express assent to the Platform, does not militate at all against our argument. Oaths of al!egiance are required in all civil governments. May we thence infer, that no allegiance is due, unless when an oath has been taken? On the contrary, every government justly claims the allegiance, either, temporary or perpetual, of every man residing within its jurisdiction. As to the complaint of Mr. A., therefore, that an unlawful authority has been assumed over him, because he had never consented to the Saybrook Platform, (even if it were true that he never had,) it is not less absurd, than if a man were to remove into Connecticut, and, when prosecuted in a civil court, were to exclaim, "I never consented to the laws of Connecticut." In short, Mr. A. can be vindicated from the charge of prevarication in this business, only by supposing him to have been entirely ignorant of the natural language of his conduct, and to have been altogether inattentive to the ecclesiastical laws of the state.

There are two arguments a gainst the existence of the consociation in Tolland county, which are brought forward by Mr. A. with much confidence, and which, therefore, deserve to be noticed.

First; the consociation has not been convened, in any manner, for more than twenty years. Answer; it is not necessary that it should be convened unless when a difficulty exists, "which cannot be issued without considerable disquiet." If there should not be another consociation assembled in Tolland county for fifty years, one might still be assem

• Art. VII. of discipline.

bled whenever occasion should require.

Secondly; there have been twenty mutual councils, or more, in Tolland county, within twenty years. Answer; there have been twenty arbitrations in a certain county since there has been one suit before the county court. This fact proves, we suppose, that there is no county court in that county.

While we are examining this part of the subject, it is proper to state, that, as we understand, the consociated churches in different parts of Connecticut have practised variously, with respect to the frequency of their holding consociations. There are some consociations, which meet once a year. Others meet only when the ordination of a minister within their limits, or some other special business calls. Others, still, meet only when some difficulty arises, (with respect to church fellowship or discipline,) which cannot be properly settled without their interposition. Now it is manifest to us, that the Platform does not require the consociations to convene in any case except the latter, though it undoubtedly admits of their convention in other cases. These three modes of practice seem consonant to the articles of discipline in the Platform. That we are correct in this opinion will appear from the following passages in the Articles,

Art. III. "That all cases of scandal, that fall out within the circuit of any of the aforesaid consociations shall be brought to a council of the elders, and also messengers of the churches within the said circuit, &c."

Art. VII. "That in case any difficulties shall arise in any of

the churches in this colony,which cannot be issued without considerable disquiet, that church in which they arise, (or that minister or member aggrieved by them,) shall apply themselves to the council of the consociated churches of the circuit to which the said church belongs, &c."

Art. XIII. "That the said associated pastors shall take notice of any among themselves that maybe accused of scandal or heresy,&c." The practice in Tolland county has been, to dispense with the calling of the consociation, in all cases where the pastors could agree upon a tribunal, and the difficulty could be thus amicably terminated. In other cases, the consociation has been convened. Should we be asked, which of the three modes of practice above specified is the most proper, we should be disposed to refer the question to the wisdom of the Connecticut clergy to decide; though it does appear to us that brotherly love, union, and harmony would be promoted by a frequent convention of the pastors and churches in consociation. Let us now attend to the question, whether a mutual council was refused to Mr. A.? And here let us remark, that if it should appear, in this examination, that Mr. A. has omitted, in his Statement, facts which were absolutely necessary to be known, in order to form a just opinion on the subject, we, surely, are not to blaine for that. If it should, also, appear, that Mr. A. has made an assertion reflecting highly upon a majority of the church committee, which assertion is not only unsupported by any fact stated by him, but flatly contradicted by a multitude of facts

produced by them, we, surely, are not to blame for that.

The Association proceed to state, in their Reply, that the first church in Coventry, with the churches in New England generally, were believers in the doctrine of the sacred Trinity; that they considered this doctrine as fundamental; and that they received Mr. A., their pastor, as believing it. Hence the Association infer, that if Mr. A. was not a believer in this doctrine, at the time of his ordination, he should have frankly said so. If he afterwards changed his opinion, however conscientiously, the church were entitled to relief; for they conscientiously adhered to their former opinion.

Here let us observe, that according to a certain liberal dogma, and a very popular one too, the church was the party aggrieved, and the only party entitled to relief. The dogma is this, That respecting points on which great and good men have differed,no person ought to be confident that he is right. The popular inference from this dogma is, that all parties which can muster on their side wise and good men, (or men whom they call wise and good,) are equally likely to be right, and of course equally likely to be wrong. On this liberal plan, Mr. A. might chance to be right, (for it is literally a question of chance, and not a question of truth,) or he might be wrong. As it is impossible, on this scheme, that any mortal man should know which party is right, it seems not only fair, but necessary, that the party, who has altered his religious opinions, so that union and harmony are unattainable, should be consider

quotes this proviso in italics, as if it contained something remarkable. The only fault, which can be found with the proviso, is, that it is needless. We consider it a venial fault, however, to add, through abundant caution, two needless lines to a church vote. Whoever heard of a mu tual council, in the convocation of which the parties could not agree on the churches from which it should be called? Did Mr. A. wish for such a mutual council? It seems he did; for not being able to agree with the church with respect to all the council, he appears to take it for granted that he had a right to select a majority, whether the church were satisfied or not. This is our comment. Let the facts speak for themselves.

He refused a council like the one which ordained him. He refused a council from the county of Tolland, and from the state of Connecticut. Further,

"Another method was tried. By him and them it was agreed, that seven pastors with their delegates would be a suitable number to compose the council. The parties then proceeded to nominate alternately, till each had nominated six pastors, any three of whom might be selected for the council. The next thing attempted was to agree on the odd or seventh man. One or two were proposed by the committee,against whom he objected. They signified to him, that the number was very great whom they could name, any, one of whom would be agreeable to them, and requested him to name some one who would be agreeable to him, and who he had reason to think would be so to them, Having yet nominated none but those who resided in Massachu

setts, and at a great distance; men of whom the committee either possess. ed no knowledge, or respecting whom the knowledge they did possess af VOL. V. New Series.

forded reason to apprehend, that they were disbelievers in the doctrine of the Trinity; he was inquired of whether he could not mention some one in the state of Connecticut, or if not in the state of Connecticut, some one out of it with whom the committee were acquainted, and whom he and they had reason to consider as a believer in this doctrine. To this he was repeatedly urged. But no person, whose attendance Mr. Abbot considered in any degree probable, was named by him to fill the place of the seventh member of the council, consider as a believer in Christ's diwhom the committee had reason to vinity.

To

The time having elapsed and no agreement having been completed, the committee proposed another meeting for the same purpose for which this had been attended. this proposal he assented. The second meeting was attended; but neither party being disposed to relin. quish former ground, no agreement could be effected. He seemed willing to submit the case to a council of even numbers, one half consisting of such men as he had named. But a

majority of the committee considered such a council wholly improper." Reply, pp. 18, 19.

The reader will be astonished, after reading these extracts, to turn back and read in Mr. A.'s Statement, p. 9, as follows: "Indeed it must not be disguised,they (a majority of the church committee) still determined, that no council should sit, in the convention of which their pastor should have voice or influence." Was it, then, no "voice or influence," to select three men out of six, and to have the whole clergy of Connecticut, and hundreds in the neighboring states, out of whom to select the seventh? If so, how much influence would his church have had, if they had acceded to his proposal, and taken a seventh man from the small number of

17