which every man ought to be fully persuaded in his own mind. They might add, in imitation of the second council at Coventry, that, 'although they did not consider themselves authorized by the great Head of the Church to pronounce on any man's faith, yet as their accused brother had made a written declaration, containing the fourth commandment, and sundry other passages of Scripture relative to the Sabbath,' and containing, also, an 'acknowledgment of the Scriptures as divine truth,' they 'believed him sincere in making that deolaration, and that it ought to be satisfactory.' They might state, that they were persuaded his in quiries had been made in the love of truth, and his sentiments communicated in the spirit of a Christian; and that they would not set at nought their brother for the exersise of the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. We might state many cases of flagrant immorality, where the same reasoning would apply. So the common place declamation about departing from the words of Scripture, might apply just as well to cases of immorality, as to cases of heresy. A church member is complained of, tried by the church and found guilty of embezzling money, and smuggling goods. He immediately raises a violent clamor about ecclesiastical domination, usurped authority, &c. He complains sadly, that the church had condemned him for crimes not forbidden in Scripture, and that the words embezzle and smuggle are not used once in the sacred Volume. See the result of the second coun. cil, in Mr. A's Statement, p. 45. We should be glad to be informed, whether every case of immorality will not present a a difficulty arising from some doctrinal point, and open a wide field for biblical criticism, in these days of learning and wisdom. Do not men differ in their definitions of virtue and vice? in their views of the boundaries, extent, and even the very nature, of all the virtues and crimes? In every possible case, then, doctrine must come in question. If a man be charg ed with fraud, the question instantly occurs, What is fraud? and does the charge stated come within the definition? This inquiry is doctrinal, and must be settled entirely by a reference to Scripture. No church, then, under heaven can ever exercise a single act of discipline, without deciding a case of doctrine. And is there any more difficulty in deciding as to the fundamental doctrines of faith, than as to the fundamental doctrines of morality? Let the perpetual clashing of casuists enlighten those, who are in the dark on this subject. The doctrines of morality are as well to be defined, discussed, and believed as other doctrines of the Bible. They must be believed, or how can they be practised. There is a right faith, and a wrong faith, as certainly with respect to the doctrines denominated moral, as any other. Has a church any right to exercise authority in matters of faith? No, say our liberal brethren; and of course they must allow every man to act consistently with his faith; unless they will be chargeable with the monstrous absurdity of holding, that a man may be justifiable in they were doing God service. Ravilliac, who assassinated Henry IV, was beyond all reasonaable question, conscientious; and the late Bellingham professed to be perfectly justifiable in mur. dering Mr. Perceval. In this profession he persevered to the last, and probably the poor deluded man was very sincere. Were Ravilliac and Bellingham martyrs to their attachment to the freedom of opinion? We challenge any man to point out a consistent stopping place for the principles of Mr. A.'s plea, and the arguments used by the second council in their result, till they arrive at this most tremenduous conclusion, THAT EVERY MAN HAS A RIGHT TO DO WHAT SEEMETH GOOD IN HIS OWN EYES. forming a certain rule of conduct from Scripture, and yet guilty the moment he acts according to this very rule. A churchmember becomes satisfactorily persuaded in his own mind, that the unequal possession of property is a great evil, and contrary to the practice of the primitive churches, as well as forbidden in Scripture; and that it is the duty of every man to attempt an immediate equalization of property. In this persuasion, he seizes a large portion of his rich brother's wealth, and appropriates it to the use of himself and his necessitous brethren. What shall be done by the church to which he belongs? For his opinions he cannot be disciplined; for who is the arbiter of another man's faith? No; but he shall be disciplined for his actions, We hasten to a brief considfor his trespass. Indeed! Who eration of the extraordinary resays it is trespass? The church. sult of the second council. Be Who constituted them the arbi- it remembered, that this counter's of a man's conscientious cil was summoned only by Mr. opinions? He believed that it A., and that part of the society was no trespass, but a lawful who adherred to him, and was and commendable act. Aye; but therefore, in the strictest sense, he believed wrong. Who says ex parte. Indeed, so firmly this? What right have you to had it taken