'^ 
 
 >^^-; 
 
 
1 ll. 
 
 I*r<>i>t'i 
 
 ol TIIK 
 
 ty 
 
 IffiPHIT 
 
 PflHTTir 
 
 GlTllllST 
 
 3 
 
 ZizmTs: 
 
 
 BARTON 
 
 SQUARE, 
 
 SALEM. 
 
 DEPOSITED 
 
 IS nil- — 
 
 Ll BR ART 
 
 ESSEX INSTITDTE. 
 
AN INQUIRY 
 
 ISTO THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL CONSTITUTIOIV 
 
 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES 
 
 OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 WITH A PREFACE, ADDRESSED TO THE REV. JOSEPH LYMAN, D, D. 
 
 CNDER THE SANCTION OF WHOSE NAME SPCH A CHANGE HAS 
 
 BEEN PROPOSED TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE, 
 
 TO WHICH IS PRKFIXED, 
 
 Dr, Morse's Report to the General Association of MassachiSsettf, from the 
 Panoplist of August, 1815. 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 rmNT£D AND PUBLISHED BY WEILS AND L1LV.V. 
 
 1816. 
 
From the Panoplist, August, 1815. Volume eleventh, p. 357. 
 RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE. 
 
 KXTR.VCTS FROM THB MINUTES OF THE GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF M ASS ACHUSF.TTS 
 PROPKn, HOtOEN AT ROYALSTON, ON THE FOURTH TUESDAY, VIZ. THE 27TH DAY 
 OF JUNE, A. D. 1815, AND CONTINUED BY ADJOURNMENT T0 THE 29tH OF THE 
 SAME MONTH. 
 
 The Rev. Joseph Lyman, D.D. was chosfcn Moderator, and the Rev. James Mur- 
 dock, and the Rf.v. John Codman, were chosen Scribes. 
 
 The members next presented their credentials. 
 
 Thursday morning, June 29th, 8 A.M. met according to adjournment. After 
 prayer took up the business assigned to this hour. 
 
 Voted, to go into a free discussion of the subject of the following motion : " That 
 the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire intotlie history of an original MS. 
 Document, &c. be printed, and copies sent to the several Associations in our connex- 
 ion, for the purpose of ascertaining the puhlick sentiments raepecting the plan of ec- 
 clesiastical order tlierein presented, and that the subject be called up at the next 
 meeting of the General Association." After the discussion, the motion was passed 
 into a voie, and VIessrs. Morse, Codman and Woods, appointed a Committee for 
 publishing the above mentioned Report, with instructions to print it in connexion 
 with the preceding vote. 
 
 REPORT TO GENERAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 The Committee of the General Association of Massachusetts Proper, 
 appointed at their last annual meeting at Dorchester, "to inquire 
 into the history of an original MS. document,* foimd among the 
 papers of Rev. Dr. Cotton Mather, containing an answer to 
 the question, ' What further steps are to be taken, that Councils 
 may have their due constitution and efficacy in supporting, pre- 
 serving, and well ordering, the interest of the Churches in the coun- 
 try ?' And ' particularly to ascertain, whether the resolves it con- 
 tains were carried into execution at the time, and to what e.vtent ; 
 and to report at the next annual meeting of this Association, on the 
 expediency of a recommendation of this body, of the plan of disci- 
 pline there proposed, either entire, or with alterations and amend- 
 ments, to the consideration of the Associations and churches in our 
 connexion,' " — have attended deliberately and prayerfully to the 
 weighty and very important business committed to them, and re- 
 spectfully submit the Ibllowing 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 1 HE history of the Document aboved escribed, other than what i» 
 contained in the published minutes of the last iueetiug of the General 
 Association,! so far as your Committee have been able to ascertain it, is 
 lummarily as follows : Shortly after it had received the sanciion of 
 the Convention of Ministers in Massachusetts at their annual meciing 
 iu May, 1706, this Document was published by the Her. John Wisb, 
 
 * This Document may be found in the Panoplist for July 1814, p. 320. 
 t See Panoplist before quoted. 
 
4 
 
 of Ipswich, in a work entitled " The Ckiirches^ Quarrel Espousei^.'^ 
 The sis^natures, and the fact that the Proposals receiv d t!ie approba- 
 tion of the Convention of Ministers, were omitted by Mr. Wise, in his 
 pn))lication, and appeared in print Tor the first time, in the Minntes of 
 this Association. 
 
 The Proposals embraced under thefirst Division, recommending the 
 formation of Associations, and suais^esMng their appropriate duties, it 
 appears were so fur regarded, as that twenty years after, " the country 
 was full of Associations, formed by the pastors in their several vicini- 
 ties, for the prosecution of evangelicaF purposes.'"* The Proposals 
 under the second Division, recommending the Cnnsnciuiiov of the pas- 
 tors and Churches, and forming them into standing ecclesiastical Coun- 
 cils, for certain purposes t' erein stated, were (as Dr. C. Mather in- 
 forms us, in his P.atio Disciplina;, published in 1726) substantially 
 adopted, at the time, in Connecticut, and have ever since formed the 
 basis of their ecclesiastical proceedings. In Massachusetts the same 
 writer states, that " there were some very considerable persons among 
 the ministers, as well as of the brethren, who thought the liberties of 
 particular Churches to be in danger of being liviUed and ivfringed in 
 them. In deference to these, (he adds) the proposals were never pro- 
 .seciited beyond the bounds of mere proposals."} 
 
 Your Committee, in this place, take leave, in ftilfi'ment of a part of 
 tlie duty assigned them, to state, that the Proposals last alluded to 
 are, in various respects such, that in their op nion coiigreg.-vtional min- 
 isters cannot consistently recommend or approve them. They forbear to 
 enlarge on this subject, and beg leave to refer to the plan submitted at 
 the close of this report, as containing the deliberate views of the 
 Committee. 
 
 Further light, your Committee conceive, may be thrown on the his- 
 tory of the Document in question, by a recurrence to its origin and 
 design , which may be inferred from its introductory sentence — " To 
 serve the great intentions of Religion, which is lamentably decaying in 
 the country." Viewing, as it appears they did, with deep concern, a 
 visibk; decline in the order, discipline, purity, and fruitfulness of the 
 Churches, the body of the Clergy of that day, devised the means sug- 
 gested in the Proposals in question, as the best remedy against existing 
 evils. The principal cause, of this lamentable decay of religion, in 
 the view of the fraaiers of these Proposals, may be inferred from the 
 remedies which they propose for their removal ; and from' a paper 
 anncxed'to this report, published about the year 1700. J Among the 
 most operative of these causes appear to have been laxness in disci- 
 pline, and a growing defect in the fellowship, union and co-operation 
 among the Churches and their pastors. ^ These radical evils, which 
 generated many others, had been gradually increasing for about half a 
 
 * Ratio Disciplinae, p. 181. f "I'd- P- 184. 
 
 \ See this Piipcr entitled, " More particnlvir prognostications upon the fiidire state 
 of A^eJii-£7iffZ«»(/," in tlie Pa7w;)/i5<, for July I8I4, p. 324. It is referred to the 
 reader's particular attention. 
 
 5 One of tlie evils complained of, and which prompted the movers of the measures 
 proposed in the document under consideration, is thus stated : " When Councils are 
 call^^d by lilis'int •partira in churches, upon emergencies, it had been hitlierto in the 
 liberty of each party, to choose and call their own councils, wliere they pleased j 
 ■which left room lor much partiality to operate, and one Council to succeed and op- 
 
ceotuiy after the Platform of the New-England Churches had been 
 adopted at Cambridge. Fifty years experience had taught discerning 
 men, both of the laity and clergy, that some further measures were ne- 
 cessary to carry into full effect some of the salutary provisions of that 
 Instrument; those particularly which were designed to regulate the 
 fellowship and discipline of the churches. Other provisions relating to 
 the introduction, discipline, and dismission of ministers, were found in- 
 expedient in practice, and of course fell into disuse. In managing these 
 important ecclesiastical concerns, so intimately connected wiih the gen- 
 eral welfare of religion, the Churchei* were left, each to its own discrecion, 
 without any generally acknowledged uniform rule to govern them ; and 
 the Platform, thus disregarded in some oi'its essential provisions, gradu- 
 ally ceased to be a guide of discipline, and a bondof union in the Church- 
 es. That fellowsiiip. mutual affection, and care ; that agreement in the 
 fundamental articles of the Christian faith, which, from the first plant- 
 ing of these churches had happily subsisted among them, cemented 
 their union, and produced the best effects, after the lapse of a half a 
 century, began visibly to decline. The wise and pious among the 
 watchmen, perceiving these things, were justly alarmed at the inevita- 
 ble conSv="quences, and felt it to be an imperious duty to exert their 
 best efforts to stay these evils, by strengthening the things which re- 
 mained, and which were ready to die. 
 
 It was in this state of the churches, and on a deliberate view of these 
 evils, that the Proposals in question, were devised, and on due consi- 
 deration, adopted by the Convention of the clergy. 
 
 Your Committee have not sufficient facts in their possession deter- 
 minately to state the various causes which operated to prevent these 
 Proposals from going into effect. Their form was not the most unex- 
 ceptionable, and hence was afforded advantage to opposers. The 
 Consociation of Churches, though not precisely in the manner delinea- 
 ted in these Proposals, was not new to Christians in New-England. 
 They well knew, that the primitive churches in the three first centu- 
 ries, were in fact, if not in form, consociated. The principles of Con- 
 sociation were recognised, in the Platform, and in their deliberate 
 judgmeat were supported by tlie word of God. 
 
 In 1716, Dr. Increase Mather published his "Disquisition concern- 
 ing Ecclesiastical Coimcils." It does not appear that he approved 
 these proposals. Yet so far was he, from being '* disaffected to the 
 Consociatinn of Churches, in order to the preservation of the faith and 
 order of the gospel" among them, that, he expressly declares, he con- 
 siders such a measure '• not only lawful, but ab^rAxUdy necessary for the 
 establishment of the churches" — that " light of natural reason, as well 
 as scripture, teaches churches iu common with otlier societies, to asso- 
 ciate and combine for their common safety" — that, "this was prac- 
 tised in the primitive times of Christianity, and by most of the re- 
 formed churches, at that time existing in Europe" — and that " a due 
 attendance to the communion and consociation of churches, will, by 
 the blessing of the Lord Jesus Christ, be a good means to prevent de- 
 generacy and to establish them in that holy faith and order of the gos- 
 pel which has been professed and practised among them j and bv 
 
 pose another with an endless confusion, more proper for a Bubel than a rUy nf Cod.'" 
 It was hence "thought ihat prudence called for a more effectual provii,ion."* 
 
 • Jiatio Disci aUnac, p.lS3. 
 
& 
 
 which the religious people in New-England have been distinguished." 
 — He concludes by recommending the Consociation of Chiirclies. in the 
 form submitted by your Committee, at the cJose of tJiis Heport, as his 
 "dying farewell to the churches in New-England. So mill Aen-Eng- 
 land remain JVeiv- Engl and." 
 
 The consequences of disrciarding this sound advice, have been wit- 
 uessed in the stale of the churches in i\iassac!iusetts for a century 
 past, and are apparent in their present state. No man can survey tlie 
 Christian ministry and churches in this Commonwealth, wiiiiont dvep 
 s<dicitude and grief. Comparing our religious slaie with the standard 
 set before u.s in the word of God, or in the example of the early 
 churches of New-England, we can hardly refrain from exclaiming, 
 " How is the gold become dim !" Doubtless the grand cause of the 
 disordered si ate of the churches is, generally speaking, the want of 
 growins; personal holiness. 
 
 Your Committee consider it their special duty to call the attention 
 of the General Association to (kose evils in our ecclesiastical state, nkicli 
 affect ckurckes and ministers in their publick character and in their re- 
 laiinn to each other. 
 
 That churches and pastors of churches do in fact sustain an import- 
 ant relation to each other, and also what Hie nature oi' that relation 
 is, must be clear to every man. who duly considers, that they are all 
 memljers of one kingdom, and subject to the authority of one King; 
 that they are ail partakers of one ^^pirit, and enl sled into one and the 
 same cause ; and that they are frequently called, in discharge of their 
 duty, to promote a common interest. The relation existing among 
 churches and ministers was constituted by God himself, and cannot be 
 set aside, without opposing divine wisdom, and taking away the very 
 foundation of christian society. 
 
 The principle o\ ministerial and church fellomship must be consider- 
 ed as of prime consequence, and it is obviously from a growing disre- 
 gard of this principle, that the various evils, of which we complain, 
 have resulted, — not that the principle of fellowship has been openly 
 disavowed ; for it is expressly recognised in our Platform, and would 
 certainly have been more largely insisted upon and more clearly de- 
 fined, had there been the same occasion for it. that there is now. This 
 principle is also tacitly allowed in many of ou ecclesiastical proceed- 
 ings. But it is, to a great extent, practically disregarded. It is not 
 generally understood what the fellowship of ministers and churches is, 
 or what are the reciprocal rights and obligations implied in it. These 
 rights and obligations are no where clearly explained, and by men 
 seriously contemplated. Indeed, with the exception of a i'ew things 
 which occasionally occur, and which appear like remaining fragments 
 of a system once in existence, the sacred principle of fellowship among 
 the cliurclies is overlooked and forgotten. 
 
 But there are several particular evils in the present state of our 
 ecclesiastical affairs, which demand distinct consideration. 
 
 Tiic,/frs, is, a prevuiling neglect of discipline towards offending mem- 
 hen, of churches, and the difficulty ctf going through a regular course of 
 dirriplinc, 7vhfn attempted. 
 
 The priufipal thing which we shall state, as having a tendency to 
 increase and perpetuate this evil, is the abandonment of the sacred prin- 
 ciple of fellowship among the churches. In maiutaiuing tiaitldiil disci- 
 
pline over its members, every church needs the united support of 
 other churches. Their relation to the individual churcli oa^';t m this 
 case to be perfectly visible, and their det«'rmination and inducnce in 
 favour of strict discipline to be known and felt by all. Were it so, 
 the offt^nder, who mij^lit b-? disposed to be discontented and refractory, 
 seeing that he could obtain no countenance from abroati, would i;nd it 
 necessary to submit ; and thus, in a muititude of cases, difficulty 
 would be prevented and church order establi.^ied. 
 
 But in the preNent disjointed state of things, an offender, who grows 
 irapa; lent of restraint, and desirous to get rid of wholesome discipline, 
 is able to obtain, from some quarter, the support he wishes, and thus 
 entirely to elude the authority of the church, or to create endless diffi- 
 culty and disorder. 
 
 The abandonment of the principle of fellowship among the churches 
 has promoted the evil abovementioned, by preventing a grneral agree- 
 ment in the mode of discipline. At present there is no uniform system 
 of rules to govern the conduct of churches. The Cambridge Platform, 
 though an able and useful treatise, is not adopted and used as a manual 
 of discipline in our churches. Indeed, though we should be among the 
 first to plead for the general soundness of the princples contained in the 
 Platform, we doubt whether those principles are exhibited in so precise 
 and particular a manner, as the present state of things would require. 
 Let the churches then, in the exercise of their own rights^ carefully 
 survey their disordered and exposed condition. Let them deliberate ; 
 let them consult; and upon the scriptural principles laid down in our 
 Platform, let them agree to adopt a uniform system of rules for the 
 regulation of church discipline. 
 
 Such a course as we have taken the liberty to suggest has often been 
 pursued in civil affaire. The growing experience of states and nations 
 has showed the necessity of erecting upon the basis of the Constitution 
 first adopted a more perfect scheme of government, — of stating more 
 explicitly what was in any measure equivocal, — of correcting new con- 
 structions, — of multiplying statutes suited to new exigencies, — and es- 
 pecially of pursuing measures, before anthoughtof, to carry into effect 
 original provision-;. 
 
