informed the council that he should abide by his protest; and, of course, remained silent as to the articles of charge. The council proceeded to consider the complaint, and heard the testimony adduced by the church, and the remarks made by their advocate. As the proceedings had excited some emotion, it was proposed by the advocate of Mr. A., that the council should wave a decision, and give opportunity to unite in a mutual council. Mr. A renewed to the church the proposal for a mutual council; this effort failed of success, and, on the next day, the result of the Consociation was published. The Consociation was composed of nine pastors of churches in the county of Tolland, and eleven delegates. After the regular opening of the Consociation, the proceedings were as follows: "The church laid before this body a complaint, containing the following articles of charge against their pas tor, viz. "That he, the Rev. Abiel Abbot, does neither preach nor believe the sacred Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the Godhead. "That he does neither preach, nor believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ; that he is both God and man united in the person of Mediator. "That he does neither preach nor believe the doctrine of the atonement made for sin by the blood of Christ, and of the justification of sinners by the righteousness of Christ, imputed to them and received by faith in him. "The foregoing doctrines, though clearly revealed in the word of God, as not only true, but fundamental in the Gospel system, and essential to be believed in order to salvation, are by him omitted in his preaching; and doctrines contrary to these, and repugnant to the faith once delivered to the saints by Christ and his apostles, and subversive of the Christian's hope,are byhim taught and inculcated. "Mr. Abbot having read, then prenying the jurisdiction of this counsented to this body an address, decil, and protesting against their sitting in judgment upon the complaint against him. "The society also by their commit tee, presented an instrument of the same purport, which was read. having been denied, the subject was "The authority of the Consociation largely argued by the counsel both of Mr. Abbot and of the church. "The council then proceeded to a full deliberation upon the arguments offered. The question was then put by the moderator, Do this council consider themselves duly convened and authorized to try the complaint before them? Voted in the affirmative. "The elders and messengers pres. ent feel themselves justified and supthe articles of church discipline unanported in the foregoing decision by imously agreed upon by the elders of all the churches of Connecticut convened at Saybrook, Sept. 9, 1708; the same having been adopted by practice and consent of the churches in this county; and for that, this Consociation is convoked conformably to the 13th article thereof, and agreeably to the usage of the churches in this state; and, as we believe, agreeably to the mind and will of Christ; and, for that no other method of administering church discipline has been adopted among our churches in cases like the one under consideration; nor can we resort to any other, under the present organization of our churches, where the parties cannot, or will not, mutually submit their difficulties. "The Rev. Mr. Abbot was then called upon to answer to the complaint exhibited against him by the church, but he neglected and refused to make answer to the same. "The council then proceeded to hear the testimony produced by the church in support of the articles of charge. After a full and patient hearing and consideration of the case, the question was put upon each article separately, Is this article proved? Voted it is proved. "The general question was then put, Is the Rev. Abiel Abbot guilty of the facts alleged in the complaint of the church against him? Voted unanimously in the affirmative. "Voted, That the man who neither believes, nor preaches the doctrines specified in the articles of charge, is disqualified for the office of the Gospel ministry; for he has essentially renounced the Scriptures, has made shipwreck of the faith once delivered to the saints, has denied the Messiah of the Gospel, who is the true God and eternal life, and cannot preach to sinners, according to the real meaning of Scripture, Jesus Christ and bim crucified, who is the only way of salvation, nor feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood. "The council therefore feel them. selves required by Jesus Christ, the great God and Savior, on the peril of being judged unfaithful to him, to his church, and the best interests of the society in this place, to declare, and they hereby declare, that the ministerial relation between the Rev. Abiel Abbot and the first church of Christ in Coventry ought to be, and is dissolved. And they do hereby also re roke the commission given to him by his ordination to preach the Gospel and administer the ordinances of the same. Mr. A. next proceeds, in his pamphlet, to animadvert upon the above result; but what we have to say, on this part of the subject, will be reserved to a subsequent page. He then states the circumstances which were regarded in the selection of the second council, and says, "I need only add, that with the majority of the council I had little personal acquaintance, and NO knowledge of their opinion with respect to my religious sentiments or particular difficulties." We cannot refrain from breaking in upon our narration here, to express our astonishment at the assertion contained in the sentence just quoted; an assertion at