T
 
 
 ARGUMENT 
 
 
 HON. EMORY WASHBURN, 
 
 BEFORE AN 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL COUNCIL, 
 
 CONVENED IN HOLLIS STREET MEETING HOUSE, JULY, IW1 : WITH THE CHARGES PREFERRED 
 BY THE PROPRIETORS OF SAID MEETING HOUSE AGAINST THE 
 
 REV. JOHN PIERPONT, 
 
 ,AND THE 
 
 RESULT OF SAID COUNCIL. 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 I'HIVIT.li MY SAMUEL N. DICKINSON, NO. 53 WASHIVCTi i\ STi:i I r 
 
 1841.
 
 GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT 
 
 PREFERRED AGAINST THE REV. JOHN PIERPONT, BY THE PARISH CAL- 
 LED THE PROPRIETORS OF THE HOLLIS-STREET MEETING HOUSE, 
 TO BE SUBMITTED TO A MUTUAL ECCLESIASTICAL COUNCIL, AS 
 REASONS FOR DISSOLVING HIS CONNEXION WITH SAID PARISH. 
 
 First, That the Rev. Mr. Pierpont has ceased to be a useful 
 minister of said Parish, and has alienated the affections and lost 
 the respect of a large portion of his people, by reason of his atten- 
 tion having been diverted from the duties of his sacred calling to 
 secular pursuits and popular controversies. 
 
 Under this article of complaint, evidence will be offered of Mr. 
 Pierpont's too great devotion of his time to mechanical contriv- 
 ances, and to the compiling of school-books, and other writings for 
 pecuniary profit. Of his too great devotion to the supposed sci- 
 ence of phrenology, by attending meetings of phrenological socie- 
 ties and lectures, and lecturing himself upon the subject in differ- 
 ent places. Of his too busy interference with questions of legis- 
 lation on the subject of prohibiting the sale of ardent spirits ; of 
 his too busy interference with questions of legislation on the sub- 
 ject of imprisonment for debt ; of his too busy interference with 
 the popular controversy on the subject of the abolition of slavery. 
 
 Second, That the Rev. John Pierpont has alienated the affec- 
 tions and lost the respect of a large portion of his people by his 
 unkind and excited manner of preaching on the subjects of the
 
 manufacture and sale of ardent spirits, imprisonment for debt, 
 abolition of slavery, and other popular controversies. 
 
 Third, That after a difference had arisen between the Rev. 
 John Pierpont and many of his parishioners upon some of the sub- 
 jects above mentioned, he has not pursued a kind or conciliatory 
 course, but on the contrary has continued and conducted the con- 
 troversy with his said parishioners, in a harsh, contemptuous, vin- 
 dictive and unchristian spirit, by which the minds and affections 
 of a large portion of his Parish are justly alienated from their min- 
 ister. 
 
 Under this ground of complaint evidence will be offered of the 
 conduct of Mr. Pierpont towards individuals of his Parish, of his 
 remarks in the pulpit and elsewhere, and of his published letters 
 to committees or individuals of his Parish. 
 
 Fourth, That the Rev. John Pierpont has in his published let- 
 ters to committees or individuals of his Parish respecting the said 
 controversy, been guilty of great levity, indecorum, and want of 
 reverence for the holy Scriptures, and his own sacred calling, by 
 which he has justly lost the respect and confidence of a great por- 
 tion of his parish and of the public, and brought a scandal upon 
 his office as a Christian minister. 
 
 Fifth, That the Rev. John Pierpont has in his pulpit and else- 
 where in public, unnecessarily made indelicate statements and 
 allusions, by which his audiences, and more especially the female 
 portion thereof, have been mortified and disgusted, and the confi- 
 dence of a large portion of his Parish and of the public in the 
 purity of his mind and motives been impaired, and his usefulness 
 greatly diminished.
 
 Under this ground of complaint, evidence will be offered of Mr. 
 Pierpont's having spoken in his pulpit without any necessity or 
 sufficient excuse of the indecent practices of foreign countries, and 
 of his having unnecessarily and indelicately alluded to certain 
 supposed phrenological organs, in one or more lectures delivered 
 by him before a mixed audience of males and females. 
 
 Sixth, That the Rev. John Pierpont has in his secular dealings 
 been wanting in that scrupulous integrity which is necessary to 
 the respectability and usefulness of a Christian minister. 
 
 Under this ground of complaint, evidence will be offered of his 
 breach of engagement, in the following particulars, viz : 
 
 Pledging to another the copy-right of a book, which he had 
 engaged with Mr. Wm. B. Fowle not to dispose of, without first 
 offering it to him, not having first offered the same to said Fowle. 
 
 Wholly neglecting and omitting (without any justifiable excuse) 
 to furnish Mr. W. W. Clapp, one of his parishioners, with letters 
 from him while in Europe, for publication in the Evening Gazette, 
 he having entered into a written agreement so to do, and having 
 received from said Clapp and negotiated his acceptances for two 
 hundred and fifty dollars, as the consideration for writing said 
 letters. 
 
 Communicating and suffering to be made public, and to be pub- 
 licly sold, a newly-invented steel hone, which Dr. Bemis, the 
 inventor, had intrusted to him for his private use, upon his under- 
 taking that he would not communicate or make known the same. 
 
 Claiming as his own, or wilfully permitting the invention of 
 said hone to be publicly attributed to him without contradiction, 
 he well knowing that the same was not invented by himself, but 
 by said Bemis. 
 
 2
 
 VI 
 
 Seventh, That the Rev. John Pierpont has been wanting in that 
 scrupulous regard for truth which should distinguish a Christian 
 
 minister. 
 Under this ground of complaint, evidence will be offered of Mr. 
 
 Pierpont's having denied expressions and remarks made by him in 
 his sermons, and upon other occasions and of his having denied 
 the writing of a certain Theatrical Prologue or other compositions 
 written by him. 
 
 Eighth, That the conduct of the Rev. John Pierpont has not 
 been such in his general demeanor as to promote and secure peace 
 and harmony in his Parish, but on the contrary has been such as 
 to foment divisions and dissatisfactions among them, which can 
 only be allayed by a dissolution of the connexion between him and 
 the Parish. 
 
 Ninth, That the Rev. John Pierpont has in his preaching and 
 upon other occasions manifested a want of that decorum, gravity, 
 gentleness and discretion, both in matter and in manner, which 
 are essential to the usefulness and respectability of a Christian 
 minister, 
 
 (Signed.) JOSHUA CRANE, 
 
 JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 
 DANIEL WELD, 
 RICHARDS CHILD, 
 WM. W. CLAPP, 
 TIM. TILESTON, 
 WARREN WHITE, 
 RUEL BAKER, 
 
 Committee 
 
 of 
 
 Hollis- Street 
 Society.
 
 DEFENCE. 
 
 MR. MODERATOR AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COUNCIL : 
 
 I CANNOT but congratulate you 
 
 that this protracted examination is drawing to a close. 
 Nothing now remains but to sum up the evidence upon 
 the one side and the other, before the cause will be 
 submitted to you for your final determination. 
 
 But in doing this in behalf of my friend, the respon- 
 dent, I feel, for many reasons, no ordinary degree of 
 embarrassment. I stand in the place of another who 
 addressed you in an earlier stage of these proceed- 
 ings, and whose distinguished ability you yourselves 
 have witnessed. Not only so, but I stand opposed to 
 two gentlemen whose learning and power have justly 
 raised them to the eminent rank they sustain at one of 
 the first bars in the country. 
 
 I stand, too, for the first time before such a tribunal 
 as I am now called on to address, and am alike inexpe- 
 rienced in what is due to the body before which I ap- 
 pear, or the cause which has been intrusted to me.
 
 8 
 
 I see before me a tribunal venerable by historical 
 association, which has survived the separation of 
 civil and ecclesiastical power which once prevailed 
 here, not so much by the aid of the law, as by the force 
 of its own moral strength ; and I cannot but reflect how 
 much the future maintenance of our churches and re- 
 ligious institutions depends upon the integrity and the 
 independence of such tribunals as has here convened. 
 
 I cannot overlook the character of the parties before 
 you, nor the nature of the charges which you have been 
 called upon to investigate. On the one side are men 
 of wealth and powerful alliance, moving in an elevated 
 rank in life, and commanding a wide circle of influ- 
 ence around them. On the other, a clergyman long 
 and widely known at home and abroad for his literary 
 and religious character. And not only he, but in his 
 fate are involved the wishes, and hopes, and interests of 
 a large body of worshippers, who look to him as their 
 spiritual guide and teacher. 
 
 The charges, moreover, upon which you are to pass, 
 involve the moral and religious character of a minister 
 of the gospel, who for more than twenty years has bro- 
 ken at this altar the Bread of Life, and who is by your 
 decision to be restored to his flock, or cut off with cen- 
 sure and disgrace. 
 
 If, then, in view of all these, I enter upon the duty 
 before me with misgiving and distrust, you will not as- 
 cribe it to any apprehension I may have of the justice 
 of my cause, the integrity or purity of the tribunal, or 
 the final issue to which this Council and the world may
 
 come upon the subject, but to the fear I feel that I may 
 not be able to present this cause in all its true lights 
 and bearings, or may fail to do justice to one who in 
 selecting me as his advocate, has suffered his feelings 
 
 *' * O 
 
 as a friend to outweigh his judgment as a party. 
 
 Before entering upon the examination of the evi- 
 dence, I wish to express the sense of acknowledgment 
 I feel in behalf of my friend, for the manner in which, 
 though called as an ex-parte Council originally, you 
 have generously proffered your services in adjusting the 
 difficulties existing between these parties, and for the 
 patience, faithfulness, candor and impartiality with 
 which you have performed the irksome and unwelcome 
 duties which have thus devolved upon you. 
 
 Attempts have been made by gathering up and re- 
 peating here expressions of the respondent in regard to 
 the restraints under which his brethren were placed in 
 their pulpits, to excite prejudices in the minds of the 
 Council for I cannot see why else the evidence was 
 introduced. But I have no fear that any unguarded 
 expression of that kind, uttered in the ardor of discus- 
 sion, though carefully treasured up and now brought 
 forward by witnesses, will influence the judgment of a 
 single member of this Board ; for with men of honora- 
 ble minds, personal feelings will never be suffered to 
 come in conflict with their duty or their self-respect. 
 
 I have never for a moment suffered myself to doubt 
 that, if from any cause, feelings other than perfect kind- 
 ness ever existed in the minds of any of the Council 
 towards either party, they would be laid aside in judg-
 
 10 
 
 ing of the merits of this case, and that the great pur- 
 poses of truth and justice would alone be regarded. 
 
 In that confidence I have gone on, and when the pub- 
 lic come to review, as certainly they will, the judgment 
 of this body, I cannot doubt that their result will show 
 that this confidence has not been misplaced. 
 
 In pursuing the examination before you, I propose 
 to inquire, 1st, What powers this Council, as an investi- 
 gating tribunal, possess, and of what charges they may 
 take cognizance ; 2d, What the charges are to which 
 the respondent is called to answer, and how far, if at 
 all, these have been sustained by evidence ; and 3d, 
 What the duty of the Council is in view of the whole 
 case before them. 
 
 By referring to the various decisions of our Courts, 
 in which the powers and duties of ecclesiastical coun- 
 cils have been under consideration, it will be found that 
 the matters cognizable by such bodies, when properly 
 constituted, are of two classes, viz : such as work a for- 
 feiture of office by a minister, and such as authorize 
 a council to interpose between the parties by the way 
 of advice. 
 
 Indeed, no council can dissolve the connexion be- 
 tween a people and their pastor. The effect of their 
 result is this : If they find him guilty of such offences 
 as would justify such a dissolution, their finding will be 
 taken as true, and the civil courts will give effect to it 
 by releasing the parish from any further obligation to 
 support such minister. To liken these proceedings to 
 those in civil courts, the " result " of a mutual ecclesi-
 
 11 
 
 astical council is to be regarded like the verdict of a 
 jury, upon which the court enter up a judgment, which 
 is binding upon the parties. 
 
 In the first class of these offences, viz. such as work 
 a forfeiture of the ministerial relation, are embraced, 
 an essential change of doctrine, a wilful neglect of 
 duty, and immoral or criminal conduct, such as habit- 
 ual intemperance, lying, unchaste and immodest be- 
 havior. In the second of these classes, are included 
 imprudence, folly, censoriousness, a spirit of persecu- 
 tion, and the like. These, though enumerated by the 
 court, are rather, however, put by the way of illustra- 
 tion, than as limiting and defining the precise offences 
 which a council may consider. 
 
 It has been much insisted upon by the complainants, 
 during this trial, that regard is only to be had to the 
 rights of the corporation, made up of the proprietors of 
 pews, and that none other than those who hold title- 
 deeds to the seats which you now occupy, have a right 
 to be considered when the Council come to make up 
 their result. 
 
 If such a narrow, technical rule is to be applied for 
 a moment, it must be only in regard to the first class 
 of offences above enumerated, for, as the pew-owners 
 lay their claims upon the ground that they only are 
 responsible to pay the salary of the clergyman, they 
 can have little to do with what does not go to release 
 them from this liability. Whereas, the second class of 
 offences, as well as the first, affect the feelings and rights 
 of every worshipper here, whether he owns the pew 
 that he occupies, or holds it as the tenant of another.
 
 12 
 
 Both classes of offences have been charged against 
 the respondent, and consequently the Council are 
 bound, if they regard the general rules of law as their 
 guide, to consider the bearing which their result must 
 have upon the great body of the worshippers here, as 
 well as upon those who can produce parchment evi- 
 dence of their interest in the question. 
 
 The parties, however, to this controversy, did not 
 choose to leave to mere legal implication, of what this 
 Council should take cognizance. They have confined 
 themselves and the Council to the " grounds of com- 
 plaint " of the 27th July, 1840, " as reasons for dissolv- 
 ing " the connexion of Mr. Pierpont with his parish. 
 This agreement, it will be remembered, was framed after 
 much discussion, and many impediments in the way of 
 organizing a council had been removed by its adop- 
 tion. And by it, both parties must have understood, 
 the Council are to be governed. 
 
 The question, therefore, as I understand it, is not 
 whether you shall subject Mr. Pierpont to censure or 
 advice, still suffering him to retain his relation as 
 pastor, but whether these " grounds " and the proofs 
 offered to sustain them, furnish sufficient " reasons for 
 dissolving his connexion with the parish." 
 
 These I regard the legal rights of my friend, so far 
 as this investigation extends. But I should regret to 
 have it thought that I wished to place the defence 
 upon mere technical ground ; and therefore, as the 
 evidence has covered much of the respondent's life, I 
 shall endeavor to go into the subject in its broadest
 
 13 
 
 extent, and to satisfy the Council and the public that, 
 in no sense, has the respondent been obnoxious to the 
 charges that have been fabricated against him. 
 
 The object of one party here is to release themselves 
 from a contract, into which they entered with the other 
 party more than twenty years since ; a contract, which, 
 as it is unlimited in its terms, has been held by our 
 courts to be binding upon the parish until the minister 
 shall have done something whereby he has forfeited 
 the right to enforce it. And one obvious reason for 
 such a construction is, that a minister may be left 
 reasonably free to utter his sentiments, without fear 
 that by so doing he shall be sacrificed to the sudden 
 caprice of angry and excited parishioners. 
 
 Here, then, the question arises, have the complain- 
 ants shown enough to justify the dissolution of their 
 contract with Mr. Pierpont, against his consent ? 
 
 In regard to the first subdivision of the first class of 
 offences above enumerated, his doctrines and belief, 
 nothing has been charged or proved against him ; 
 but in relation to immoral conduct and neglect of duty, 
 they are made the. subjects of charge, and an attempt 
 has been made to sustain these charges by proofs. 
 
 The charges against the respondent, though spread 
 upon the record under nine different heads, may be 
 considered as of three distinct classes, and in that order 
 I propose to consider them. 
 
 First, Those affecting his moral integrity, purity, and 
 honesty 
 
 3
 
 14 
 
 Second, Those relating to the performance of his 
 ministerial duties ; and 
 
 Third, Those affecting his temper, manners, and dis- 
 cretion as a minister, comprising his general suitable- 
 ness for the office. 
 
 In pursuing this general order, I desire also to have 
 another division regarded, in your inquiries, and that 
 is, in respect to time, prior and subsequent to 1838. 
 That will be found to be an essential epoch in regard 
 to the events which you are to consider, and out of it 
 grows much that will serve to explain the whole case 
 before you. 
 
 One thing I may remark in this early stage of your 
 inquiries, that during the difficulties and agitations in 
 the Parish in 1 838, the idea of charging Mr. Pierpont 
 with a want of moral integrity was never broached. 
 The members of the committee, who in that year spent 
 three whole evenings in gathering up and discussing 
 with Mr. Pierpont the causes of offence against him, 
 did not then and do not now charge him with a want 
 of purity or of moral integrity. It is since then that the 
 Proprietors have dragged the current of his whole life 
 as with a net, and have spread its entire contents be- 
 fore the Council. Every one, though he be a stranger 
 to these difficulties, has been courted and invited to 
 bring and cast into the cauldron which they have been 
 seething, his own share of bitter herbs, with which to 
 give malignity to the compound. And Dr. Bemis and 
 Mr. Fowle have been ready to obey this call ; but with 
 what success the sequel may determine.
 
 16 
 
 I do not propose to recapitulate the mass of evidence 
 which has been submitted to you. The most I can do 
 will be to refer to it generally, as it bears upon the 
 different charges, to which I will now proceed to call 
 your attention. 
 
 The first of these is the charge of Indelicacy, of 
 which it is alleged the respondent has been guilty, in 
 his pulpit and elsewhere, to the mortification arid dis- 
 gust of his female hearers. 
 
 I notice this charge first, because, if it is true, you 
 need go no further ; the respondent ought not only to 
 be expelled from his pulpit, but to be scouted from all 
 decent society. If there is any one thing that renders 
 a clergyman more unfit for that sacred office than 
 another, it is the -want of moral purity. There is some- 
 thing so revolting in the very idea, that the man who 
 comes into our families in the interesting and almost 
 sacred relation of pastor in seasons of joy and of sor- 
 row ; in the sick chamber and the most private intimacy 
 of unsuspecting confidence can be impure in thought 
 and indelicate in language, that no man can tolerate it 
 for a moment. 
 
 The charge in this case is a grave one. It has been 
 seriously made, but how has it been sustained ? 
 
 It rests for its support, principally, upon the testi- 
 mony of Mr. Crane. 
 
 From the testimony of this and other witnesses, it 
 appears, that, many years ago, Mr. Pierpont, in a speech 
 that he made at a public meeting in Faneuil Hall, used 
 one word in describing a particular class of vices, which,
 
 16 
 
 to the sensitive ear of Mr. Crane, sounded indelicate. 
 And yet that word, which need not be repeated here, 
 is often found in the Bible, and is uttered by every 
 preacher of the gospel, when he reads that book from 
 the sacred desk. 
 
 There were, besides this, two sermons testified of by 
 the same witness ; and the one to which Mr. Hay ob- 
 jected more than the other, was that in which Mr. 
 Pierpont, speaking of the state of the Catholic Church 
 in Europe, alluded to the celibacy of the Catholic 
 clergy, in the following language : " They are the 
 best fed and best clothed of any class, and have passions 
 like other men." 
 
 Here are the offensive words, and I have ventured, 
 even at the charge of indelicacy myself, to repeat 
 them, though I see around me an audience, which I 
 know embraces as refined and delicate minds as can 
 be found in this or any other city ; and I will venture 
 to ask, wherein consists the indelicacy charged ? Was 
 this an improper subject to allude to ? If so, what is 
 to become of the Dudleian Lectures in the venerable 
 halls of Harvard, as well as every day's discussion, in 
 literary and religious circles, of the merits of the Cath- 
 olic Church and its institutions ? 
 
 In regard to the other sermon, it appears that he 
 alluded, in the course of it, to his having been upon the 
 same spot where Paul had stood in Corinth, and as he 
 contemplated the ruins of that proud city, he naturally 
 reverted to its former splendor, and the causes of its 
 decline and ruin. He ascribed it to its luxury and its
 
 17 
 
 vices, and in describing the extent to which these were 
 carried in the days of its prosperity, he cited from a 
 commentator on the Epistle to the Corinthians, or as 
 Mr. Hay says, stated, " it is narrated," that the favors 
 of a single celebrated courtesan were rewarded by an 
 immense sum in gold. 
 
 This may have been an unfortunate illustration. But 
 every scholar knows that the extent to which vice was 
 carried in Corinth made her infamous even in a corrupt 
 age. And is it wonderful, that as the picture of that 
 city rose in his mind, and he stood in imagination 
 among its crumbled monuments of art, its broken 
 columns and ruined temples, he should have referred 
 back to the vice and profligacy that had wrought out 
 this destruction ? " To the pure every thing is pure," 
 and in the unconscious purity of his own mind, he never 
 dreamed that a simple historical illustration like that, 
 could raise the idea of indelicacy in the prurient imag- 
 ination of any one. 
 
 Has he been impure, or has his preaching or inter- 
 course with his people lowered the standard of moral 
 purity in his society ? The witnesses who have been 
 called by the complainants themselves, have answered 
 this, question. Mr. Hay, Mr. Smith, and Deacon 
 Bass, one and all, deny it unqualifiedly, and do justice 
 to the respondent in this respect. 
 
 And how has it been regarded by his people ? No 
 man ever whispered a complaint on the subject to Mr. 
 Pierpont. At the earlier meetings of committees, 
 when every charge was brought forward that was then
 
 18 
 
 known, not an allusion to this was made. The offence, 
 if it ever took place, must have happened soon or 
 immediately after his return from Europe, in 1 836 ; 
 and yet the first time that it is charged, is in April, 
 1840. True delicacy is something that shrinks, in- 
 stinctively, at what is coarse, or vulgar, or indecent. 
 It does not require three years' brooding over an 
 expression, in order to determine whether it has been 
 offended by it or not. 
 