possession of Mr. lord it over another man's con- A.'s mind, that he was the sole science? Has not your brother agent in convening this council, the same right to Christian lib- that, in the account which he erty of opinion as you have? If gives of the selection of memyou condemn him, you do it for bers to compose it, he seems utacting agreeably to the dictates terly to forget that the society of his own conscience; and this had any hand in the business, is directly opposed to the grand and writes a very smooth apoloprinciples of the Reformation. gy for himself only. "In this measure," says he, "I am authorized, &c." "These facts I detail to render known my sollcitude," It is notorious, that men may plead the rights of conscience, and may be sincere in their pretensions, while perpetrating the most atrocious wickedness. Our Savior told his disciples, that the time would come when those who killed them, would think Mr. A.'s account of his council is, to those who are well acquainted with the circumstances of the case, in a high degrec ludicrous. "The selection of elders to compose this council," says he, "I trust will meet with general approbation. That they might be men feeling no degree of prejudice and subjected to no degree of improper influence in the case, they were selected from churches without the county, and without the state." We confess this to be a new mode of proving a council to be impartial; but it is a very convenient mode; and on this plan a minister must be a bungler indeed if he is not able to select a Council from the whole circuit of the United States, which shall be composed of men who will agree with him in opinion, and, therefore, will be in the highest degree impartial. We should like to know, whether it is remoteness of residence alone which makes a man impartial, and whether the impartiality in creases in porportion to the distance; or whether there is a certain focus, in which all the rays of intelligence and wisdom are collected, and in which the human mind is "subjected to no degree of improper influence." We are rather inclined to suppose the latter to be the case, as we have observed for several years past, that when a liberal minister is to be ordained in the farthest parts of Vermont, for instance, he finds it necessary to summon an impartial council from the same region, in which Mr. A. was so successful in choosing his council. If we are right in this supposition, Mr. A. has stated a very useless cir. cumstance, in saying that the "elders to compose this council were selected from churches without the county and without the state; and we do verily be VOL. V. New Series, lieve, that the same elders would have been quite as impartial in the case of any liberal brother, though he might reside in their own counties, and their own state. If this be the fact, it ought to be generally known; and, in the presumption that we are not mistaken, we hereby declare, for the benefit of any lib eral minister or liberal brother, who may wish for an impartial council to decide in his favor, that there are certain limits, "Quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum;" And in plain English, that there is a certain circle in Massachusetts, within which al the impartiality, intelligence, and wisdom of the United States are confined. But if, contrary to our decided opinion, distance alone should be found to constitute impartiality, it is a pity this discovery had not been sooner made and more readily adopted, as it might have been of great use in the late ecclesiastical dif, ficulties in Dorchester. If the parties in these difficulties bad chosen men to compose their first council "from without the county and without the state," from Connecticut for instance, it seems they would have had an impartial decision, and would have been saved from further trouble. But the advantage of distance is not the only reccommendation to our confidence, urged by Mr. A. in favor of his council. Most of the ministers had received university honors,' &c. &c. We have observed that Episcopalianc in England, pay little defer ence, even to one of their bishe 18 ops, if they find him reasoning absurdly and foolishly. It is not, therefore, to be expected of us republicans, that we should yield to arguments, though advanced by doctors of divinity, if the premises and conclusions wage an open and irrcconcilable war. With all our respect for "the highest honors of the universities," (and we certainly feel as much respect for them as we can,) this would be requiring too much. But let us proceed to examine the result of the council; perhaps this document may give us juster views of the talents of its authors, than any diploma could do. Mr. A. calls his council a mutual council;, and the council seem to take upon themselves airs, as though they sustained that character, when they speak of the 'parties at whose instance they were convened.' We had always supposed, that a mutual council, convened to settle difficulties arising entirely from disagreement of opinion, must of course be agreed upon by the parties at