on the subject. Doubtless, this council found no evidence, that a consociation ever existed in Tolland County! Who ever supposed that they would find such evidence? It would have been almost miraculous if they had. Mr A. would not be very much on the alert to find evidence to prove what he had always denied. The imposing gravity with which these positions are uttered seems to ape the formality of a legal decision. But as well might the Archbishop of Canterbury sit in his archiepiscopal palace at Lambeth, and gravely pronounce, "I find no evidence of the existence of any such place as Tolland county; and if there be such a place, I find no evidence that there is any consociation, so called, within the same; and if there be such a consociation, I find no evidence that the Rev. A. A., or any other person within my knowledge, doth now or ever did, constitute a member thereof." All this might be very true; and would be quite as dignified, pertinent, and conclusive, as the two first points settled by the council. Suppose a man were to be tried for slander before a civil court, and were found guilty. He feels dissatisfi. ed, and calls a number of lawyers from a neighboring state,or judges if you please, to hear his case. His impartial tribunal sit, hear his statements, and decide, that the court had exceeded its jurisdiction, that it had no cognizance of the case, and that its judgment was null and void. To how much respect does the reader suppose this latter decision would be entitled? Yet the second council in Coventry make these two negative positions the foundation of all their authority, and all their proceedings. Be. cause they do not find evidence, where it was utterly incredible that it should be found, and where they could not expect it, they proceed to censure a very respectable ecclesiastical body, composed men of who had found evidence, and had acted according to it. But we will concede, for argument's sake, that there was no consociation, and that the first council was ex parte, and will endeavor to apply our dialectical faculties, for a moment, to the strange logic contained in the remaining parts of the result. The first council was ex parte. Why? Because Mr. A. and the society declined acting with the church in calling it, and protested against its jurisdiction.' We do not see, by the bye, that Mr. A.'s declining to act with the church, in calling the consociation, is any proof that the church refused a mutu al council or that the not having a mutual council, is 'to be imputed to them.' Yet this is the only proof adduced by the second council, and, need we add, it is the only proof which they could adduce. But let us proceed in the argument. What is the inference from the decision, that the first council was ex parte? The result cannot affect the ministerial standing of Mr. A., much less dissolve the pastoral relation between him and his people.' Now let us apply the argument to the other case. Mr. A. and the society called a council. The church were not even invited to unite in calling this council, utterly disclaimed its juris diction, and protested against its irregularity. This was, then, in the strictest sense, an ex parte council. If so, what power have they? Let themselves decide: 'Their result cannot affect the ministerial standing of Mr. A. much less dissolve the pastoral relation between him and his people.' But what have these new dialecticians done? Declared the doings of a legitimate council, just double their own number, null and void; declared that the pastoral relation between Mr. A. and his people is dissolved, and that the ministerial standing of Mr. A. is good; and recommended him to the churches of Christ as a minister. If there are any who cannot, after all this, discern the wisdom, the consistency, the modesty, and the discretion of such a council, the blame is not to be charged to Mr. A., who certainly did as well for his cause as he could. We had contemplated remarks on the 5th and 6th points decided by the council; but we must omit them with the observation, that these two points are the most quarrelsome twin-brothers, that we remember ever to have seen; and, unless they are bound over to keep the peace, there is every reason to fear that one will be the death of the other. The attention of our readers will next be directed to the Proeeedings of the General Association of Connecticut, at their last session. We must give notice however, in the first place, that the General Association held its annual meeting the same month in which Mr. A.'s second council met. As the extraordinary fact, that a council, composed entirely of persons from Massachusetts, had lately published a result annulling the proceedings of a regular ecclesiastical tribunal of Connecticut, and recommending as an authorized minister of the Gospel a man who had been regularly deposed from office, naturally excited much inquiry; and as, in order to form a right judgment of the case, it seemed necessary that all the facts and circumstances which had any bearing upon it, should be collected and detailed with scrupulous accuracy; a very respectable member of the General Association moved, that a committee be appointed to inquire into the above described proceedings, and to report thereon. A committee was accordingly appointed, consisting of the following gentlemen; the Rev. Nathan Perkins, D.D. the