 There is yet another test by which to determine the 
 truth of this charge. This Council need not be told, 
 that there is in Hollis-Street Society, as much female 
 delicacy, purity, and sensibility, as in any that can be 
 named ; and in this, let it be understood, I mean to 
 embrace the wives and daughters of the opponents of 
 Mr. Pierpont. Whatever may be thought of the 
 assumed delicacy of some of the witnesses, there has 
 not been a word to implicate the entire delicacy and 
 purity of those with whom they are connected And 
 yet what female ever left this society on account of 
 Mr. Pierpont's preaching ? Mr. Everett was desirous 
 of leaving, while his wife chose to remain. The wife 
 of Mr. Crane continued to attend here, even against 
 his wishes, after he had ceased to be willing himself to 
 listen to the respondent ; and though there are many 
 female proprietors of pews here, there is not one of 
 them who is now opposed to him in this controversy. 
 Can the Proprietors have seen in what situation they 
 place themselves, by bringing forward this charge ? 
 Are they willing, in order to carry out their feelings of
 
 19 
 
 hostility against Mr. Pierpont, to try to bring reproach 
 on their own wives and daughters ? 
 
 Fortunately for them, they have failed ; but the 
 spirit which prompted a charge so cruel and so pitiful, 
 ought to meet with the rebuke of every pure-minded 
 and honest man. 
 
 But there is one other part of this charge which 
 ought not to be entirely passed over, especially since 
 the Proprietors have attempted to support it by evi- 
 dence, and that is, his allusion " to certain supposed 
 phrenological organs, in one or more lectures," &c. 
 
 This charge, too, is of a modern date, although the 
 offence must have occurred some years since. It has 
 been testified, that Mr. Pierpont, pursuant to a public 
 notice, gave a lecture on phrenology in Quincy, and 
 that, in alluding to the organs which have their lo- 
 cality in the back part of the head and neck, remark- 
 ed that " they all knew the difference there was 
 between the shape of the necks " of two animals 
 which he named, and that " that was all he need to say 
 on the subject." 
 
 Now here, he was delivering a scientific lecture, and 
 spoke of a scientific fact ; and could he have done so 
 in less objectionable terms ? If one were to attend a 
 lecture on anatomy, would he charge the lecturer 
 with violating the rules of decency, for merely speak- 
 ing of the human body ? 
 
 And so far from being, like the Proprietors of Hollis- 
 Street Church, shocked at this violation of propriety, 
 the very people who heard that lecture, have repeated-
 
 20 
 
 ly employed Mr. Pierpont to lecture since, before 
 their Lyceum, where they with their neighbors and 
 families unreservedly mingle together. 
 
 Such is the evidence on which this charge of indel- 
 icacy rests ; and I should feel that I was wasting your 
 time if I dwelt any longer on so groundless, although 
 so malignant an imputation against the respondent. 
 
 The next charge to which I wish to call your atten- 
 tion, is that affecting the character of the respondent 
 for Veracity. 
 
 The Proprietors have set forth as specifications 
 under this general charge, that he has " denied expres- 
 sions and remarks made by him in his sermons, and 
 upon other occasions ; " but not only have they failed 
 to prove this they have not even, that I can recall, 
 offered any evidence in regard to it. 
 
 They have, however, under the general license given 
 them by the Council to offer proofs to sustain their 
 general charges, undertaken to show, from the corres- 
 pondence between Mr. Pierpont and themselves, which 
 has been published by his permission and approbation, 
 that he has made a false statement in relation to his 
 willingness and offer to refer the difficulties between 
 them to a mutual council, and also in stating that they 
 rejected this offer. 
 
 Before proceeding to examine the evidence on this 
 point, I may be indulged in the remark, that it would be 
 somewhat singular, if, while his enemies were leaving 
 no stone unturned to find matter of accusation against 
 him, he not only should have put into their hands a
 
 21 
 
 statement which was false, but that he should have 
 published the same, and with it, the very documents 
 by which its falsehood could be at once established. 
 And the presumption would naturally arise in the mind 
 of any candid man, that there must be some error, 
 to say the least, in the construction which the papers 
 ought to receive, if such is the apparent meaning of 
 the language there used. 
 
 Now the facts in regard to this matter, as they appear 
 from the printed documents, in connexion with Mr. 
 Boyd's testimony, are these. In one of Mr. Pierpont's 
 letters, he states that his zeal in the Temperance 
 cause was " the head and front of his offending." 
 The Proprietors by their vote denied this ; and on the 
 7th of October, 1 839, Mr. Pierpont in a letter to them 
 states that that is the true issue between them, and 
 proposes to refer the trial of that issue to a mutual 
 council. At the same time that he wrote this letter, 
 he wrote and put into Mr. Boyd's hands the form of 
 certain votes to be presented, at the same time with 
 the letter, to the Proprietors, for them to act upon, 
 embracing, among other propositions, a mutual council 
 to decide, " whether by reason of any thing that he 
 has done or left undone, in relation to that cause 
 (Temperance) or any other cause, the connexion 
 between him and his society ought to be dissolved. 
 And if for any cause whatever that connexion ought to 
 be dissolved, what are the terms and conditions upon 
 which a dissolution shall take place." 
 4
 
 22 
 
 This was referred to a committee of the Proprietors, 
 who reported against the proposition of " choosing a 
 council," "there being, in our opinion, nothing for 
 such a tribunal to settle." This took place on the 14th 
 of October ; and without any final action upon either 
 proposition, the meeting was adjourned. In the mean 
 time, a minority of the committee, who were friendly 
 to Mr. Pierpont, addressed to him a communication, in 
 which, among other things, they say : " Had the society 
 consented to adopt your suggestion, that of submitting 
 all the matters of grievance to a mutual council, you 
 could then have had an opportunity of meeting those 
 or any other charges in a customary manner ; but as 
 the majority of the committee advise against any 
 council, it is to be supposed their advice will prevail." 
 And in the result, the proposal was never accepted. 
 Now I understand the matter charged against Mr. 
 Pierpont as false, is in his communication to the 
 minority of the committee, of October 22, 1839, 
 (page 44 of the printed documents,) and in his remon- 
 strance against the proceeding of an exparte council, 
 (page 4,) and is as follows : " In my first letter in reply 
 to your doings in relation to me, which letter is of date 
 September 16, I tendered you an issue as to the main- 
 spring or moving cause of your annual proceedings 
 against me. In reply to that letter, viz : in the pream- 
 ble to your votes at your meeting, September 30, you 
 distinctly take that issue. In my second letter, dated 
 October 7, I demand a mutual council to try that issue 
 and to settle all matters in controversy between us.
 
 Appended to that letter, and offered for your consider- 
 ation immediately after it, by Mr. James Boyd, at my 
 request, were the preamble and votes, of which he 
 gives the copy." 
 
 In the latter of these documents, he says : "A year 
 ago last October, at their meeting on the 7th of that 
 month, I tendered to the Proprietors of Hollis-Street 
 Meeting House a mutual council, 'whose decision 
 should be conclusive, final, and forever binding upon 
 both parties,' among other matters, upon these two 
 points, namely," then reciting the two votes offered 
 by Mr. Boyd, already stated above, and adds " this 
 proposal was rejected." The falsehood is now under- 
 stood to consist, according to the Proprietors' construc- 
 tion, in saying that in his letter by Mr. Boyd, he 
 demanded a mutual council " to settle all matters in 
 controversy;" in saying that the "preamble and 
 votes " were " appended to that letter ;" and in saying 
 that he tendered a proposal for a mutual council, in 
 the form embraced in the votes offered by Mr. Boyd, 
 and that " this proposal was rejected." 
 
 Who can read this correspondence without feeling 
 that every word therein contained is in substance and 
 spirit true ? It is not pretended that the paper on 
 which the votes were written was actually united with 
 the letter by a needle and thread, nor that the whole of 
 the proposition was in the letter. But both papers 
 were made at one and the same time, they related to 
 one and the same matter, and were to be acted upon 
 at one and the same meeting ; they were handed to Mr.
 
 24 
 
 Boyd at the same time, and offered to the Proprietors 
 together. What but the most downright hypercriticism 
 could torture the statement of this transaction, as 
 given by Mr. Pierpont, into a misrepresentation ? It 
 was never intended to be any thing more than a gen- 
 eral summary of the transactions between them, and 
 as such it is manifestly a true one. But it is said, that 
 he affirms that the " proposal was rejected," when in 
 fact no such vote was ever passed. In technical nicety 
 this may be so ; but in regard to a proposition like this, 
 to common minds, the fact of the Proprietors not hav- 
 ing accepted would justify the assertion, that it had 
 been rejected. Such was the construction put by Mr. 
 Pierpont on these several papers and transactions ; and 
 he is willing to appeal to the common sense of candid 
 minds, if for this he can be chargeable with a want of 
 truth. 
 
 It has been pretended that Mr. Pierpont has been 
 guilty of disingenuousness, or want of truth, in regard 
 to the reading of notices from his pulpit, because, after 
 having said he would read none until they had been 
 submitted to the standing committee, he violated his 
 engagement. The facts, as they have come out in evi- 
 dence, are these. His pulpit had become a sort of 
 advertising post, and he wished to remedy this evil. On 
 one occasion he declined reading a paper that had been 
 offered to him, and it was suspected and understood to 
 be a Colonization notice, though no one saw it, nor has 
 any person complained that it was not read. He at the 
 same time stated that all such notices would thereafter
 
 25 
 
 be submitted to the committee for approbation. About 
 six months after this, a notice for an Abolition meeting 
 
 ' O 
 
 was handed to him, and he gave it to the sexton to 
 show to the committee Two only were present. On 
 presenting it to Mr. Everett, he declined deciding upon 
 it, saying that " he might do as he pleased ; " but Mr. 
 Parker objected to its being read. The sexton re- 
 turned with the paper to Mr. Pierpont ; but which of 
 these messages was communicated to him cannot be 
 shown. Mr. Pierpont thereupon proceeded to read 
 the notice. But when the next notice for a similar 
 meeting was submitted to the committee, they decided 
 against its being read, and in this he acquiesced. After 
 this, another notice was refused by them, which led to 
 a discussion between the committee and the individual, 
 Mr. Jaekson, who had requested it to be read; and 
 from that tune the committee gave the pastor to under- 
 stand that they should act no more upon the subject. 
 
 From these facts, which is the fairest to infer, that 
 in reading the notice which he did, he acted from the 
 report of the sexton from Mr. Everett, that " he might 
 do as he pleased," or from Mr. Parker, that it should 
 not be read ? If he had made up his mind to read it 
 notwithstanding the objections of the committee, would 
 he have submitted it at all ? or if he disregarded their 
 wishes to this extent, would he have yielded, when to 
 the next application they returned a negative answer ? 
 
 Did he in fact ever read one notice that he did not 
 submit to the committee ? or did he ever read one no- 
 tice that he did not suppose they had assented to ?
 
 Must not a cause be a desperate one which requires 
 the resort to a matter like this to find its support ? 
 
 In tracing along the line of these charges, the next 
 in order, under the allegation of a want of " scrupulous 
 regard for truth," is, "his having denied the writing of 
 a certain Theatrical Prologue, written by him." 
 
 Whoever was the author of that prologue, it should 
 be borne in mind, that it was written many years since, 
 at the opening of the Tremont Theatre, when public 
 sentiment in regard to such amusements was different 
 from what it is now. The time was, that clergymen 
 themselves did not feel reproach for even attending 
 theatrical performances. But the charge is not for 
 writing, but for denying the authorship after having 
 written it. 
 
 The inconsistency of this charge with the others 
 that are brought against Mr. Pierpont, must be appa- 
 rent : while in one part of these criminations he is rep- 
 resented as too bold, too independent of the world's 
 opinion, disregarding alike the wishes of his friends and 
 the laws of prudence, in thinking and uttering his 
 thoughts, in this he is charged with skulking from the 
 light, and cowardly denying his own act ! 
 
 There are, of course, two questions to be determined 
 under this charge : 1st, Did he write the prologue? for 
 if he did not, he had a right to deny it ; and 2nd, Did 
 he deny it? for if he did not, it is of no consequence 
 whether he wrote it or not. 
 
 In regard to the first question, you have only to im- 
 agine the same confidence to have existed between Mr.
 
 27 
 
 Pierpont and the real author, that there was between 
 him and Mr. Buckingham, in order to reach an expla- 
 nation of every thing he did. He was under no obliga- 
 tion to disclose whether he was or was not the author. 
 I do not mean to claim the license for which Dr. 
 Johnson and Dr. Paley have been quoted, that an author 
 may deny the truth in relation to the authorship of a 
 production, if he wishes this to be concealed ; there is 
 no occasion to raise such a question of casuistry in this 
 case. What is the evidence that he was the author, or 
 that he denied it ? Mr. Sprague testified that he said 
 to him soon after the prize had been awarded, " it is 
 said you are the author ; " to which Mr. P. replied, 
 " I have not written two lines of heroic verse these two 
 years." Now, unless this was false, the charge wholly 
 fails. And Mr. Sprague says that he " considered that, 
 as an author, he was disposed to evade the inquiry." 
 And certainly he might properly do this, if he did not 
 thereby state what was not true. 
 
 But it is said he ought to have disclosed whether he 
 
 - o 
 
 was the author or not, because imputations had been 
 cast by others upon the committee for having awarded 
 the prize as they did. A mere denial of the authorship 
 could not have relieved the committee ; and besides, if 
 he wished or was bound to keep this a secret, how could 
 his right to do so be taken away by the unjustifiable 
 acts or declarations of strangers towards the committee ? 
 It is certainly somewhat remarkable that an occur- 
 rence of some fifteen years ago, between strangers to 
 the present controversy, should be revived by the Pro-
 
 28 
 
 prietors of Hollis-Street Meeting House, to aid them in 
 prosecuting their own recent personal griefs. I know 
 not who was the author of that prologue, but the evi- 
 dence in the case raises the most satisfactory probabil- 
 ity that it was not the respondent. 
 
 It is manifest that whoever wrote it, wished to keep 
 its authorship concealed, and of course would, so far 
 as his own acts went, do nothing from which this could 
 be ascertained. This will apply as well to Mr. Pier- 
 pont, if he had been the author, as to any other person. 
 And yet we find him going to Mr. Buckingham before 
 the prologue had been offered, stating to him that such 
 an one might be offered, and asking him if he might be 
 trusted with it as a confidential friend ; and accordingly, 
 soon after that a letter and the prologue were sent, both 
 in Mr. Pierpont's own hand-writing, which was familiar 
 to the committee to whom it was to be submitted, and 
 one of whom had for years been an inmate in his family. 
 The prologue gained the prize, and the money was 
 paid over through Mr. Buckingham's hands to Mr. 
 Pierpont, as the one to whom it was understood by him 
 it should be paid, if it should prove successful. 
 
 The hand-writing of the production satisfied Mr. 
 Bailey that Mr. Pierpont was the author, and he so ex- 
 pressed the opinion to Mr. Sprague. And yet, is it to 
 be conceived that if Mr. Pierpont was the author, and 
 chose to keep the fact concealed, he would have pre- 
 sented the paper with every thing but his own name 
 upon it to mark it as his own ? 
 
 He must have done this to aid a friend, and having
 
 29 
 
 his friend's secret to keep, he had too much honor to 
 disclose it. 
 
 One thing is true, and I repeat it here before the 
 very altar where Mr. Pierpont has so long ministered, 
 whoever was the author of that production, every ivord 
 that Mr. Pierpont has ever uttered in relation to its au- 
 thorship, was sacredly true in spirit and in letter. And 
 here I will leave the charge. 
 
 I will now ask you to turn to the matter of the Steel 
 Hone. The evidence in regard to this seems to have 
 been designed to embrace two specifications ; one that 
 he had been guilty of a breach of confidence towards 
 Dr. Bemis, in disclosing the existence of such an in- 
 vention, and the other, that he " wilfully permitted him- 
 self to be regarded as the inventor." 
 
 The whole charge rests upon two witnesses Mr. 
 Babbit and Dr. Bemis, inasmuch as the Proprietors have 
 not seen fit to call Mr. Sproat, to whom Mr. Pierpont 
 lent his hone in 1829 or 30, and by whom, without Mr. 
 Pierpont's knowledge, it was shown to Mr. Babbit. 
 Mr. Babbit merely stated that he first saw the instru- 
 ment in Mr. Sproat's hands, in Taunton, in 1 829 or 30, 
 that he made fourteen of them, without the knowledge 
 of Mr. P., for his neighbors, that in 1831 Mr. P. called 
 with a friend at his shop in Taunton, saw one of his 
 hones, and asked him to make him one, which he did, 
 and was paid for so doing by Mr. P., that after that time 
 Mr. P., having discovered a better kind of paste to use 
 upon the hone, communicated it to Mr. Babbit, who in 
 1 832 made some of the hones, with the newly-invented 
 5
 
 30 
 
 paste, and placed them in Mr. Ashton's store for sale, 
 and that Mr. Pierpont had never the slightest pecuni- 
 ary interest or benefit whatever in the manufacture 
 or sale of the hones. 
 
 So far, therefore, as a breach of confidence was con- 
 cerned, the case rests entirely on Dr. Bemis ; and, 
 unfortunately for the respondent, that witness has fixed 
 the times when these confidential communications are 
 said to have been had, at periods when no other person 
 was present, and much of the pretended confidence is 
 said to have been communicated through Deacon 
 Brown, who is dead. And the Council cannot fail, in 
 this connexion, to observe how much of the evidence 
 in this case against Mr. Pierpont depends upon wit- 
 nesses long since dead, and papers and letters which 
 have, accidentally, been lost. 
 
 It ought to be understood, that so far as any confi- 
 dence is pretended between Mr. Pierpont and Dr. 
 Bemis, the respondent denies the slightest knowledge 
 of it. How does Dr. Bemis sustain this charge ? He 
 says, that in 1821, now twenty years ago, he had a 
 conversation with Mr. Pierpont in relation to this hone, 
 which he had invented in 1811, and kept secret until 
 about that time, when it became known to Deacon 
 Brown ; that Mr. Pierpont desired permission to make 
 one of these for a dressing-case, which he was then fit- 
 ting up ; that he gave him permission to make one, 
 told him he could go to a Mr. Davis's and purchase a 
 file, and, by annealing it, he could work off the rough 
 parts of the file, and it would then answer his purpose ;
 
 31 
 
 that soon after this, a few days or a few weeks, he 
 thinks, Mr. Pierpont called and showed him a cylin- 
 drical razor-strop, into which he had inserted the hone. 
 The razor-strop was of his own invention, and he, Dr. 
 Bemis, had heard of its being in use before. These 
 are the only two conversations he had with Mr. Pier- 
 pont, and he admits there was nothing at the time to 
 fix in his mind the language used by either party. He 
 states, however, that he expressed to the respondent 
 his wish that the hone should be kept a secret, because 
 he meant to take out a patent for it, as soon as his 
 health and business permitted. This is the substance 
 of his testimony, as I now am able to recall it. Every 
 thing here depends upon the accuracy of Dr. Bemis ; 
 a slight error as to the original conversations, might 
 change the character of the transaction. Is his state- 
 ment entitled to implicit confidence ? Although he 
 affected to testify from written memoranda, is he not 
 mistaken several years in his time ? Mr. Wells, the 
 manufacturer of the cylindrical razor-strops, has testi- 
 fied that the first he ever made or knew of being made, 
 was as late as 1824. Dr. Bemis says the reason why 
 he wanted the invention kept a secret was, that he 
 meant to take out a patent for it. Is that true ? If 
 so, why did he not take one ? He had made the in- 
 vention, as he says, in 1811, and no one knew of it 
 till 1821. Mr. Pierpont had regarded it of so little 
 consequence, that he never happened to speak of it or 
 to exhibit his strop, with this hone in it, for aught that 
 appears, for nearly ten years more, and yet Dr. Bemis
 
 32 
 
 never, during this period, took any measures to obtain 
 the patent. In 1832, Dr. Bemis was apprized that 
 Mr. Babbit was manufacturing these hones, and was 
 told by Mr. Ashton, that Mr. Pierpont was the in- 
 ventor. Why, if there had been this betraying of con- 
 fidence, did he not then take measures to secure his 
 invention by letters-patent ? If his discovery had been 
 fraudulently betrayed, he could still have protected his 
 rights in regard to it, as well as before. But he has 
 never, from that day to this, done aught towards taking 
 out a patent for his invention. He gives, as a reason 
 for this, that he has been waiting for Mr. Pierpont to 
 make an explanation ; and though he has often met 
 him, he has never asked of him the explanation he 
 desired. So far from it, he says that after seeing the 
 hones at Ashton's, he sent word to Mr. Pierpont, by 
 Deacon Brown, that if he, Mr. Pierpont, would attend 
 to making out the specifications for a patent, he would 
 share with him the profits they would make, which 
 he thought might have been at least several thousand 
 dollars. 
 
 Would Dr. Bemis, if he regarded himself the author 
 of a valuable invention, which had been stolen from 
 him by treachery and fraud, have gone to the man 
 who had betrayed him, and offered to divide the profits 
 of the invention with him ? would he have lain by in 
 silence ten years more, and taken no step to protect 
 his legal rights, to wait for an explanation from one 
 who had used him thus falsely ? 
 
 The truth is, in 1831, the steel hone, if it ever was
 
 33 
 
 a secret, had ceased to be one. Mr. Pierpont, if he 
 had ever considered it as made known to him in con- 
 fidence, must have felt as much absolved from all obli- 
 gation to regard it so any longer, as he would the secret 
 of a friend that he was engaged to be married, after 
 the engagement had been performed, and he had reared 
 up a family of children. 
 