 Whatever may be said in commendation of the Platform, it has long 
 since ceased to be of general practical use. Its provisions are not car- 
 ried into effect. By our churches at large, it is not regarded as of any 
 vonsideralion. It is then perfectly evident, that there is no agreement 
 among our churches in a svstem of discipline. 
 
 The want of such agreement in a system of discipline has been the 
 natural consequence of our al»andouiiig the general principle of fellow- 
 ship among the churches ; and has contributed nuich to the prostration 
 of christian order and government. JVIany members of churches, and 
 some pastors of but little experience, are doubtful what to do. And if 
 they ven'ure to act, they a e in danger of taking a course, whicli wiii 
 give great advantage to deliuquents, and impede the efficacy of the 
 juost faithful exertions. 
 
 Secondl,]/. In the present state of things, there is no regular and ac- 
 knoivhilgtd method in nhich congregational chv.rckes can e::erc;se a chris- 
 tian wafrh and care over each of her. A church, as well as an indiviflual 
 memb>;r. may apostatize from the common faith, and lal! into disor- 
 ders totally incompatible with the christian character. If such be the 
 
8 
 
 fact with anj church, can other churches in fellowship be indifferent ? — 
 But what shall thej' do ? — If, without seeing evidence of repentance, 
 they continue their fellowship, they give countenance to disorder. On 
 the other hand, if, before investigating the grounds of dissatisfaction 
 and taking proper measures to reclaim the ofitnding church, they with- 
 hold communion, they offer violence to the common principles of fel- 
 lowship and decorum. Clearly, nothing can with propriety be done, 
 without an investigation. It is the duty of a church, in every such case, 
 to submit to an investigation, and be ready to give reasonable satisfac- 
 tion. A rcJusai to do this would be to renounce all fellowship. But 
 what churcii in Massaclnisetts now practically claims the right to ask, 
 or recognizes the obligation to give satisfaction. So distracted is the 
 state of our ecc!esi^^stica! affairs, and so vague, and loose, and weak the 
 princijde of union, that churches in our fellowship may go to the great- 
 est length of apostasy, without any inspection, and without losing 
 that indefinite fellowship with us, which they before enjoyed. 
 
 Is it said, that an apostate church does expose itself to animadver- 
 sion, and ought to be treated accordingly ? Granted. But vpon nhat 
 principl';? aM according to what acknowledged rule? In the present pos- 
 ture of our ecclesiastical affairs, there can be no regular investigation 
 of (he case. Have we then a right to withhold fellowship from a church 
 at our option, by a sovereign vote, and thus, perhaps without just cause, 
 to wound its sensibilities and stigmatize its reputation? VA'hat a bane- 
 ful influence would such a principle have ? What ecclesiastical despo- 
 tism and anarchy would it introduce ? 
 
 Nothing seems calculated to secure ns against these difficulties, but 
 an e.j:plicit acknowledgment of mutual responsibility among the churches, 
 and a definite statement, in which all churches in fellowship with each 
 other shall agree, of their reciprocal rights and obligations, and of the 
 exact manner in which thofe rights shall be eaercised and those obliga- 
 tions fulfilled. But at present, there is no explicit ackn -wledgment 
 of mutual responsibility, and no definite, intelligible statement of re- 
 cipr«cal rights and duties, or of the method of intercourse. Here, as 
 in the case aborementioned, the Platform, which plainly exhibits the 
 general duty of fellowship among the churches, is neither consulted 
 nor acknowledged. 
 
 At the same time, the avowed sentimonts of some, and the practical 
 sentiments of many are such, as to exempt churches from all mutual in- 
 spection, and yet require us to have fellowship with all churches, call- 
 ing themselves Congregational, whatever be their faith or conduct. And 
 what is still more insufferable, we are under a kind of necessity of al- 
 lowing our disorderly members to call in churches, the most defective 
 in christian character, to censure our principles, to overturn our inter- 
 nal discipline, to sanction disorder and heresy, and to attack the repu- 
 tation of faithful ministers. 
 
 These considerations clearly show that the principles of fellowship 
 among the churches which are laid down in our Platform, are of vast 
 importance, and must be carried into effect, before peace and pros- 
 perity can be found in our Zion. But there is no prospect of carrying 
 those principles into effect without a great and united efjbrt. The 
 churches n:;>st deliberate, and act. On" the basis of the principles as- 
 serted in tlie Platform, let them jointly settle a plan that shall be regu- 
 lar and practicable, of ascertaining the character of those churches with 
 
which we are to be coiiriected, of avoiding those which are coriiipt, and. 
 ot'coiius2llina;and adinonishino; sister churches as occasion may require. 
 Tkir.Ui/. Tliere is one more evil in our ecclesiastical affairs, wiiich 
 we think it necessary distinctly to notice, that is, the want of a settled 
 and effectual method of calling ministers to account for immorality and 
 errour, and of protecting them against calumny and injustice. There is 
 no reason why a minister should not be as subject to inspection as a pri- 
 vate christian. Nay, the publicity and importance of his office, furnish 
 special reasons, why he should enjoy the advantage of the most vigilant 
 and faithful inspe.'tion. The body of men, who are to exercise this in- 
 spection, siiould be well known, their rights and duties well defined, 
 and every thing relative to the modo of proceeding be, by commou 
 a«;reera«nt, fully dstermined. Tiie venerable authors of the Platform 
 provided, though in terms not sufficiently definite for present use, for 
 calling ministers to account before an ecclesiastical Council ; and vari- 
 ous publick documents show, that they themselves and other men of 
 like spirit began soon after to feel th-^ necessity of further and more 
 effectual provisions, and proceeded distinctly to propose them. But 
 the provisions oi the Platform, and those afterwai-ds proposed are disre- 
 garded, and by most men forgotten. 
 
 The defects of the system which actually prevails relative to the dis- 
 cipline of ministers are too palpable to escape notice, or to need parti- 
 cular explanation. We have, in the first place, no effectual moans of 
 keeping corrupt or iniompetent men from entering into the ministry 
 and obtaining ordination. Suppose the friends of ecclesiastical order 
 are sometimes admitted to a place in ordaining councils. Wliai. influ- 
 ence can they have, w.'ien tht=re is a majority in number, determined to 
 outvote tlieni ? The rights of conscience, which they think it their duty 
 to exercise, are assaulted, and they are, of a truth, expected to take it 
 for granted, as a self-evident proposition, tliat the candidate for the sa- 
 cred office is well qfialitied, and to give their voice for his ordination, 
 without being indulged with an opportunity even oi' seeking satisfaction 
 as to his fitness for the work. 
 
 After a man is once ordained, by whomsoever, and by what means so- 
 ever it may have been done, we are ail required to acknowledge and 
 treat him as a minister of the gospel. If we are stationed in his vicini- 
 ty, we are exposed to special difficulty. For while we are deprived of 
 any influence in his settlement, and are utterly unable in any way to 
 impoach his character, or bring hiin to trial for any fault, however 
 flagrant, we are, ac ording to common expectation, to have fellowship 
 with him more frequently and in a higher degree, than others. Things 
 proceeding in this way, a corrupt church with an heretical minister, has 
 opportunity to exert a corrupting influence upon the wliole body of 
 Congregational churches. The great evil here complained of is at 
 present protected, and suffei'ed to spread, without any effort for its 
 cure. 
 
 Heretofore it was the opinion of some in this Commonwealth, that a 
 minister might be brought for trial before his own ehnrch. But it is very 
 apparent, and is now alino.st universally conceded that a single church is 
 not a competent tribunal for the trial of a minister. This has become 
 so extremely evident, that whatever opinions may have been entertain- 
 ed, no church does really claim and exercise the right of censuring a 
 pastor. So that we do in fact find ourselves in this difficulty, that n'c 
 
10 
 
 have no regular, afknowledged and uniform raethod of trying a minister 
 for any violation of the laws of Christ. 
 
 . It is, then, of the highest moment, that a proper and effectual plan 
 be adopted to r*2;nlate our conduet in this respect. At present, if 
 ministers or churches refuse to hold fellowship with any one invested 
 with the sacred office, however bad his character, they must do it on 
 their own private responsibility, and generally to their own inconve- 
 nience. IVow for this matter to be left entirely to the discretion of in- 
 dividuals is a great evil. For in such a case, they will be under the 
 stron2;est temptations to swerve from the path of duty. And even if 
 they are disposed to be faithful, it is probable that, by different judg- 
 ments and different measures, they will embarrass each other, and 
 increase the confusion of our ecclesiastical concerns. 
 
 It may be supposed, that the want of a regular tribunal for the trial 
 of a minister may be supplied, and that most of the evils above insisted 
 on may be cured, by the provision nf mvhial councils. 
 
 On this we remark, that no objection in our view can lie against the 
 grand principle of mutual councils. Of the justice and iiiiportance of 
 that principle we are fully convinced. And we wish it to be remem- 
 bered, that the observations we are about to make relate, not to the 
 7)ro]jne/j/ of mutual councils, but merely to the present mode of consti- 
 tuting them. Tlie result, to which an attentive observation of facts, 
 and a careful inquiry into the nature of the subject have conducted us, 
 is ihi^ ; viz. thai mvtual councils, as theij arc now commonly constilutedy. 
 are, by no means an adequate provision against tke evils ivhich urgently, 
 sail for a remedy. 
 
 The general reasons of this result are the following. 
 
 1. Mutual councils, iti their present form, are not permanent bodies. 
 To-day they exist, and are by the churches invested with authority ; 
 to-morrow, both their authority and existence cease. Accordingly it 
 is impossible for them to exercise any stated and <)ontinued inspection 
 over either ministers or churches. Such occasional, transient bodies, 
 however useful they may sometimes be in composing particular dis- 
 turbances, can aflbrd no regular and permanent support to the friends 
 of religious order, or do any thing effectually to resti-ain offenders. 
 
 2. Mv'tual councils, in present circumstances, may be evaded. Of- 
 fenders may refuse to join in the choice of them, or to submit to their 
 decisions. 
 
 3. Mutual councils have in this Commonwealth no code of ecclesi- 
 astical rules to govern either their own proceedings, or the conduct 
 of eoutendins; parties in managing their cause. Nor is it determined 
 among <»ur churches in what cases councils are to be called, aor what 
 is the extewt of their juris<liction, or the authority of their results. 
 
 4. Miiiual O'ln'il^, on the present oli'i, nviij be mnlUplied without 
 limits. Difficulties may be so managed, that there shall be no end 
 of strife. 
 
 An ex parte council, resorted to as a substitute for a mutual council, 
 is still more exceptionable. It will, from the very nature of the case, 
 be regarded wiMi suspicion, and can never have the power of termi- 
 nating a contention. A second ex parte counail may be called to 
 contravene the decision of the first, and so on without end. 
 
11 
 
 5. Mutual councils, at present, arc constiiutcd in a vianncr exlremdy 
 imfavQurable to iinpartiulity, justice, and xinatiimily ; so that there is hut 
 litth prospect of a decision which n"ll give satisfaction to the parties. 
 Councils are chosen in a time of contention, when the minds of all caii- 
 ceined are liable to irritation, if not to bitterness. And wliat is more, 
 they are chosen by the contending parties, and the offender, however 
 exceptionable his character, and however Ihiorant his crimes, has an 
 equal inUueuce in constituting the tribunal with the other party. 
 Doubtless be will make it his object to select men, who will be his 
 particular friends and advocates, not those who will be judicious and 
 impartial. Who can suppose that a council, so constituted, will be 
 candid and thorough in their deliberations ? Or how can it be expected 
 that their decision will bear such marks of wisdom and integrity, as 
 to prevent suspicion, and lead to an end of the controversy ? As circum- 
 stances are, it is by no means strange, that a trial before a nnitual 
 council is frequently nothing but a scene of animosity and strife, in 
 which the parties, aided by two divisions of tlie council, come forward 
 to contend for victory. 
 
 The evil here complained of is like that which would be felt by civil 
 society, if courts of justice, instead of being permanent bodies, or- 
 ganized in a manner wisely calculated to exclude all injustice and 
 respect of persons, should depend for their existence and continu- 
 ance, on the will of disagreeing parties, and so should in fact be the 
 offspring of self-interest, dishonesty, and strife. In the establish- 
 ment and form of courts of criminal jurisprudence, we should deem 
 it totally inadnaissible, that either the accused or the accuser should 
 have any immediate agency. We adhere to the same equitable principle 
 in the discipline which is exercised by a church over its own members. 
 An offender must stand for trial before the church, — a body which 
 has a permanent existence, and is wholly independent of his will. 
 What mischief would be occasioned by givinj him the right of 
 choosing one half of those who should constitute a tribunal for his 
 trial, even if he should be confined in his choice to members of 
 the church. But the door is at present open for all these evils and 
 many more, when offending ministers are to be tried, or difficulties 
 arising- between churches are to be brought before an ecclesiastical 
 council. 
 
 The foregoing are the principal evils, which this committee deem 
 it important to notice. Who does not lament their existence, and 
 look with earnest desire for the time of their removal ? Happy will 
 it be for our churches, if, by a wise reflection on their own histo- 
 ry from the beginning, and on events which are constantly taking 
 place, they shall be able, through divine assistance, to obtain a 
 remedy for the disorders which have so long afflicted them, and rise 
 to christian purity, love, and order. 
 
 It would be unreasonable to expect, that evils, so deep-rooted and 
 numerous, can be removed at once. But we feel a persuasion that 
 the time has arrived for important iniprovemeuts. We indulge a 
 pleasing hope, that measures may now be commenced, which will 
 vindicate the rights of the churches, contribute at once to a sensi- 
 ble melioration of our state, and eiiiBct, gradually indeed, but surely, 
 the cure of our various disorders. 
 
12 
 
 TTjih these views, and in pnrsuance of an object se momentous; 
 your Coniniittee beg IcaFC to subiuit to the consideration of this 
 General Association the following 
 
 PLAN OF ECCLESIASTICAL ORDER. 
 
 There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism ; one God and Father of 
 all : and believers in Christ are all of one family, one brother-hood, 
 one glorious and holy fellowship. Though this general fellowship, by 
 the appointment of the adorable Head, and tor great and wise pur- 
 poses, is divided into particular sections : yet this arrangement is not 
 intended to sever the unity of the Spirit, or to abate the sentiment, 
 or hinder the exercise of mutual and extensive charity and commu- 
 nion : but as the individual members of each parlicular church are 
 united in one body ; so the particular churches should all be united 
 in one federative and well ordered community. T he vital principle 
 of ecclesiastical order, discipline, and government is the pure spirit 
 of generous brotherly love. It is to a defect of this spirit, thai the 
 lamented disorders, which have long abounded in our churches, and 
 brought reproach upon Congregationalism, are chiefly to be in puted. 
 Let this spirit become duly prevalent, and the iuteriour discipline 
 of the particular churches will be easy and eifective. and their exte- 
 riour order, in relation one to another, will be unembarrassed and ir- 
 reproachable ; the faithful word of the gospel w ill be held Ibrth in 
 its native parity and eti'ulgence ; and our Zion will become " beauti- 
 ful as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, and terrible as an army with 
 banners." 
 
 As however, the unity, order, peace and prosperity of a particular 
 church is produced, preserved, and promoted, by means of an explicit 
 covenant, formed on the principles of the gospel ; so the unity, order, 
 peace and prosperity of the great tiederative community of churches 
 should in like manner, be procured, preserved and promoted, by an 
 explicit agreement, or compact, formed on the same benign and holy 
 principles. Something of this sort is scarcely less obviously suitable 
 and requisite lor the fellowship of the several churches, one with 
 another, than for the mutual fellowship of the individual members in a 
 particular church. Such an agreement or compact would constitute 
 properly a Consociation of the churches. And such a Consociation the 
 Platform of our churches decidedly favours; the principles for it were 
 explicitly set forth, indistinct Propositions, adopted by the venerable 
 Synod, composed of the elders and messengers of the churches, and 
 holden at Boston in the year 1662. The Propositions, here referred 
 lo, are the following, which were given as a brief answer to this ques- 
 tion. Whether according to the word of God there ought to be a Conso- 
 ciation of churches, and what should be the manner of it ? 
 