which every reader of these pamphlets will be likewise astonished; an assertion which excites almost as much wonder, as that a minister should preach thirteen years, so as to make his people think he was a believer in the doctrine of the Trinity, while it is not pretended that even from the first he had ever embraced that doctrine. "The council add, that having giv. en full weight to every thing brought before them, it is with pain they have found themselves under the necessity of performing this indispensable dury. "By unanimous order of the Consociation. Signed, N. WILLIAMS, Moderator. On the publication of the result, the Consociation and the church were informed, that Mr. A. and the society had determine ed to convene a mutual council. The churches from which a mutual council should be called were immediately agreed upon, and the letters missive issued. In the meantime, Mr. A. continued to discharge the duty of a minister as before. VOL. V. New Series. from the Rev. Dr. Osgood, on Mr. A. next publishes a letter which we shall presently make a single remark. This second council met at Coventry on the 5th of June, 1811. Mr. A. and the society laid such documents before this body, and made such representations, as they thought proper, the church being notified, by a message in writing to the dea cons, that the council was in session, and would be happy to receive such communications, as the church might be disposed to make. No reply was made to this message, the church having previously signified to Mr. A. 16' that they considered the second "The council have, as they trust, attended with seriousness and impartiality to the statements and pleas of the parties at whose instance they are convened. They lament the divisions which have arisen between the church on one side, and the pastor and congregation on the other. It is with extreme reluctance that the council are constrained to give an opinion which will militate with the result of the venerable council, composed of elders and messengers of the churches of Tolland county, recently Convoked in this place; but as it be. comes necessary that they should de oide on questions submitted to their deliberation, propriety requires that they give the reasons of their decision. The council find no satisfactory evidence that a Consociation ever existed in Tolland county, according to Saybrook platform. If a Consociation did exist, they find no evidence, that the first church in Coventry or its pastor were ever constituent parts of it; and as the Rev. Mr. Abbot and the ecclesiastical society declined acting with this church in calling the late council, and protested against its jurisdiction, we can consider it only in the light of an ex parte council; and as the not having of a mutual council as the umpire of their controversy must in our opinion be imputed to the church, the result of said council cannot affect the ministerial standing of the Rev. Mr. Abbot, much less dissolve the pastoral relation between him and this people. "Concerning the doctrinal points which are the only articles of charge alleged against Mr. Abbot we will not decide, in the persuasion that the Great Head of the church never em powered any body of men to pronounce authoritatively respecting religious opinions. We believe that Mr Abbot is sincere in the following solemn declaration, and that it ought to be satisfactory." Stat. pp. 43, 44. Here the Council insert a declaration offered by Mr. A., containing several passages of Scrip ture relative to the doctrines concerning which he had been condemned by the Consociation, and an acknowledgment of the Scriptures as divine truth. To this paper they add some rea soning of their own, and proceed: "The council consider the relation between the pastor and this ecclesiastical society as not having been annulled; and the parties having sub. mitted the expediency of its continu ance to this council, we do therefore adjudge that the relation between them be dissolved for the reasons which follow." Statement, p. 45. The reasons specified all relate to the improbability, that Mr. A. could be useful in that place, on account of the divisions which existed. The Council give Mr Abbot a very high character, and cordially recommend him to all "Christian Societies among whom he may in divine Providence be called to minister." After the whole "extraordinary narrative," as Mr. A. justly calls it, he proceeds to offer a few remarks, part of which he directs to the members of the Consociation. He concludes by an address to the people of his late charge. The appendix contains a long extract from a Discourse on Christian Union by President Stiles, and the Articles of church discipline agreed upon at Saybrook, 1708. We now proceed to make an abstract of the Reply. This docu ment, it will be remembered, was compiled by the Association in Tolland county, the same body of clergy, who composed the clerical part of the Consociation. The principal facts and arguments here embodied we shall find it necessary to detail, in order that our readers may have the case fairly before them. After a few introductory paragraphs, the Association lay out the ground of their inquiries, by proposing a number of questions, which cannot be easily abridged, and which we therefore quote at large. "The publication of the "Statement" has excited in the minds of many the following inquiries, viz. Was there a Consociation in Tolland County in April, 1811? Was the first church in Coventry a constituent part of it! Was their pastor rightly con sidered as belonging to the Consociation? Had the church a right to refer to the