 The witnesses all state that any metal will answer 
 the purposes of a hone, with the aid of the paste that 
 is used upon it ; but the advantage of steel is, that it 
 may be made lighter, stifTer, and more portable than 
 other metals. Steel had been used by Mr. Babbit for 
 polishing, grinding, and sharpening gravers for twenty- 
 five years. Mr. Boyden of Foxboro' had made or used 
 steel hones for sharpening razors before 1820, and had 
 received his information how to manufacture them 
 from another, who himself had made and used them. 
 
 In January, 1831, the Journal of the Franklin Insti- 
 tute, published in this country, contained a full de- 
 scription of a steel hone, which had been in use for 
 years in England. 
 
 Thirteen years ago, Mr. Dixon thinks, he saw them 
 in use in England, and he has bills of his own importa- 
 tions of the article for sale, at least ten years old, and 
 Mr. Willard imported them for sale in 1831. 
 
 Here, then, before Mr. Pierpont ever heard that Mr. 
 Babbit had seen his hone, steel hones were in use 
 all around him, were openly advertised and sold in the 
 hardware shops in Boston, and there was nothing that 
 could have been protected in respect to them ; and yet
 
 34 
 
 he is charged with having injured Dr. Bemis by having 
 betrayed a secret. 
 
 Where men are charged with crimes, we look to see 
 what motive can have impelled them to the act, before 
 we are ready to presume them guilty. And what mo- 
 tive could have induced Mr. Pierpont to deceive and 
 defraud Dr. Beinis ? He had no hostile feelings to- 
 wards him. He never received a cent for the disclo- 
 sure, and the disclosure itself was made to a stranger, 
 who was not even his neighbor. 
 
 But the ground of the Proprietors seems to have 
 been shifted upon the introduction of the respondent's 
 testimony, and it has been said, that, though steel 
 hones had thus been in public use, they were hardened 
 steel, while those of Dr. Bemis were softened or an- 
 nealed. 
 
 In the first place, it does not appear whether the first 
 lot imported by Mr. Dixon were or were not of hard- 
 ened steel. They were used with paste, in the same 
 manner that Bemis's was used. But it is proved that 
 Mr. Boyden made and used steel hones, both hard and 
 soft, and with, as well as without paste. 
 
 Nor is it true, that Dr. Bemis has ever claimed the 
 invention of soft steel hones, in distinction from hard 
 ones. It is true, he told Mr. Pierpont that he might 
 make a hone out of a file by annealing it, so that he 
 could work it. But he says, " I considered the inven- 
 tion the use of steel, with such paste as you may 
 choose." " I had not known a steel base used till 
 then ; I had used copper when a boy." " It is the
 
 35 
 
 paste that does the sharpening. It was my object to 
 find a base." " It is the paste that operates, for the 
 instrument does not touch the base. I regard steel the 
 best." 
 
 Through all his testimony he laid claim to the in- 
 vention of a steel base, in its broadest sense, without 
 any distinction as to its being soft or hard. And it has 
 been proved beyond contradiction, that in 1831, there 
 could have been no pretence to regard this as any- 
 body's secret. 
 
 Which on the whole is the most credible, that Mr. 
 Pierpont without motive should have falsely and fraud- 
 ulently cheated Dr. Bemis out of a valuable secret, by 
 going to a stranger and disclosing it to him, or that 
 Dr. Bemis, under influences which we need not trace, 
 has misrepresented, or has been mistaken ? What is 
 character worth, and why do we cherish it as beyond 
 price, unless it shall weigh in a case like this ? 
 
 Are not the life and character of such a man as the 
 respondent, to weigh more in the scale of credit, than 
 the recollections of one who, to aid his enemies, goes 
 back twenty years, to hunt up some word or sentence, 
 which may, by possibility, be forced into an impeach- 
 ment of his honesty and his honor ? 
 
 As to the second part of this charge, that Mr. Pier- 
 pont wilfully permitted himself to be regarded as the 
 inventor, it is not only not proved, but it is utterly dis- 
 proved. The hone never was advertised as Mr. Pier- 
 pont's invention. He never knew that Mr. Ashton, or 
 any body else, ascribed it to him. So far from it, even
 
 36 
 
 Dr. Bemis admits that Mr. Babbit stated to him, that 
 Mr. Pierpont said he did not invent it, but derived his 
 first knowledge of it from Dr Bemis, through Deacon 
 Brown. 
 
 The whole matter would be too frivolous thus to be 
 noticed, if upon it the Proprietors had not sought to 
 rest their charge of " a want of integrity," as well as 
 of good faith, and if the respondent had not felt that 
 it was altogether unfounded. 
 
 The next specification to which the attention of the 
 Council is directed, is that relative to the pretended 
 pledging of the copy-right of a book, in which Mr. 
 Fowle was interested. 
 
 The charge is in these words : " Pledging to another 
 the copy-right of a book which he had engaged with 
 Mr. W. B. Fowle not to dispose of, without first offer- 
 ing it to him, not having first offered the same to said 
 Fowle." 
 
 It appeared in evidence, that the " American Class 
 Book " was compiled by Mr. Pierpont, Mr. Fowle of- 
 fering him for the work, to be published in the name 
 of Mr. Pierpont as author, the sum of five hundred 
 dollars. It was published in 1823, and Mr. Fowle 
 took out the copy-right in his own name, as " propri- 
 etor," which, as the law then stood, would expire in 
 fourteen years, viz. in 1837. 
 
 In 1827, Mr. Pierpont compiled a new school book, 
 called the " National Reader," and although four years 
 of the copy-right of the Class Book had expired, 
 feeling a partiality for his first work, he proposed to
 
 37 
 
 Mr. Fowle to exchange, by giving him one half of the 
 copy-right of the last, for one half of that of the first, 
 to which he assented, arid a contract was accordingly 
 made. By this contract, neither party was to dispose 
 of his half of either copy-right, without having first 
 offered it to the other, at the price at which he could 
 sell it for. They did not themselves publish either of 
 these works, but sold the right to publish, for a certain 
 number of years, to publishers at certain rates of com- 
 pensation. In 1830, they made a joint contract with 
 Richardson, Lord, & Holbrook, for publishing the 
 Class Book up to 1837, when the term of the copy- 
 right expired, and in the same year made a similar 
 contract, with the same firm, for publishing the Read- 
 er up to 1841, when it will be remembered the copy- 
 right for that work also expired. By the terms of 
 these contracts, each of the parties was to be paid his 
 own equal share of the sum to be annually received for 
 the right of publishing these books, by separate notes 
 for the amount. The only pledging of either of these 
 riiflits, which has been proved, was to Messrs. Fair- 
 banks, Loring, & Co. in regard to which the following 
 facts appeared. This firm had been induced to loan 
 to a brother of the respondent, and a person by the 
 iKinie of Tole, upon their notes, endorsed or signed by 
 the respondent, something over three thousand dollars, 
 and they lind also loaned to the same brother and Tole, 
 upon a note signed by them and another brother, an- 
 other sum of one thousand dollars, but for this, the re- 
 spondent was in no wise holden. The enterprise upon 
 6
 
 which the brother had entered, and for which this mon- 
 ey was wanted, was the manufacture of screws. In 
 1833, the respondent, to secure the payment of the 
 notes for which he was holden, voluntarily made over 
 to Fairbanks, Loring, & Company, by contract, a 
 right to receive his share of the proceeds of the con- 
 tracts above mentioned, with Richardson, Lord, &c., 
 and, the year following, after it had been ascertained 
 that the enterprise had failed, and the parties to the 
 other note were unable to pay it, the respondent, be- 
 lieving that Fairbanks, Loring, &, Co. had made the 
 loan in consequence of the confidence they felt in the 
 makers of the note because he had originally intro- 
 duced them, came forward of his own accord, and 
 made himself liable for its payment, by signing the 
 note, and pledged the copy-right of another book, to 
 secure its payment. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the respondent is charg- 
 ed with acting dishonorably towards Mr. Fowle, for 
 having thus endeavored to sustain his honor, in his 
 dealings with Fairbanks, Loring, & Co. But had it 
 been an actual pledge of the copy-right itself, he had 
 a perfect right to do so, without thereby violating the 
 contract he had made with Fowle. This position has 
 been fully settled by our Supreme Court, in the case 
 of Lovering vs. Fogg, (18 Pick. 542,) to which I will 
 refer the Council. In fact, however, he never under- 
 took to pledge the copy-right, and as to the contract 
 with R. L. & H., he neither could, nor did he attempt to, 
 make over any more than his half of it. He merely
 
 39 
 
 gave F. L. & Co. an authority to receive his share of 
 the proceeds of that contract, as they fell due, an au- 
 thority, by the way, which they never exercised, for 
 they suffered Mr. Pierpont to manage the whole busi- 
 ness, and received their pay through his hands. So 
 far, therefore, as any pledge of a copy-right is con- 
 cerned, the charge falls to the ground. 
 
 But as the ruling of the Council as to the introduction 
 of evidence, has opened the defendant's life to examina- 
 tion, whether the charges have been specified or not, Mr. 
 Fowle has been permitted to spread whatever causes of 
 complaint he has against Mr. Pierpont, and he has avail- 
 ed himself of it, by presenting himself twice before them, 
 the last time, with a view of explaining his former tes- 
 timony, after it had become necessary, by the testimo- 
 ny offered on the other side, though with what success 
 he has done this, I shall leave to the Council to judge. 
 
 Mr. Fowle at first complained that Mr. Pierpont, in 
 1836, disposed of his half of the right to publish the 
 Class Book, for a term of years, to a publisher, without 
 having consulted with Mr. Fowle, whereby he was left 
 at the mercy of the publisher, as to the price which he 
 himself should demand for his own half. Had it been 
 the case that Mr. Pierpont disposed of his half of the 
 right to publish, before Mr. Fowle had done so, it is 
 not easy to see why the publisher would not be as 
 much at the mercy of Mr. Fowle, as he was at that of 
 the publisher. Neither could publish without the con- 
 sent of the other, and the man who had paid a large 
 sum for half the right, would be but indifferently situ- 
 ated to coerce his co-proprietor as to terms.
 
 40 
 
 Be that, however, as it may, it is denied that any 
 such contract was made by Mr. Pierpont, or that Mr. 
 Fovvle was ever injured a cent by any contract ever 
 made by the respondent. 
 
 The right to publish, acquired by Richardson, Lord, 
 & Holbrook, had become the property of Mr. Bow- 
 en, in December, 1835, through Carter & Hendee, 
 to whom it passed from R. L. & H. In January, 
 1836, while Mr. Pierpont was in Europe, Mr. Fowle 
 made a contract in regard to his half of the copy-right 
 with Mr. Bowen, covering the Class Book, from Dec. 
 8, 1835, to June 22, 1837, and the Reader, from the 
 same date in December, to 1841, the respective limits 
 of the copy-right to these books. 
 
 In October 1836, Mr. Pierpont made a similar con- 
 tract with Mr. Bowen, in regard to his half of these 
 works, covering the time from December 8, 1835, till 
 the expiration of five years. 
 
 In his attempted explanation of his first statement, 
 that the sale to Bowen was first made by Mr. P., Mr. 
 Fowle states that this contract was a mere compound- 
 ing of the former contract made with R. L. & H., by 
 receiving gross sums instead of annual payments. If 
 so, then he cannot complain that Mr. Pierpont, after- 
 wards, compounded in the same manner. But he does 
 complain that Mr. Pierpont, as to the Class Book, by 
 extending his contract five years, covered a time of 
 nearly three years longer, than his own contract had 
 done, and by thus anticipating him, and by setting up 
 a claim to the reversion of the copy-right, after the
 
 41 
 
 expiration of the first term of fourteen years, prevent- 
 ed his making as good a contract with Mr. Bowen, for 
 the term after 1837, as he otherwise could have done. 
 
 Now as to making a contract with Mr. Bowen, it 
 has been proved by Mr. Williams, himself a party to it, 
 that so far from its being less advantageous than it other- 
 wise would have been, it was actually upon as favora- 
 ble terms as that with Mr. Pierpont, more favorable, if 
 any thing, than that of January 1836, and in no way 
 affected, as to price, by the claim made by the respon- 
 dent to own the whole reversionary interest in the copy- 
 right. 
 
 But perhaps, with the feelings of Mr. Fowle, a fairer 
 statement ought not to have been expected. He has 
 shown himself willing to swell the tide against the re- 
 spondent, by obtruding his own private disputes upon 
 your attention, and crowns his effort here, by calling 
 for, and reading his own private letter to Mr. Pierpont, 
 in which he denounces him as a pirate, as well as by 
 other kindred epithets, because he has ventured to 
 claim the rights which he believes the law secures to 
 him, and for which he does not believe Mr. Fowle has 
 ever paid a cent. 
 
 \Vhat right of Mr. Fowle, I would ask, did Mr. Pier- 
 pont violate, by making a contract embracing a period 
 after the expiration of the copy-right ? At most, he 
 only disposed of but half, when, in fact, he might have 
 lawfully disposed of the whole right to publish these 
 books. This claim of Mr. Pierpont to be the owner 
 of the whole copy-right, after the expiration of the first
 
 term, was known to Mr. Fowle before 1836, and has 
 been the subject of discussion between them ever 
 since, and it was that a stranger might not be misled, 
 that Mr. P. directed his legal counsel to apprize Mr. 
 Bowen of the claim that he made. 
 
 Such was Mr. Pierpont's claim then, and such it is 
 now, under the advice of able and judicious counsel. 
 He has again and again offered to refer the question 
 between him and Mr. Fowle, to the decision of Judge 
 Story, or referees competent to determine it. But 
 Mr. Fowle has objected to submitting it as a question 
 of law, and talks of Equity, while abusing Mr. Pier- 
 pont in no measured terms. It may be well to inquire 
 into this matter of equity, although it is difficult to see 
 why Mr. Fowle has brought the question before this 
 Council, unless it is to forestall an opinion while he can 
 be a witness in his own favor. What is the equity ? 
 Mr. Pierpont makes a book, Mr. Fowle pays him for 
 this, and the use of his name and literary reputation, 
 five hundred dollars. Without a dollar's outlay, of which 
 we have heard, he receives more dollars every year for 
 the right of publishing this book, than he paid for the 
 work itself. The " Reader " proves a more profitable 
 work, in fact, than the Class Book. He enjoys these, 
 the fruits of another's labor and talents and reputation, 
 for fourteen years, and by his own showing, thereby 
 realizes from seven to ten thousand dollars, and now 
 comes forward to complain of Mr. Pierpont, for hav- 
 ing, as the author, sought to protect what he regards 
 as his legal rights to his own property, for the benefit
 
 of his wife and children. Nay more, he has sold one 
 half the copy-right since it became, as Mr. Pierpont 
 believes, his exclusive property, for the term of five 
 years, for which he has realized more than fifteen hun- 
 dred dollars, and now charges the man to whom he is 
 indebted for all this, with a ivant of integrity in his 
 dealings ! 
 
 I have read of a hard master " reaping where he 
 had not sowed, and gathering where he had not 
 strowed," but I never heard a servant charged before 
 with a want of integrity for not continuing to sow and 
 scatter for such a master. 
 
 The legal right is believed to be with Mr. Pierpont. 
 It is a question of law. Let it go to the Courts to be 
 settled, and let them declare Mr. Pierpont wrong in 
 his law, before this Council shall condemn him for a 
 want of integrity in his dealings, for entertaining an 
 honest opinion as to his legal rights, based upon the 
 language of the statute and the counsel of his legal 
 adviser. 
 
 But it may be said that as a clergyman, it is improp- 
 er for the respondent to rely upon his legal rights, or 
 attempt to enforce them. Let this be tried by a home- 
 ly illustration. A minister of the gospel leases one 
 half his house to a tenant for fourteen years. At the 
 end of the period, however, the tenant claims the prem- 
 ises as his own, and refuses to surrender possession. 
 What shall the owner do? may he safely tell the in- 
 truder that the house is his own, and he means to re- 
 sort to the law to recover it: p<> r^iori ? Or is a cler-
 
 44 
 
 gyman such an outlaw, that every harpy may prey 
 upon him with impunity, because he can only complain 
 at the peril of losing his parish and his reputation, by 
 a decree of a council of churches ? 
 
 I now pass to another part of this charge of a want 
 of " scrupulous integrity " " in his secular dealings, " 
 which relates to the alleged contract with Mr. Clapp. 
 The specification is, " wholly neglecting and omitting, 
 without justifiable cause, to furnish W. W. Clapp with 
 letters " &c. " he having entered into a written agree- 
 ment so to do, and having received " &c. " the consid- 
 eration for writing said letters." Plainly implying, it 
 will be perceived, that Mr. Pierpont had received 
 money of Mr. Clapp, which he never repaid. 
 
 How have the facts turned out upon investigation 
 in relation to this charge ? 
 
 That. Mr. Pierpont received the sum of two hun- 
 dred and fifty dollars of Mr. Clapp, is not denied ; that 
 both parties expected that for this Mr. Pierpont would 
 write letters from Europe, for Mr. Clapp's paper, is not 
 controverted. But that both parties regarded it as un- 
 certain whether this could be done, and if not done, 
 that it was understood the money should be returned, 
 the written contract between them itself shows. Mr. 
 Pierpont had been extremely sick, he was about to 
 take a voyage for the restoration of his health, he 
 knew nothing of the difficulty of writing letters for 
 the press, while making a hasty tour in a foreign coun- 
 try. And all this was known to Mr. Clapp, who was 
 willing to advance this sum of money on these contin-
 
 45 
 
 gences, as expressed in the contract viz. "If less 
 than that (fifty letters) shall be- written during my ab- 
 sence, or if I shall return before two hundred and fifty 
 dollars are exhausted, then I am to repay to him (Clapp) 
 the amount of such deficiency, after my return" This 
 money was advanced to Mr. Pierpont by two drafts 
 winch he got discounted, each for one hundred and 
 twenty-five dollars, dated October 3, one on three, and 
 the other on six months' time. 
 
 Now in truth, before his return, before the first of 
 these drafts fell due, Mr. Pierpont, finding he could not 
 write as he had undertaken to do, remitted the amount 
 of both drafts to Mr. Clapp, in a letter of the 25th 
 December, from Rome, which was received by Mr. 
 Clapp early in March, and the money was at once 
 made use of by him. 
 
 One would have supposed that by such a repayment, 
 and by the acceptance of the money, the contract 
 would be cancelled. But it is said Mr. P. neglected 
 to write without justifiable cause ! 
 
 So far as probabilities are to be considered, who 
 would be ready to believe that a poor clergyman, 
 pressed as Mr. P. was for money, as stated by Mr. 
 Clapp himself, if he had physical power to pay a debt 
 by his pen, would, instead of that, repay it in money, 
 when by so doing, he was (ailing to keep his promise 
 with his then friend ? So far from this being the c;i < . 
 it has not only been proved tli;it Mr. Pierpont could 
 not write the letters, but that the whole matter was ful- 
 7
 
 ly explained to Mr. Clapp, in the letter of December 
 25, enclosing the remittance. 
 
 He knew that he was sick before he left home. Mr. 
 Tappan, who furnished him the means of remitting the 
 amount due to Mr. Clapp, was with him in Rome, and 
 has stated his condition as to health, and his inability to 
 write while there. Mr. Clapp admits that Mr. Pier- 
 pont stated the reasons why he did not write, and from 
 the extracts from that letter published in his paper, 
 some of these reasons appear. It appears there, that 
 he had been sick in Marseilles eleven days, but Mr. 
 Clapp is not certain that he gave as a reason for not 
 writing, his then ill health. Why does not Mr. Clapp 
 produce that letter ? He says it is mislaid, and has 
 been lost within four or five months, although upon it 
 rested the proof as to this very charge, and by it, if at 
 all, Mr. Clapp was to repel the charge of falsehood 
 which he supposes Mr. Pierpont made against him in 
 one of the printed letters to the committee of the Pro- 
 prietors. 
 
 That letter may be lost, but how, or why, is a myste- 
 ry which the Council is left to solve. 
 
 Mr. Clapp has said in his testimony, that Mr. Pier- 
 pont in his letter said something about a " cordon sani- 
 taire" and it has been tried to show that while Mr. 
 Pierpont was in Europe, no cordon sanitaire was main- 
 tained. 
 
 Let us see that letter, instead of this kind of recol- 
 lection of its contents, and you may rest assured that 
 its statements would all prove true.
 
 47 
 
 It was stated, too, by Mr. Clapp, that Mr. Pierpont, 
 in his letter, stated that on his return he would adjust 
 the balance of interest, which he had never done. 
 
 Now I have computed that balance, and I find it to 
 be seventy-Jive cents ; and unless Mr. Clapp is willing 
 to allow any thing for the long letter of December 25th, 
 a considerable part of which he published, or for another 
 communication from the same pen, published since 
 that time, there is that amount due, for which Mr. 
 Clapp has his legal remedy, but for which this Council 
 cannot render judgment. 
 
 It has, however, been attempted to be shown, that 
 Mr. Pierpont actually wrote home letters to his wife 
 and children, and therefore he might and ought to have 
 written for Mr. Clapp's paper. These letters were 
 written from Asia Minor and other places, long after 
 the money had been returned to Mr. Clapp and the 
 contract had been ended. But even if they had not 
 been, is this Council to be asked to disgrace a minis- 
 ter for having, while abroad, found time and opportu- 
 nity to write home to his wife, instead of employing 
 this time in writing letters for a newspaper ? One 
 thing is true : Mr. Pierpont never sold his talents to 
 another ; and one single piece of poetry, written in 
 February, and published in the Knickerbocker, is the 
 only production of his pen that ever found its way into 
 print, with the exception of the long and interesting 
 letter to Mr. Clapp, which he himself published. 
 