variance. And we are happy to find, that the Rev. Dr. Osgood is of the same opinion. In his letter to Mr. A., he says, "I sincerely sympathize with you under your difficulties, but as those difficulties appear to have been enhanced by an ex parte council already,* it seems doubtful whether they can be removed by another of the same general nature. If it be urged, that the influence of the second may counterbalance that of the first; yet if in reason and equity there be no weight in either, what The doctor had probably been in formed, that the consociation was an x parte council, occasion can there be for the balance. For myself I have little faith in or respect for ecclesiastical councils;t I have long thought them unauthorized in Scripture, and for the most part worse than useless, excepting as mere referees or arbiters, mutually chosen by parties at variance, for settling their disputes. If they be not thus chosen by both parties, I know not what prospect there can be of any salutary effect. Ex parte councils may succeed each other ad infinitum without the least hope of effecting an accommodation." Statement, pp. 38, 39. The second council was, beyond all question, ex parte; as no offer whatever was made to the church to unite in convening it, and as the church never consented to it, nor appeared before it. If the church had erred in calling an ex parte council, the decisions of which were nugatory, there was the greater reason that Mr. A. should not commit the same irregularity. He, ac. cording to his own principles, should have distinctly offered them a second council in the selection of which they would have had an equal voice with himself. But what do this council, so truly ex parte, decide? The reader will find, by turning back to the extracts' which we have made from the result, that the council decide, 1. That they find no satisfactory evidence that a consociation' ever existed in Tolland county. 2. If a consociation did exist, they find no evidence that the If all councils were like the one the result of which we are consider. ing, we sl:ould be of the same opinion with the doctor. first church in Coventry, or its pastor, ever belonged to it. 3. That as Mr. A. and the society declined acting with the church in calling the first council, and protested against its jurisdiction, they consider it only in the light of an ex parte council. 4. That as the not having a mutual council must be imputed to the church, the result of the first council cannot affect the ministerial standing of Mr. A., much less dissolve the pastoral relation between him and his people. 5. That concerning the doctrinal points, which are the only articles of charge alleged against Mr. A., they will not decide. 6. That they believe Mr. A. sincere in a declaration of his faith with respect to those doctrines, and that the declaration ought to be satisfactory. 7. That on the ground of expediency they dissolve the relation between the pastor and the society. 8. That they recommend Mr. A. to all Christian societies among whom he may be called to minister. As to the points in general, what is the testimony examined by this impartial council? Let us hear the story from their own mouth: "This council have, as they trust, attended with seriousness and impartiality to the statements and pleas of the parties AT WHOSE INSTANCE THEY ARE CONVENED." Statement, p. 43 Indeed! Has this liberal age discarded that old-fashioned rule, Hear both sides? This is a spectacle worth the gazing of all New England. Ten menten IMPARTIAL men, from Mas sachusetts, convene in Connecticut and sit in judgment on the decision of twenty men from the latter state. What is the question? It concerns a point of ecclesiastical law of so much difficulty at least, as that no man in Connecticut would have thought himself competent to decide it, without knowing something about it; a point of Connecticut law, unlike any thing to be found in the Massachusetts statute book. There were also several questions of fact, which required an attentive examination in order to come near the truth. What do these impartial judges? At a couple of short sessions, they settle all these intricate questions they hear evidence all on one side; rather they simply hear the statement of Mr. A. and his party, and then de cide, that twenty men of Conneccut knew nothing about the business on which they had pronounced judgment, that they acted without authority-that all which they had done was a nullity. If this be liberality and impartiality, and if the old practice of not answering a matter before it is heard, be bigotry, then we say, Let the bigotry of Connecticut endure for ever. As to the first and second points we ask, Do the council mean to infer, that, because they find no evidence, there is no evidence. If they do, their premises and their conclusion seem to have as little relationship, as the parts of any argument with which we ever had the pleasure to be acquainted. If they do not, the positions themselves might as well be any where else, as in this result. They have no bearing at all up |