 I. Kvery church, or particular congregation of visible saints in gos- 
 pel-order, being furnished with a Presbytery, at least with a teaching 
 «'lder, and walking together in truth and peace, hath received from the 
 Lord .Tesus full power and authority ecclesiastical within itself regular- 
 ly lo administer all the ordinances of Christ, and is not under any other 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatsoever, for to such a church Christ 
 
13 
 
 bath given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that, what they bind or 
 loose on earth sliall be bound or loosed in iieaven. Mat. xvi. 19, and 
 xviii. 17, 18. Elders are ordained in every Church, Acts xiv. 23 ; Tit. 
 i. f), and are therein authorized officially to administer in the word, 
 prayer, sacraments and censures. Mat. xxviii. 19, 20; Acts vi. 4 ; 1 Cor. 
 iv. 1, and v. 4. 12; Acts xx. 28 ; 1 Tim. v. 17, and iii. .^.— The reproving 
 of tJie church of Corinth and of the Asian churches severally imports 
 they had power each of them within themselves, to reform the abuses 
 that were amongst them, 1 Cor. v. ; Rev. ii. T4, 20. Hence it follows 
 that consociation of churches is not to hinder the exercise of this 
 power, but by counsel from the word of God to direct and strengthen 
 the same upon all just occasions. 
 
 II. The churches of Christ do stand in a sisterly relation each to 
 other. Cant. viii. 8; being united in the same faith and order, Eph. iv. 
 5; Col. ii. 5, to walk by the same rule, Phil. iii. 16, in the exercise of 
 the same ordinances for the same ends. Eph. iv. 11 — 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 
 under one and the same political head, the Lord Jesus Christ, Eph. i. 
 22, 23 ; and iv. 5 ; Rev. ii. 1 ; which union infers a communion suitable 
 thereunto. 
 
 III. Communion of churches is the faithful improvement of the gifts 
 of Christ bestowed upon them for his service and glory, and their mu- 
 tual good and edification, according to capacity and opportunity, 1 Pet. 
 iv. 10, 1 1 ; 1 Cor. xlv. 4, 7, and x. 24 ; 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22 ; Cant. viii. 9 ; 
 Rom. i. 15 ; Gal. vi. 10. 
 
 IV". Acts of communion of churches are such as these : 
 
 1. Hearty care and praver one for another, 2 Cor. xi. 28 ; Cant. viii. 
 8; Rom. i.9; Col. i. 9; Eph. vi. 18. 
 
 2. To afford relief by communication of their gifts in temporal or spi- 
 ritual necessities, Rom. xv. 26, 27 ; Acts xi. 22, 29 ; 2 Cor. viii. 1, 4, 14. 
 
 3. To maintain unity aud peace by giving account one to another of 
 their publick actions, when it is orderly desired, Acts xi. 2 — 4, 18; 
 Josh.xxii. 13r 21, 30; 1 Cor. x. 32; and to strengthen one another in 
 their regular administrations ; as in special by a concurrent testimony 
 against persons justly censured, Acts xv. 41, and xvi. 4, 5; 2 Tim. iv. 
 15; 2Thess. iii. 14. 
 
 4. To seek and to accept help from and give help unto each other. 
 
 1. In case of divisions and contentious whereby the peace of any 
 church is disturbed. Acts xv. 2. 
 
 2. la matters of more than ordinary importance, Prov. xxiv. 16, and 
 XV. £2, as ordination, translation, and deposition of elders and such like, 
 1 Tim. V 22. 
 
 3. In doubtful and difficult questions and controversies, doctrinal oi- 
 practical, that may arise. Acts xv. 2, 6. 
 
 4. For the rectifying mal-administrations, and healing oferrours and 
 scandals, that are unhealed amons themselves, 3 John, ver. 9, 10 ; 
 2Cor. ii. 6, 11 ; 1 Cor. xv. ; Rev. Ii. 14—16; 2Cor. xii. 20, 21, and 
 xiii. 2. Churches rto?i' have need of like help as well as churches then. 
 Christ's care is still for whole churches as well as for particular persons ; 
 and Apostles being now ceased, there remains the duty of brotherly 
 love, aud mutual care and helpfulness incumbent on churches, especial- 
 ly ciders for that end. 
 
14 
 
 5. In love and faiUituhicss to take notice of the troubles and difficul- 
 ties, errours aud scandals of another church, and to administer help 
 (when the case manifestly calls for it) though they should so neglect 
 their own good and duty as not to seek it, Exod. xxiii. 4,5; Prov. 
 xxiv. 11, 12. 
 
 6. To admonish one another when there is need and cause for it. and 
 after due means with patience used, to withdraw from a church or pec- 
 cant party therein, obstinately persisting inerrour or scandal, as in the 
 Platform of discipline, (chap. 5, sect. 2, particularly 3,) is more at 
 large declared. Gal. ii. 11, 14 ; 2 Thess. iii.6; Horn. xvi. 17. 
 
 V. Consociation of churches is their mutual and solemn agreement 
 to exercise communion in such acts, as aforesaid, amongst themselves, 
 ■with special reference to those churches, which by providence are 
 planted in a convenient vicinity, though with liberty reserved without 
 offence, to make use of others, as the nature of the case, or the advan- 
 tage of opportunity may lead thereunto. 
 
 VI. The churches of Christ in this country having so good oppor- 
 tunity for it, it is meet to be commended to them, as their duty thus to 
 cousociate. For 1. Communion of churches being commanded, and 
 consociation being but an agreement to practise it, this must needs be 
 a duty also. Psalm cxix. 106; Nehem. x. 28,29. 
 
 2. Paul an Apostle sought with much labour the conference, concur- 
 rence and right hand of fellowship of other Apostles; and ordinary 
 elders and churclies have not less need each of other, to prevent their 
 running in vain, Gal. ii. 2, 6, 9. „ 
 
 3. Those general scripture rules teaching the need and use of coun- 
 sel and help in weighty cases, concern all societies and politicks, eccle- 
 siastical as well as civil, Prov. xi. 14, and xv. 22, aud xx. 18, and xxiy. 
 6; Ecd. iv. 9, 10, 12. 
 
 4. The pattern in Acts xv. holds forth a warrant for councils, which 
 may be greater or lesser as the matter shall require. 
 
 5. Concurrence and communion of churches in gospel times is not 
 obscurely held forth in Isa. xix. 23—25; Zeph. iii, 9 ; 1 Cor. xi. 16, 
 andxiv.'32, 3(5. 
 
 6. There hatli coastantly been in these churches a profession of 
 communion in giving the right hand of ibllowship at the gathering of 
 churches, and ordination of ciders ; which importeth a consociation, 
 and obligeth to the practice thereof. Without which we should also 
 want an expedient and sufficient cure for emergent church difficulties 
 and differences; wiih the want whereof our way is charged, but un- 
 justly, if this part of the doctrine thereof were duly practised. 
 
 The principles of these Propositions are genuinely Congregational, 
 and perfectly coincident, and tor substance, identical with those of the 
 Platform. The Propositions, indeed, were framed and adopted by 
 those venerable Fathers of our churches, by whom, only fourteen 
 years before, the Plattbrm was formed and adopted, and for the very 
 purpose of carrying the design of the Platform into more complete and 
 salutary effect. They are therefore especially suitable to be adopted 
 as the general basis of an actual Consociation, as a Consociation found- 
 ed upon them, and consistent with them, can be no innovation ; but a 
 recurrence to lirst principles, a restoration of our churches to their 
 primitive order, and a guarantee to them of their oriijinai rights, lil)er- 
 lics, aud privileges. To carry these principles into good effect, nothing 
 
15 
 
 more seems necessary, than for the churches explicitly to adoot ^a»,j 
 Ar I*" Th"r''"r""^ foj'o-i"? articles of Agreeme^t^ ^*' '"^ 
 Art. I. The Propositions of the Synod of 1C62 recited in fl.« r 
 
 sel Ironi the word of God to dirert and stieo-thTn Tri . ^ "■"""■ 
 J...t„cea,io,,,," and especially to direct and sKth^^^ 
 
 a/nSy|e!S:il"L^rr;s.ti'et'zfBtt'';L^r-"^ 
 
 no church canri,h,f„l!, be i°df edo eat'S 1^:1 °*'' '"' 
 consociation withont its own voluntary comcM 1^ ,.!, '«^'°"S"'S 'o a 
 
 it't-'^il'llSat-'-^ "-"■'•"" "™-^^""" w.-v:n? s'SJee 
 
 the^;;asLra"dla?Ill:S,rw''il/±'; ^"^'' f,""™'- Consociation. 
 
 be a?ceed pon, ol atfecS'o^ci' srLy"™; Se "a.r^lTr " t'" 
 siness which may reoulariv romp hpfnr^ il leqnire, attend to any bu- 
 
 exercises as shall be^j ,X/d expedttt ai^d Vlf 7""^^ ''^^^''^^^ 
 ence, in the spirit oi^■haritv and or W ^^^ow ireedom of confer- 
 
 welfare of the churches ^ '^' "^"'^ '"'^J*^*^^' '"^^^t'^S t" the 
 
 sc^bec;;o!^tn;;;;'s,fE:^;SS^t!i"^ ^r^'r'^^ -^^ 
 
 .trtment- if lo'S^oSt tio?S "tEiTcor' 'T'"""^' ^^^^ "'' 
 prized in the General body ye Tt vviH hi ^°"^^^'f '«"« to be com- 
 ciation to adopt, tor the re^fat o. of L ^"'"Petenj f«r each Conso- 
 
 direction and'beneiit o^tlTe clZhL nTe^.a^rTrol^^^^^ '"' '^'^ ^"^ 
 state, such rules and orescrints not 1!! f }P *^''^"" consociated 
 
 shall judge advisable ^^'"''^ repugnant to this constitution, as it 
 
 ordtrs! wiuch'L\;l;; o7e"reVexr''""'^i"- '^'«^^"'^'-' -^ ^-- 
 
 on occasions of disLns^ns and S. ? [r^''''' '" ''-""'^ ^« <'«"""l-^. 
 holy and pleasant Sio"hip?w •c^isThe 3iT^"''f "^ P'""-'""^*' ^''^^ 
 
 ri S2r^;s^l ^h:%£i?^=^ 
 Ksrait^;;^-S=^ 
 
 council is requisite. PartiaiL^^do t ev atee toliohr'tr"'' 1. * 
 te acquit, or to ^^ ^i^ ^'aJ^HS^-t^o^'^IS ^^^^ 
 
16 
 
 may require. — It is to he nnderstood, hoivcvor, that any Particular 
 Consociation may provide, upon principles and for reasons distinctly to 
 br made known l>y them for eases, in which it may not be expedient 
 i'ov all the memhers to be concerned, as aiso lor cases in which it may 
 be pioper lor others, not of its bodv, to be adjnitted to sit in the coun- 
 cil. 
 
 Art. 7. Any regular application from a church, for the advice or 
 assistance of the Consociation, shall receive kind and prompt atten- 
 tion. An application from an individual, or individuals, will also be 
 kindly attended to, though not without the most guarded respect to 
 the righis and privileges, the order and peace of the church or churches 
 concerned. 
 
 Art. 8. A complaint against a minister may be regularly exhibited 
 either by the church of which he is pastor, or by a brother minister of 
 thf Consociation : but no complaint or accusation shall be received, 
 but " before two or three witnesses." 
 
 Art. y. In all cases, the judgment of the Consociation is to be re- 
 garded and treated with great respect by the churches ; and if, in any 
 case, a church after due time taken for consideration, see cause to dis- 
 sent, the reasons for dissenting?; shall be clearly and in a Christian man- 
 ner, staged in writing to the Consociation ; and the Consociation, hav- 
 ing deliberately, and in the spirit of meekness, considered the rea^^ons, 
 will act as the case may require; either reversing the former judg- 
 ment ; or, if it be affirmed, yet with charity and forbearance, either al- 
 lowing the church quietly to act agreeably to its own ultimate judg- 
 ment, — or reviewing the case in union with one or two neighbouring 
 Consociations to be convened logether, in whole or by delegation; or 
 dealing with the church in the way of Christian admonition. But it is 
 distinctly provided, tliat no consociated church shaii be put out of 
 communion, unless, after a (irst and second admoniiion duly adminis- 
 tered, and after due time allowed for it in reform or to justify itself, it 
 .shall be solemnly and deiilxrately adjudged by the Consociation to 
 have forfeited its rights as a sister church. 
 
 Art. 10. A church, or a minister, considering itself, or himself, as 
 aggrieved, will have the right of an appeal from the Consof iation to 
 two or three other Consociations, to be convened, as provided for. in 
 the next preceding article. Private church meuiljers are not in<lud;d 
 iu this article ; because the cases of private members are cognisable 
 by the Consociation, only in so far as the churches to which they be- 
 long are implicated. 
 
 This Committee would farther suggest to the General Association 
 the propriety of the following recommendation; viz. that when two 
 or more Consociations are formed, measures be taken to promote such 
 an understanding and consultation between them as will secure, as 
 far as possible, a coincidence au<l uniibrmity with regard to the exer- 
 cise and discipline, and all their modes of proceeding in their respec- 
 tive connexions. 
 
 Signed, 
 
 per order, 
 
 Jedidiah Morse, ChainnaH.- 
 
PREFACE. 
 TO THE REVEREND JOSEPH LYMAN, D. D. 
 
 MODBRATOR OF A BODY, STYLING ITSBI.F " THE OKNERAL ASSOCIATIOK 
 
 OF MAOSACHUSBTrS PROPEB." 
 ( 
 
 Reverend Sir, 
 
 ^ o apology can be required for the liberty, which I 
 take, of introducing your name to the publick in connexion 
 with this solemn and interesting inquiry, because it appears 
 by the proceedings of (he association, of which you was 
 moderator, that the subject of this essay was explicitly re- 
 commended to publick attention, with a very distinct inti- 
 mation, that that body would proceed upon its own au- 
 thority alone, to act definitively upon the subject at its 
 next annual meeting. Unprecedented as may be this mode 
 of legislation, in one of the most important concerns, which 
 can affect society, it will appear to be the course contem- 
 plated by your learned and venerable association, by the 
 following vote of that body, published by your order in 
 the Panoplist of August last. 
 
 " Voted, to go into a free discussion of the subject of the 
 " following motion — ' That the report of the committee ap- 
 " pointed to inquire into the history of an original MS. doc- 
 " ument, &c. &c. be printed, and copies sent to the several 
 " associations in our connexion for the purpose o{ ascertain- 
 " ing the publick sentiments respecting the plan ofeccleai- 
 
18 
 
 " astica! order therein presented, and that the subject be 
 " called up at the next meeting of the general association.* 
 " After discussion (he motion was passed into a vote, and 
 " Messrs. Morse, Codman, and Woods, appointed a com- 
 " mittee for publishing the abovementioned report, with in- 
 " sJructions to print it in connexion with the preceding 
 " vote." 
 
 It is obvious, that there is an appeal to the people on 
 this topick, and it would be indecorous in them to disregard 
 it. But although jou. Sir, and your brethren of the asso- 
 ciation may comprehend fully the subject and ultimate 
 bearings of that report, yet the above notice and vote w'lY 
 convey a very imperfect idea of it to the people at large, 
 who have not the privilege of seeing the Panopiist. 
 
 I shall therefore take the liberty to state generally what 
 you. Sir, know to be true, and what 1 shall prove such in the 
 course of my inquiry, that this report contains a project 
 no less solemn and important, than that of abolishing in 
 whole the old constitution, under which the Congre- 
 gational churches have prospered during the last one hun- 
 dred and sixty years, and of substituting in its place, a new 
 system of problematical merit in itself, and directly oppos- 
 ed to the constitution of this state, if not subversive of the 
 rights and liberties of the Congregational churches. 
 