 Is this an honest charge ? Has Mr. Clapp acted 
 like a man, in taking back his money before it was
 
 48 
 
 due, and then complaining in Mr. Pierpont's absence, 
 and while he knew the reasons why he could not write, 
 that " he had deceived him ? ' : Was it manly, when 
 the wife of Mr. Pierpont, who had again and again 
 been to him to endeavor to satisfy him that some good 
 reason must exist why no letter had been received, 
 went to him after he had received the letter of the 
 25th of December, to give her to understand that her 
 husband was not going to write the letters as he had 
 agreed, without the slightest intimation that the money 
 had been repaid, or any good reason given for failing 
 to furnish these letters ? 
 
 I may not, if I would, appeal to the wives who are 
 before me, for their judgment of such conduct ; but I 
 appeal to this Council, what must have been the feel- 
 ings of a wife, to whom a husband's honor is dearer 
 than her life, who should thus be left, till the very hour 
 of his return, to learn from his own declaration, for the 
 first time, that he had not broken his word or been base 
 to his friend ? A man who can do as Mr. Clapp has 
 done, in regard to the whole of this transaction, is 
 welcome to all the honor and satisfaction he can de- 
 rive in coming forward, by his own oath, to endeavor 
 to crush the man to whom he once pretended to be a 
 friend. 
 
 These are the charges affecting the moral integrity 
 of my client. They have never been heard of in the 
 history of this controversy, till his opposers have gone 
 out into the highways and byways to bring in those 
 who have had hardihood enough to act as his accusers.
 
 49 
 
 And do not such charges and such proofs give a char- 
 acter to the whole of these proceedings against the 
 respondent ? 
 
 Akin to the charge of crime, and scarcely lower in 
 the scale of morals, is that of Ingratitude. It was not 
 formally specified in any of these charges ; but the 
 Proprietors have introduced proof, that soon after the 
 return of Mr. Pierpont from Europe, many of his then 
 friends, including some that are now opposed to him, 
 contributed liberally to relieve him from pecuniary 
 embarrassment. 
 
 He had been the minister of the parish for seventeen 
 years, during which time the society had never been 
 taxed a dollar extra for the supply of the pulpit. By 
 advice and consent of the society, he had been absent 
 most of the year, had incurred heavy expenses, had 
 returned in health to his people, and they nobly and 
 generously stepped forward to aid him by pecuniary 
 relief and no one more so than one venerable gen- 
 tleman whom he now saw among his opposers. But 
 come what may, the generosity and kindness thcit he 
 li;ul then experienced, can never be forgotten. It has 
 sunk deep into his heart, and the recollection of it will 
 be grateful, even if the worst purposes of his enemies 
 should now be accomplished. He knew that this 
 could never have been given as hush money, or with a 
 view to trammel him in the free exercise of his opin- 
 ions, even though from the nimnicr in which it has 
 been introduced here, one might almost infer it w.-is 
 thought he had violated some implied pledge by the
 
 50 
 
 course he had pursued. (Here the Proprietors' coun- 
 sel expressly disclaimed any such intention it was 
 offered, they said, to show the harmony that prevailed 
 at that time in the society.) I thank the gentlemen 
 for their explanation, though I could not have done 
 them the injustice to suppose they could have offered 
 him this money from other motives than those of 
 friendship and respect. 
 
 We have now reached the second general division 
 of the charges, which relate to the manner in which 
 Mr. Pierpont has performed his ministerial duties. He 
 is said to have neglected these, by reason of his atten- 
 tion having been diverted to " secular pursuits and 
 popular controversies." Among these a too great de- 
 votion of time to mechanical contrivances is first 
 named. 
 
 What are the proper limits of a clergyman's sphere 
 of duty ? May he not employ his leisure hours in re- 
 laxation, suited to his taste and health ? If his taste 
 leads him to indulge in historical researches, may he 
 not gratify it, even by giving the result of his labors to 
 the public ? Or if he feels an interest in literary or 
 theological discussions, may he not contribute of his 
 pen to the periodicals of the day ? If he has a taste or 
 genius for the fine arts, may he not gratify these ? 
 May he not play a piano, or listen to its music, if his 
 wife or daughter plays it? If his taste and genius are 
 directed towards the mechanic arts, may he not in- 
 dulge even these, if, at the same time, he is securing 
 his health by bodily exercise ? May he not saw the
 
 51 
 
 wood for his own fire, or fashion a stove to burn it in ? 
 And may he not even go so far, and yet be innocent, 
 as to devise a strop for setting an edge upon the razor 
 with which he trims his beard ? 
 
 You may call tin's trifling, but how can a charge 
 like this be treated otherwise ? When, I would ask, 
 did even mechanical labor cease to be an honorable, a 
 fitting employment for a preacher of the Gospel ? 
 How was it of old ? Paul wrought at the craft of a 
 tent-maker at Corinth, and our Saviour was himself a 
 carpenter. 
 
 The next of these " secular pursuits" I shall notice, 
 is that of " compiling school books." 
 
 This charge must strike the mind of every one with 
 some surprise, when it is remembered that from the 
 earliest history of our Commonwealth, ministers have, 
 by law, been charged with the care and supervision of 
 our schools; and when it is remembered, too, how 
 much of the usefulness of our common schools depends 
 upon the class books which are used in them. It ap- 
 pears that for several years, Mr. Pierpont was a mem- 
 ber of the School Committee of this city, to his 
 appointment to which office it does not appear that 
 any in his society were then opposed. His attention 
 was thereby called to the defective character of the 
 school books then in use, and to remedy this he pre- 
 pared one or more reading books which have met with 
 universal approbation. And now, is this to be charged 
 as an offence ? Is the cause of education to be here- 
 after interdicted to our clergy ? Who shall superintend
 
 the moral and intellectual culture of the young, if they 
 may not? While there is a spirit awakened in the 
 land upon this momentous subject, shall a man, by be- 
 coming a minister, cease to have a right to feel and 
 act in the cause ? 
 
 The schools throughout the country have been 
 deeply indebted to Mr. Pierpont, for what he has done 
 for them, in this very behalf, and is he now to be held 
 up to censure for having lent his aid to the great cause 
 of education ? 
 
 Phrenology stands next in the category of offences. 
 And what is involved in the charge ? Although it is 
 alluded to in the complaint as a " supposed science," 
 yet, even in that light, it is difficult to conceive where- 
 in lies the respondent's fault. It treats of the powers 
 and functions of the human mind, and seeks by a new 
 analysis of these, to furnish a more simple and rational 
 system by which to study and understand its phenom- 
 ena and its laws. 
 
 Will it be said that a minister may not interest him- 
 self to study and understand the discoveries that are 
 made in science ? Is the science of the mind the 
 immortal principle in man, foreign from a minister's 
 duty ? Is not the soul to be educated and trained for 
 another life, and is it unworthy of a minister to study 
 how this can best be done ? 
 
 Try phrenology by its effects upon those who have 
 pursued it the furthest, and how will its tendency be 
 found ? Go ask the stranger, when he visits the beau- 
 tiful spot where the dead rest so sweetly amidst the
 
 53 
 
 shades of Mount Auburn, why he pauses to pay the 
 homage of respect to that simple monument on which 
 the eye rests among the first that it sees on entering 
 that spot. And he will tell you that in distant lands, or 
 on the furthest confines of our own vast continent, he 
 has heard the name and learned to respect the virtues 
 of that pioneer in this science who sleeps beneath that 
 marble. 
 
 If we take but a single branch of this science, its 
 connexion with the phenomena of that most dreadful 
 of all maladies insanity who, at this day, will deny 
 to phrenology the dignity of a place among kindred 
 sciences, or in view of its developements will say, that 
 it is unbecoming a religious teacher to examine into 
 and present to the minds of others, its facts and its 
 laws ? 
 
 Imprisonment for debt and abolition of slavery are 
 the only remaining items in this general charge except 
 one to which I shall have occasion to call your attention 
 in another part of my remarks. 
 
 I do not now propose to consider the conduct of 
 Mr. Pierpont upon these subjects as a minister, as that 
 must form another part of this case, and therefore only 
 speak in this connexion of what he has done, out of 
 his pulpit, as a citizen. 
 
 That as a citizen he has endeavored to ameliorate 
 
 the laws in regard to poor debtors is not denied, and in 
 
 this he was but a little in advance of public sentiment. 
 
 That, as we all know, has undergone such a change 
 
 8
 
 54 
 
 that imprisonment for debt, as a system, is wellnigh 
 abolished. 
 
 As a citizen, he may have spoken against slavery, 
 but of this, however, there has been no proof. But 
 suppose he has spoken against both imprisonment of 
 poor debtors, and slavery, is he for that reason to be 
 condemned and cast out as a minister ? Does a man 
 by becoming a watchman over human beings cease to 
 be a man, or to have a right to indulge in human sym- 
 pathies ? 
 
 Here I will leave these charges, and will inquire, 
 even if Mr. Pierpont has done all that is here set down 
 against him, where is the proof of one duty neglected, 
 one trust violated ? 
 
 The attempt, to prove this has most signally failed. 
 They have gone over his ministerial life, of more than 
 twenty-one years, and what have they found ? 
 
 Mr. Crane undertook to tell of a supposed neglect 
 some eighteen years ago but he became soon after 
 satisfied with Mr. Pierpont's course, and for years was 
 one of his strongest friends and warmest admirers. 
 He has told us of the complaint of his aged mother-in- 
 law of Mr. Pierpont's neglect to visit her, and it turned 
 out that on one occasion, when Mr. Crane was treas- 
 urer of the parish, Mr. Pierpont and his wife called 
 at his door in the evening to see him, and not finding 
 him at home, did not call upon the mother, who resided 
 in his family. 
 
 On the other hand, Mr. Everett frankly admitted that 
 he was perfectly satisfied on this ground, and Mr. Hay,
 
 with a frankness and honorable candor which charac- 
 terized his whole testimony, told you there was no cause 
 of complaint against Mr. P. for a neglect of his paro- 
 chial duties. In this he was sustained by Mr. Smith ; 
 and Mr. Tileston alone had furnished any ground of 
 complaint, and that was for a supposed neglect to visit 
 his aged mother. 
 
 In regard to this, it appeared that she livedwith her 
 daughter, whose family did not attend Mr. Pierpont's 
 preaching, and she herself, by reason of her infirmities, 
 had not attended meeting for many years, before her 
 death in 1835. He had never been invited to her house 
 that he did not go, and it was proved that on several 
 occasions during the time covered by the complaint, 
 he visited her, and that in every instance of domestic 
 affliction which came to his knowledge, he sought 
 her out, though a part of the time in a remote part of 
 the city, and carried consolation to her in her sorrow. 
 
 The faithfulness of Mr. Pierpont as a parochial min- 
 ister has been almost wholly proved by the witnesses 
 on the other side. Mr. Bradlee knew of no charge 
 against him on this account, and Deacon Bass unquali- 
 fiedly bore testimony to his faithfulness as a minister, 
 and his kind and courteous demeanor in his parochial 
 intercourse with his people. Even to the poor, it has 
 been proved by Deacon May, he has been so uniform- 
 ly attentive, that not one of them has ever complained 
 of a single neglect, and as an illustration of his attention 
 to this class of the people under his charge, you have 
 heard it stated that in one case he visited an individual
 
 56 
 
 as many as sixty times during a protracted sickness of 
 three years. 
 
 If we trace through his whole ministry, what scene 
 of joy or sorrow do we find in which he failed to sym- 
 pathize with his people? what marriage or baptism, 
 what sick bed or dying couch, what funeral or mourn- 
 ing circle, did he ever neglect ? What poor man did 
 he ever fail to visit, or what prisoner to minister unto ? 
 
 And how many clergymen, in our whole land, are there, 
 who, through a ministration of twenty-one years, could 
 escape with so few complaints, or feel a consciousness 
 that they had more faithfully done their duty ? 
 
 Although both the subjects and manner of Mr. 
 Pierpont's sermons, have been together made the 
 ground of complaint, I propose to consider these dis- 
 tinct from each other. And in regard to the subjects 
 which are charged as objectionable, they are stated to 
 be the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits im- 
 prisonment for debt abolition of slavery, and other 
 popular controversies. 
 
 So far as the first is concerned, it has been testified 
 by the witnesses on both sides, that with the exception 
 of one sermon preached many years ago, he has never 
 preached a sermon on Temperance from his pulpit. 
 He may have alluded to it, but so far from this being 
 a cause of complaint, had a stranger heard the testi- 
 mony of Mr. Crane when detailing the causes and 
 grounds of dissatisfaction in this society, he could 
 hardly have conjectured that Mr. Pierpont had him- 
 self ever heard of the subject of the sale of ardent
 
 57 
 
 spirits, much less that he had ever given offence by his 
 exertions in the cause. 
 
 It has been proved that he has preached one sermon 
 on imprisonment for debt, some twenty years ago, and 
 the facts which led to it, have themselves been testified 
 of. In the cold season of the year, he was called to 
 officiate at the funeral of one of his parishioners, who 
 had died in child-bed. He found assembled around 
 her coffin, seven children, thinly and poorly clad, the 
 eldest about fifteen years, and the youngest an infant, 
 and these all daughters. He looked around upon the 
 cheerless walls of the chamber where they had assem- 
 bled, and he asked for the father of that group, and the 
 husband of that dead mother ; and was told that he 
 was in jail in jail for debt, and that his creditor, 
 though appealed to to release him long enough to close 
 the eyes of his dying wife, refused, unless the debt 
 could first be paid. 
 
 In view of this scene, he did preach against a law 
 that could tolerate such barbarity in a Christian land ; 
 and though the creditor was his own parishioner, he 
 would have been unworthy of the title of a Christian 
 minister, if he could have held his peace. If cruelty 
 and oppression like this may not be alluded to if 
 laws so barbarous in their operation may not be spokeij 
 of in the pulpit, half the mission of our Saviour may 
 be defeated, and the purposes of his gospel be set at 
 nought. 
 
 We all remember what the law then was, and the 
 world (our own Commonwealth among the rest) has
 
 58 
 
 kept pace with the doctrines that Mr. Pierpont then 
 dared to advocate. He has never denied his agency 
 for the relief of poor debtors ; but a more just and 
 enlightened system of laws has rendered it unnecessary 
 for him ever again to offend his enemies by such an 
 effort in the cause of humanity. 
 
 Much as has been said on the subject in the course 
 of this trial, he has never been personal in his remarks 
 from the pulpit. That the application of these remarks 
 was understood by his hearers, may have been true.. 
 But it was because it was known to them that the 
 abuse complained of, existed. 
 
 And is a minister to be interdicted from preaching 
 against vice or cruelty or oppression, because his re- 
 marks may touch some member of his society ? What 
 is preaching good for, if it can only bear on vices that 
 we never witness, and sins which we are never tempted 
 to commit ? 
 
 Upon the principle contended for on the side of the 
 Proprietors, no minister can censure any vices what- 
 ever, unless it be those which are too remote to be wor- 
 thy of notice. If he attacks a vice, of which one or 
 two only of his parishioners are guilty, he is condemn- 
 ed as being personal. If he waits till it becomes gen- 
 eral, and there are many who indulge in it, he may no 
 longer attack it, lest he be charged with being excited, 
 and be sacrificed for indiscretion in giving cause for 
 offence, and making disturbance in his society. You 
 cannot draw a line without either hedging in the pulpit 
 by arbitrary rules, or leaving it free to the honest judg- 
 ment of the preacher.
 
 59 
 
 Abolition. It appears that Mr. Pierpont has preach- 
 ed one sermon, after the " Alton affair," as it has been 
 called, in 1837, which gave offence. That sermon is 
 before the public, printed as it was delivered, and the 
 public have long since had an opportunity to judge of 
 its merits or demerits. Whether our sympathies are 
 with the Abolitionists or not, who will say that the sub- 
 ject of slavery is one that must never be referred to in 
 the pulpit ? Where else can you find an evil, moral or 
 political, so dangerous in its tendencies as that of slav- 
 ery ? There is not a candid slaveholder at the south, 
 who will not tell you that the evils of slavery, in a na- 
 tional point of view, to say nothing of its moral ten- 
 dencies, are incalculably great. And while ecclesias- 
 tical bodies, legislatures, and every body else, are at 
 liberty to discuss this topic, shall it be said that no pul- 
 pit in Boston must dare do it ? 
 
 But lay aside the connexion which that affair had 
 with the existence of slavery, and there was enough 
 in it to call forth the voice of the pulpit, if it dared to 
 be free a man shot down in the streets by a mob for 
 daring to defend the freedom of his own press, and the 
 sanctity of his own premises. And yet it is gravely 
 charged against Mr. Pierpont, that in alluding to these 
 outrages he was excited in his manner. And doubtless 
 it was so : the man who could then speak of them 
 with coolness and indifference, scarcely deserved the 
 name of a man ; his sympathies must have been dead ; 
 every generous feeling within him must have been as 
 torpid as a slave dealer's conscience.
 
 60 
 
 There was no danger of being personal, for no one 
 in his society was interested in slave property or labor, 
 and the scene of the outrage was far distant. He was 
 maintaining a great principle, and even Mr. Crane, 
 though offended at first, was satisfied after an inter- 
 view, that his purposes were right, and the ends he 
 aimed at were honest and pure. 
 
 One other sermon, of which you have heard much 
 during this trial, which Mr. Pierpont delivered in Jan- 
 uary, 1839, entitled "Moral Rule of Political Action," 
 seems to have been the cause of much dissension 
 among certain of his hearers. Unfortunately for those 
 who complain, this sermon was printed and published 
 precisely as it was delivered, and it is now before the 
 Council to judge, for themselves, if it contained any 
 legitimate cause of offence. Mr. Crane heard but the 
 first half of it, and has never heard or read a word of 
 it besides, and so sensitive was he, that, from that 
 moment, he became the irreconcilable enemy of Mr. 
 Pierpont. But who else has complained of it ? Mr. 
 Bradlee, who heard the latter half of it, says he was 
 not dissatisfied with it. No man from that day to this 
 has seen cause to criticise or condemn its sentiments 
 or its language, though it has been before the public 
 eye for at least two years. I beg the Council to read 
 it and to see whether it was the fault of the sermon, or 
 the jealousy of the hearer, that caused the sensation 
 which it seems to have produced in one or more minds. 
 
 It treats of the duties which a citizen, as a moral 
 agent, owes to his country ; and are these, too, to be
 
 
 61 
 
 excluded from the Pulpit in Hollis street! Mr. Hay 
 tells us he does not come to church to get his religion, 
 but to be made better. And will not minds like his 
 gladly receive instruction as to their social and civil 
 relations in life ? If the doctrine now apparently con- 
 tended for by the Proprietors is to prevail, what will 
 there be left for the minister of Hollis-Street Meeting 
 House, upon which he can preach ? If he may not 
 touch upon prevailing vices, nor allude to national 
 evils, nor speak to his people of their duties as citizens, 
 he must illustrate that perfection as a minister, of which 
 the anecdote is sometimes told, when one man, having 
 claimed great merit in his own minister in not preach- 
 ing politics, was answered by the boast of another, that 
 his minister never troubled his hearers about politics or 
 religion either. 
 
 Will you condemn a minister because he cannot suit 
 the taste of every man in his congregation ? 
 
 I trust you will not be misled by the title of this 
 sermon. It was not preached to influence any election. 
 If it had been published while Mr. Crane was a candi- 
 date for the legislature, his suspicions, though unfoun- 
 ded, might have been pardoned. But it was a mere 
 didactic essay upon the connexion between moral and 
 political duties, and was delivered in the Winter after 
 the election of Mr. Crane had been made sure. And the 
 whole difficulty seems to have grown out of his ex- 
 treme sensitiveness lest Mr. Pierpont had said, or was 
 going to say something which would trench upon his 
 own independence as a legislator. He tells us he had sat 
 9
 
 62 
 
 week after week, watching Mr. Pierpont in his pulpit, 
 and fearing he would say something that would offend 
 his enemies and this seems to have been the first 
 time he had detected him in fault. 
 
 He ascribes his offence at this sermon, to the sup- 
 posed violation which Mr. Pierpont thereby made, of 
 what Mr. Crane is pleased to call a pledge, when, in 
 his printed letters, Mr. Pierpont says : "if therefore, 
 I have entered too earnestly, or too exclusively into a 
 few topics," &c., " I shall faithfully endeavor to recall 
 all undue attention from the former topics," &c. 
 Clearly, it must have been this watchful jealousy, and 
 not the subject nor the matter of the sermon, which 
 caused this excitement in the mind of Mr. Crane an 
 excitement that he would not suffer to be allayed by 
 any interview with Mr. Pierpont, but seems to have 
 fanned and kept alive unmitigated, to this hour. 
 
 If the opponents of Mr. Pierpont would accord to 
 him a tithe of the same independence of opinion 
 towards his people as a preacher, which they as mem- 
 bers of his society claim to exercise towards the pulpit, 
 there never would have been complaint against him, 
 either on the ground of the subjects, or the matter of 
 his sermons. 
 
 But to return to the evidence on this point. It thus 
 seems that in the course of twenty years, the respon- 
 dent has preached three sermons, the subjects of which 
 were objectionable to portions of his hearers. No 
 one, however, except Mr. Crane, ever left the society 
 on account of them, and it is questionable even in his
 
 63 
 
 case how far that was the moving cause of his irrecon- 
 cilable disaffection. 
 
 With a parish like that of Hollis Street, made up of 
 independent minds, who, as we have seen, are in the 
 habit of thinking and speaking for themselves, is it not 
 remarkable that so few grounds of complaint on this 
 subject should be found to exist ? Does it not speak 
 volumes in favor of the general character of his minis- 
 trations ? What minister is there, who has dared to 
 utter his own sentiments from his own pulpit, who has 
 escaped with fewer complaints than those which have 
 been proved to exist against the Pastor of Hollis 
 Street ? This Council need not be told of the difficul- 
 ties under which a minister must labor in attempting 
 to conform to the tastes and opinions of his hearers. 
 Some ask him to preach on a particular subject, as 
 was the case when Mr. Pierpont was requested to give 
 his views of Mr. Parker's sermon, and for so doing 
 others are offended. If he selects subjects of local 
 and present interest, he is " personal " or " excited." 
 While, if for peace he avoids these, he grows " philo- 
 sophical," and ceases to be interesting. 
 
