpit stairs, Mr. E. C. Wilcox standing there; I went. Dr. C., addressing Mr. Wilcox, said, he had been sooften and so shamefully misrepresented that he must insist on having a third party present. "Mr. Wilcox showed and then read a part or all, of a note he had received from Mr. Oliver E. Wood, asking him to call on Dr. Cheever and get an answer before communion, that afternoon. The purport of the note was to demand of Dr. C. what it was that he charged Deacon Wood with in respect to the sermon of Rev. Mr. Angier, whether he meant to 75 charge him with falsehood. He (Mr. Wilcox) asked what answer he should take back to Mr. Wood. Dr. Cheever then requested Mr. Wilcox to repeat in my hearing what he had said to Mr. Wood about Mr. A.'s preaching. "Mr. Wilcox replied, that' Dr. C. called at his house Saturday evening, when Mr. A. was there, but staid only a few moments; that he (Mr. Wilcox) was present all the while; that Dr. C. merely invited Mr. A. to preach, but selected no sermon for him, neither examined any; but that Mr. Angier told him the text of one which he had preached to his own people a fortnight before, and said he thought of preaching that; but Dr. C. left Mr. A. to preach whatever he pleased.' "I asked Mr. Wilcox if he had informed Deacon Wood of these facts, and he replied that he had? Dr. Cheever then answered that Mr. Wood had left him no alternative but to say that if he persisted in these statements about his having selected the sermon Mr. A. preached, after knowing the facts, he was stating a falsehood; although he (Dr. C.) did not charge him with deliberate falsehood, yet the statement was a falsehood, and Deacon Wood was the author of it. "SETH B. HUNT. "Bennington, October 15, 1857 " 4. Did Dr. Cheever "deliberately and violently, again and again," charge Deacon Wood with falsehood at his own house, when they had met with other brethren to try to settle this unpleasant matter? STATEMENT OF Mr. CHARLES ABERNETHY. "I hereby certify that on the evening when Deacon Wood, Mr. E. C. Wilcox and myself, met Dr. Cheever at the house of the latter, the following paper was then and there drawn up by myself as embodying the respective statements of Dr. Cheever and Deacon Wood, and was mutually assented to by them, as such, in our presence. 'Mr. Wood says he did misrepresent the language that was used by Mr. Wilcox in telling Mr. Waters that Dr. Cheever selected from several sermons the one preached to his people. Dr. Cheever says the representation was absolutely false; not that he intended to say that Deacon Wood meant to tell a deliberate falsehood.' "I also certify, that during the conversation of that evening Dr. Cheever uniformly expressed the qualification, that though the report of Deacon Wood to Mr. Waters was false, yet he did not intend to charge him with intentional untruth. "CHARLES ABERNETHY. "NEW YORK, November, 1857." 76 It is one of the saddest facts pertaining to this affair that Deacon Wood seems still inclined to persist in said erroneous report respecting the selection of the offensive sermon; a report which every pastor will feel assails Dr. Cheever in a very tender point of professional honor. In a published note of Novepnber 20th, after referring to the testimony of Mr. Angier and Mr. Wilcox, as here given, he says: "It will require many'documents', to convince the public that Dr. C. had no agency in guiding the mind of Mr. A. to preach the sermon in the Church of the Puritans." What, we are constrained to ask, does Deacon W. mean by this sneer?' Even in this very note he concedes that he did "unintentionally" misrepresent the facts in the case. Yet instead of a manly, Christian acknowledgement of the error, and an effort to retrieve the injustice he had done his pastor, he adds with evident exultation, "it will require many 'documents' to convince the public." The most explicit and solemn assertions of the parties to the transaction, will, in his opinion, weigh nothing against his acknowledged misrepresentation. Why not then add to those assertions his own express correction of it? Why, instead of a regret that the error should prevail, or an attempt to rectify it, such apparent delight in its continuance? Was the misrepresentation then, the reader may ask, after all, "uninintentional?" If it was, originally, is it now? NOTE.-Since the preceding sheets were printed a request has been received from Professor Crosby that it may be stated that his letter on p. 54 was written before Dr. C.'s visit to the Bible Class. We cheerfully comply with the request; indeed the fact appears on the very face of the letter. The reader, however, will observe that Professor Crosby's intention to remove his connection with the church was formed and announced at the date of the letter;-of course, that the affair of the Bible Class had nothing to do with that determination.