The Portland daily press., 1865-01-24
roolesiaatioal OOunOils-A PROTEST..

Ecclesiastical Oouncils-A Protest.
Mr.. Eprrop.--Wni you permit me through
the medium of the Press, word Of protest
against the arbitrary and unjustifaole action
.ofthe Bethel Council, By which was virtual
~ spelled from my seat in that bodyP Were
q merely personal matter 1 would not pre-
sumo to tax either your patience, your paper
or the patient public; but involving as 1t does
principles of equity, charity, and independent
cy In ecclesiastical relations, / feel that there
is no choice for me but in pubic response
went to that Council by invitation OIL the
Bethel Church. claimed the same right to
a seat that auy other member could claim;
aor was my right denied---although it was at
irst questioned on the ground OF my being an
acting Pastor-and yet resolution was adop-
ed. ejecting me from my seat, in the face OF
ny admitted right to hold it. i..aeq a q q
II was argued at the time that the Council
had no right to go behind the action Of the
several churches they represented. who, by the
very act of accepting the invitations of the
letters missive pledged their delegates to fra
ternal action, with the Pastor Of the Third
Parish Church, 10 the Council. Mr.. Walker,
in urging the resolution of expulsion, insisted
chat "lhe Church had not acted on their will
Aingness to sit with Mr.. Walton" and in ar
suing this point he made several statements
which propose to notice. Mg
E1-"The invitation sent to them"-S ate st.
Church "said onl, TIA, the Tn r Parish Chu, oh
vas TO be invited" So the letter to us stated
My that the State st, Church was to be in
slted, yet I never doubted for moment but
that Mr.. Walker was included in the invita-
ion; and Mr.. Fiske of Bath, as is manifest
rom the letter read before the Council, very
naturally supposed that would be present.
| dad not Mr. Walker the same reason for sup
posing would be present as Mr.. Fiske had?
Fit is replied however-"as it was public
" known that the Third Church had no
Pastor, the Churches had no certain ground
or supposing Mr.. Walton would be present"
| Indeed. The Third Church has no PGstori
| And this statement is from Congregational
minister. had supposed that all ministers
residing with, and preaching stately to
Church were regarded as Pastors, according
TO Scriptural and Congregational usages.-
| How comes 1t then that the Third Parish
| Church has no Pastor? Who has decided
the question of my pastoral relationship
Has the worthy Pastor Of the State Street
Church decided it? l shall hardly consent to
be excluded from my own pulpit by any pa
| per resolutions which he or Others might see
| e. to illuminate against me. Has the public
decided the matter? The public has confess
eddy no Jurisdiction in the premise. Did the
July Council settle the question: And must
an ordained minister be installed by Coun
Gil before he can be a Pastor? Verify: if this
be so, had not the Congregational Churches
bstter call their Councils by name what they
are oirtudlty Presbyteries? s-~
3.-"The Churches had no certain grounds
| TO- supposing that Mr. Walton would be pres
| ent" But Mr.. Walker kneW, for he stated
| in the Council-Monday-tha he had heard of
my purposed presence three days beiore.--
Hence If he supposed that his Church had not
acted intelIigently in the matter, there was
| still time for him to have brought the subject
before his people on the previous Sabbath, for
renewed action. II, as he claims, his Church
acted on the supposlion thatI was not ex-
| pected to be present, and yet himself knew
hat / did expect to be there, he should in all
1 fairness have notified his Church of the fact,
and SO have given it the opportunity of de-
! clining the invitation, if it saw fit to do SO.
Why did he not do this? Was my brother
afraid his people would manifest more liber-
| 1. spirit than their Pastor? or was he already
fully purposed in the endeavor to publicly hui
| initiate one for whom he processes to entertain
| the kindliest feeling? GET FF0ffati WIS
4-"Indeed they had very considerable rea-
son, in the result OF the Council of July-sast.
to suppose he ~ would not be present." In
| reply-I had no conclusive reason to suppose
that the Church would sustain the action OF
said Council; but on the other hand, having
heard nothing to the contrary, had reason to
believe that the several Churches invited to
the Bethel Council, had acted on the invita-
ion with the understanding that the Third
Church and its Pastor were also invited, and
that, having thus acted and accepted the invita-
ion they thereby expressed their willingness to
it in Council with me. desired to test this
matter. Was there any lack of Christian pro-
prlety In my doing 80, under the circumstan-
cesP Ifeel quite sure, at least, that | had not
iato the fellowship of ministerial brethren
who had already with, to say the least, but
| little of the grace of propriety, refused me
such fellowship. KS.
! But granted that the Churches had not act
ed on the question of their willingness to sit
in Council with me; where did the Council
| get the authority or right to purge itself?
From the Churches? Mr.. Walker says the
| Churches did notac on this question at all
aud even If they hal, they could not have
delegated any such authority or right, for the
| action OF all such councils is limited by the
"letters missive." Did the Council get its
authority to expel me from the 'letters mis-
sive" which invited me to be present, and by
hat invitation virtually endorsed me as a
Minister worthy to be fellowshiped in the
CouncilP Moreover the letter specified what
The Council was expected to do, viz: "to ex-
anime, and, il thought expedient, to ordain
Nr. Hartshorn," and not to question or judge
Of the qualifications of any of its members to
their seat in the Council. Did the Bethel
Council get the authority or right to expel
ne from the previous Council of July? Even
we're it in accordance with Congregational
SIN for one Council to delegate authority to an
other, it would still be questionable whether a
Council which declines to give officially the
specific grounds of its own decision, has
light to claim for itself much consideration
rom a tolerant and enlightened Christian
community, much less from an intelligent and
qlally independent Council; and yet this is
he ground on which the resolution of exnul-