 Those who go back to the days of Dr. West or Mr. 
 Holley, to fix a criterion by which to test the preaching 
 of Mr. Pierpont, forget the changes through which 
 the public mind has been passing during the last thirty 
 years. The human mind has been struggling to be 
 free, and on the subject of religious opinions it is 
 more free. Men are more enlightened, in many res- 
 pects, than they then were, and the past is not the best 
 test of what the present demands.
 
 64 
 
 Look through the testimony in this case, and then 
 say if Mr. Pierpont has ever selected a topic more ex- 
 citing, more unbecoming a Christian minister, than 
 " Righteousness, temperance, and the judgment to 
 come." And shall he be condemned because some 
 rich and lordly Felix has trembled at the exciting truths 
 which he has uttered ? 
 
 Is a minister to be made a senseless and irresponsible 
 automaton, to be moved like a piece of mechanism ? 
 Or must he employ his time in traversing his parish to 
 ascertain what will not excite or displease them ? Was 
 it by such a priesthood and such a ministration, that 
 the gospel was first propagated in direct warfare with 
 the prejudices, the vices, and the passions of the pagan 
 world ? Was it by such preaching, that Luther awak- 
 ened Europe with the trumpet-call of the Reforma- 
 tion ? Or was it by such means, that Robinson gath- 
 ered his church in the days of persecution and danger, 
 to become the Mother of the independent churches of 
 New England ? 
 
 May, I repeat, may all the world, besides, feel and * 
 speak upon the great questions of morals that are agi- 
 tating the public mind, and the clergy alone be forbid 
 to do this ? Where upon this principle would one at 
 least of their brethren whose name need not be repeat- 
 ed, for it is familiar on both sides of the Atlantic, find 
 himself placed by such a decision? Where would 
 now have been the cause of " Liberal Christianity," 
 if such a doctrine as this had heretofore prevailed ? 
 And will the representatives of these churches publish
 
 65 
 
 to the world that they are ready to condemn their own 
 brethren, for daring to utter truth too boldly and fear- 
 lessly ? 
 
 Try this* principle by its consequences. Either a 
 minister must be free, or his people have a right to 
 dictate what he may or may not preach. If the peo- 
 ple have a right to dictate, the minister is bound in 
 duty to obey. If he may not therefore allude to im- 
 prisonment for debt, because Col. Baker, as he said, 
 thinks it a good law, or the connexion between moral 
 and political duties, because Mr. Crane thinks it an im- 
 proper interference, or Abolition, because Mr. Bass 
 feels that his relatives at the south are thereby affect- 
 ed, or Temperance, because some dozen or more of 
 his hearers may be affected in their business, why may 
 not Mr. Redmond, another of the Proprietors, on the 
 same ground, object to his preaching a future state of 
 rewards and punishments, because, as he told you, he 
 did not himself believe such a state existed ? 
 
 Pause, and see where your decision will lead, before 
 you sanction doctrines and consequences like these. 
 
 It is alleged against Mr. Pierpont, that his manner 
 of preaching is excited, that it wants decorum, gravity, 
 gentleness and discretion. 
 
 It is admitted that he is an eloquent man, a bold and 
 earnest preacher, and who does not know that zeal, 
 ardor and excitability are essential ingredients of elo- 
 quence ? God has joined them together and they 
 cannot be put asunder. 
 
 But was not this all known when he was settled, and
 
 66 
 
 is it not too late now to urge these considerations as a 
 cause for dissolving a contract made with such a knowl- 
 edge ? Has he changed in this respect by becoming 
 more excitable ? Does not the evidence, if it shows 
 any thing, tend rather to prove the contrary ? Mr. 
 Crane has given us to understand that at times Mr. 
 Pierpont has kept back the full expression of his own 
 feelings and opinions, because his people " could not 
 bear them yet." Both Mr. Hay and Deacon Bass say 
 that h& is less evangelical than they should wish, and is 
 more philosophical than formerly. What is to be un- 
 derstood by these terms is not exactly defined, but in 
 the common acceptation of the word "philosophical" 
 one would suppose that it must imply the opposite of 
 excitement a calm and dispassionate manner. 
 
 Nor carf -it .escape the observation of this Council, 
 that, whether a manner seems excited or otherwise, 
 depends much upon the state of mind of the observer. 
 If he sympathizes with the speaker, he grows uncon- 
 scious even if he is ardent, while if he is opposed to 
 him in his feelings, the manner of the speaker may 
 seem even angry, when no such feeling actually exists 
 in his mind. 
 
 Are you prepared to condemn and expel Mr. Pier- 
 pont from his pulpit, for the manner in which he has 
 presented his subjects to his people ? What is to be 
 the standard of zeal and excitability ? Several of this 
 Council have presented their views upon questions that 
 have arisen during this trial, and though each has been 
 clear, earnest and sincere in the expression of his
 
 67 
 
 opinions, no two have done it in the same manner. 
 Where shall we find the standard and whose manner 
 may be followed, that of Peter or of John, that of 
 Luther or that of Melancthon ? 
 
 If the respondent is to be condemned on this charge, 
 it must be because he has violated some rule of morals 
 or rhetoric, and it is due to him and his people that 
 they should know, from the result in this case, the 
 extent as well as the nature of his offence. 
 
 One circumstance has been testified of, which 
 ought to be noticed in this connexion. It is said that 
 his manner to the strangers who attended worship at 
 this house, the sabbath after his return from Europe, 
 was not courteous. Mr. Crane says he said, " if they 
 came from curiosity, he pitied them." Mr. Weld says 
 he said, " he saw a great many strangers they would 
 be disappointed, he had nothing to say." Now how 
 was the fact ? He had returned from a long absence, 
 he had expected to meet his friends alone, and had 
 neither time nor disposition to prepare such a discourse 
 as would gratify the curious ears of strangers, and he 
 frankly stated so, expressing his regret that they must 
 be disappointed. A grave charge, surely, to urge now 
 as a cause for his removal ! 
 
 A charge, too, is brought against Mr. Pierpont, on the 
 ground of his " general demeanor." Here, too, we 
 have no standard by which to try the respondent. Is 
 it not true that new additions have been regularly and 
 almost constantly made to his society and his church ? 
 And is not the fact that such a large proportion of his
 
 68 
 
 society have adhered to him through all the trying 
 scenes in which he has been placed, and that too with 
 an unfaltering confidence and affection, enough to show 
 how groundless are the vague generalities of this 
 charge ? 
 
 There is another subject to which I ought to allude, 
 although it has been a matter of surprise how it is be- 
 fore you at all, and that is the prayer offered by Mr. 
 P. at the funeral of Mrs. Stewart. He came here 
 prepared to meet every charge that could have existed 
 against him, when the paper of July 1840 was drawn 
 up, but he could not have anticipated, while proving 
 those charges, that evidence would be offered of acts or 
 declarations which arose during the following year. 
 He has not therefore attempted to offer a word of tes- 
 timony on the subject, or even to cross-examine the 
 witness by whom it was proved. The prayer has been 
 described some were pleased while others were dis- 
 satisfied with its language. That there had existed an 
 unhappy state of feeling between the father and daugh- 
 ter, appears from the testimony put in on the other side, 
 and the respondent has forborne to strip the veil from 
 the private history of that family, which has thus been 
 in part lifted before the public eye, or to say how far, 
 in what he did, he followed the dying request of one 
 by whose remains he was then standing. 
 
 But I would ask, if, where the only child of a man 
 of princely fortune had been suffered to die at a tav- 
 ern, and during a long and painful sickness, that father 
 had visited her but twice, a minister who knew it all,
 
 69 
 
 might not be pardoned if, in uttering the deep emo- 
 tions of his heart, he did say " I thank thee, heavenly 
 Father, that thou didst not forsake her ? " 
 
 Here, then, we have gone through with the substance 
 of these various charges, and if the evidence has 
 struck the minds of the Council as it has mine, you will 
 say that not one of them all has been sustained. 
 
 And yet it is not to be denied that difficulties exist, 
 and dissensions have arisen in this society, which to 
 some seem irreconcilable. 
 
 If you seek for a cause for these, it will be found in the 
 evidence that is before you. Whatever may have been 
 the heart-burnings, the feelings of coldness towards Mr. 
 Pierpont at any time, they had all ceased every thing 
 had been reconciled, and he might have been the undis- 
 turbed occupant of the Hollis-Street pulpit, if it had not 
 been for the war which the manufacturers and venders 
 of ardent spirit began against him in 1338. Here may 
 be found the true origin of the present difficulties. And 
 as we trace them in the order of events, we shall find 
 that from his first movements in the cause of temper- 
 ance in 1838, to this hour, those engaged 'in the traffic 
 in alcohol have been steadily and constantly at work to 
 expel him from this pulpit fanning every other cause 
 of jealousy as it arose, and adding every new strength 
 they could command, to the physical power which they 
 have been exerting to accomplish this purpose. 
 
 The attempt has been made on the part of some of 
 the Proprietors, through the whole of this controversy, 
 10
 
 70 
 
 to keep the agency of the distillers and venders of ar- 
 dent spirit out of sight. But the attempt has failed. 
 
 We were told in one part of the trial, that dissatis- 
 faction with Mr. Pierpont, built up Mr. Mott's church. 
 But when the facts were inquired into, so far from any 
 hostility existing towards him on the part of that soci- 
 ety, when the corner-stone of the church was laid, he 
 was called on to make the address. When the body 
 of the church communicants was organized, he was 
 called on to officiate, and at the dedication of the 
 house and the ordination of their minister, Mr. Pier- 
 pont took an active and an interesting part. 
 
 In tracing the facts which throw light upon the true 
 origin and cause of the difficulties in Hollis-Street 
 society, dates become important. 
 
 In 1 835, the society was, with a few exceptions, in 
 great harmony a small minority existed, but even 
 that was merged in the general regard for their pas- 
 tor, and all united that year in aiding Mr. Pierpont to 
 make his visit to Europe. 
 
 When he returned, in August 1 836, all crowded to 
 welcome him back to his pulpit, and the united con- 
 gregation seem to have joined in the sentiments of 
 that beautiful Original Hymn, which was then sung, 
 and which has been read in your hearing. Even his 
 former and his present enemies vied with his friends 
 and with each other, in manifesting their regard to 
 him, by gifts and acts of kindness. 
 
 The " Alton sermon," in December 1837, gave of- 
 fence to a few, but an explanation followed, a recon- 
 ciliation was effected, and harmony continued through
 
 71 
 
 1837 not a vote had been passed against him, nor 
 had a person that we have heard of, seceded from his 
 society since his return from Europe. 
 
 In April, 1838, the " License Law," so called, was 
 passed by the Legislature, and the memorial signed by 
 some fifteen thousand petitioners, in answer to which 
 that law was made, was the production of Mr. Pier- 
 pont's pen. 
 
 What followed ? Those whose business was affected 
 by the law were aroused, and Mr. Pierpont was made 
 the object of their uncompromising hostility. In fact, 
 it was the revival of an old war. 
 
 In 1833, Mr. Pierpont made a speech at Saratoga, 
 on the subject of Temperance, which was falsely re- 
 ported, and gave great offence to members of his 
 society. On his return to his people, he publicly and 
 repeatedly denied having used the offensive expression 
 ascribed to him. But, notwithstanding this, Winsor 
 Fay, a distiller, and a pew proprietor, but not a wor- 
 shipper here, moved at the annual meeting of the par- 
 ish, in September of that year, to reduce Mr. Pier- 
 pont's salary $500. The motion, however, was lost, 
 and nothing more is seen of this feeling until 1838. 
 
 Then, just before the annual meeting in September, 
 we find Mr. Atkins, a dealer in ardent spirit, giving 
 notice to a friend, that they were going to " turn out " 
 Mr. Pierpont, because " he had taken up this Temper- 
 ance business, and undertaken to legislate for them, 
 and they were determined to oust him." AccordiiiLiK , 
 at that meeting, Moses Williams, also a dealer who 
 had not been a worshipper here, nor even a resident in
 
 72 
 
 the city for many years, though a pew owner, prepared 
 a set of votes, which he handed to Mr. Weld, another 
 dealer, who, obviously, for the sake of appearance, 
 employed Mr. Crane, who was not engaged in the 
 traffic, to offer them to the meeting. This office Mr. 
 Crane performed, and the votes are before you ; and, 
 as you examine them, you will find that they complain 
 of Mr. Pierpont, not for neglect of parochial duties 
 nor for pursuing mechanical contrivances, nor for lec- 
 turing on phrenology nor for want of purity, hones- 
 ty or integrity but " interfering with the established 
 laws of the land " " the alteration of old and the 
 adoption of new laws." Can any mind be at a loss to 
 understand what is here intended what new law is 
 meant ? 
 
 A committee was raised upon the subject of these 
 complaints, without opposition from any quarter, an ex- 
 planation between them and Mr. Pierpont was had, 
 and his reply of September 20, 1838, which has been 
 printed, was made, which satisfied both Mr. Crane, 
 Mr. Hay, and others, and every thing seemed to prom- 
 ise peace on the part of all except the traffickers in 
 ardent spirit every one of whom, except one, resist- 
 ed the conciliatory report which was then made by 
 that committee and accepted by the parish. 
 
 In the winter of 1838-9, the sermon on the 
 " Moral Rule of Political Action " was preached, and 
 gave offence to Mr. Crane, for seeming to dictate to 
 him, as he thought, as to his duty as a legislator. He 
 charged Mr. Pierpont with thereby violating the sup-
 
 73 
 
 posed pledge embraced in his letter of September, 
 though others did not so regard it, nor was it so in 
 fact ; but he was at once received into the opposition 
 to Mr. Pierpont, and in February of that year, two 
 who were and one who had been a distiller, purchased 
 three pews, for the manifest purpose of thereby com- 
 manding votes, since one of the purchasers never had 
 been in any manner connected with this society, but 
 was to all intents a stranger in this controversy. 
 
 Things thus remained, so far as any open and visi- 
 ble action was concerned, until September 1839. In 
 the mean time, Mr. Pierpont had,^ 1 more than a year, 
 forborne altogether from lecturing on the subject of 
 Temperance, or doing any thing which could offend 
 the most sensitive of the dealers in ardent spirit. But 
 not one of them had forgotten or forgiven his trans- 
 gression. Nothing short of his abandoning his pulpit 
 could satisfy them. His friend, Mr. Boyd, procured a 
 meeting to be held of some of the leading opponents 
 of Mr. Pierpont, with himself and some of his friends, 
 to see what could be done in regard to these difficul- 
 ties. 
 
 Of the six now opposed to Mr. Pierpont, who were 
 present on that occasion, four were or had been en- 
 gaged in the traffic in spirits ; while Mr. Smith, one of 
 the remaining two, says he was " but a listener" there. 
 Mr. Smith, though called on the other side, has, with 
 that frankness and honesty with which he has through- 
 out testified in this case, told us what took place at 
 that meeting at Mr. Everett's. " They tried to per-
 
 74 
 
 suade him to alter his course as to lecturing abroad on 
 Temperance." Mr. Everett says, " it was proposed to 
 guaranty his salary to him one year, if he would quit 
 his pulpit ; " and " it was understood that the subject 
 was to be brought up at the next meeting," which was 
 in fact, to be the next day. 
 
 The meeting at Mr. Everett's, did not result in any 
 conciliation. Mr. Pierpont would neither pledge, nor 
 sell himself the wealth of all the distillers in Chris- 
 tendom could not buy him ; and the next day the war 
 was again openly declared against him. 
 
 Mr. Fay made the first motion, but gave way to Mr. 
 Weld, who, in the preamble and vote that he offered, 
 alludes to the discussion by Mr. Pierpont of " certain 
 exciting topics." It is true they are not named, but no 
 one can be at a loss to understand what topics were 
 meant ; and the action proposed was, that the connex- 
 ion between him and his society should be dissolved. 
 
 His opponents were not willing that the subject of 
 their difficulties should be referred to a council they 
 thought they could remove him by the mere force of 
 numbers, and rejected the proposal for such a refer- 
 ence. This was at the meeting of the 14th October ; 
 but at the meeting of Nov. 11, 1839, the report of the 
 Committee insisting upon the dismissal of Mr. Pierpont 
 was rejected by a vote of 69 to 59, and the freedom of 
 the pulpit was sustained by a vote of 67 to 5. 
 
 What then was done ? did the minority yield ? 
 was the principle now so strenuously contended for by 
 Mr. Hay and others carried out into practice ? So far
 
 75 
 
 from it, the money power of the opposition was put in 
 requisition in buying up votes, not in the form of men, 
 but in that of pews a thing more consonant to the 
 usages of an English hustings than of a Boston church 
 of Christians. And, as we shall see, this money power 
 was all directed by the interests of the traffickers in 
 ardent spirit. 
 
 Winsor Fay a distiller, but not a worshipper, had 
 acquired three pews, one in February, one in Septem- 
 ber, and one in October. Jona. Minott, a stranger, 
 and a distiller, had purchased one in February. Jabez 
 Fisher, lately, but not then, a distiller, had purchased 
 one at the same time. Daniel Weld, a dealer, had 
 acquired one in September. And William C., a son of 
 Winsor Fay, himself a distiller, had purchased two in 
 October. But as these eight pews did not command a 
 majority of the votes, after the November meeting and 
 before that of March 1840, a fund of between 1700 and 
 1 800 dollars was raised by the Proprietors to purchase 
 up pews, and eleven or twelve were bought in the name 
 of John D. Weld, a son of Daniel, not a worshipper in 
 this society, and himself a dealer in ardent spirit, and 
 thereby the majority of votes was secured to their 
 interest. 
 
 It is said, in answer to this, that the friends of Mr. 
 Pierpont also purchased pews. If they did so, it was 
 in self-defence, and, with one exception, only by those 
 who occupied the pews that they purchased.. No 
 stranger bought in to aid the friends of the pastor. 
 As we follow on in the history of this struggle, we find
 
 76 
 
 that the moment the opponents of the pastor have 
 acquired strength sufficient to control the vote, they are 
 again in action. In January 1840, " a committee of a 
 large number of the Proprietors, &c." propose to his 
 friends " an amicable dissolution of the connexion 
 between the society and Mr. Pierpont," and here 
 again four out of six of this committee were or had 
 been interested in the traffic. A reply was made to 
 this proposal by one hundred and eighteen persons, of 
 whom forty-seven were pew owners, in which they 
 express a willingness to adopt measures " for restoring 
 union and harmony, leaving the question as to the 
 means of accomplishing that object, open to both par- 
 ties." The idea of any proposition which should 
 recognize the possibility of Mr. Pierpont's remaining 
 their pastor, seems to have been repelled by his 
 opponents, and in March 1840 the Proprietors again 
 met. Daniel Weld, ever among the first to act, offers 
 the vote " we no longer wish the services of John 
 Pierpont," and it was carried by a majority of 12, there 
 having been 56 in favor, 68 against, and one blank, 
 making 125 in the whole. It ought however to be 
 remembered that there have been, throughout this 
 controversy, " neutrals," as they have been called in 
 the society, who have declined taking any part in it. 
 
 These 125 votes were cast by 91 persons, 50 of 
 whom were in favor of Mr. Pierpont and 41 against 
 him, so that while counting by pews the majority was 
 12 against him, if persons only had been counted there 
 was a majority of 9 in his favor. Of the 50 who were
 
 77 
 
 in his favor, 44 were worshippers in the society, while 
 of the 41 opposed to him, 31 only worshipped here, 
 making in that mode of computation a majority of 13 
 worshippers in his favor. 
 
 Of the 10 non-worshipping proprietors, six, all of 
 whom were engaged in the traffic, cast nineteen votes, 
 which was seven more than the whole majority against 
 him. 
 
 Of the 41 opposed to him 19 were, or had been, 
 dealers in ardent spirit, and in their own right carried 
 38 of the whole 68 votes that were cast against him. 
 
 Who will say in view of these facts that Temperance 
 had nothing to do with the origin and progress of this 
 difficulty ! For what cause but this was a single one 
 of the traffickers opposed to Mr. Pierpont ? Some of 
 them have been upon the stand, and what one of them 
 has spoken of his own opposition on any other ground ? 
 For what other cause could those Proprietors, who 
 became such merely to control votes have been op- 
 posed to him ? 
 
 Take away the votes of the six absentee traffickers 
 who voted as Proprietors, and the majority would still 
 have remained in favor of a Free Pulpit. 
 
 It will be remarked that I am not now discussing the 
 propriety of these votes, or who shall govern men or 
 pews, but they have been referred to, to show what 
 the traffic in rum and Temperance have had to do 
 with the dissensions existing in Hollis-Street Society. 
 
 It is not manly to attempt to evade or deny their 
 agency, and it hardly seems too much to affirm that 
 11
 
 78 
 
 such would not have been the case in 1838, when the 
 tide of public feeling seemed to be setting against the 
 License law and its advocates. 
 
 Mr. Smith, like a bold and honest man, tells us frank- 
 ly how it is. " The complaints that led to the measures 
 of September, 1838, were induced by those who sold 
 ardent spirits." " I recollect no complaint at Mr. Ev- 
 erett's, against Mr. Pierpont, but his lecturing on Tem- 
 perance." Mr. Bradlee says the subject of Temperance 
 was discussed at Mr-. Everett's, but he thinks it was 
 not the only cause of difficulty among them. Mr. 
 Weld says that " the first serious thing in the way of 
 difficulty was at the annual meeting in 1838." Mr. 
 Atkins has told us what he was dissatisfied with was, 
 his engaging in getting the " fifteen gallon law " made. 
 It was undertaking "to legislate for us." He says, 
 however, that was not the only cause of objection in 
 his mind. 
 