 If such an important measure had been by any serious 
 Christians deemed necessary for the cause of Christianity, 
 it is difficult to perceive any reasons why it should have been 
 introduced in a manner so exceptionable. There has al- 
 ways existed a body in this state, of which you, Sir, and all 
 your associates are members, familiar to the people, venera- 
 ble frotn its antiquity, cathollck in its organization, embrac- 
 ing all the Congregational clergy, and entitled to the respect 
 of all congregafionalists — the Convention of Congregational 
 niiuisters. It does not readily occur to us, why a certafn 
 
]9 
 
 portion of flie Congregational clergy, in contempt of the 
 known opinions of this ancient and venerable assembly, 
 should propose an entire new code of ecclesiastical discipline 
 of their own authority, unless it arises from the conviction, 
 that such a measure would be, as it has been, rejected by 
 that body. 
 
 The right of those, who think themselves more pure than 
 their brethren, to separate, and form new associations, can- 
 not be questioned ; nor shall we deny to them the pretext 
 of all innovators, that of reforming, rather than changing; 
 but they must permit us to doubt the expediency as well as 
 consistency of such conduct in men, whose professed ob- 
 ject is union. 
 
 If the ancient councils of the church are to be considered 
 as any authority, (as it seems much reliance is, placed on 
 some of their dogmas, in matters of faith,) itjs to be regret- 
 ted, that in this instance their example had not been follow- 
 ed. To them were invited prelates of all opinions, without 
 distinction, unless when for fraudulent or ambitious pur- 
 poses a selected council, like a packed jury, was sum- 
 moned. 
 
 In what manner even your parfiaZ associations have been 
 constituted we are not advised. Whether in violation of 
 the constitution, the Church members alone have ventured 
 to elect and instruct delegates on these weighty affairs, or 
 whether the whole society, at meetings duly warned, deputed 
 their pastors to represent them ; or whether, as some peo- 
 ple have said, I hope untruly, the ministers alone have un- 
 dertaken to form an association and to assume such powers, 
 lam equally ignorant. It is however apparent by the vote 
 above cited, that although you profess, Sir, to call for 
 the publick sentiments, yet you restrict this appeal to 
 the " several associations in your connexion." Whether 
 
20 
 
 you think that Oity alone have a right to express any opin- 
 ions or entertain any sentiments respecting it, or whether 
 you consider the separation aheady effected, and the new 
 Church already organized, we are not informed. 
 
 If j'our object be simply to form a new system of Church 
 government for that limited portion of the congregational 
 churches who are represented in your body, it is in effect and 
 should be entitled " A scheme for effecting the secession 
 of certain churches from the old Congregational church, 
 and the establishment of a new form of church government 
 for the seceders, under the title of the Massachusetts Grand 
 Association." 
 
 You would do Avell to consider whether your plan will 
 have the smallest practical operation. Whether it can re- 
 strain " he;-esy," prevent the settlement of " corrupt he- 
 retical ministers" protect the orthodox clergy from " slan- 
 der" and promote " union" in the church ; all which 
 objects are professed by your committee. 
 
 If the courJs of law cannot uphold you ; if a restless ad- 
 vocate for religious freedom, a friend to the old independent 
 form of government, should appeal from your consociaiion 
 to a mutual council, and the offer of such council should 
 be rejected ; if he, with his associates, should then proceed 
 to appoint an ex parle council, and they should recommend 
 the dissolution of the compact between the minister and his 
 parish, and if this man should have sufficient influence to 
 procure a majority of the legal voters in the parish for a 
 dismis:?al, and if in such a case the court shoidd hold the 
 pastor regularly dismissed, which they most unquestionably 
 will do, what will become of the consociations ? 
 
 They may thunder out tlieir anathemas in vain. They 
 will be like those which the Pope issued against llenry the 
 VIII. the object of contempt and ridicule. Of what 
 benefit then, reverend Sir, can be this attempt to in- 
 
21 
 
 novate in the church ? Is it politick to discover the will, 
 when il is morally certain, that you will not have the power 
 to lyiannize ? 
 
 I confess to you, Sir, I can perceive in this measure only 
 the germ of new and scandalous dissensions, afflictive and 
 disgraceful to ihe Church of Christ. The old associations 
 will be brought into constant collision with the new, and be- 
 ing sustained by truth, the constitution and the laws, they 
 will iux^^vitably triumph. However your devotees may be 
 kept some time in ignorance, they will finally understand 
 their rights, and on the first cause of offence they will fly off 
 and appeal to the old associations. 
 
 I am happy in addressing this preface to a man whom I 
 would fain believe, from his character, to be incapable of 
 abetting the designs of the projectors of this scheme. How- 
 ever ardent you may be in the support of your principles, 
 I cannot bring myself to think, that you would promote a 
 measure inconsistent with the great principles of the con- 
 stitution, subversive of the religious liberties of the people, 
 and tending directly to the most dreadful anarchy in the 
 Church. 
 
 A LAYMAN, 
 
AN INQUIRY, &c. 
 
 In pursuing the proposed inquiry, I shall principally ad- 
 dress my remarks to Laymen, who constitute the great mass 
 of society. 
 
 Whatever may be the benefits, or evils, of the proposed 
 change, the layman must principally feel (hem. It is for 
 the interest of the great body of the people, that all reli- 
 gious establishments are formed, and they ought to have 
 for their object the happiness, temporal and eternal, of lay- 
 men. The Clergy are but the Angels or Ministers of God 
 to make known and spread his revelations, and all the in- 
 stitutions of religion have respect rather to those who are 
 to be (aught, than those who are the teachers. 
 
 In (his age, it will be readily admitted, that any project 
 whose tendency is only to aggrandize the Clerical order, 
 without promoting, in a correspondent degree, piety and 
 virtue among the people, should be the object of distrust 
 and jealousy. 
 
 Any system, which tends to restore those hierarchical es- 
 tablishments which were calculated to exalt the clergy, who 
 ought only to be the ins(ruc(ers of (heir bre(hren, over the 
 laity ; establishments, which retained the Christian world, 
 for so many ages, in a slate of servitude to the privileged 
 orders of the Clergy ; must be injurious to true religion. 
 
 It cost the lives of some millions of men to vindicate the 
 rights of conscience, and to free (he Chrisdan community 
 from the shackles by which it had been so long restrained. 
 
23 
 
 Experience has taught us, that no men abuse power more 
 readily than Ecclesiasticks. It is probably owicg even to 
 fheir virtues in excess. Secluded in some degree by their 
 funcfions from the common intercourse of the world, ac- 
 customed to consider their offices and doctrines of para- 
 mount importance, feeling an accountability to God, and 
 therefore holding in small estimation the esteem and opin- 
 ions of their fellow men ; jet, liable like other men to 
 passions and frailties, from which their purity and princi- 
 ples cannot effectually guard them, they have in all ages 
 mistaken, and from the constitution of human nature they 
 probably will for ever continue to mistake, their own pre- 
 judices and opinions, their passions and even their vices, for 
 inspiration and duty. Hence they have been often seen in 
 the name of a just and benevolent God, and under the pre- 
 tence of promoting the cause of true religion, to adopt 
 such principles, and to exercise such intolerant and despo- 
 tick powers, as no men, acting from less honourable motives, 
 would have dared to attempt. 
 
 Yes. There are no crimes which can be compared to 
 those, which a mistaken view of Religion has induced men 
 to commit. 
 
 This truth, which every page of history for many cen- 
 turies confirms, and which so far from derogating from the 
 truth and weight of the Christian system, serves only to 
 confirm it ; since it has successfully withstood these injuries 
 of its friends, more fatal than those which its enemies could 
 have inflicted : this important truth seems now to be gen- 
 erally acknowledged in the civilized world, and the effect 
 of it has been to control as far as possible the power of the 
 clergy, leaving to them only, undisturbed, their rightful 
 province, that of Instructers and Teachers. 
 
 In this country the experiment has been fairly made. 
 We have seen a body of Christian instructers, who have for 
 
24 
 
 nearly two centuries, gone in and out before their people 
 with no other power or influence, than what they have de- 
 rived from the purity and sanctity of their lives, and the 
 weight and imjortance of the doctrines which they taught. 
 AVhere is the man who will have the hardihood to say, 
 that this people, (I allude to those portions of the country 
 which have enjoyed a stated ministry ;) where is the man 
 who will affirm, that the moral and religious habits of our 
 country are not superiour to those of any nation in which 
 the Clergy enjoy the dangerous powers which Dr. Morse, 
 in his report, recommends the Clergy to seize and exercise ? 
 Shall we then, with all this experience in favour of our 
 system, consent to exchange it for one, in which the most 
 busy and intriguing, the restless, factious and ambitious 
 among the clergy shall have a right to settle the articles of 
 faith ; determine who shall, and who shall not be ordained, 
 " tind guilty, sustain, and depose ?" 
 
 Such alarming powers are in fact proposed, not for adop- 
 tion by the people, but for assumption by the New Massa- 
 chusetts Association. 
 
 The legality of such an assumption is the principal ob- 
 ject of my Inquiry. It is no less solemn a question, than 
 whether on the most important of all subjects, the People 
 have, or have not any righls ; or whether the clergy have 
 a right to assume the power of dictating to them, not only 
 in matters of faith and discipline, but in the election and 
 deposition of their pastors. 
 
 I shall divide this essay into Chapters, for the more con- 
 venient examination of the various branches of the subject. 
 Chapter 1st. The principles and practice of our an- 
 cestors in this country on this subject. 
 In Chapter '2d, I shall consider, what authority can he 
 found for these extraordinary powers, this ecclesias- 
 tical jurisdiction proposed by Dr. Morse, in the 
 history of the Early Church. 
 
25 
 
 Chapter 3. The professed motives for aholishm^ tht 
 Cambridge Platform, and substituting this coercive 
 system in its place. 
 
 Chapter 4. The real but secret motives for this inno- 
 vation. 
 
 Chapter 5. What are the rights of the People of Mas- 
 sachusetts with regard to Religious establishments, as 
 fixed by the Constitution, and by Judicial decisions. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Principles and Practice of our Ancestors on this 
 Subject. 
 
 The origin of Congregattenal, or, as they were at first 
 called, Independent Churches, is too recent to admit of 
 controversy. We have no occasion to resort to learned 
 divines or doctors to settle this point. History has within 
 this period too much certainty ; there have been too many 
 rival writers, and the documents are too well preserved, to 
 leave any doubt upon so plain a question. 
 
 When the English Church was separated from the Ro- 
 mish communion, it retained all the features of the hie- 
 rarchy, as to the external government of the Church. 
 
 The king at first claimed to be the Spiritual head, and 
 exercised as oppressive and despotick a power as that 
 which the successors of St. Peter had done. It is difficult 
 to ascertain, with the aid of the best historians, and the au- 
 thentick documents of the sixteenth and sevenfeenlh cen 
 turies, whether this religious despotism, or the tyrannic^' 
 4 
 
26 
 
 measures of the Tudor and Stuart families contributed most 
 to the disturbances which convulsed Great Britain during 
 those ages. It is however certain, (hat the ecclesiastical 
 usurpations naturally co-operated with other oppressions in 
 producing the civil wars, and were almost the sole cause of 
 the glorious revolution in 1688. 
 
 The 6rst efforts against the hierarchy were made by 
 the Presbyterians. This sect, like most reformers, and 
 innovators, did not content themselves with abolishing 
 the hierarchy, but like the dissenters from the Romish 
 Church, they were so much under the influence of their 
 early prejudices, that they could form no ideas of tolerance 
 in religion. Tiicy considered not only that truth must be 
 single, but that the Church had an exclusive right to 
 interpret the scriptures, and prescribe what is Truth, and 
 how and what men should believe. 
 
 They adopted precisely the errour which had led to all 
 the usurpations of the Church of Rome. As the Church 
 of England, at its separation from the Romish see, had 
 presumptuously arrogated to itself all the powers of which 
 it had stripped the Roman Pontiff, under pretence that they 
 were unscriplural ; so the Presbyterians, in their turn, who 
 derived both their liostility to the hierarchy and their in- 
 tolerant principles from the Scottish covenanters, insisted 
 upon the same Jus divinum in favour of their upstart 
 I'resbytery, and imposed fetters as galling as Gregory the 
 YIII. in the summit of his power, would have dared to 
 impose. 
 
 But the English nation was in a state of ferment too great 
 to submit to such servitude. They felt, as we now fee!, 
 that if they must be subjected in matters of conscience 
 to human arrogance and power, they should prefer an 
 .authority more distant, more venerable by its antiquitj', 
 rriore learned, more impartial, than that of the Plebeian 
 
27 
 
 Presbyters who had deposed the Prelates only to tyrannize 
 in their sfead. 
 
 A new sect arose, first under the name of Brownisls ; 
 which denomination becoming unpopular, they assumed that 
 of Independents, and when they emigrated to this country, 
 they adopted the more unexceptionable and les9 odious 
 name of Congregationalists. 
 
 That this sect were the founders of the Congregational 
 Churches in New-England, will not be disputed. Their 
 characters and principles are the theme of daily panegyrick, 
 by the same persons who are now about to destroy that part 
 of their fabrick which was most worthy of commendation, I 
 mean the entire equality and independence of the Churches. 
 
 These sectaries, the founders of our Churches, denied 
 all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. They maintained the per- 
 fect equality as well as independence of all the Churches. 
 They had, at first, no associations of any kind. When the 
 Church of England was restored, and they became again 
 the subjects of persecution, they fled to this country, hoping 
 they might find in the wilderness, what Europe would not 
 afford them, an entire and absolute freedom of Religious 
 opinion. 
 
 But it is not in human nature to be free from ambition, 
 nor even to be consistent always with one's own principles. 
 Among these strenuous asserters of Christian freedom, there 
 soon arose, as there will ever arise, ambitious and intriguing 
 divines. These persecuted men became persecutors, and 
 their conduct towards the Quakers, in the early settlement 
 of this country, is a blot which can never be effaced. 
 
 God of his infinite mercy grant, that we may not leave a 
 blot of a still deeper dye, by the adoption of the proposed 
 system, in direct opposition to the principles of our 
 Church ! 
 
28 
 
 Soon after the settlement of our country, a synod, cam- 
 posed of clergy and laity, established, not a system of 
 Church Government, for that their principles rejected, but 
 an harmonious plan of settling differences in the Church. 
 This is well known by the name of the Cambridge Plat- 
 form ; and so wisely and judiciously was it framed, that it 
 has survived all our civil convulsions, our municipal and 
 political revolutions. This plan bears no analogy to the 
 different schemes of Ecclesiastical tyranny, which ambition 
 and cunning have introduced, and which ignorance and su- 
 peistition have permitted. Its authority is chiefly moral. 
 It has scarcely any sanctions but sentiment and opinion. 
 Its powers are purely advisory. It provides for a mutual 
 council in case of differences between a pastor and his peo» 
 p'c. This is simply an arbitration justificatory, but not 
 obligatory. It settles the point of character. It gives the 
 Pastor a right to go, or the People to dismiss, without vio- 
 lating the proper duties and relations of Christians to each 
 other. In case of a refusal of a mutual council, the party 
 complaining may elect a council ex parte, that is, without 
 the other. The result of this last council (for our ancestors 
 were too jealous of power to call it a decree) is merely 
 recommendatory. It dissolves no ties. It can impose no 
 penalties^ It can neith^er sustain or depose. Every thing 
 is still referred back to the source of all power, the People 
 of the Parish. If neither party should adopt the advice 
 of the Council, it is a mere dead letter. For example, 
 
 If a Parish should have complained against a Pastor for 
 heretical opinions, and the Council should decide them to- 
 be such, and therefore recommend a dismission, still, if the 
 Parish should afterwards be converted to the opinions of 
 the Pastor, or should be ashamed of their illiberality in 
 prosecuting him, his Pastoral character and rights would be 
 uadisturbed. 
 
29 
 
 This is the very complaint of the persecutors. " There 
 is no inquisition, no coercive power ; and how can a Church 
 flourish if some of the pious men have no means of grati- 
 fying their passions against their personal enemies ?" Such 
 however is the present condition of our Churches. They 
 are in every sense independent. No human power can 
 change this system but by violence- 
 It ought not however to be denied, that there have been 
 two attempts to overset this peaceable plan of Church 
 government. 
 