Rev. Abel Flint, and the Rev. Calvin Chapin. At the meeting of the General Association in last June, this committee made a very elaborate report, embracing all the requisite facts, the results of both councils, and such reasonings, as the committee thought calculated to illustrate the subject. The principal facts have been already stated in this review. The whole of the reasoning we should be very happy to transcribe did our limits permit. The committee propose a great number of questions, with which Mr. A. and his friends must be hard pressed. We select two or three as a sample. "Will it be believed, that the churches of Connecticut are less able, or ` less willing, than strangers, to distinguish between order and irregularity in things pertaining to their own institutions?" "This council declared null and void the solemn decision of a Conso ciation. Was this because a Consociation is not the most impartial council that can be collected, and better acquainted with the difficulties and best interests of the churches within their own limits, than any company of strangers can be?" "This council passed the form of dismissing Mr. A. from the society, and not from the church. Was this because the Holy Ghost has established the pastoral connexion not between a minister of the Gospel and his church but between him and those that do not, before men,profess to believe and covenant to obey the Gospel?" Proceedings, p. 24. After the report was read, "the Rev. Timothy Dwight, D.D. the Rev. Lyman Beecher, and the Rev. Rufus Anderson, were appointed a committee to examine the preceding report, to draw up, for the consideration of this Association, such votes as may be proper to be passed by the Association on the authority of the statement contained in it, and to make report to this body." The next day this committee reported a series of resolutions, which were adopted by the Association, as follows: "Resolved, 1. That the Consociation of Tolland County was regularly form ed, when they dismissed and deposed the late Rev. Abiel Abbot. "Resolved, 2. That the first church in Coventry is a member of Tolland Consociation, and has been such from the formation of that body. "Resolved, 3. That the late Rev. Abiel Abbot was, of right, consider. ed and treated as belonging and amenable to Tolland Consociation. "Resolved, 4. That in the late pro ceedings at Coventry, the elders and churches of Tolland County have, in the opinion of the General Association, borne a judicious, faithful, and highly commendable testimony to the truth as it is in Jesus. firm belief of this General Associa "Resolved, 5. That, according to the tion, a denial of the Deity of Jesus Christ is heresy. "Resolved, 6. That the exclusion from Christian communion, and from the ministerial office, for heresy, is science in matters of faith, nor a vioneither an attempt to bind the con lation of Christian charity; but an act, which that charity imperiously demands; and an article of discipline, which the principles of agreement among the Consociated churches require them to perform. sociation view, with much surprise "Resolved, 7. That the General As. and regret, the coming and the acts of the council at Coventry, on the 5th day of June, 1811. "Resolved, 8. That the mere want of "satisfactory evidence, that a Consocianished no justifying reason to the tion ever existed in Tolland County" fur. council of June 5th, for acting at all in the affairs of Mr. Abbot and his congregation; both because the council had no sufficient means in their power of determining this fact, and because the mere want of evidence cannot be a foundation for acting in any case, especially in a case of such importance. with all principles of ecclesiastical "Resolved, 9. That it is inconsistent longing to another body, and another state, to act, as an ecclesiastical coun cil, in the affairs of any consociated church in this state, without a previous request, or, at least, consent, of the Consociation with which said church is connected, formally declared. order for ministers and churches, be "Resolved, 10. That a profession of faith, made in the words of Scripture, is no definite exhibition of the real faith of the professor: since all persons, who acknowledge the divine origin of the Scriptures, would, although some of them are in their faith directly opposed to others, make the same profession in the same words. "Resolved, 11. That the decision of the council, "that the relation between Mr. Abbot and the ecclesiasti pal Society, with which he was connected, was not annulled by the act of Tolland Consociation," was a decision which the Council was not authorized to make: since they had neither power nor right to examine the proceedings of the Consociation; nor to sit as judges over that ecclesiastical judicatory; and since, if they had had such right, these proceed ings were not before them, nor was the Consociation either heard or rep. resented. "Resolved, 12. That the circumstances under which the Council of June 5th was convened, and the nature of its result, constrain the General Association to consider its pro ceedings not only as unprecedented, but as disrespectful to the Churches of Connecticut,-38 an invasion of evangelical order, as an effort to justify heresy, and as a public and solemn declaration, that there can be neither ministerial nor Christian fel. lowship between themselves and the cons ociated Churches and Pastors." Proceedings, pp. 28, 29. In these resolutions, the public have before them the voice what we have to say must be confined to a few brief observations. 