 And if we look at the charges before us, we shall 
 find this very matter of Temperance and the License 
 law, in substance, if not in so many words, spread 
 upon the record as " grounds of complaint." In fact, 
 if we take away these, who does not see that there is 
 not enough left to sustain an opposition for a single 
 hour. 
 
 We have chiefly confined our view to the evidence 
 that has come in on the other side, and when we revert 
 to what has been testified of by the witnesses in behalf 
 of Mr. Pierpont, every position that I have taken is 
 confirmed.
 
 79 
 
 These witnesses all testify to their unqualified belief, 
 that temperance is the moving cause of these difficul- 
 ties, and you have seen the opportunities they have 
 had to form a correct judgment upon the subject. 
 
 It is said the dealers deny this position. It is true 
 they do now, when no man would have the hardihood 
 to avow the agency of such a cause. But we show 
 where the dealers have always been found in this con- 
 troversy, and against their professions the old homely 
 adage may well apply, that " actions speak louder than 
 words." Dr. White has told you of the influence 
 which has been exerted in this matter by his kinsman, 
 Mr. Moses Williams, and the records and other testi- 
 mony show the same fact. And Dea. May has told 
 you what he, of his own personal knowledge, knows 
 upon the subject. 
 
 Before, however, considering his testimony, it is pro- 
 per to dwell for one minute upon the attempt which 
 has been made to invalidate it. It was perceived, the 
 very first day of the trial, that there was a determined 
 purpose on the part of some of the witnesses, to crush 
 not only Mr. Pierpont, but those who dared to stand 
 by him as friends; and so apparent was this in the 
 attacks made upon Dea. May, who had not then been 
 called in the case, that the Council very properly inter- 
 fered and arrested the remarks of the witness. This 
 spirit has been manifested through the whole trial, and 
 now the attempt has been made to impeach him by the 
 contradictory statements of Mr. Crane, Mr. Weld, and 
 Mr. Smith. This must have grown out of a misappre-
 
 80 
 
 hension which it is not difficult to reconcile, and yet 
 leave both parties free from the imputation of inten- 
 tional misrepresentation. 
 
 Mr. Crane has more than once stated that Deacon 
 May in speaking to him of the sermon on the " Moral 
 Rule of Political Action," said in substance, that the 
 minister was a fool for preaching such a sermon ; and 
 this Deacon May denies. Now it is to be regretted 
 that so much of this case has had to rest upon the 
 shoulders of Mr. Crane. He has told us how much of 
 the preparatory labor has been done by him. He has 
 shown how much feeling he has upon the subject ; he 
 has been again and again upon the stand whenever the 
 occasion called for the aid of his testimony ; and now 
 he has been called in to impeach and invalidate the 
 testimony of a witness standing in this community like 
 Deacon May. 
 
 Unfortunately for Mr. Crane, it is not credible that 
 Deacon May could have used the language ascribed to 
 him. He was Mr. Pierpont's friend, and there is noth- 
 ing about that sermon, if he had not been, on which 
 he could have predicated the charge of being a fool, 
 upon its author. The sermon will not warrant such 
 an idea for a moment. The truth was, Mr. Crane was 
 very much excited ; he had a hasty conversation with 
 Deacon May, in the street, and it is not strange that in 
 recalling it, he conceived an erroneous impression as 
 to what actually was said by himself, and what by Dea- 
 con May, and confounded them in his mind. He has 
 shown how liable his judgment is to err on a subject
 
 81 
 
 upon which he feels so much, in the case of the pre- 
 tended pledge of Mr. Pierpont, contained in his letter 
 of September, 1838. He believed the pledge to be 
 there ; but when you sought for it, was not the search 
 a vain one ? And did not the friends of Mr. Pierpont 
 repel the idea of a pledge, the very time the letter 
 was read ? 
 
 In regard to the contradiction of Mr. May, by Mr. 
 Weld, it is by no means remarkable that he should not 
 recollect the conversation spoken of. He was very 
 active in this controversy, again and again, at Deacon 
 May's counting room, conversing upon it, and was fre- 
 quently conversing upon it elsewhere ; and it would 
 not be strange if he had forgotten it. On the other 
 hand, would Deacon May have gone into the street to 
 inquire in regard to Mr. Homer, if he had not heard 
 the statement of which he speaks, or would he have 
 gone home to his own family and told them what was 
 not true ? And more than all that, the conduct of Mr. 
 Weld has been shown to be perfectly consistent with 
 what he stated to Deacon May in regard to his belief 
 that Mr. Pierpont would be obliged to leave his society. 
 
 The testimony of Deacon May in regard to the 
 declarations of the dealers in ardent spirit, renders their 
 agency in this matter, if any further proof were needed, 
 clear beyond contradiction. Moses Williams declared 
 to him that he would not support a man who was trying 
 to hurt his business. At the interview of the commit- 
 tee with Mr. Pierpont, in 1838, Mr. Howard, though 
 not a dealer, in the presence of Mr. Child who had been,
 
 when pointing out to Mr. Pierpont the consequences of 
 his course, said, " these men are engaged in what they 
 think an honorable business, and if he did not let them 
 alone, they would not him." Winsor Fay complained, 
 even with profanity, of Mr. Pierpont, that he would 
 not let their business alone, and Mr. Weld, after allu- 
 ding to a rumor that Mr. Homer had been turned out 
 of his society for meddling with Temperance, insisted 
 that Mr. Pierpont would be turned out fo his, if he did 
 not let it alone. 
 
 And where do we find one dealer in ardent spirit that 
 sustains Mr. Pierpont, or one Temperance man who is 
 opposed to him ? Is it not a fact proved in this case, 
 that the moment one of his opponents joins in the 
 Temperance movements of the day, he is no longer 
 found in the ranks of the opposition ? I will not deal 
 in too strong terms, but I would ask rny friend, the 
 junior counsel on the other side, if this was a charge 
 against these gentlemen for a conspiracy to injure and 
 drive Mr. Pierpont from his pulpit, whether he, in his 
 capacity as a prosecuting officer, if within his cogni- 
 zance, could fail to convict them upon acts and decla- 
 rations so numerous and so coincident as these ? 
 
 We come, then, to the great question in this case, 
 shall Mr. Pierpont be expelled from his pulpit, for the 
 interest he has taken in the cause of Temperance ? 
 
 What has he done? He has not, for many years, 
 preached it in his pulpit. He has lectured abroad, and 
 on one occasion prepared a memorial to the Legislature. 
 This seems to be the extent of his offence, even on 
 this subject.
 
 So far as the memorial is concerned, it is now before 
 you, among these printed documents, and has it been 
 pretended that the facts it refers to are not true, that 
 its facts and its arguments are not morally and po- 
 litically true ? And if they are, may not a minister, 
 as a minister, and as a man, raise his voice against the 
 traffic in alcohol ? 
 
 If inspiration is true, if the gates of heaven are 
 closed against the drunkard, may not he whose care 
 is for the souls of men do any thing to arrest the power 
 of this soul-destroyer ? The voice of the people and 
 the press through the land have answered this in regard 
 to the very matter now before you. 
 
 Do what the opponents of Mr. Pierpont may, the 
 cause of Temperance cannot be arrested. Galileo 
 may be shut up in prison, but the earth will still move 
 on its orbit. The distiller and the rumseller may 
 shut the doors of the Hollis-Street Church against the 
 light, but they cannot roll back the tide that is over- 
 whelming their traffic. 
 
 In this connexion Mr. Pierpont has been made the 
 exponent of a great principle, and that is, tfie Freedom 
 of the Pulpit. 
 
 To which hereafter shall our clergy minister, the 
 the temporal and eternal well-being of the human race, 
 or the cupidity, the arrogance, the intolerance of wealth 
 wrung, it may be, from suffering wives and children, 
 garnered up from the ruined fortunes of the miserable 
 the merchandise that beggars the soul of the buyer, 
 to build palaces and give power to the seller ?
 
 84 
 
 May Father Mathew go through the land cheered 
 with the prayers and blessings of Catholic millions, 
 and the tongue of a Protestant minister be silenced by 
 a Protestant council in the city of Boston at the beck 
 and bidding of the distiller and the rumseller ? 
 
 As far as arresting the progress of Temperance is 
 concerned, such a course would be futile. Temper- 
 ance will triumph as certainly as the Christian Religion, 
 and the time will come when the poor man's bread will 
 no longer be changed into the poor man's poison. 
 
 Among the grounds of complaint upon which no 
 small reliance seems to have been placed, is the man- 
 ner in which Mr. Pierpont has carried on this very 
 controversy. It is said to be " harsh, contemptuous, 
 vindictive," &c. 
 
 Has any man before you ever intimated that Mr. 
 Pierpont ever treated any one in private with a want 
 of courtesy? The evidence is all to the contrary. 
 So far as his correspondence is concerned, it has been 
 shown that it was all submitted to and approved by his 
 friends, before it was made public. And to whom else 
 should a man, situate as Mr. Pierpont has been, go, or 
 whose counsel take as his guide, if not his friends' ? 
 
 Has it been shown that he has ever written, or pub- 
 lished, or said, what was untrue or unwarranted by 
 facts ? The attempt to do this in one particular has 
 already been considered, and need not be alluded to 
 again. 
 
 The truth is, Mr. Pierpont was driven to the wall 
 before he turned at all upon his pursuers, and then only 
 in his own defence. Will it be contended before this
 
 85 
 
 Council, that a minister, because he is such, may 
 be assailed with all the bitterness of malice, and yet 
 be not permitted to defend his character, which to a 
 clergyman is his all ? 
 
 If the charges against the respondent are true, they 
 are enough not only to drive him from the pulpit, but 
 from all decent society. Why then make the manner 
 in which he defends himself against these charges, a 
 
 O O ' 
 
 substantive ground of offence ? If they are true, this 
 new ground is not needed. If they are false, what 
 language can be too strong for an injured man to use ? 
 If the charges are groundless, is the man who has been 
 suffering under this baseless calumny to be turned out 
 of his pastoral office, for feeling like a man and speak- 
 ing like a husband and a father. 
 
 Go through the letters, and, bearing in mind the 
 circumstances under which they were produced, judge 
 ye if he was not justified in all that he has written. 
 His first was the September letter of 1 838, to which 
 even his most captious enemy does not object. The 
 next was written in September, 1 839, and in it he claims 
 hat his pulpit should be free, that Temperance is the 
 cause of their difficulties, and suggests two courses, 
 one of which might be taken to put an end to the 
 dispute. The next is the one already referred to in 
 which he had offered to submit the dispute to a council. 
 And the next is the one in which he replied to the report 
 of the Proprietors, which had already been published 
 in the newspapers, holding him up to ridicule for having 
 made stoves, and screws, and razor strops. The next 
 12
 
 86 
 
 letter in this correspondence was written in answer 
 to the vote of March, 1 840 declaring that the Pro- 
 prietors no longer wished his services and the last 
 is of the date of November, 1 840, and was written 
 after the charges affecting his moral character had been 
 
 o o 
 
 spread on the record, and an attempt had been made 
 to evade the trial of them by the substitution of new 
 charges in their stead. 
 
 These are the circumstances, in brief, under which 
 these letters were written, and as to their matter, they 
 speak for themselves. They have been read through 
 this wide land, and wherever they have gone, they 
 have found a hearty response from a free press, and a 
 generous minded public. This Council may condemn 
 Mr. Pierpont for having thus defended himself, but the 
 letters will still be read, and the measures of the Hol- 
 lis-Street Proprietors will be remembered so long as 
 beauty and strength of language, clearness of style, 
 energy of thought, and a fearless avowal of honest and 
 noble sentiments shall continue to find admirers. 
 
 As a last and crowning charge, in the manner in 
 which it seems to have stood out in this trial, is the 
 neglect on the part of Mr. Pierpont to conciliate 
 his opposers, and thereby restore peace to his society. 
 
 If there has been fault in this respect on either side, 
 where does it lie ? 
 
 In order to settle this question, we must again go 
 over some of these facts, and see how they bear upon 
 this matter of conciliation. 
 
 Every thing was harmonious till 1838, when a dis-
 
 37 
 
 content arose on account of temperance. He yields 
 to this, and from August 1838, to November 1839, 
 never makes a single lecture or sermon on the subject. 
 Not only so, but when in September of '38, a commit- 
 tee wait upon him in regard to the difficulties, he 
 comes at once into their views, writes a letter which 
 satisfies his strongest opposers, and yet to a concilia- 
 tory report from that committee, every dealer in ar- 
 dent spirit, except one, was opposed, and Mr. Crane 
 says he was complained of by several, for what he did 
 towards a reconciliation at that time. 
 
 Whose was the spirit or the act of conciliation thus 
 far ? The same persons who, in September 1 838, 
 resisted conciliation, in 1 839, make known their deter- 
 mination that he shall abandon his pulpit, and the only 
 compromise they are willing to extend, is a year's sala- 
 ry if he will voluntarily resign a sum of money for 
 the abandonment of a principle ! 
 
 He refused to pledge himself, and the next day the 
 vote was offered that the connexion ought to be dissolved. 
 On his part, Mr. Pierpont insisted that his pulpit should 
 be free, but the dissolution of the connexion is insisted 
 upon by a vote of sixty-three to sixty. Soon after this, 
 Mr. Pierpont, through Mr. Boyd, proposes to submit 
 all these difficulties to a mutual council, and this is 
 met by a rejection on the part of the Proprietors' 
 committee, and a holding him up to ridicule in the 
 public newspapers. 
 
 What more could have been done by the respon- 
 dent ? The Proprietors would neither offer terms, nor
 
 88 
 
 accept them, and when they resorted to ridicule as a 
 weapon, how otherwise could they be met, than by 
 the same engine, the press ? It was not a case for 
 grave argument he must either submit in silence, to 
 his own and his friends' discomfiture, or reply in the 
 only way in his power, by showing how ridiculous 
 were the charges, and how unworthy they were of a 
 serious reply. And it is not too much to conjecture, 
 that one great cause of the deep feeling manifested by 
 some of the Proprietors against Mr. Pierpont, may be 
 traced to the fact, that the weapon they employed 
 against him was found to have a keener edge in his 
 hand, than what they had been able to give to it. 
 
 So if we trace through this whole controversy from 
 ] 838, to the present time, there has never been any 
 proposition made or listened to, by the Proprietors, 
 which recognized the possibility of Mr. Pierpont's re- 
 maining their pastor. The only alternative left him 
 was to go voluntarily, or go by force. In the view of 
 this, and of the feelings which were openly manifested 
 towards him by Moses Williams, Mr. Weld, and Mr. 
 Fay, Mr. Pierpont owed it to a proper sense of self- 
 respect, to withhold any further advances, when he 
 knew they would be rejected with indignity. 
 
 But it is said he ought to have resigned, that he was 
 obstinate, and that he should have sacrificed his own 
 feelings to the peace of his society. All this he was 
 ready and offered to do, but he was the minister of a 
 whole people, and was as much bound to consult the 
 wishes of one part, as of the other. He was ready to
 
 89 
 
 give up the difference between his salary, and that paid 
 to Mr. Holly, since some had made objection to this, 
 and the letter of resignation which he prepared in view 
 of these difficulties has been read before you. The only 
 reason why it was not offered at a regular meeting of 
 the Proprietors, was the opposition of his friends, 
 whose wishes he was bound to regard, and who assured 
 him it would do no good, for if offered it would not 
 be accepted. And the motives on the part of his 
 friends for so doing, have already been explained to 
 you, and are alike honorable to their foresight and 
 their independence. They saw the spirit that was 
 awakened on the part of the traffickers in alcohol, 
 they saw, their determination to silence or muzzle the 
 pulpit, they saw that if success crowned these efforts 
 in regard to the pulpit of Hollis Street, the other pul- 
 pits in Boston must follow in their turn, and they were 
 willing to make a stand here in favor of a principle in 
 which every Christian society in the country was inter- 
 ested. And the vote of the November meeting, 1839, 
 shew that in this sentiment a majority of this society 
 concurred. 
 
 This, by the doctrine now contended for by the Pro- 
 prietors, ought to have settled the question conclusive- 
 ly. Instead of that, however, instead of doing any 
 thing to conciliate or admit of conciliation, the Pro- 
 prietors renew their efforts to eject the pastor from his 
 pulpit. Wealth is lavished for this purpose, strangers 
 are brought in to decide by their votes, that the peo- 
 ple of Hollis Street society shall not enjoy the minis-
 
 90 
 
 trations of the man of their choice, until in this way 
 the majority of the wooden partitions which constitute 
 the pews was obtained against him, while the majority 
 of souls continued and has ever remained in his favor. 
 
 Concession there has been none on the part of his 
 opposers witness after witness have declared that he 
 would not come back into the society if Mr. P. re- 
 mained. And must, nay, can the conciliation be all on 
 one side ? His opponents admit that he has been hon- 
 est and sincere in uttering his sentiments, and had he 
 not been, he had only to hold his peace to insure him 
 quiet. And was the pastor the only one to act in this 
 business of allaying difficulties ? 
 
 If any door for conciliation had been left after the 
 vote of March 1840, it was effectually shut by the 
 charges of April 6, in which the Proprieters declare 
 his office forfeited, among other things, for indecency, 
 dishonesty, find falsehood. 
 
 You have seen on the other side, what Mr. Pierpont 
 did, and what he forbore, for the sake of peace, and 
 yet with all his efforts, unwearied as they were, in 
 avoiding offensive topics, in visiting among his people, 
 in courteous demeanor, and devoted attention, not 
 one of the movers in this warfare were reconciled, but 
 on the contrary, at the first moment when they could 
 act, they acted, to a man, against him. And when has 
 the time been since September, 1839, when, had he 
 sought it ever so much, Mr. Pierpont could have ap- 
 proached these men to conciliate them ? Nothing, in 
 short, was left for him, but to defend himself, and his
 
 91 
 
 character before the world, by publishing the truth. 
 And for publishing the truth, he is now to be con- 
 demned for neglecting his duty in not conciliating 
 his people : Can the charge be sustained for a moment ? 
 
 We have now gone through with these charges, and 
 the interesting question remains, in view of all the 
 case, what shall this Council do ? Their course seems 
 to me to be plain. The line is drawn which is to 
 guide them, as well in their investigations, as their re- 
 sult. If they remove Mr. Pierpont at all, it must be 
 by determining that the " grounds of complaint " are 
 the " reasons for dissolving his connexion." And this 
 position is the more confidently urged, because in look- 
 ing into the correspondence in this case, it will appear 
 that eight out of the twelve churches here assembled, 
 at a former ineffectual meeting in Council, so under- 
 stood the limits of their duty. 
 
 It was on this ground that the generous proffer of 
 this Council to act in this case was accepted, and any 
 essential departure from it, might throw suspicions 
 upon the honorable motives which dictated such a 
 proffer. 
 
 If the " grounds" are not true, there is nothing more 
 for this Council to do. If any part of them are true, 
 is it such as ought to result in a dissolution of the con- 
 nexion between Mr. Pierpont and his society, or 
 merely in advising them how these difficulties can best 
 be healed ? 
 
 The legal rights of the respondent are in every re- 
 spect as valid as those of the disaffected who would
 
 92 
 
 deprive him of them. This Council, or any court, 
 have no more right to release one party from the obli- 
 gation of their contract, on the plea of expediency, 
 or the general notion of propriety, than to impose a 
 double burden upon the other party. They can no 
 more release the Proprietors on such a ground from 
 paying the salary due to Mr. Pierpont, than to compel 
 them to pay a double salary, or absolve him from the 
 performance of all duty in his office. 
 
 There has been, through the whole of this trial, an 
 apparent disposition on the part of the Proprietors, to 
 escape from the real questions between the parties, and 
 to rest upon certain general considerations of probable 
 or possible expediency, as a rule by which the Council 
 should be guided. Upon such a ground, if the exist- 
 ence of difficulties is to be the evidence by which it is 
 sustained, no minister could ever be safe. Let some 
 rich and influential member of a society make up his 
 mind, from any cause, to displace its pastor, and all that 
 he has to do is to create and foment dissensions there, 
 and then, make the existence of these the cause of 
 sacrificing the innocent party. 
 
 The question of expediency not only is one which 
 has not been submitted by the agreement of these 
 parties, but there are third parties interested in its 
 decision who are not and cannot be heard here, and 
 that is those who worship in this house. To them it is 
 a question of deep moment, whether their Pastor shall 
 be displaced, and if this is to depend upon the probable 
 balance of good or evil which may result from such a
 
 93 
 
 measure, surely, before their rights and interests shall 
 be sacrificed, they ought to be heard. 
 
 But the respondent, so far as he is concerned, would 
 not shrink for a moment from meeting his opposers, 
 even on this ground, if it was open to them. 
 
 In considering this part of the subject, something 
 more than the mere counting of pews and reading of 
 title-deeds is to be regarded. The mockery of such a 
 proceeding did not require the calling of a Council. 
 And the conclusion to which I have come, from the 
 whole evidence in the case, is, that if Mr. Pierpont 
 remains, the society will flourish again if he is re- 
 moved, it will be broken up and destroyed. 
 
 If he remains, who that is now here will go away ? 
 Deacon Bass says he thinks some would do so, but he 
 does not put the number higher than from seven to ten. 
 But who has told you that he himself would go ? 
 
 So far as there is any evidence on this subject 
 unfavorable to this view of the case, it has come from 
 the opinions of those whose judgments are in no slight 
 degree formed from their own wishes and feelings. 
 
 On the other side, we have the opinions of friends 
 sustained by facts, as well as the general fact that so 
 large a proportion of the whole society have adhered 
 to their Pastor through all these troubles. 
 