 One by Dr. Mather and others in 1706, which was not suf- 
 fered to go into effect, on account of its being deemed hostile 
 to the liberties of the Church, as he himself admits ; the other 
 by Dr. Morse, a few years since, in the convention of minis- 
 ters, which was thrown out, as I am told, with pretty strong 
 expressions of general disgust. Not discouraged, this inde- 
 fatigable man, with others, finding the convention of the 
 whole clergy unfavourable to his views, has now called a 
 Caucus of his own party, with the design of forcing or 
 imposing upon the people, as I conceive, an entirely new 
 form of Church government. 
 
 Before I proceed to consider this project, which is the 
 subject of the third chapter, I will cite one or two among 
 fifty authorities, to shew that my description of the senti- 
 ments of the Brownists, Independents, or Congregational- 
 ists, is correct. 
 
 In the British Encyclopedia, revised in this country, and 
 reprinted by Dobson, we have the following account of the 
 *' Brownists." 
 
 "The whole power of admitting and excluding members, 
 with the decision of all controversies, was lodged in the 
 brotherhood. As the vote of the brotherhood made a 
 man a minister, and gave him authority to preach the 
 word and administer the sacraments, »o the same power 
 
30 
 
 could discharge him fiom the office, and reduce him to a 
 mere layman again ; and as they maintained the bounds of 
 a church to be no greater, than what could meet toii,eiher in 
 one place, and join in one communion, so the power ot Iheir 
 officers was prescribed within these limits ; in a vioid, every 
 church in a Brownist model is a body corporate, having, tuU 
 power to do every thing which the good ol" the society re- 
 quires, without being accountable to any classis, synod, 
 convocation, or other jurisdiction whatever.^^ "Most of 
 their discipline has been adopted by the Independents." 
 
 Indeed, 1 may add, they were in fact the same church, 
 though they altered the name on account of Brown's 
 apostasy. 
 
 The settlers at Plymouth were Brownists, as Dr. Belknap 
 assures us in the life of Robinson, though for the aforesaid 
 reason they altered the name. Dr. Mosheim's account of 
 the Brownists essentially agrees with the authority above 
 cited. The publisher of his works states expressly that 
 the Brownists were the founders of New England. 
 
 But a much more perfect account of the religion of our 
 ancestors may be found in the Encyclopedia ; title, Inde- 
 pendents. 
 
 It is there stated, that Brown was the founder of the pre- 
 sent sect of Congregationalists, though his system was sof- 
 tened by his successors, of whom the chief place is given 
 to the venerable Robinson. 
 
 That pious man's definition of a Christian Church seems 
 to settle the question, as to the legality or propriety of conso- 
 ciations with judicial powers, unless it is intended openly to 
 renounce the Congregational principle. It is " Coeium 
 qiiemllbet particiilarem esse totam, integrum, et perfectam 
 ecclesiam ex siiis partibns constantem immediate et Inde- 
 pendenter {quoad alias ecclesias) sub ipsoChristo.^' " That 
 every separate christian society is a whole, entire and per- 
 
31 
 
 feet church, holding its authority (at least so far as respects 
 other churches) immediately and independently from 
 Christ himself." 
 
 The two following are said, by these impartial and ortho' 
 dox editors, to be the distinguishing features of Congrega- 
 tionalism ; upon which we may exclaim, " How has the gold 
 become dim ! !" 
 
 " 1. The Independents reject the use of all creeds and 
 confessions drawn up by fallible men, requiring of their 
 teachers no other test of orthodoxy than a declaration of 
 their belief in the Gospel of Jesus, diud their adherence to 
 the Scriptures as the rule of their faith." 
 
 This was written thirty years ago, probably by an Eng- 
 lish divine. It is a true representation of Congregational- 
 ism. At thi« day Dr. Porter, Mr. Channing and others, 
 are abused for maintaining, what this learned work declares 
 to be a distinguishing feature of Congregationalism. 
 
 The second distinctive tenet of Congregationalism is, 
 "That they lay no stress upon the rite of ordination, accord- 
 ing to the Episcopal or even Presbyterian forms. That a 
 minister may be set apart and authorized to preach by any 
 christian society." 
 
 Ampng the arguments, which this work recites, as used 
 by the Congregationalists in favour of their principles, are 
 the following, which are pertinent to our present question, 
 and shew the unscriptural nature of Dr. Morse's new conso- 
 ciations. " That the word «x\«o-(« which we translate 
 Church, is always used in scripture to signify either a sin- 
 gle congregation, or the place (or building) where a single 
 congregation meets." Sundry texts in support of this con- 
 struction are then cited, and the writer proceeds to say, 
 " Besides these, the Independents can find no other de- 
 scription of a church in the New Testament; not a trace of 
 ji diocese or Presbytery consisting of several congregations 
 subject to one jurisdiction." 
 
32 
 
 *' The number of disciples in Jerusalem was very great, 
 before they were dispersed by the persecution, in which St. 
 Paul bore so great a part, yet they are never mentioned as 
 forming distinct assemblies, but as one assembly meeting in 
 one place. After the dispersion, as they could never meet 
 in one place, they are never called a church, or one church, 
 but the churches of Judea, &c. Hence the Independent 
 concludes, that in Jerusalem, church and congregation were 
 of the same import." In the same manner the work from 
 which these quotations are made, proceeds to adduce the 
 arguments of the Independents against all separate power in 
 the elders, as distinct from the people of the congregation,and 
 against all jurisdiction of one or more churches over each 
 other. The arguments are very satisfactory, to which our 
 readers are referred. It is sufficient for our purpose that 
 we have performed what we undertook, viz. to shew, what 
 were the principles of our ancestors in this country, the 
 early and true Congregationalists, on this subject of Church 
 government. 
 
 It has been proved, that the essence of Congregational- 
 ism is the perfect independence of each separate church, 
 and the denial of any judicial authority in any body beyond 
 or without each separate society. 
 
 To say, that you wish to promote the prosperity of the 
 church, meaning the Congregational Churches, by adopting 
 such a consociation as is proposed, is as absurd as it would 
 be to say, that you are in favour of civil liberty, and a Re- 
 publican government, with a despofick hereditary empeiour 
 at its head, or ©f Protestantism, but under absolute submis- 
 sion to the see of Rome. 
 
33 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The authority for these extrajrdinary powers and Ecclesi- 
 astical Jurisdiction, now claimed by Dr. Morse, to be 
 found in the history of the Early Church, 
 
 I SHALL select as competent authority on this point, Dr. 
 MosHEiM, because no man will denj his orthodoxy, and 
 few will be disposed to question his learning and iinpartiali- 
 Ij. It is not expedient to embarrass our brethren of the 
 laity with numerous quotations. It will be sufficient for 
 their satisfaction, to cite one ecclesiastical historian of un- 
 doubted credit, who refers his readers to his authorities for 
 every assertion. 
 
 Dr. Mosheim affirms, " that neither Christ himself, nor 
 any of his Apostles, have commanded any thing clearly and 
 expressly concerning the external form of the church, and 
 the precise method according to which it should be govern- 
 ed. From this we may infer, that the regulation of this was 
 in some measure to be accommodated to the times, and left 
 to the wisdom of" the chief rulers of the stale and church.^* 
 — See Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 97. 
 
 If this proposition be true, there exists no authority in the 
 state of Massachusetts, to establish any precise form of 
 church government, or to give to any one church or num- 
 ber of churches authority over any single church. For our 
 State rulers are expressly prohibited by the 3d article of 
 the constitution from so doing, and as to "Chief Rulers" in 
 the church, we have never had any in this state. 
 
 The church as a general term, embraces every sect of 
 christians, whether Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Pres- 
 byterians, Baptists, Methodists, ITniversalists or Qua- 
 kers ; for our laws recognise all these sects expressly as 
 equally members of the Christian church. 
 
34 
 
 Does any man deny this proposition? 
 
 Let him consider, tJiat, by our consfilulion, any man is 
 exempted from attending, or paying towards the support 
 of any minister of any one of the aforesaid persuasions, 
 or sects, however reguhirly settled in liis town, provided 
 he cannot conscientiously atlend upon his ministry, and 
 provided there be any other minister of a different persua- 
 sion, on whose ministry he does attend. This is a consti- 
 tutional provision which cannot be abrosjaled, and which 
 proves the absolute equality of all Christian churches.* 
 
 To this catholick principle in our constitution and laws, 
 there is but one exception, and that is contrary to the genius 
 of our government, and still more so to Ihe spirit of our reli- 
 gion, the exclusion of Ihe Ronjan Catholicks from the pro- 
 tection which others enjoy. That a Catholick should be 
 obliged to support a Protestant teacher as well as his own, 
 is a most grievous imposition. 
 
 But it may be said, that whatever the people, or the civil 
 ruler may have done, the Scriptures are paramount to them 
 all, and that the chief rulers of the church derive their 
 authority from God. 
 
 It is for this reason I shall cite further passages from Dr. 
 Mosheim, as to what the Scripture and apostolick usage 
 have settled on these matters. 
 
 * In the case of Mr. 3Iurray while at Gloucester, the supreme court 
 held, that to entitle him to recover he must be a settled minister. But 
 what that settlement must be, and that it does not require an ordination 
 by any presbytery, nor the aid of any other churches in that ceremony, 
 is plain by the case of Freeman and the wardens of King's Chapel, vs. 
 Pelhani. The Reverend Dr. Freer^ian was ordained in a manner truly 
 jiI)ostolick. He was set apart for the ministry by the wardens of his 
 own church, pursuant to a vote of the whole society. What an absur- 
 dity then, to talk of the absolute necessity of a Consociation to license 
 ministers, to settle the mode of ordiuations, and to exclude improper 
 men from the ministry ! ! 
 
S5 
 
 In connexion with the above quotation, Dr. Mosheira 
 proceeds to say, " If however it is (rue, that the Apostles 
 *' acted by divine inspiration, and in conformity with the 
 " commands of their blessed master, and this no Christian 
 " can call in question ; then it follows, that that form of 
 *< government which the primitive Churches borrowed from 
 *« that of Jerusalem, the first christian assembly established 
 *' by the Apostles themselves, must be esteemed of divine 
 *' aulhority. But from this it would be wrong to conclude, 
 " that such a form is immutable ; for this a great variety 
 <* of €ven{s might render impossible. 
 
 " In those early times, every Christian Church consisted 
 " of liie people, their leaders and the ministers or deacons, 
 " and these indeed belong essentially to every religious so- 
 " ciety. The People were undoubtedly the first in au- 
 " thority, tor the Apostles showed by their own example 
 " that noihing of moment was to be carried on or deterniin- 
 " ed without the consent of the assembly ; and such a 
 *' method of proceeding was both prudent and necessary, 
 *' in those critical times." 
 
 " It was therefore the assembly of the People which 
 *' chose their own rulers and teachers, or received them by 
 " a free consent, when recommended by others." " The 
 *' same people rejected or confirmed by their suffrages the 
 *' laws proposed by their rulers to the assembly ; excom- 
 " municated profligate and unworthy members of the 
 " Church, restored the penitent to their privileges, passed 
 "judgment upon the different subjects of controversy and 
 " dissension that arose in their community, examined and 
 " decided the disputes which happened between the elder* 
 " and deacons, and, in a word, exercised all the authority 
 " which belongs to such as are invested with sovereign 
 " power." 
 
 See Mosheim, Vol. I. p, 97, 98. 
 
36 
 
 Thus, according lo an orthodox Doctor of the Church, 
 Ihe people were in the Apostolick days the sole depositaries 
 of sovereign power in all Church matters. The reason he 
 assigns for this deference to the People applies with more 
 force now, and that is, " that the People purchased this 
 privilege by supporfmg the teacheis, the inferiour officers 
 and tlie Poor." 
 
 But how priiiciples and practices are changed since the 
 days of tlie Apostles! By imperceptible encroachments, 
 the people in some countries have been stripped of all 
 power ; and the teachers, who were originally subject to the 
 People, have become their masters, and keep the whole 
 religious community in absolute subjection. Our ancestors 
 threw olTthis yoke and resumed their primitive authority, 
 that which the Apostles gave or allowed to them. 
 
 Dr. Morse, out of pure love, as he pretends, to the 
 Church, is now preparing to slip on this yoke again. The 
 proposed plan of Consociation annihilates the power of the 
 people, considered as distinct from the Church, at a stroke, 
 they not being so much as mentioned from the beginning to 
 the termination of it. 
 
 Dr. Mosheim does not leave this question here : in page 
 105 of the same volume he says, *' The Churches in those 
 early times ivere entirely independent, none of them sub- 
 ject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each one governed by 
 its own rulers and own laws. For though the churches 
 founded by the Apostleslmd this particular deference shewn 
 to them, that they were consulted in doubtful and difficult 
 cases ; yet they had no juridical authority, no sort of supre- 
 macy, nor the least right to exact laws for tliem." Now in- 
 deed Dr. Morse's church, though not founded by an apostle 
 that we have ever heard of, arrogates to itself the juridical 
 authority, a supremacy over other churches, by adopting a 
 new constitution, by which the whole legislative and judi- 
 cial power is taken from each separate church, and given to 
 
37 
 
 the Consociation. I shall consider hereafter the proposed 
 assent of each church and its illusory character. 
 
 Our old and venerable Congregational system was pre- 
 cisely like that, which Ur. Mosheini says was appointed 
 and practised upon by the Holy Apostles. It is this which 
 they propose to destroy. 
 
 I>r. Mosheim adds, in the same paragraph, " Nothing is 
 " more evident than the perfect equality which reigned 
 " among the primitive churches; nor does there even ap- 
 " pear the smallest trace of that Association of provincial 
 " churches, from which councils and metropolitans derive 
 " their origin." Mosheim, Vol. i. p. lO.i. 
 
 Until this learned orthodox divine shall have been confut- 
 ed by those who procured the publication of his works here, 
 we may assume it as a settled proposition, that in the apos- 
 tolick age, the People, that is, the professing christians of 
 every distinct church and society, enjoyed and exercised 
 all ecclesiastical powers, even those of settling questions 
 of faith and disputes in the church, as well as of electing 
 and dismissing their teachers — that there were no associ- 
 ations of churches, no councils, no claim of judicial power 
 or supremacy in any bodies of christians. 
 
 If, then, while the apostles were upon earth, who must be 
 supposed to have best known the will of our Saviour and 
 the purposes of God, no such jurisdiction was ever claimed, 
 what pretence can now exist, that such dangerous powers 
 should be confided to fallible and erring men, stimulated by 
 passions, uncontrolled by apostolick authority, and unaid- 
 ed by divine inspiration ? The arguments and reasons in 
 favour of exact conformity and uniform discipline were in- 
 finitely stronger in the apostolick age than they are at the 
 present day. 
 
 The Church was surrounded with able, learned and pow- 
 erful foes, who were ready to seize upon any dissensions as 
 
38 
 
 to matters of faith Or discipline, in order to bring Christiani- 
 ty into discredit. There existed also in that age, an au- 
 thority, to which an appeal might be made, entitled to the 
 highest respect, viz. the Apostles themselves. 
 
 Yet these luminaries of the Church gave no encourage- 
 ment to the erection of general tribunals for the correction 
 of abuses, and for the establishment of uniform rules and dis- 
 cipline in the Church. 
 
 If we are asked, to what sort of connexion the apostles 
 alluded, in the frequenllj repeated phrases of the " fellow- 
 ship of the churches," we answer, an intercourse of kind- 
 ness, of hospitality, of advice ; but more especially, in that 
 age of persecution, of notice when dangers approached, 
 and of generous aid when persecutions prevailed. 
 
 In fact a strict and intimate intercourse of the churches 
 might have been at that time necessary, but has npw become 
 utterly useless. 
 