1. It seems marvellous to us, that the members of the second council should know so much about Mr. A., while he should know so little about them. They are persuaded that his inquiries have been made in the love of truth, and his sentiments communicated in the spirit of the Christian." Statement, p. 45. They also speak with the utmostconfidence of "his intellectual powers, his literary and theological attainments, the diligence of his research after truth, his prudence, candor, and charity, the excellence of his moral character, and his affability and tenderncss in the intercourse with the people of his charge." p. 46, Surely these men must have lived in habits of the greatest intimacy with Mr. A. for many years. Not so; Mr. A. says that with the majority of the council he had little personal acquaintance, and no knowledge of their opinion, &c.' The mystery is increased when we consider that men are usually much better acquainted with their superiors, than the contrary, and that the council was composed of great doctors in and near the metropolis of New England, while Mr. A. was a plain parish minister in a remote country town. We were unable to ex tricate ourselves from this difficulty, till we recollected, that all liberal ministers are, of course, wise, and learned, diligent inquirers after truth, men of great Many topics of inferior impor- intellectual powers, and great tance, started by Mr. A., might literary attainments, and, in short, furnish occasion for interesting remarks; þut the remainder of of the Connecticut clergy, fully, fairly, and legitimately expressed, on this unexampled obtrusion upon the rights and usages of the churches in that state. If any future impartial council should be called from Massachu setts into Connecticut, in a similar case, we hope all the members selected to compose it will have the wisdom to stay at home; but, should the urgency of the call be irresistible, we advise them not to make the want of evidence the sole foundation of their authority and of their result; especially if it is the interest of the party before them to keep all evidence out of sight. candid, charitable, and deserving of every commendatory expres sion which the English language can furnish. All that the council had to do, therefore, was to ascertain whether Mr. A. were a liberal man. That point being established, there was no danger of excess in their praise. 2. It was extremely disingenaous in Mr. A. to quote the Saybrook platform in support of the opinion that the Scriptures alone are the rule of faith, (an opinion which no man will deny,) and yet not to state expressly that the same Platform made it the duty of associated pastors to discipline their members for scandal and heresy. Mr. A. will not deny that he was one of these associated pastors.* 3. It was extremely disingenuous in Mr. A. to insinuate, as he has done in many places, that the members of the consociation, and many other persons in New England, are most satisfied that the Scriptures alone should be the rule of faith and practice. Now we do not believe that there is a single minister of the Gospel, or private Christian, in the United States, who denies the sufficiency of Scripture. If there be, let him be named, let the fact be proved upon him, and then let him be held up to disgrace. Mr. A's own pamphlet does not furnish the slightest proof, that any person in Tolland county has denied, either by words or actions, the sufficiency of Scrip ture. 4. It was extremely disingenuous in Mr. A. to represent the decision of the consociation as a ❝gross disregard of the apostolic njunction, A heretic, after the See art. XII, XIII first and second admonition re ject;" when he must have known, that he was rejected after many admonitions, proba bly after the fiftieth, or the hundredth. We are told from authority which cannot be reasonably questioned, that "individuals by private deal, ing, and the church itself, with great intelligence and integrity, pursued the course which the Gospel directs. With many anxious feelings, and with much circumspection, they proceeded to prepare the way for the convention of the consociation-reluctantly apprehending that such a measure might finally be necessary. They labored diligently for many months to convince their pastor, and to restore that harmony which they sincerely desired." Proceedings, p. 12. 5. Although Mr. A seems to be a champion for the rights of conscience, he strangely overlooks the fact that his church were as much entitled to the rights of conscience as himself. He would if possible, have conyened a council composed of ministers of the same opinions with himself, and who would have upheld him in his doctrines. What would have been the intended effect of Doubtless to silence opposition, that he might remain the pastor of a church, the members of which utterly disapproved of his preaching, and considered it exceedingly dangerous to the souls of men. this? Have the church no no rights? Are they to hear doctrines, from Sabbath to Sabbath, which they believe to be utterly false, and subversive of the Gospel? Are they to disregard their own salvation, and the salvation |