 If Mr. Pierpont is removed, who will return? Mr. 
 Crane has furnished a list of those who, within fifteen 
 years, have been dissatisfied and left, or are dead. And 
 although in this number important errors have been 
 discovered, it is not meant to impeach the honesty of 
 13
 
 94 
 
 his belief when he prepared that list. But most of 
 those now alive must have connected themselves with 
 other societies, have their associations there, and can 
 have no inducement to return here. Such as have 
 recently left might return ; but, at best, their number 
 must be few. 
 
 If Mr. Pierpont is turned away for having dared to 
 preach the truth, is there a doubt that those who love 
 to hear that truth, and to maintain the right to have it 
 preached, will never consent to sit down under such a 
 ministration and such rules as alone would meet the 
 views of his opponents ? 
 
 Much has been said of "old stand-bys," and an 
 attempt has been made to awaken a sympathy for such. 
 But in determining a question like the one before you, 
 is there any difference to be attached to an equally 
 respectable citizen, whether he has been a worshipper 
 here for five or twenty-five years? Besides, with what 
 grace can this consideration be urged by those who 
 themselves have brought in strangers and a money 
 power to over-ride the rights of those who are actually 
 the " old stand-bys" in this, society ? 
 
 Can you hope to restore peace or build up this society 
 into strength again, by driving away the present wor- 
 shippers and denouncing the principle they have been 
 contending for? 
 
 What in fact is the real condition of this society now ? 
 There has been a great misapprehension in the public 
 mind on this point, which ought to be corrected. It has 
 been represented that Mr. Pierpont stood against his
 
 95 
 
 society, intrenched within technical rules, and regardless 
 of their wishes, when, in fact he has only stood by his 
 society, relying upon their aid and contending only for 
 the cause of Truth. 
 
 Although the number of present worshippers ought 
 not to be regarded as a fair test, when we find that 
 those who own the pews and do not occupy them 
 themselves, have, in some instances, been unwilling to 
 suffer others to occupy them, yet is it not true that 
 more worshippers have been added since these troubles 
 egan, than have been lost to the society ? Is there 
 any question that the same minister and the same style 
 of preaching, which, under such adverse circumstances, 
 have retained and added so many worshippers, would 
 attract still more, if peace could once be restored ? 
 Deacon Bass has told us there is not a society in Bos- 
 ton where the friends of the pastor are more strongly 
 attached to him than are the friends of Mr. Pierpont at 
 this very moment. And who do the papers and the 
 testimony before us show are these friends ? The 
 printed document of January, 1840, replying to the 
 communication of his opponents, is signed by one hun- 
 dred and eighteen names, representing fifty-one pews. 
 
 The number of worshippers now, as stated by Mr. 
 F. Jackson, J. J. May, and others, is one hundred and 
 thirty-one male adults, who own or occupy pews, and 
 nine females, who are pew proprietors. 
 
 The Church has, from the beginning, increased as 
 rapidly under Mr. Pierpont's ministration, as under 
 that of his predecessors ; and during seven months of
 
 96 
 
 the present year, the number added to this body is 
 more than double the average increase of former entire 
 years. And of these, out of a little over seventy, more 
 than sixty are known to be in favor of retaining Mr. 
 Pierpont. (Here Mr. Rand suggested that sixteen 
 only of these were males.) Is that a consideration to 
 urge upon this Council ? Are the female members of 
 this church to be wholly disregarded because they can- 
 not vote ? Do you not admit them in solemn covenant 
 to your communion, as members of the visible church, 
 and hold them in the interesting relation that binds 
 that body together ? And are we to be told that they 
 have no interest in the question whether their pastor is 
 to be torn from them, because their husbands or broth- 
 ers hold the deeds of the pews they occupy ? It is a 
 doctrine that partakes more of the narrow technicalities 
 of a close corporation, than the expanded charities of 
 the Christian religion. 
 
 When we inquire as to the Sabbath School, to whose 
 interest Mr. Pierpont has devoted so much time and 
 attention, we find its teachers all in favor of his being 
 retained, and expressing their belief that his removal 
 will be fatal to its prosperity. 
 
 Whatever else may be said of the friends of Mr. 
 Pierpont in this society, they not only are able but 
 willing to support him, as they have done, without a 
 dollar being paid as a tax on these pews, for the last 
 year or two. And can you doubt they will still do so, 
 if this difficulty should be settled ?
 
 97 
 
 In the one case then, you have a society of one hun- 
 dred and forty worshippers, at least, a church and a 
 Sabbath school, in the other, less than fifty, Mr. 
 Jackson says, not exceeding thirty, in the whole, and 
 with scarcely a nucleus of a church. 
 
 Can you hope, even if Mr. Pierpont were now re- 
 moved, that this society could unite in the settlement 
 of a new minister, divided as its members are, upon 
 the very principle on which he should be settled. The 
 principle on which they divide is so prominent that you 
 are almost imperatively called on to say which side in 
 this controversy you will sustain. When the friends of 
 Mr. Pierpont prevailed in November, 1839, they re- 
 solved to sustain the principles of entire freedom and 
 independence of the pulpit, and for this they have uni- 
 formly contended. But the first vote of the opponents, 
 when they obtained the majority, in March, 1840, was 
 to rescind the resolution of November. And this differ- 
 ence seems to have marked the opinions and feelings 
 of more than one of the witnesses on the one side and 
 the other, as they have testified before you. 
 
 But the strong argument which has been urged in 
 answer to all that has been said in behalf of the re- 
 spondent is, that the majority of the Proprietors are 
 opposed to him. If this is so, it is because wealth has 
 been lavished here to buy up and control this pulpit a 
 precedent more dangerous than can be found in the his- 
 tory of the churches of New England. If Mr. Hay's 
 doctrine "the great principle," as he says, for which 
 they are contending, is to be sanctioned by this Coun-
 
 98 
 
 cil and our courts, that a minister, " though pure as an 
 angel of light," shall yield up his pulpit whenever a 
 majority of the pew-holders demand it, then the follow- 
 ers of Abner Kneeland may buy up one more than half 
 the pews in number in the Federal-Street Church, and 
 he may utter his doctrines there in triumph. 
 
 The wealth of the opposition pew-holders is not 
 needed to sustain this society. The present worship- 
 pers only ask that you will not interfere in favor of 
 those who, in making war against their pastor, are 
 warring alike against them and the freedom of their 
 pulpit. 
 
 Leave, then, the respondent as you found him, except 
 to declare him innocent, as it seems to me you must, of 
 every charge that has been brought against him, and 
 the consequences are plain his friends will adhere to 
 him, many opposed will remain and unite with them. 
 The society will increase from the present rapid growth 
 of this part of the city, as well as from other pauses, 
 and in three years' time I may venture to affirm, Hollis- 
 Street Church will again be filled with a contented, 
 peaceful and prosperous congregation. 
 
 On the contrary, turn out Mr. Pierpont from this 
 pulpit let the money power ride over the consciences 
 of those who worship here, and the society is broken 
 down, Hollis-Street pulpit is silent or worse than silent 
 for ever, and the cause of religion and of civil liberty is 
 deeply wounded in the very house of its friends. 
 
 The determination of this cause involves momentous 
 consequences to the respondent, to the cause of civil 
 liberty, and of religion.
 
 99 
 
 Can the respondent go out into the world at his 
 period of life, with an unblemished reputation, if he 
 goes forth with the censure of his brethren upon him ? 
 He has toiled long and arduously for usefulness and for 
 character, and the struggle now is to deprive him of 
 both. Will you permit him to leave to his children the 
 rich inheritance of a good name, or send him away, 
 poor as he is in this world's goods, with a ruined 
 reputation ? 
 
 To the cause of civil liberty, the decision of this 
 case is even more important. A free pulpit is scarcely 
 less essential than a free press. Where a pulpit is 
 free a people cannot be slaves. It was the pulpit more 
 than the press that kept alive the spirit which, in the 
 days of our Revolution, secured their freedom to our 
 fathers. And even foreigners have remarked with 
 admiration the connexion there is between our religious 
 institutions and the prevalence of free principles in our 
 land. 
 
 You know that the law no longer sustains the pulpit 
 by any coercive aid. It must stand, if it stands at all, 
 by its own merits and the assured confidence in the 
 public mind, that it is free and untrammelled. Better a 
 thousand times have the bigotry of an hierarchy to 
 control the pulpit than the capricious tyranny of a self- 
 constituted censorship, whose only claim to confidence 
 is the ingots and pride of those who hold the rod of 
 power. 
 
 If wealth is to be the dominant power over the 
 pulpit, and he is to be subjected to ignominy, who dares
 
 100 
 
 to lift the veil that covers sin, because it is the sin of 
 the rich, it would be better that every church door was 
 closed, and every watchman forever silent beside his 
 altar. 
 
 While the whole of Christendom is instinct with life 
 in the cause of benevolence, shall it be said that the 
 independent churches of New England are shut against 
 it ? Shall it be said that here, in Boston, where more 
 than two hundred years ago, there were minds which 
 dared to break through the lines within which intol- 
 erance and the law hedged them in, and to think and 
 speak in the freedom which God had given them, the 
 ministers of his religion are willing to bow to the shrine 
 of mammon, or hold their peace to court the favor of 
 any class of men ? You will answer no, for where the 
 proposition stands in its true light no other answer can 
 be given. 
 
 Let religion, then, be what its author designed it 
 should be, a light to our path and a guide to our feet 
 through this world of temptation to immortal life beyond 
 the grave, and let its ministers boldly proclaim its 
 councils " whether men will hear or whether they will 
 forbear," and it will rise above every obstacle which 
 self-interest or human passion may throw in its way. 
 
 But if none but such opinions as suit the leaders in a 
 community may be preached, if the vicious propensities, 
 the debased appetites, the wicked passions, of men may 
 not be attacked from the pulpit, from a fear of excite- 
 ment, preaching becomes but a siren's song to lull men 
 to sleep, while eternity, with all its dread realities, is 
 waiting to receive them.
 
 101 
 
 Once and again has this edifice been in peril from 
 the fires of heaven. But the same Providence that 
 directed the lightning's bolt preserved it from destruc- 
 tion. Once and again have the fires of discord been 
 lighted here to destroy the visible, the living church, 
 which God has gathered here ; and we look to the 
 same protecting Providence to quench these fires, and 
 yet to spare the flock that come around this altar. In 
 your hands is its shepherd, and on your decision rests 
 the issue whether this flock shall be scattered, or be 
 suffered again to follow the familiar, the loved voice of 
 the pastor of their choice. 
 
 In the name, then, of justice to an injured man, in 
 the name of civil liberty, in the name of that holy reli- 
 gion which you profess, I ask, I entreat of you, that 
 you acquit my client of these charges, and that you 
 restore him back to his church and his people. 
 
 By doing this you will restore peace, by showing to 
 his persecutors that the pulpit is not to be made subser- 
 vient to any man's self-interest, or to be silent in the 
 cause of religion and humanity. 
 
 In this result the generous minded, and the magnan- 
 imous among his opposers, and there are many such, 
 will acquiesce, and when this excitement shall have sub- 
 sided, will bless you for the fearless discharge of your 
 duty, and their children's children will reap the rewards 
 of your faithfulness in maintaining the cause that is 
 now committed to your charge. 
 
 If there are any whose feelings have become so imbit- 
 tered that they cannot again come to this sanctuary, will 
 14
 
 102 
 
 you leave them to find a more congenial place of 
 worship, or will you sacrifice to their feelings the hopes, 
 the wishes, the happiness, of those who now worship 
 here ? 
 
 Which interest shall prevail, which be the most 
 regarded, the souls of this flock, or the money-power of 
 those who hold a parchment title to the bricks and 
 mortar and timbers of a house into which some of 
 these proprietors rarely, and some never enter. 
 
 Weigh well the consequences of your result. You 
 may dismiss the respondent you may yield to the 
 clamor that has been raised against him, and give his 
 enemies a triumph. You may send him into the world 
 a censured a disgraced minister, and it may be of 
 comparatively little consequence. The circle of friends 
 who may feel his disgrace may be comparatively small. 
 At the utmost, his heart cannot be stung with mortifi- 
 cation and sorrow but a few years, before its throbbings 
 will be hushed in that sleep which no enemy can 
 disturb, and his children alone may then feel the blush 
 of shame tingle on their cheek, when the connexion of 
 their father with this church shall be recalled. 
 
 But these are all sufferings and consequences of a 
 day, and if your result stopped here, it would, so far as 
 the affairs of this great world are concerned, be of but 
 little moment. 
 
 But it cannot stop there. The issue of this trial will 
 be felt when you and all of us shall have been gathered 
 to our fathers, and our names shall be moss-grown on 
 our tombstones. If the purity, the independence, the
 
 103 
 
 freedom of the pulpit is sacrificed here, if the altar is to 
 minister only to the caprices of power and of passion, 
 if the thoughts, the souls of pastor and of people are to 
 be chained down and circumscribed by the will of a 
 few, nothing but a revolution such as Luther wrought 
 out in the old world, can restore back the churches of 
 New England to their primitive purity and lustre. 
 
 The eyes of thousands whom you may never know, 
 are upon you in this decision. They feel that the 
 cause of the respondent is their own cause, is the cause 
 of humanity, of civil and religious liberty. The press 
 throughout the country has spoken out the feeling of 
 every liberal, unbiased mind, a feeling of generous in- 
 dignation, that in the nineteenth century, an attempt 
 should be made to silence the pulpit, and hedge it in 
 with the terrors of a monied power. 
 
 See to it, that your result shall be such as you your- 
 selves shall approve, when you look back upon this scene 
 from the calm retreat of your own thoughts, when this 
 trial and its consequences shall have become history. 
 
 See to it, that when you render up your account of 
 this, as of your other deeds done in the body, unto the 
 great Head of the Church, it shall be with joy and not 
 with grief, because, regardless of the fear of man, and 
 with pure consciences, you shall have done your duty 
 as men, as Christians, and as the ambassadors of the 
 Most High.
 
 RESULT OF COUNCIL 
 
 IXJTHE CASE BETWEEN THE REV. JOHN PIERPONT AND THE PROPRIETORS 
 OF HOLLIS-STREET MEETING HOUSE. 
 
 THE " Grounds of Complaint " preferred on the 
 27th of July, 1840, by the Committee of the Propri- 
 etors of Hollis-Street Meeting House, against their 
 Pastor, the Rev. John Pierpont, to be submitted to a 
 Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, as " reasons " for dis- 
 solving the Pastoral connexion subsisting between 
 them, embrace three description of charges. First, 
 Charges affecting the moral character of the Pastor, 
 and impeaching his purity, his integrity, and his regard 
 for truth ; Secondly, Charges affecting the ministerial 
 character of the Pastor, impeaching his fidelity in 
 his office, and condemning the manner in which he 
 has discharged its duties ; and Thirdly, Charges grow- 
 ing out of the difficulties that have arisen between 
 him and his Parish, and impeaching the Christian tem- 
 per and spirit of the Pastor in respect to the manner 
 in which he has, in his letters, public communications 
 and speeches, conducted the controversy. 
 
 These " Grounds of Complaint," therefore, present 
 very grave and serious charges, affecting the character 
 and reputation of a Minister of the Gospel, and through 
 him the interests of religion itself. Under these 
 " Grounds of Complaint " the parties have had a full 
 and patient hearing ; the Council have diligently con- 
 sidered all that has been presented to them in the 
 testimony and arguments, and feel it to be due, as well 
 to themselves as to the parties and the interests of re- 
 ligion, to present a full view of their opinions upon the 
 various points involved in the case. 
 
 1. And first, they are of an opinion that the charges 
 affecting the moral character of the Pastor are not sus-
 
 105 
 
 tained. They believe that a calm review and a chari- 
 table construction of what was presented under these 
 charges, will not only support this opinion, but must 
 lead to this result. 
 
 The charge impeaching the Pastor's purity of mind, 
 sets forth " that the Rev. John Pierpont has, in the 
 pulpit and elsewhere in public, unnecessarily made 
 indelicate statements and allusions, by which his audi- 
 ences, and more especially the female portion thereof, 
 have been mortified and disgusted, and the confidence 
 of a large portion of his Parish and the public, in the 
 purity of his mind and motives, been impaired." The 
 Council consider the evidence adduced as altogether 
 insufficient to sustain so grave and serious a charge as 
 this. But three instances of statements or allusions of 
 the kind referred to were presented in the testimony ; 
 and these three, even if admitted to have been unnec- 
 essary, were such as only to call in question the good 
 taste of the Pastor, and not his purity ; and no proof 
 was exhibited that confidence in the purity of his mind 
 and motives had, to any extent, been impaired. 
 
 The charge impeaching the Pastor's integrity, sets 
 forth, " that the Rev. John Pierpont has, in his secular 
 dealings, been wanting in that scrupulous integrity which 
 is necessary to the respectability and usefulness of a 
 Christian minister." Under this charge, three specifi- 
 cations of a violation of integrity are adduced. First, 
 " that the Pastor pledged to another the copy-right 
 of a book, which he had engaged to Mr. Wm. B. 
 Fowle not to dispose of without first offering it to him, 
 not having offered the same to said Fowle." It ap- 
 peared in evidence, that the Pastor did not pledge the 
 copy-right of the book, but merely his share of the 
 proceeds, which, under a copy-right contract, were 
 to fall due to him from the sale of the book. It 
 appeared that these proceeds were received by him- 
 self, in money or notes, and by him paid over to
 
 106 
 
 the person to whom they were pledged, till the debt, 
 for which they were pledged, was liquidated. The 
 Council are of opinion, therefore, that this specification, 
 as set forth in the " Grounds of Complaint," is not 
 sustained. Under this specification, a large mass of 
 testimony was presented to the Council, touching all 
 the secular transactions between the Pastor and Mr. 
 Wm. B. Fowle, and their contracts in relation to the 
 copy-rights, and the sale of the copy-rights, of certain 
 books held as joint property by them. Although some 
 members of the Council are not prepared entirely to 
 approve the Pastor's conduct in all these transactions, 
 yet inasmuch as that conduct does not bear upon the 
 specification set forth in the " Grounds of Complaint," 
 and inasmuch, also, as it involves a question of legal 
 right, to be determined by a higher and more competent 
 tribunal, the Council do not feel called upon to express 
 an opinion in the case. 
 
 The second specification against the Pastor's integ- 
 rity, recites that he " wholly neglected and omitted, 
 without any justifiable excuse, to furnish Mr. Wm. W. 
 Clapp, one of his parishioners, with letters from him while 
 in Europe, for publication in the Evening Gazette, he 
 having entered into a written agreement so to do, and 
 having received from said Clapp and negotiated his 
 acceptance for two hundred and fifty dollars, as the 
 consideration for writing said letters." 
 
 It appeared in evidence that the Pastor did send Mr. 
 Clapp one letter from Europe, dated about three 
 months after he sailed from this country, a large por- 
 tion of which was subsequently published in the Eve- 
 ning Gazette, and that in this letter he refunded the 
 money, and informed Mr. Clapp that the stay he made 
 in any one place was so short, that it would be impos- 
 sible for him, in his state of health, to meet his engage- 
 ment to furnish him letters for publication. It appear- 
 ed in evidence, that the Pastor was suffering from ill
 
 107 
 
 health, at the time this letter was written, and that he 
 was considered by those who then saw him, unequal to 
 the task of writing much or regularly. 
 
 The Council cannot but consider this as a justifiable 
 excuse for the Pastor's failure to furnish the letters, and 
 they regard the facts, therefore, as presented under this 
 specification, as insufficient to sustain the charge. 
 The third specification against the Pastor's integrity, 
 charges him " with communicating and suffering to be 
 made public, and to be publicly sold, a newly-invented 
 Steel Hone, which Dr. Bemis, the inventor, had 
 intrusted to him. for his private use, upon his undertak- 
 ing that he would not communicate or make known 
 the same." And also with " claiming as his own, or 
 wilfully permitting the invention of said hone to be 
 publicly attributed to him, without contradiction, he well 
 knowing that the said hone was not invented by him- 
 self, but by said Bemis." It appeared in evidence, that 
 many years since the Pastor did receive from Dr. 
 Bemis, under an injunction of secresy, and with the 
 understanding that Dr. Bemis intended to obtain a 
 patent for it, a Steel Hone or Tablet, for the purpose 
 of sharpening razors, to be used with or without paste, 
 and nothing was shown to the contrary. It appeared 
 in evidence, that some eight or ten years afterwards a 
 Steel Hone or Tablet was put into the hands of a 
 mechanic at Taunton, for him to make one like it, by 
 a gentleman who said he obtained it from the Pastor ; 
 that this mechanic, not being cautioned to any secresy, 
 made several of these hones or tablets for different per- 
 sons ; that receiving, about a year afterwards, an improv- 
 ed kind of paste from the Pastor, he manufactured these 
 hones for sale, and that they were publicly sold with 
 this mechanic's name upon them as the maker. It did 
 not appear in evidence that these hones were publicly 
 known and advertised as the invention of the Pastor. 
 It did not appear that the Pastor claimed the invention
 
 108 
 
 as his, or refused to acknowledge that his original 
 Tablet or Hone came from Dr. Bemis. It did not 
 appear that the Pastor claimed or received any pecuni- 
 ary profit or advantage from the manufacture and sale 
 of this article. Now, as Dr. Bemis felt aggrieved under 
 these circumstances, and the Pastor was so informed, 
 the Council consider it matter of regret that he did ont 
 call upon him and offer some explanation of his con- 
 duct ; but, in consideration of the many years that 
 elapsed after the hone came into the possession of the 
 Pastor before it was made public, and that no satisfac- 
 tory account was given by Dr. Bemis of his delay, dur- 
 ing all this time, to procure a patent, a circumstance 
 which might naturally lead the Pastor to conclude that 
 he no longer considered the matter as of any impor- 
 tance, and inasmuch, also, as improvements in the 
 application of steel for the purpose of sharpening, had 
 meanwhile been made and publicly announced, and 
 inasmuch, furthermore, as it did not appear in evidence 
 in what precise way the hone came into the possession 
 of the gentleman who brought it to the mechanic at 
 Taunton, nor for what purpose it was intrusted to him 
 by the Pastor, the Council are of opinion that the facts 
 connected with this specification do not require a con- 
 struction adverse to the Pastor's integrity. 
 