Consociation the difficulties between them and their pas tor? Viewing themselves as having this right, were they, nevertheless, as willing as he, to have these diffi. culties referred to some other mutual Council? These inquiries the reader is desired to keep in view; and, if he judge it necessary, the following also, viz. Is it the duty of pastors and churches, united together by mutual consent, to treat heresy, when found in their body, as the Scripture directs? If so; must they judge for themselves what, according to Scripture, is heresy" Reply, p. 4. Many of our readers will doubt less ask, What is a consociation, according to the laws of Connecticut? We must, therefore, digress a little for the sake of answering this very natural question. A consociation is a voluntary union of neighboring ministers and churches, for the purpose of consultation and discipline, entered into at first in the year 1708, or soon after, by most of the pastors and churches in Connecticut, and continued to the present day in all the churches who have once joined themselves to it, and have never expressly dissented for conscientious reasons. The history of this form of ecclesiastical gov ernment is briefly this. For some years before the date above mentioned, the clergy of Connecticut generally were deeply impressed with the opinion, that some closer bond of union was necessary, than any then exist. ing. The venerable Hooker, about a week before his death, observed with great earnestness, "We must agree upon constant meetings of ministers, and settle the consociation of churches, or else we are undone." As this opinion gained ground, among the laity as well as the clergy, the legislature appointed a convention of the clergy and laity, by delegation from the several counties, to meet for the purpose of uniting in certain great principles of fellowship and church discipline. This convention met at Saybrook, in Sept. 1708, and agreed upon certain articles, which are denominated the Saybrook Platform. These articles were approved, and ratified, by the legislature; and that body proceeded to "ordain that all the churches within this govern ment, that are, or shall be, thus united in doctrine, worship, and. discipline, be, and for the future shall be owned and acknowledgA proed, established by law." viso follows saving the rights of such churches as should "soberly differ or dissent from the • Trumbull's Hist. Conn. p. 505. united churches hereby established." The mode of the first organization of consociations is pointed out in art. X. There has been some diversity of opinion with respect to the construction of this article. We cannot go into a particular examination of all its parts; but shall state what appear to us, (after a deliberate attention to the article itself, and to Dr. Trumbull's history of those times,) to be its provisions. The article,then,in our apprehension, provides, 1. That a conventionof the pastors and churches of each countyshould be held,as soon as convenient, in order to form one or more consociations in each county. 2. That the pastors should attend this convention in their persons, and the churches by their delegates, if they saw fit to send any. 3. That these elders and messengers, when thus formed into one or more consociations, and any future consociation, might adjourn,from time to time, not exceeding one year from the time of their first assembling on a particular case. 4. That all succeeding consociations, or councils, (for these words are used interchangeably) should be called by the moderator of the last preceding consociation, or, in case of his death, by any two elders of the same consociation. 5. That all these councils should prescribe such rules for transacting business, as they should deem needful. We now proceed to inquire, with the Association in Tolland county, whether, in April 1811, there was a consociation in that county. That consociations were regularly formed in the counties Trumbull, p. 513, 514. to which the churches now in Tolland county originally be. longed, is not disputed. Tolland county was formed in 1785. In 1790 a consociation was called, met, and acted, at Willington, in that county. Four advocates, two on each side, appeared be. fore it, and no objection was made to its jurisdiction, or to the regularity of its formation. The first question seems therefore settled in the affirmative. Does the first church in Coventry belong to the consociation? There is record evidence which irresistibly implies, that this church belonged to the consociation of Windham county, in 1760. This church, also, by its pastor and a delegate formed a part of the consociation abovementioned in 1790. There is not a particle of evidence, that the church ever "dissented from the united churches," to use the words of the legislature. This question seems, therefore, at rest. Did Mr. A. belong to the consociation? Let us hear the Reply. Speaking of Mr. A. the Association affirm, "He, and all the ministers except three, resident in the county in April last, have been ordained since the mecting of the Consociation at Willington. All belonged, according to usage, to the Consociation. No one of them was formally inquired of, upon his associating with a consociated body, and receiving the pastoral whether he viewed himself as becharge of a consociated church, longing to Consociation. It belonged to the individual formally, to "decline," to manifest that he "differed or dissented," if such were his choice. The propriety of this is admitted even by the "Statement." But no such act of his appears till after the complaint of his church. But on |