 In the present day, it is difScult to see any reason why 
 oneor more churches, in combination, should exercise an 
 authority in matters of faith and discipline over other 
 churches. We have no longer any enemies to encounter in 
 the European or American world. The last madman, 
 Paine, who attacked Christianity, surely did not produce any 
 effect which would require an intimate union of the churches. 
 The whole civilized world professes to be Christian. It is 
 to be sure divided into an hundred sects. There is no 
 earthly tribunal to decide which is right. If you once de- 
 part from the scriptural and aposfolick principle, that each 
 church forms an whole, and has a right to interpret the 
 scriptures for itself, it is difficult to see any point at which 
 you can stop, short of an universal head, the authority 
 claimed by the Bishop of Rome. Shall we, the Inde- 
 pendents, be ready to admit the authority of the Arch- 
 bishops and convocations of Great Britain ? And if we arev 
 
39 
 
 will the Baptists admit the infallibility of our Consociations ? 
 Or will even the haughty Presbyters, though they join the 
 orthodox in denouncing those who differ from them as her- 
 eticks, will they submit to Dr. Morse's Consociation ? 
 
 The only pretence for these tribunals is, the Papal or Ro- 
 mish one of conformity. But such conformity can in this 
 case reach but one sect, the Congregationalists. The 
 others will still go on in what we call their errours. It is not 
 therefore the church of Christ which these gentlemen 
 would reform and render uniform. It is a single sect ; and 
 the only consequence would be to break that sect into two 
 or more divisions, without effecting the object at which 
 they aim. I trust that these reverend gentlemen are not so 
 far gone, as to contend, that the Congregationalists alone 
 are the church of Christ ; and that ihey will admit some 
 few of the other sects to a small participation in the bless- 
 ings of the gospel. 
 
 This however is not the place to press these considera- 
 tions. My object in this chapter was simply to shew, as I 
 believe I have done, that the early church admitted of 
 none of these combinations, associations, or consociations 
 to measure, restrain, and limit faith ; and to forge and invent 
 causes of heresy, and of confusion and controversy, in the 
 church. I have cited but one authority, but that is ortho- 
 dox, and venerable, and published and circulated in this 
 country by the very authors of this system, which Dr. Mo- 
 sheim declares to have been anknown in the apostolick age. 
 
 If we are asked, where is the evil of such conspiracies, 
 combinations and consociations, even if not authorized by 
 the example of the apostles ? I answer, first, that if they 
 are not authorized by scripture or by law, there ought to 
 be historical and practical proofs of their utility, other- 
 wise they ought not to be adopted. 
 
 But, 2dly. That all such associations and assumptions of 
 power have invariably terminated in the most detestable of 
 
40 
 
 all despotisms. They are in their nature an oligarcliv, or 
 government of the few. As their power is ill-founded, it 
 can be preserved only by violence. These considerations 
 will be more fully developed in the following pages. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The avowed motives of the jjrofessed change from Con- 
 gregationalism to Consociationism, {if I may be allow- 
 ed to coin a new word for a new thing.) 
 
 It could not be expected, that learned Divines would 
 propose an entire revolution in the church, without bring- 
 ing to their aid all the talents and learning of their party. 
 It accordingly appears, that (his great body had this topick 
 under consideration for a year, and committed it to some 
 of their most skilful scribes, to invent and digest arguments 
 for such an innovation. We are authorised to suppose, 
 therefore, that Dr. Morse's report contains their strongest 
 reasons in favour of this measure : this we shall now pro- 
 ceed to examine. 
 
 The first remark to which this report gives rise, is the 
 consciousness of its authors, that it could not stand upon 
 its own merits. A manuscript of Dr. Cotton Mather is 
 brought forward with as much parade, as if he had been an 
 apostle. This so exceedinglj resembles the monastick ar- 
 tifices of the dark ages, of hunting up the barbarous produc- 
 tions of some canonized saint, to authorize some new usur- 
 pation, or add sanctions to some ancient ones, which were 
 not respectable in themselves, that it excites our jealousy, 
 if not our contempt. 
 
 If our church government be in itself so radically defec- 
 tive, as this committee pretend, if it be that rotten, misera- 
 
41 
 
 ble, and Ineffectual system, which they would shew it to be, 
 if these evils have been perceived from the days of Dr. Cot- 
 ton Malher to the present time, the fact must be too well 
 known to all the Christian societies, to require Dr. Ma- 
 ther's authority in support of it. 
 
 If these defects were not so generally known, and were 
 perceptible only to the enlightened members of this asso- 
 ciation, still, if they exist, they must be susceptible of 
 demonstration, and the duty of the committee was rather 
 to sla'e, and prove them, than to rely on this obsolete au- 
 thority. 
 
 But the greatest ditTiculty is, that we can perceive no 
 grounds for this unlimited deference to Dr. Mather. He was 
 respectable for a very credulous age, and he partook, as 
 largely as any man, of the imperfection of the times. But 
 what authority ought such a man to enjoy, in a state of so- 
 ciety, in which his works can scarcely be read without a 
 smile at his weakness and prejudices ? We have nearly 
 one hundred times as many learned men at present, as there 
 were in that period. 
 
 The second remark we would make on this document, 
 which seems to be the citadel of the revolutionists, is, that 
 the opinion of Dr. Cotton Mather, according to his own con- 
 fession, had no weight with his contemporaries. It is true, 
 we have the assertion of Dr. Morse, (and it is the only au- 
 thority given for it,) that the convention of ministers ap- 
 proved the project. By what majority, and with what li- 
 mitations or amendments, we are not told. It would be 
 very much to the discredit of the convention, if it were 
 true ; and this the committee cannot deny, because they tell 
 us, " the proposals were such as no congregational mlnis- 
 <« ter could consistently recommend.^^ This is no great 
 praise to that convention. 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 But as one hundred years have elapsed, and Dr. Ma- 
 ther's project has slept as soundly as himself, it became ne- 
 cessary to account for this silence, and liiiis it is feebly and 
 haltingly admitted by tl»e committee, " that there were 
 " some considerable persons among the ministers, and the 
 •* laity, who thought the liberties of pai'ticidar dwrches to 
 ** be endangered by them. In deference to these, the pro- 
 " posals were never prosecuted beyond the bounds of mere 
 *^ proposals.^* In other words, they died a natural death. 
 They were rejected with indignation by the clergy and 
 laitv, in 1706. This fact we have from Dr. Cotton Ma- 
 ther himself, in a work published twenty years afterwards. 
 
 What does this ancient precedent prove ? That some men 
 had the temerity to propose the abolition, (for it was such in 
 efTect) of the congregational form of government, and that 
 it was rejected as fatal to the liberties of the church. 
 
 Bu* never was any body of men so unfortunate In the 
 choice of a committee, as our association. Not content 
 with bringing forward a. case, which, as far as it has any 
 authority, goes to the destruction of their own principles, 
 they make the most dreadful mistakes in the management 
 of this unlucky case, in page 360 of the Panoplist, vol. xi. 
 they say, " that the proposals of Dr. Mather are in various 
 " respects such, as that in their opinion, congregational mi- 
 " nisters cannot consistently recommend or approve them." 
 This would seem to a layman, to be a co^ip de grace, a 
 fatal blow both to Dr. Mather, and the convention which 
 adopted his plan. It is to be regretted, that the committee 
 had not stated the pails of Dr. Mather's project, which ap- 
 peared to them so exceptionable ; perhaps we should have 
 deemed them the most meritorious. 
 
 But it is singular, we must all confess, that so much defe- 
 rence should be paid to a project, which the conunittee are 
 constrained to censure in such se.ere terms. 
 
43 
 
 In the next page the committee say, that the}r cannot de- 
 termine on what grounds the proposals were rejected, 
 and seem rather to be surprised at their hard fate. Tins is 
 B little strange, and somewhat contradictory in the view 
 of a layman. 
 
 It would occur to us as probable, that some " of the va- 
 " rioiis objections which rendered it impossible for a con- 
 " gregafioiial minister either to recommend oi approve 
 « thera," might be presumed to have occasioned their 
 failure. 
 
 Now we appeal to all rational men, and request them to 
 ask themselves, why this plan of Dr. Cotton Mather, so 
 treated by the people in his own age, utterly neglected 
 since, and finally so condemned by this committee, should 
 be made the chief foundation for this new experiment, and 
 should occupy two thirds of their report ? Surel> the com- 
 mittee will experience the fate denounced on those who 
 build their houses on the sand. It is, in brief, presumed by 
 the comnitfee, that a project which had no countenance in 
 the age in ?vhich it was produced, nor with the many ge- 
 nerations which have succeeded it, will acquire an impor- 
 tance and influence from its antiquity, which its merit could 
 not secureforit, and that we shall be disposed to adopt 
 a pUm of ecclesiastical tyranny, which our ancestors reject- 
 ed with disdain. 
 
 The arguments of the committee, independent of Dr. 
 Mather's rejected authority, may be divided into three 
 classes, all of which we shall minutely consider. 
 
 1st. " General, loose, declamatory assumptions, or as- 
 " sertions, vague, indefinite, and in many cases incompre- 
 « hensible." In other terms, Panoplist language and 
 argument. 
 
 2d. Three specifick objections to the present plan of 
 church government. 
 
44 
 
 3dlj. Scriptural arguments, taken from Dr. Increase* 
 Mather's Ratio Disciplinae. 
 
 As to the first, " The loose, declamatory assertions." 
 
 They are of the character of those which follow. " That 
 " there is a visible decline in the order, discipline, and 
 " fiiiitftilness of (lie churches." This complaint, they ad- 
 mit, was the prevailing one also in 1706, one hundred and 
 ten years since, and has been the prevailing one with cer- 
 tain men, in all ages of the church. It is like the usual 
 complaint against the seasons, the scarcity of money, and 
 the general profligacy of the age in which we live. What 
 peculiar evidence, or proofs the committee have on this 
 point, we know not. We are persuaded of the contrary. 
 This part of our country is unquestionably as correct in its 
 morals, more disposed to support pubiick worship, and as 
 well inclined to attend the exercises of religion, to respect 
 and honour its ministers, and to promote all pubiick institu- 
 tions for the advancement and spread of Christianity, as it 
 has been in any former age. 
 
 The clergy are much more learned and respected than 
 they were a century ago. The affectation of external 
 sanctity has, it is true, given place to more natural and 
 less Pharisaical and assuming manners. Men think they 
 can be pious without being hypocritical. 
 
 There is, in short, all the ditference between this coun- 
 try now and at that period, that will be found in Great 
 Britain, between that nation under Praise God Barebones' 
 Parliament, and that same people printing and dispersing as 
 they now do, the Holy Scriptures in one Hundred Tongues. 
 Then to be sure, a Surplice was a subject of Horrour, and 
 a Form of Prayer, a Liturgy, "a damned work of Satan." 
 Now we see a churchman and dissenter, an archbishop and 
 ruling elder, combining their efforts, without dissensions or 
 
 * Should be Cotton Mather. 
 
45 
 
 difficulties, to spread the glad tidings of the Gospel 
 throughout the habitable globe. 
 
 The second general complaint is, 
 
 " That in the introduction, discipline, and dismission of 
 ministers, the Churches are left each to its own discretion, 
 without any acknowledged uniform rule to govern them." 
 
 And pray is this an evil? Is it unreasonable, that those 
 who support, and are bound to hear a preacher, should have 
 a voice, and the only voice in introducing him ? Is it just 
 cause of complaint, that those who look up to their pastor 
 as the greatest earthly blessing, who wait anxiously for him 
 to soothe their sorrows, and strengthen their hearts on the 
 bed of sickness, who look up to him as the guide of them- 
 selves and their children, in the narrow path to heaven — 
 ought it to be a subject of complaint, that such a man, who 
 is to be united to them for life, should be the object of their 
 choice, and thai their preference should not be disturbed 
 by some rival priests, who should insist upon his subscrib- 
 ing to their articles of faith ? 
 
 Yet this is one of the main articles of complaint. It is 
 as unreasonable and preposterous, as if these gentlemen 
 should assume to the Church the power of deciding who 
 should or should not intermarry in private life. 
 
 The power thus claimed by Dr. Morse of interfering, 
 either with the settlement or dismision of a minister, we have 
 shewn in our first chapter, was not suggested in the Apos- 
 tolick age, and in the second, we made it equally apparent, 
 that such a power was rejected and denied by the Congre- 
 gational Churches. 
 
 The Committee then call the attention of the publick 
 most solemnly "<o the evils which affect Churches and 
 ministers in their ptiblick character and in their relation 
 to each other. ^^ 
 
 As it has been seen, that in the Apostolick age there 
 were no relations between one Church and another, except 
 
46 
 
 those which exist between all Christians, those of kindness 
 and urbanity, we should have expected on this head lo see 
 some elucidation of these relations and duties, as well as 
 the manner in which they had been broken and disregarded. 
 We look in vain. The Consociation Cause will not admit 
 of precision, or palpable and obvious facts and statements. 
 We have indeed much conunonplace declamation, such as, 
 " that all Churches are members of one kingdom, subject 
 to one king, partakers of one spirit, and enlisted in the same 
 cause, and are frequently called to promote the same inter- 
 est." We are even pretty audaciously, and if any other 
 persons were concerned, I should say pretty impiously 
 told, that the relation existing among Churches was consti- 
 tuted by God liimself! ! 
 
 Let us examine this rhapsody which the Committee have 
 subslituled for argument. All Christendom, that is, all who 
 believe in the Christian dispensation, belong to onespirilual 
 kingdom, are subject to one king, and partakers of one spirit; 
 Catholick and protestant, episcopalian and dissenter, are 
 equally the subjects of the foregoing remarks, unless the 
 Committee contend that the Church of England, and the 
 Baptists and Catholicks are not Christians, and aie there- 
 fore not subjects of the saiue king. If then these terms 
 or phrases have any bearing (and they have but very little, 
 for in our judgment they are mere sounds without meaning) 
 but if they have any bearing, they go to prove the neces- 
 sity of a perfect conformity in all sects. They draw the 
 inference, that there should be but one Church, and one 
 form of government for all the Christian world. 
 
 This is precisely the Roman Calholick doctrine. If one 
 or more churches convened as in Council, Synod or Coiiso- 
 ciation have a right to settle matters of faith ; if there be 
 any human power since the Apostolick age competent to 
 this, the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome are beyond all 
 
47 
 
 limits of comparison the first. They have prescription and 
 antiquity, and numbers on their side. They have been 
 adinided by the Christian world, for six or seven times the 
 number of a^es that the protestant form of religion has 
 existed. There are plausible grounds in scripture for his 
 authority. There are solid ones in favour of submission 
 to one despot rather than to many. The distance of his 
 residence, his independence, hh consequent impartiality, 
 his freedom from those petty rivalships and personal pas- 
 sions, from which the best men more nearly in contact are 
 not exempt, these, and a thousand other reasons, give his 
 claim a preference to those of any human tribunal. Let it 
 not be pretended, that I am an advocate for the authority 
 of the see of Rome. I deny all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 
 I think conscientiously, that it is the most monstrous and 
 wicked of all usurpations. It is sinning against all light, 
 to assume the smallest control over the consciences of 
 men under colour of scriptural authority. The whole 
 scriptures are against it, an<l we shall see presently on what 
 wretched foundation these pretensions repose. 
 
 If it be said, that our ancestors, the first Independents, 
 in direct opposition to their own principles, exercised a full 
 share of spiritual tyranny, I answer, this is a truth ever to 
 be lamented. I was never among the admirers of onr fore- 
 fathers without qualification. They had indeed great vir- 
 tues, but they had also great defects. And there is not a 
 man among those who praise them, that would exchange 
 the present state of society, for that of this country in the 
 first century of its settlement. 
 