 The remaining charge affecting the Pastor's moral 
 character, sets forth, " that the Rev. John Pierpont has 
 been wanting in that scrupulous regard for truth, which 
 should distinguish a Christian minister," and the speci- 
 fication recites, " that evidence will be offered of his 
 having denied expressions and remarks made by him in 
 his sermons and upon other occasions, and of his having 
 denied the writing of a certain theatrical prologue, or 
 other compositions, written by him." 
 
 But little evidence was offered to the Council 
 touching the first clause in this specification. Differ- 
 ences of recollection existed among the witnesses as to
 
 109 
 
 the precise words or expressions sometimes used by the 
 Pastor, but the Council are of opinion that nothing was 
 shown under this clause impeaching his regard for 
 truth. In regard to the second specification, it appear- 
 ed in evidence, that several years since, when a prize 
 was offered for the best theatrical prologue, a poem, 
 believed, on recollection by one of the Committee, to 
 be in the Pastor's hand-writing, was sent to the 
 Prize-Committee ; that at the same time a gentleman, 
 who had been previously asked by the Pastor if he 
 might be relied upon as a confidential friend, in case a 
 poem should be offered, but was not informed directly 
 as to the authorship of the poem, received a letter, also 
 believed to be in the Pastor's hand-writing, dated Hart- 
 ford, and signed J. Jameison, informing him that a 
 poem with this signature had been sent to the Commit- 
 tee, and requesting him, should the poem be successful, 
 to receive the prize-money, and pay it to whom he sup- 
 posed it to belong, and that this gentleman subsequent- 
 ly received the prize-money, and paid it to the Pastor. 
 It appeared that, afterward, when some excitement 
 arose in respect to the authorship of the poem, and the 
 Committee, to relieve themselves from attacks and 
 imputations cast upon them through the press, were 
 anxious to discover and declare the author's name, the 
 Pastor replied to an inquiry put to him for this purpose 
 by one of the Committee, " that he had not written two 
 lines of heroic verse for two years," and it appeared 
 that the poem in question was written in heroic verse, 
 and nothing contrary to all this was shown. The 
 Council are of opinion, that these facts do not exhibit 
 such evidence that the Pastor wrote the poem in ques- 
 tion as to authorize them, sitting in judgment on his 
 character, to pronounce his reply to a member of the 
 Prize-Committee, to have been a denial of the author- 
 ship, or an evasion of the question. To authorize them 
 to do this, they consider that it ought to be shown, 
 15
 
 110 
 
 not simply that the Pastor may have written the poem in 
 (jucstion, but that he actually wrote it, and wrote it 
 within two years, or that he must have written it, and 
 written it within two years, as no one else could have 
 written it, which is not shown. While the Pastor's 
 position, therefore, in relation to the Prologue, may be 
 dei-med unfortunate, it cannot be considered such as to 
 authorize the Council to pronounce him wanting in that 
 regard to truth, which, as a man and a clergyman, he 
 should possess. 
 
 In addition to the specifications set forth in the 
 " Grounds, of Complaint," certain passages in the 
 printed correspondence of the Pastor, and in his re- 
 monstrance to the ex-parte action of the Council, were 
 also adduced as evidence of a want, on his part, of a 
 scrupulous regard to truth. The Council are of opin- 
 ion, that in the exact signification of words, and the 
 ordinary acceptation of language, some of the passages 
 referred to, would convey to readers generally a mean- 
 ing different from that which the Pastor puts upon them, 
 and an apprehension of facts different from that which 
 actually occurred, and they consider it matter of 
 regret, that in documents of such importance there 
 should not have been a clearness and explicitness in the 
 language used, that would have precluded all misappre- 
 hension of meaning and all appearance of mistatement. 
 If, for example, in his letter of September 20th, 1838, 
 the Pastor did not mean to admit that he had devoted 
 too much time to topics somewhat foreign to the appro- 
 priate duties of his office and profession, it is to be 
 regretted that he did not say so explicitly, rather than 
 have used a form of expression, which, to some readers, 
 has conveyed the idea that he did mean to admit it. 
 
 The passages, which may be thought to afford most 
 support to the charge under consideration, are that in his 
 letter of Oct. 22, 1839, in which he speaks of the " Res- 
 olutions " offered by Mr. James Boyd, as "appended "
 
 Ill 
 
 to his letter of Oct. 7th, and that in his Remonstrance, 
 in which he says, that on the 7th of Oct. 1839, he 
 " tendered to the Proprietors a mutual Council, to 
 decide whether, for reason of any thing that he had 
 done, or left undone, in relation to the temperance 
 cause, or for any cause whatever, the connexion between 
 the Society and himself ought to be dissolved." Now 
 as the Resolutions offered by Mr. Boyd, were riot, 
 strictly speaking, appended to his letter, as they were 
 not written upon the same paper, nor upon a paper 
 attached to his letter, as they were not conveyed to 
 the meeting of the Proprietors under the same envelope 
 with it, nor by the same means, nor through the same 
 person, it must be admitted that to speak of them as 
 '' appended " to that letter is a singular use of the 
 word ; and as the offer spoken of in the Remonstrance 
 was not made in his letter to the Parish of the 7th of 
 Oct., wherein a Council upon a narrow and single 
 issue only is proposed, but was ma'de in the Resolutions, 
 which, though written by the Pastor, were offered by 
 Mr. Boyd in his own name, without any intimation that 
 he acted under the Pastor's authority, and were so con- 
 structed as to be, in fact, an offer or invitation from 
 the Parish to the Pastor, it must be admitted that the 
 declaration does not correspond to the facts, as they 
 would be received by most persons, Still, inasmuch 
 as the Pastor has insisted upon the correctness of his 
 interpretation of the word u appended," and inasmuch as 
 his apprehension of the facts may, under the circumstan- 
 ces, have been honestly entertained, the Council do not 
 think themselves justified in imputing to him a disre- 
 gard of truth. 
 
 The " Grounds of Complaint" affecting the moral 
 character of the Pastor have thus been reviewed at 
 some length, because, in the judgment of all, and es- 
 pecially in his own estimation, this must be considered 
 the most important point involved. Whether he be
 
 112 
 
 continued the Pastor of Hollis-Street Society is of 
 small moment in comparison with the question, whether 
 or not he shall stand before the world, pronounced by 
 the solemn judgment of his peers, as unworthy of con- 
 fidence, because wanting in purity, integrity, and regard 
 for truth. The Council are of opinion that he cannot 
 be so regarded, and ought not to be so pronounced. 
 
 2. The second description of charges affects the Pas- 
 tor's ministerial character, impeaches his fidelity in his 
 office, and condemns the manner in which he has dis- 
 charged its duties. 
 
 It will not be necessary to recite these charges, or 
 the evidence in relation to them, so specifically as the 
 former. It is complained generally, " that the Pastor's 
 time and attention have been too much withdrawn 
 from the duties of his office to secular pursuits and 
 popular controversies ; that he has preached in an 
 unkind and excited manner upon these controverted 
 subjects ; that his general demeanor has not been such 
 as to promote and secure peace and harmony in his 
 Parish, but the contrary ; that he has been wanting in 
 that decorum, gravity, gentleness, and discretion, both 
 in matter and manner, which are essential to the useful- 
 ness and respectability of a Christian minister; and 
 that these things have so alienated the affections and 
 destroyed the confidence of a large portion of his Parish, 
 that the connexion ought to be dissolved." Upon these 
 complaints two questions present themselves to the 
 consideration of the Council ; first, the justness of the 
 complaints ; and secondly, the effect it is contended 
 they have produced, and the issue, in which it is con- 
 tended they ought to end. Upon the first question, 
 the Council are of opinion that most of the com- 
 plaints are sustained in part, i. e., that there existed 
 resonable ground for raising the complaint. It appeared 
 from the circumstances developed in the investigation 
 before the Council, and will be acknowledged probably
 
 113 
 
 by the Pastor himself, that he has been interested and 
 active, as a man and a citizen, in enterprises and pur- 
 suits not coming strictly within, and more or less 
 widely apart from, his appropriate sphere of duty and 
 effort as "a clergyman. The Council recognize, and 
 the community will recognize, his right to do so, provi- 
 ded this do not cause, and be not attended with the 
 neglect of duties that especially devolve upon him as a 
 Minister of the Gospel* Such neglect the Council are 
 decidedly of opinion was not shown. On the contrary 
 they think that few clergymen could have a ministry 
 of more than twenty years so thoroughly scanned and 
 investigated, and not have more instances of neglect 
 and evidences of inattention brought forward against 
 him. Upon this point the Council cannot but consider 
 the investigation, had before them, as honorable to the 
 Pastor. 
 
 If, therefore, no neglect of appropriate duty can be 
 proved against him, the mere fact that he has been 
 interested and active in other objects and pursuits can- 
 not be made matter of just complaint against him. 
 Such interest and activity may be the means of making 
 him more useful as a minister, and whether so or not, 
 the office of a clergyman does not divest him of the 
 rights of a man and a citizen ; and like all other per- 
 sons, he has a claim to the enjoyment, and is to be 
 upheld in a wise, prudent and discreet use, of these 
 rights. The question then arises, whether the Pastor 
 has been wise, prudent and discreet, both in the use of 
 these rights, that is, in the manner in which his interest 
 and activity in relation to objects somewhat apart from 
 his professional duties have been manifested, and in the 
 manner in which he has conducted and discharged his 
 duties as a Christian minister. The Council are not pre- 
 pared to say unqualifiedly that he has. On the contrary, 
 they think that the Pastor may be justly censured as 
 having sometimes failed in these qualities. They think
 
 114 
 
 that on some occasions and in relation to some objects, he 
 might, without the slightest infringement of his personal 
 independence, or of the independence of the pulpit, 
 both in and out of the pulpit, have pursued a differ- 
 ent course, manifested more of calmness and modera- 
 tion, and through these have been more useful. They 
 consider that the circumstances of his Parish, and the 
 condition of things in that quarter of the city where 
 his ministry was chiefly exercised and its influence 
 exerted, were peculiar, and such as called for a large 
 measure and a constant exhibition of " that wisdom 
 which is from above, which is first pure, then peacea- 
 ble, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy, without 
 partiality as well as without hypocrisy," whose fruit is 
 sown in peace to them that make peace ; and in this 
 wisdom the Council consider that the Pastor has been 
 somewhat deficient. 
 
 But in the ministry, as in every other office and re- 
 lation of life, allowance is to be made for individual tem- 
 perament ; and it is to be considered probable also, that 
 if there was sometimes a want of prudence, gentleness 
 and discretion in the Pastor, there may have been, on 
 the part of some of his hearers, unconsciously, a sus- 
 ceptibility to offence, which led them to attach a 
 stronger meaning and to make a more pointed applica- 
 tion of his sermons, and portions of his sermons, than 
 was intended by him, or they could justly be made to 
 have or to convey, and thus the difficulties have arisen 
 from faults and failings in both parties. 
 
 While the Council consider, therefore, that there 
 were not unreasonable grounds of complaint, as respects 
 the manner in which the Pastor's interest and activity 
 in relation to objects somewhat apart from his office 
 were manifested, and as respects the manner also in 
 which he has discharged some portions of his duty 
 as a Christian minister ; they are of opinion that 
 there is not made out against him such habitual indis-
 
 115 
 
 cretion, such a series of imprudences, such a continuation 
 of conduct improper and unbecoming a Christian min- 
 ister, as to authorize them to advise and say that he is 
 no longer worthy to stand in the pulpit, which for more 
 than twenty years has witnessed his ministrations. 
 
 3. The third description of charges in the " Grounds of 
 Complaint" impeaches the Christian temper and spirit 
 of the Pastor, in respect to the manner in which he has 
 conducted the controversy, which has now for some 
 years existed between himself and a portion of his 
 Parish. These charges recite, " that after a difference 
 had arisen between the Rev. John Pierpont and many 
 of his parishioners, upon some of the subjects above 
 mentioned, he has not pursued a kind or conciliatory 
 course, but on the contrary has continued and conducted 
 the controversy with his parishioners in a harsh, con- 
 temptuous, vindictive and unchristian spirit, by which 
 the minds and affections of a large portion of his Parish 
 are justly alienated from their minister," and also, 
 " that the Rev. John Pierpont has in his published 
 letters to committees, or individuals of his Parish, re- 
 specting the said controversy, been guilty of great 
 levity, indecorum, and want of reverence for the Holy 
 Scriptures, and his own sacred calling, by which he has 
 justly lost the respect and confidence of a great portion 
 of his Parish and of the public, and brought a scandal 
 upon his office as a Christian minister." 
 
 After carefully considering all the letters and docu- 
 ments put into the case by the complainants, the 
 Council do not perceive that any portion of the cor- 
 respondence can be styled " vindictive," nor do 
 they perceive any instances of intentional irrever- 
 ence for the Holy Scriptures, although the Pastor has 
 allowed himself in a use of Scriptural language painful 
 to the feelings of this Council. With these exceptions, 
 the Council are of opinion that these charges are in a 
 measure sustained. Subsequently to his letter of the
 
 116 
 
 20th of September, 1838, they think th.it there is little 
 of a Christian temper or spirit manifested in the Pastor's 
 communications to the Parish that in some portions of 
 them, there is a degree of harshness, levity, personality, 
 ridicule and sarcasm, at variance with Christian meek- 
 ness, forbearance and charity, unbecoming a Christian 
 minister, and calculated to bring reproach upon his 
 office and order. Whatever may have been the prov- 
 ocation, they think that a Christian minister should 
 have exhibited a different spirit. Whatever may have 
 been the motives which the Pastor supposed to influence 
 his opponents, whatever may have been the subject, 
 which he thought was the chief cause of their opposi- 
 tion, however trivial he felt justified in regarding some 
 of the matters brought up against him, the object to 
 which all related was the dissolution of the pastoral 
 connexion ; and that is a grave, serious, not to say sol- 
 emn matter, at all times and in every point of view ; 
 and in viewing it, both parties, and most certainly the 
 Pastor, should bring into exercise calm and Christian 
 thoughts, the best principles and the best affections of 
 our nature, and they think there is evidence in the cor- 
 respondence, that this has not always been done by 
 him. They feel constrained to say that in their judg- 
 ment, the Pastor's communications subsequent to 1838, 
 are not conciliatory or dignified, and that on some 
 occasions, by communications of a different temper and 
 spirit, if he could not have healed dissensions, he might 
 have placed his own cause and character in a more 
 favorable light before the community. 
 
 The Council have thus reviewed all the charges in 
 the " Grounds of Complaint." They do not perceive 
 that under these " Grounds of Complaint," it has been 
 shown that the Pastor has done such wrong, or been 
 guilty of such imprudence, indiscretion, impropriety, 
 as to make it just and requisite that he should be dis- 
 placed from his pulpit. But do not these " Grounds of
 
 117 
 
 Complaint " present " reasons " for dissolving the con- 
 nexion ? or is it not best, all things considered, that 
 the Council should advise a dissolution of the connex- 
 ion ? To this question the Council are not prepared 
 to give an affirmative answer. They cannot entertain 
 the idea that any great principles of vital importance 
 to our religious institutions are involved in this, more 
 essentially than in many other cases of dissension be- 
 tween a pastor and a parish. They do not consider 
 that the freedom of the pulpit is at stake in this con- 
 troversy, nor do they perceive that it is necessary for 
 them to stand between this Pastor and his opponents 
 to preserve the freedom of the pulpit. In an intelli- 
 gent community that can never be seriously in danger, 
 nor essentially infringed. Neither do the Council per- 
 ceive that the position of the Clergy would be injured, 
 or their just rights jeoparded, by a decision of the case 
 before them adverse to the Pastor, on the general 
 grounds under consideration. But they do not per- 
 ceive that such decision is required or woulo! be ben- 
 eficial. It is not required, because it appeared in evi- 
 dence that a majority of the worshippers in Hollis 
 Street Meeting House, a majority of the proprietors 
 now worshipping there, and nearly all the members of 
 the Church, are satisfied with the Pastor. It would 
 not, in the opinion of the Council, be beneficial, be- 
 cause they do not perceive that any foreign interference, 
 the action of any power from without, can bring back 
 peace, or be the means of bringing back peace to this 
 divided Parish. This can only be done by the volun- 
 tary action of the parties themselves, and to such ac- 
 tion the Council would earnestly urge and exhort them. 
 But the Pastor and the Parish are not the only par- 
 ties interested. Thus far, the controversy, which has 
 been the occasion of the assembling of this Council, 
 has been viewed solely in its relation to the parties im- 
 mediately concerned, the complainants on the one side, 
 16
 
 118 
 
 and the Pastor on the other. There is another view 
 which ought not to be overlooked, and on which the 
 Council feel themselves constrained to make a few re- 
 marks. The parties immediately concerned are not 
 alone affected by the spectacle of such a controversy, 
 maintained with unusual vigor for nearly three years. 
 The community in the midst of which this spectacle 
 has been presented, have not been and could not be 
 insensible to its character, or indifferent to its progress. 
 The Christian church, far and wide, must feel an inter- 
 est in the conduct of its members and the reputation 
 of one of its ministers. The cause of religion must 
 suffer from what has been called, in one of the docu- 
 ments belonging to the present controversy, " a scan- 
 dal" an offence against the peace and spiritual well- 
 being which should distinguish the Christian body. 
 It has been impossible to follow the history of this 
 case, as it has been unfolded in the papers laid before 
 the Council, and by the witnesses examined in their 
 presence, and not observe the temper which to a sad 
 extent has prevailed, and which such a struggle is sure 
 to inflame, if not to beget. It has been too plainly a 
 struggle, in which each party has endeavored, by inge- 
 nious argument, direct assault, and unpleasant, and 
 sometimes bitter insinuation, to gain or secure an ad- 
 vantage. Undeniably, the spirit of meekness, gentle- 
 ness, candor, and that righteousness, which according 
 to the idea of the Gospel, is but another name for the 
 charity which never faileth, has been disregarded, and 
 injury has accrued at which the friends of religion must 
 grieve, while others may find occasion for reproach or 
 derision, and which years may not repair. 
 
 While the Council mean not to deny that both a 
 minister and a people have their rights, which they 
 ought to value, and in a proper spirit, and in a proper 
 manner to maintain, they cannot but notice how preg- 
 nant an example has been brought before them, of the
 
 119 
 
 evils of dissension between parties united by such close 
 and sacred ties, as those which bind minister and peo- 
 ple in a common use of privileges and a common hope 
 of salvation. And they do earnestly and affectionately 
 exhort those, who in the present instance, have been 
 led into a most unhappy and hurtful controversy, to 
 compose their divisions, to bury the past in forgetful- 
 ness, and while they accept as definite the decision 
 to which this Council has arrived, in the exercise of 
 their honest judgment upon all the facts brought under 
 their notice, to " follow after the things that make for 
 peace and wherewith one may edify another." They 
 do not conceive that they are exceeding the bounds 
 within which their result should be confined, when they 
 suggest to the Pastor, the propriety of his endeavoring 
 to bring his efforts, in behalf of the various objects not 
 immediately connected with his ministry, into nearer 
 correspondence with the wishes of his Parish ; and 
 upon the complainants, they must also press the duty 
 of according to their Pastor a large exercise of his own 
 judgment, in the selection of subjects to which he shall 
 devote such portion of his time as the duties of his 
 ministry may leave at his own disposal. If both the 
 parties will adopt the course of forbearance here indi- 
 cated, by which neither will sacrifice any rights, or in 
 any degree compromise conscience, their future con- 
 nexion may be marked by mutual satisfaction and com- 
 mon improvement, the discordant elements of this Par- 
 ish may yet be united in harmony, and the interests of 
 religion flourish again within the sanctuary where they 
 should be fostered by the blended influences of truth 
 and love. Wide as the schism has become between 
 the two portions of the Parish, as well as between the 
 complainants and the respondent, in the case committed 
 to the Council, the breach may be healed by the cul- 
 ture of those feelings, which, on the one side and the 
 other, ought to be cherished to the exclusion of harsh-
 
 120 
 
 ness, jealousy, and whatever habit of recrimination has 
 tended to produce the present state of alienation. To 
 the culture of such feelings, and the exercise of can- 
 dor, humility, and brotherly love, the Council would 
 urge the Pastor, the Proprietors, and the worshippers 
 in this church, by every consideration that can be drawn 
 from a sense of their duty to themselves, to their breth- 
 ren in the faith and hope of the gospel, to the interests 
 of society, and to the cause of religion. Then may it 
 be seen that as in the continual providence of God, so 
 here, evil is made productive of good, as the experience 
 of the evils and mischiefs of division shall turn the 
 thoughts of all upon a more diligent pursuit of the 
 Christian temper and life. 
 
 Having thus reviewed the case before them, and pre- 
 sented the grounds of their decision, with the advice 
 they deem it proper to offer, the Council have only to 
 add, in a concise form, the unanimous expression of 
 their opinion, which is as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That although on such of the charges, pre- 
 ferred against the Rev. John Pierpont, as most directly 
 affect his moral character, the proof which has been 
 presented has been altogether insufficient, yet on other 
 charges, such an amount of proof has been brought for- 
 ward as requires this Council to express their disappro- 
 bation of Mr. Pierpont's conduct on some occasions 
 and in some respects, but not sufficient, in their opin- 
 ion, to furnish ground for advising a dissolution of the 
 connexion between him and his Parish. 
 
 FRANCIS PARKMAN, Moderator. 
 A true copy from the Records : 
 SAMUEL K. LOTHROP, Scribe. 
 y, 1841.
 
 m J\ " "''I '"" "III III
 
 IHP