 Reformation is never perfect at once. Some of our 
 weaknesses will still adhere to us, but, blessed be the God 
 of all mercy, he has permitted us to enjoy a degree of light 
 and liberty which onr ancestors never knew, when the (rue 
 spirit of the first reformation, and the better and more per- 
 
48 
 
 feet principles of (he second, that of the Independents, are 
 about to have their full operation. Such an operalion they 
 will have, in fhe entire freedom of the separate churches, 
 and in an universal Catholick spirit, unless it shall be dis- 
 turbed by ecclesiastical tribunals ; which have, in all ages, 
 been the bane of Christianity. 
 
 I shall now proceed to consider secondly, 
 
 The three specifick reasons, assigned by the learned 
 committee, for abolishing the Cambridge Platform and estab- 
 lishing a coercive ecclesiastical court. 
 
 The first is, "a prevailing neglect of discipline towards 
 offending members of churches, and a difficulty of going 
 through a regular course of discipline when attempted." 
 
 It is difficult to perceive, in what manner the proposed 
 consociations will strengthen the power of separate churches 
 over their own members. 
 
 It is alleged, indeed, that every church to this end re- 
 quires the aid of sister churches. This is broad assertion. 
 The only means of discipline in the power of the church, in 
 a free country, are admonition, penance, and excommuni- 
 cation. These a single church can effectually exercise, or 
 inflict, as well without as with the aid of associated churches. 
 Indeed much better, because there is no appeal. 
 
 Something is intimated of the delinquents obtaining sup- 
 port from other churches. This also is mere declamation. 
 
 Why state chimerical fears? Is it a practical evil of any 
 extent? Did any church ever expel a member for lewd- 
 ness, or inremperance, or profanity, and has the excluded 
 member been received and encouraged by a sister church ? 
 
 We believe, and trust, never. It is a mere pretence. 
 But if it be intended, as it would seem, to erect these con- 
 sociations to try the lay brethren who offend, if the^ are to 
 examine into and decide spiritual offences, they will have 
 labour and reward enough. 
 
49 
 
 Connecticut will find a new and profitable employment 
 for her numerous sons, and we shall be thronged with a host 
 of theological lawyers, eager to prove their zeal and inge- 
 nuity against the reprobate citizens of Massachusetts. 
 
 This is no sneer. It is sober conviction. When we 
 see it gravely and seriously urged, that the churches have 
 not sufficient power to enforce ecclesiastical discipline, that 
 a great and general court of ministers must be called to try 
 laymen, and to punish them for heresies and other sins, we 
 own we should shudder, if we did not believe, that the good 
 sense and temper of our people would induce them to spurn 
 at such a suggestion. Yet such an one is made, as will be 
 seen by the prefixed report. 
 
 The second specifick objection to the old Platform is, 
 "that there is no regular and acknowledged method in which 
 Congregational churches can exercise a christian watch and 
 care over each other." 
 
 "A Christian church, it is added, may apostatise from 
 the common faith, and fall into disorders totally incompati- 
 ble with the christian character." 
 
 Now this is very plausible to vulgar ears, but what does 
 it mean ? Is there any standard to decide who does apos- 
 tatise ^ What IS the common faith? Is it the faith of Ro- 
 man Catholicks, or of Lutherans, or Calvinists, or Indepen- 
 dents, or Methodists, or Baptists ? 
 
 And who is to decide when a whole church has aposta- 
 tized? And what the eflfect of such a decision? Who has 
 the keys of heaven, now they are wrested from St. Peter? 
 In what part of scripture is this power given to Dr. Morse's 
 consociated churches, or any other self-formed ecclesiasti- 
 cal tribunal ? 
 
 Let these gentlemen shew us one instance of consociation 
 in the scriptures. We shall prove hereafter there are none. 
 
 r 
 
50 
 
 Suppose tills plan in operation. A case of alleged 
 heresy is brought before this a\ip,u3t tribunal. The mem- 
 bers are pjcclsely divided. Wljich side is right ? Is (lie 
 truth in donbt? What is the remedy? Call in one or two 
 other ronsociafions, say the committee ; thai is, miiMiply 
 the means of confusion and discord, and you will olfain 
 peace and truth. The new body is torn by like dissen- 
 sions. What then are you lo do? Appeal to (he Grand 
 Association of Massachusetts. But suppose the Grand 
 Association should decide the case, and the refractory 
 church should refuse to submit, what is the next measure? 
 To withhold communion. This any separate church can 
 now do, and oflen undertakes to do, without any other 
 authority, than its own natural powers and rights. 
 
 This obliges me to notice a very extraordinary as- 
 sertion of this committee, that for a single church to 
 refuse to hold communion with another "is offering vio- 
 lence to decorum ;" " that if a single church should refuse 
 to hold fellowship, it would lend to introduce ecclesiastical 
 despotism and anarchy." 
 
 What ! have we forgotten the memorable case of Mr. 
 Codman, a man of excellent feelings,^ but who has been, we 
 regret to say it, induced to join this high ecclesiastical 
 party? Was he guilty of "introtiucing despotism and anar- 
 chy?" 
 
 That gentleman was persuaded to withhold communion 
 with many associated churches, against the will of a majori- 
 ty of his people. An ecclesiastical council was called. ^ A 
 full hearing was had, and all the orthodox clergy on the trial 
 declared, tnat he had a right so to do. 
 
 Will it be said, that refusing to exchange wilh his bre- 
 thren of the same association was not throwing them out of 
 comm\mion ? It not only necessarily includes (hat power, 
 but much more. It includes the right to deprive the peo- 
 ple of his charge of their accustomed privileges. 
 
51 
 
 Acts of fellowship of churches are, assisting in case of 
 the sickness, deafh, or absence of a pastor, at ordinaiions, 
 anJ in coiinciis. Surely it is ludicrous to say, that you 
 stiil hold coninunlon and fellowship wi(h a church, when 
 you will not periuil ils psslor to perform ihe ordinary ser- 
 vices ot the desk, and refuse him admission to your pulpit. 
 
 Tiie decision of the orthodox part of the council in that 
 
 meuiorable case, has proved, that the Cambridge Platform 
 
 needs no amendment on this ground, since every pastor has 
 
 the power against Ihe will of his 07Vii people to withhold 
 
 fellowship with any, and ail other churches, at his pleasure. 
 
 The Ijiird specifick objeclion of the committee to the old 
 system of government is, 
 
 " The want of a settled effectual method of calling minis- 
 ters to account for immorality and errour, and of protecting 
 them against calumny and injustice." 
 
 This reason will be found, on examination, to be as little 
 availing as either of the others. 
 
 The only persons, who have any interest or right to call 
 a pastor to account, are his own parishioner-?. 
 
 It would be preposterous lo suppose, that any parish 
 would be so corrupt as to retain a clergyman notorious for 
 his immorality. If such a case could be supposed, any 
 church, in connexion with such a reprobate society, would 
 be fully justified in withdrawing from any communion with 
 it. As to errours, if they are such as to give offence to his 
 own flock, there is now a competent remedy. 
 
 The parties aggrieved have a right to insist on a mutual 
 council. If the members of such council are divided, the 
 equitable presumption is, that it is no errour ; or if any, 
 of an immaterial nature. 
 
 If either party refuses to unite In a council, the party- 
 complaining has a right to call an ex parte council, the result 
 of which is so far obligatory, that the party who conceives 
 
S2 
 
 itself benefited hy it, may legally act in conformity to it, 
 and will be upheld by the courts of law. 
 
 But the learned committee, aware of the perfect nature 
 of the present remedy, have endeavoured to render mutual 
 councils, and the present mode of trial, odious and con- 
 temptible. 
 
 "We have," say they, "no effectual mode of keeping 
 improper men out of the ministry.'* This is a departure 
 from the question, which was, not whether improper men 
 could be kept out, but whether they could be punished 
 after they were admitted. But this complaint is as idle as 
 the other. No man, by the platform, can be ordained with- 
 out the approbation of a council. It is true, the parish set- 
 tling a minister, may send to whatever churches it chooses. 
 But is not this a natural privilege, and are not the powers 
 and rights of all churches, once regularly gathered, equal? 
 
 Bui, says Dr. Morse, " the friends of ecclesiastical order 
 are often in the minority at ordinations, what can they then 
 do ?" So it would seem that the minority are to govern, 
 provided they are the true saints. " What influence," the 
 committee dolefully inquire, "what influence can they 
 have in an ordaining council, when there is a majority de- 
 termined to outvote them?" 
 
 We answer, the same which the minority always have in 
 civil affairs. They must submit and be modest enough to 
 wait until the minds of men shall change. This, the com- 
 mittee will not do. It would seem therefore, that this pro- 
 ject is to give the minority, in certain districts, a rightto 
 control the majority. This is indeed either an ingenuous 
 or unguarded confession, fully displaying the extent and 
 objects of this project. 
 
 Let us now hear \]\e legal objections to the present ad- 
 mirable system of mutual councils. 
 
 The committee premise, "that no objection can arise in 
 their view to the grand principle of mutual councils, of 
 
53 
 
 the justice and importance of that principle they are fully 
 
 convinced." 
 
 This appears to us one Of those extraordinary subtleties, 
 
 which ought to have vanished with the pupils at St. Omers. 
 To be in favour of a " Grand principle, and convinced of 
 
 its justice and importance," and yet proceed to decry it as 
 absurd, irrelevant, weak, and ridiculous, is what a layman 
 
 cannot comprehend. 
 
 It is not to mutual councils, say the committee, we ob- 
 ject, but to the mode of constituting them ! Now the mode 
 of constituting them is what renders them mutual, and con- 
 tains their only merit. 
 
 We beg the reader not to laugh indiscreetly, when we 
 state the mode in which mutual councils are proposed to be 
 improved. 
 
 The consociation is, by a standing covenant, which may 
 endure for several centuries, to be constituted the council, 
 and is therefore to be called mutual! ! Thus, according to 
 the same reasoning, the Supreme Court is a mutual tribunal, 
 though one party is always forced there against his consent, 
 it is an arbitration, because by the compact, called the 
 constitution, that tribunal was provided, and therefore the 
 Judges are mutually chosen! To such subtleties do these 
 gentlemen descend. 
 
 Our notions of mutual councils are very different ; they 
 are in effect references or arbitrations. Their merit or value 
 consists in their having the direct confidence and assent of 
 the parties. If, in questions of property, references are 
 sometimes liable to objections, they seem, in ecclesiastical 
 affairs, to be the only remedy which the principles of our 
 religion admit. They are a 'peace-making tribunal in their 
 character. Theology, and religious controversies, which 
 seem to repel forensick accuracy, require a more popular 
 mode of decision ; it is therefore highly proper that friend* 
 should be called in to heal the breach without scandal to 
 
54 
 
 the church. The objections to them, urged by the com 
 raiftce, are derogalory to our clergv. Thej would prove, 
 that the ministers of religion are at this day as \iolent, as 
 unjust, as partial, as (hey were in the worst ages of the 
 church, or as the worst men in society : that they will 
 •acrifice their consciences and their God to their party 
 views. Heaven forbid, thai Dr. Morse's picture of them 
 sliould bear any resemblance to (he original. We think it 
 a calumny, and we fully believe, that in mutual councils 
 most clergymen will dare to be honest in spite oi the 
 strongest of all prejudices, those of religious sects. 
 
 But our principal reply to this objection is, fn w hat man- 
 ner will consociations remedy this evil? Will there be no 
 party or sectarian prejudices within those tribunals? Will 
 the same class of men, who are represented as so partial in 
 mutual councils, become perfectly fair as soon as they are 
 convened in consociations ? 
 
 Or — (for here we probe this gangrened wound to the 
 bottom,) — is it expected and intended, that the consocia- 
 tions shall consist only of men of one mode of thinking ? 
 The whole argument of the committee proceeds on this 
 presumption. 
 
 The y?rsY s-pecifick objection to mutual councils, which 
 the coiumiitee urge, is, " that they are not permanent 
 bodies." This is their excellence. Referees are not per- 
 manent bodies, but they are the only fit tribunal for all cases 
 affecting honour, character, conscience, and which involve 
 those equitable considerations which the law cannot reach: 
 Make an ecclesiastical tribunal permanent, and all history, 
 assures us, that whether it be a college of cardinals, or a 
 kirk, a court of high commission, or an apostolick office, 
 an inquisition or a presbytery, it will be a despotism. 
 
 The reason is very simple. The codes and rules of such 
 tribunals must be so vague, they must depend so much on 
 that erring guide, the couscieuce ; are capable of so little 
 
 ) 
 
fi5 
 
 precision, and wjfhal have so powerful, yet deceptive a 
 pretext for zeai, as (he promotion of (he will of God, which 
 every zealot cons(rue9 to he his own will, that the}" always 
 have, and always must, terminate in tyranny. Heaven for- 
 bid, that we should any of us, live to see (he day in which • 
 the Reverend author of (his report, or any other Reverend 
 Doctor should be promoted to a permanent seat in a jjer- 
 manent body, wi(h the powers they propose to assimie, to 
 wit, " To exercise stated and confiiuied inspection over 
 ministers and churches, to prevent ordination when they see 
 fit, to bring lay brethren to account, and to try, depose and 
 for ever disqualify ministers whom they may decide to be 
 ofTenders in morals or faith." 
 
 This is all — ! ! my brethren, and it does not much ex- 
 ceed the enormous powers claimed by the worst ecclesiasti- 
 cal tyrants which the dark ages produced 
 
 The second alleged objection against mutual councils is, 
 " that they may be evaded by the offender's refusal to join 
 in the choice of them or to submit to their decisions." 
 
 This is partly evasive and partly untrue. If an offender 
 refuses to join in choosing a mutual council, the remedy by 
 ex parte council is open and perfect. This portion of the 
 objection is therefore evasive. 
 
 If he does join in choosing a mutual council, it is untrue 
 that he can successfully resist its decisions. The other 
 party can force him to submit to them, if such other party 
 be a parish, by dismissing the pastor ; if a pastor, by suing 
 for and recovering his salary. 
 
 3d. Objection. "Mutual councils," say the committee, 
 *'have no code to govern their proceedings." Nor have 
 referees ; ye\ the latter mode of trial has existed for a 
 thousand years, and is still a favourite one. But what oc- 
 casion is there for codes and rules and legal forms, v.hen 
 six or eight clergymen assemble to heal a breach in the 
 church of Christ? Did St. Paul send any code of rules to 
 
56 
 
 the Romans or Corinthians, or is there any pretence that 
 there were proctors, or doctors, or any canon law among 
 the early churches ? We know there were none. 
 
 Fourthly. It is objected, that " Mutual councils may be 
 multiplied without number." We have only to say, this is 
 not the fact. If they may sometimes be divided, so too 
 may a jury, so will be often this proposed sovereign remedy, 
 the Consociations, if they are fairly and honourably com- 
 posed. It is impossible men should always agree on reli- 
 gious subjects, unless it shall please God to shower down 
 more of his gracious spirit than any divines now possess. 
 There are now probably several hundred open avowed sects, 
 and several thousand various and discordant opinions. 
 
 Lastly, It is objected, that *' mutual councils are consti- 
 tuted in a manner unfavourable to impartiality, to unanimity 
 and justice, and not calculated to give satisfaction to the 
 pariies." 
 
 We admit they are unfavourable to unanimity, and while 
 christians see but as through a glass darkly, this is an ex- 
 cellence ; for there never can be unanimity in our present 
 state of knowledge, without improper coercion. As to jus- 
 tice and impartiality, we think the old councils are calculated 
 to be the fairest possible tribunals. 
 
 With regard to their tendency to give satisfaction, we 
 doubt whether if the ofTender should concur with the conso- 
 ciation in doctrine, the parish who should complain would 
 be better satisfied with the new tribunals than with mutual 
 councils. If for example, Dr. Morse's parish should gather 
 sufficient courage to insist on his doing justice to Miss 
 Adams, or should complain of his occupations in book- 
 making, and creed-making, as inconsistent with his parochial 
 duties, we doubt whether they would be better satisfied to 
 submit the case to an orthodox consociation, than to have a 
 voice in the choice of judges. 
 
57 
 
 In a word, we admit that the consociation would be more 
 uniform, more vigilant, more severe ; we have n6 doubt 
 they would have code upon code so vohiminous, that none 
 but the adepts could understand them ; but as to justice 
 and imparlialitj, (hey would never be considered as wel- 
 come guests, whenever sectarian questions and prejudices 
 should interfere. AVhile we have no doubt, that Channing 
 and Thacher, cum multis cdiis, would be struck off the list 
 of christian pastors as " corrupt and heretical," Dr. Morse, 
 upon complaint, would be acquit led of all censure, and it 
 would be decided, that his conduct to Miss Adams had been 
 marked by christian charity and tenderness, that his re- 
 -fusal to abide by the award of referees "had been dictated 
 by justice and honour, that his character was truly aposto- 
 lick, and that they hoped he would inherit a crown of glory, 
 and take his seat between St. Peter and St. Paul. 
 
 It is on this subject, that the committee of the grand as- 
 sociation undertake to run a parallel between the proceed- 
 ings at common law, and those under the canon law in this 
 state. They say the evil in the churches is as great under 
 the Cambridge Platform, as it would be in society if the 
 courts of law were like mutual councils, temporary bodies. 
 They ask " what mischiefs would ensue if the criminal in 
 common life had the right to choose his judges?" And is 
 it come to this? Is it avowed by these reverend divines, 
 that ministers are to be put on a fooling with cut throats 
 and pickpockets, and shoplifiers ? Are ecclesiastical of- 
 fences of the same deep moral dye as those which courts of 
 criminal jurisdiction are empowered to restrain and punish? 
 Are any of our clergy charged with such enormous crimes ? 
 It is new to us. 
 
 If not, if the offences charged on them are only er- 
 rours, however great, errours only in opinion, is there not a 
 material distinction in the nature of the offence and the 
 urgency of the remedy ? 
 
 8 
 
58 
 
 The parallel is a strange and illiberal one. In what re- 
 spect will the consociations resemble the supreme judicial 
 court? How will they remedy the present defects? Are 
 they, like the courts of law, appointed by one head? Are 
 they independent in their salaries and in their tenure of of- 
 fice ? Not so. — They are the mere creatures of the choice 
 of every parish, however ignorant or well informed, and are 
 often chosen by small majorities. 
 
 No, if we must alter the Platform in order to accommo- 
 date these gentlemen wilh a permanent and stable body 
 like the courts of law, let us render the resemblance per- 
 fect — let us have some tolerable security and chance of 
 talents and impartiality. Let us have a court for ecclesi- 
 astical cases, composed of three laymen and two clerks. 
 Let fhem be appointed by the executive, and removeable on 
 address of the Legislature. But to give Mr. Codman's little 
 parish an equal voice in deciding upon Mr. Channing's or- 
 thodoxy wilh his own, which is three times as large, is pre- 
 posterous, unequal, and of course, unjust. Yet such is the 
 scheme recommended for our adoption. 
 
 Let us now consider the third ground taken by the com- 
 millee, in favour of these consociations or ecclesiastical 
 courts, which is the authority of Scripture. Though a 
 layman, I presume I can read and judge of the meaning of a 
 plain text as well as another. 
 
 Surely if consociations and ecclesiastical tribunals were 
 intended to be established by Christ or his apostles, they 
 would have been directed in plain terms, subject to no cavil ; 
 and if the committee have cited no texts but such as are 
 equivocal, it is a proof, that they are attempting to wrest the 
 scriptures to the furtherance of their own views. 
 
 The 6rst proposition is "that each church hath within 
 itself full power to administer all the ordinances, and is not 
 under any ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatever." 
 
59 
 
 These are the words of the committee. We agree to it. 
 Jt is the very corner-stone of Congregationalism; but how 
 it could be cited in favour of a most enormous ecclesiastical 
 usurpation, we cannot conceive. 
 
 Secondly. It is asserted, that " Churches do stand in a 
 sisterly relation to each other, being united in the same 
 faith and order." This is not denied. They owe each 
 other assistance in calamity, in case of sickness or death of 
 the pastor, in exchanging labours of love; at ordinations » 
 dedications, and other like cases. But does it result from 
 this that they have any judicial authority over each other* 
 and if so, to what extent? The only texts cited are, 
 
 Ephesians, iv. 5. There is " one Lord, one faith, one 
 baptism." This gives no authority. If it does, it goes to 
 support the Church of Rome in obliging all churches to 
 conform to her faith, a faith that has fifteen hundred years 
 support, and has been embraced by three fourths of all 
 Christendom. If you dissent from her ** one faith** it 
 must be on the ground, that though in truth there can be 
 but one faith, yet each separate church must decide for 
 itself what that faith is. There is no middle course. 
 
 The second text is Philippians, iii. 16.* "Let us walk 
 by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." Where 
 so little attention is paid to accuracy, it is perhaps useless to 
 remark, that Griesbach has rejected from this text the 
 words " Rule," and some others in this passage. If, how- 
 ever, the received text be admitted, it must mean. Let us 
 walk by the rule of the gospel. Churches should endeavour 
 to agree in this rule, but it can never be intended that the 
 
 * Philippians, iii. 16. Griesbach rejects from the text nctvovt, to avto 
 (f^onn. The improved Version translates it, " However, as far as we 
 have reached, let us walk therein." 
 
60 
 
 majority should seflle definitiveli/ what thnt rule is. If thejr 
 can, <he refoririation was an imjuslifiable, iinscriplural, wick- 
 ed thing. If anv nuQiber of churches can seflle the rule, 
 then (he Roman Calliolick, ihe oldest and most numerous, 
 had a right to fix the creed for all the christian world. 
 
 The next texl is Ephesians, iv. 11 and 13. "And lie 
 gave some prophets, some apostles, and some evangelists' 
 and some pastors and teachers." — " Till we all come in the 
 unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God 
 unto a perfect nir.n, unto the measure of the stature of the 
 fulness of Christ." 
 
 What man in his sober senses, not intent on building up 
 a system, can see a foundation for consociaiions with power 
 to settle the faith, accept, admit, sustain and depose pastors 
 in all this passage? Surely it is not pretended, that the 
 Consociators are apostles or prophets. What is their au- 
 thority then from this text? The thirteenth verse relates 
 no! to the churches, but to the great body of the disciples. 
 They are said to come, or a wish is expressed, that they 
 «?«j/ come, to unity of faith. But there is no intimation, 
 that even the evangelists or apostles had authority to settle 
 that failh for the whole church, in any other way, than by 
 respectful advice, and interpretation. Indeed it will appear, 
 that each of the apostles settled the faith for himself, with- 
 out reference to any common standard, 
 The third proposition of the committee is, " that commun- 
 ioT of chiirches is the faithful improvement of the gifts 
 of CInist bestowed on tlicm for his service and glory." — 
 Nobody disputes this. It is therefore useless to examine 
 the quotations. The question is still open, to what extent 
 does this communion reach, and what are the authorities 
 of the united body ? 
 
 The fourth proposition is " Acts of communion are such 
 as these." 
 
61 
 
 Isl. " Hearty prayer and care for one another." As to 
 prayer, this is conceded ; bul as to care, if it be meant care 
 of their souls, and regulation of each others' faith, we deny 
 it, and proceed lo examine the pretended authority for it. 
 
 2 Corinthians xi. 28. " Besides (hose things which are 
 without, that which cometh on me daily, the care of all 
 the churches." 
 
 There are the words of St. Paul, when enumerating his 
 labours and sufferings for the cause of Christ. He was an 
 apostle sent to preach the gospel by Christ himself, con- 
 verted to the christian faith by a miracle, endued with su- 
 pernatural gifts, able therefore to guide the consciences of 
 all christians. Now if this Committee have these gifts, 
 perhaps (hey may be entitled to the care of all the churches. 
 Buf it is as absurd, to infer from (he authority delegated (o, 
 or exercised by St. Paul, (hat (he same powers have de- 
 volved upon the Middlesex or Norfolk clergy, as it would 
 be, that because the Apostles raised men from the dead, 
 they also could do the same. 
 
 The next quotation is still more absurd, 1. Rom. i. 9.* 
 *' For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the 
 gospel of his son, (hat without ceasing I make mention of 
 you always in my prayers." This was also the language of 
 the same apostle, but (here is no( a colour of foundation 
 for an ecclesiastical tribunal in (hese words, and I doubt 
 whe(her these orthodox gentlemen perform honestly, what 
 the apostle conscientiovjsly did, whether they are always 
 mindful of us hereticks in their prayers. At any rate let 
 them confine themselves to that exercise, which we ad- 
 mit is both lawful and expedient. 
 
 The 2nd duty or act of communion is ,(o " aflford relief 
 by communion of temporal and spiritual necessities." 
 
 * See Archbishop Ncwcome's translation of Rom. i. 9. in the Impror- 
 ^4 Version. 
 
62 
 
 As to temporal necessities, we are all agreed, that they 
 ought to be relieved, and so also spiritual wants, so far as 
 we have above defined them, the obligation to relieve them 
 is unquestionable. 
 
 We doubt however whether it be a christian duty to call 
 a brother a heretick, or to judge him without reason. 
 
 The citation from Romans xv. '26 '27.* relates only to 
 pecuniary aid. That from Acts xi. 22, 26. merely shews 
 that when those who had been dispersed and scattered by 
 persecution began to assemble, the Christians at Jerusalem 
 sent a missionary to comfort and confirm them. 
 
 The quotation from ^^2 Corinthians viii. 1, 4, 14. relates 
 solely to the pecuniary assistance furnished to the bre- 
 thren at Jerusalem by the church of Macedonia. 
 
 The 3d act of communion is alleged to be " to maintain 
 unity and peace by giving an account one to another of 
 their publick actions." 
 
 This authority, if founded in scripture, would certainly go 
 very far to maintain the right claimed by this committee ; 
 but it is truly painful to see clergymen thus distort and 
 misrepresent the holy scriptures. 
 
 No where is this duty of giving an account to any body, 
 as to a superiour tribunal, enforced in the sacred writings. 
 
 Many acts of fellowship, which were both expedient and 
 necessary in the early ages of the church, have long since 
 ceased to be so. 
 
 The Church was then encompassed with enemies : It 
 was shaken by persecution. The closest bonds of union- 
 were necessary. These motives have now ceased to ex- 
 ist. Let us examine the only authority for this accounta- 
 bility of one church to another a-i to its publick actions. 
 
 * Tlic Jews Laving made the Gentiles " pa.rta.kers of spiritval things" 
 refers to the " oracles of God" having been preserved by the for- 
 mer, &c. &c. 
 
S3 
 
 It is taken from Acts xi. 2, 4, 18. The case was sim- 
 ply this. The Jewish christians were offended with Peter 
 for associating with, and preaching to the Gentiles. They 
 called him to account for it. Peter, unwilling to lose his 
 influence with the Jews, and wishing to quiet their tender 
 consciences, gave them a history of his miraculous vision, 
 and of the command he had received to preach to the Gen- 
 tiles. But did Peter admit the right of the Church to call 
 him to an account ? Does this case prove the expediency of 
 such an interference ? It is a most unfortunate exauiple for 
 the Consociation ; for in that case the whole church at Je- 
 rusalem, probably as competent as the Massachusetts Gen- 
 eral Association, did undertake to call an apostle to account, 
 when they were dearly in the ivrong themselves. This 
 shews the danger and presumption of the interference of 
 fallible men in matters of this nature. That they cannot 
 comprehend the whole counsel of God, and ought not to 
 judge each other. Was Peter right in preaching to the 
 Gentiles ? Then the church were wrong in calling him to 
 account. Peter, it is true, gave them satisfaction, not as a 
 matter of right but of expedience. 
 
 How dangerous would be this power in a church not bet- 
 ter informed than the first church at Jerusalem, when we 
 have no longer an apostle to correct their mistakes ! ! ! 
 
 I have thus shewn, by a very brief analysis, on what slen- 
 der grounds reposes this assumed authority of judging the 
 Churches. I could extend the same inquiry to the few re- 
 maining texts, but I trust I have done enough, by produc- 
 ing the most prominent. There is no middle course, as I 
 have already had occasion to remark, between the admis- 
 sion of the full extent of ecclesiastical dominion claimed by 
 the Romish see, and the entire liberty of each separate 
 church. 
 
64 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The real motives of the proposed change or subversion of 
 the Congregational mode of government, and of the 
 substitution of the Consociations in its place. 
 
 We have seen, that the avowed motives for such a change 
 are either too loose and declamatory, or too trifling and 
 unfounded to be the true ones. Yet as men do not em- 
 bark in such attempts, ^iiich involve so much labour and 
 wear of conscience, without strong inducements, it behoves 
 us to inquire what these must be. 
 
 If one was disposed to be sententious, we might saj, that 
 we fear that neither the love of God, or of one's neighbour, 
 neither a wish to promote the spread of Christianity, or a 
 desire of union among the ciiurches, were the prevailing 
 motives with the prime movers of this scheme, but (hat 
 thev may be resolved into two passions, envy, and the 
 love of power. 
 
 We are happy, that this charge does not extend to many 
 persons. There is no evidence that the association in gen- 
 eral approve of these propositions. 
 
 The project of the committee is a vast, and bold one, — 
 It aims at the overthrow of principles and usages which 
 have been settled for nearly two centuries. It is a retro- 
 grade measure, from the principles of the reformation, to the 
 tyrannical doctrines of the fifteenth century. It is the sig-* 
 nal for new, and perhaps even bloody contentions in the 
 church. It is ushered in under the most unfavourable 
 auspices. Never was the Church more quiet than before 
 the publication of this plan. Never was an harmony more 
 delightful to christians than that wliich lately prevailed. 
 Every sect, and every christian enjoys the right in peace. 
 
65 
 
 to read and interpret the scriptures, according to the light 
 which God has given them. Since the apostolick age such 
 a privilege has ne\'er before been enjoyed in any quarter of 
 the globe. Why disturb this harmony T Why deface and 
 distort this delightful picture ? it is said that the church is 
 teeming with errours and corruptions. If jou listen to the 
 committee, you would suppoi^e that christian America ex^ 
 hibited a chaos, in which vices and errours were predomi- 
 nant. But is this so ? or is it a calumny against our age «ind 
 country ? W^hat corrupt clergymen have been settled ? 
 What partial, prejudiced councils have been holden ?— • 
 In what instances have the doors of one church been opened 
 to the outcasts of another ? It is said, incompetent men get 
 into the ministry. It is supposed the committee mean into 
 Congregational societies. Let us have the cases. Who 
 are they, and in what parishes? Perhaps it will be seen^ 
 that the most able and competent men are, in the views of 
 of the committee, incompetent. 
 
 Much complaint is made too, of the decay of piefyi 
 This might be granted safely, without attributing it to any 
 defect in the government of the Church- Morals may 
 change from a thousand causes exteriour to, and foreign from 
 the Church. To prove that the Church is in faulty it 
 should be shewn, that there has been corruption or partial- 
 ity in the Courts established by the ancient Platform^ or 
 that abuses remained unredressed after the most etfectUa* 
 measures had been taken to remedy them. We now chal- 
 lenge the committee, Messrs. Woods, Codman, and Morse, 
 to state the cases, and the parishes in which these evils have 
 occurred, what measures they or others have taken to re- 
 dress them, and in what instances they have proved inef- 
 fectual. Upon doing this, we pledge ourselves to reply to 
 the specifick cases. If they are right, we will acknowledge? 
 our errour; if wrong,, we will prove them so^ 
 9 
 
66 
 
 This howeveivbe assured, fellow-ritizens, they will never 
 do. The facls are against them, and they prefer to rest 
 under the shelter of broad assertion. 
 
 But why tills delicacy in staling the whole truth? ^\ hy 
 no! avow, that the complaint is, that IMr. Burr could not com- 
 pel his whole parish to hear him after he had changed his 
 opinions ? 
 
 The real difficulty is, not that the mode of triid is not a 
 good one, but that it is one, which is noi wholly under the 
 control of these people. As the power at present is such, 
 that a minority can protect themselves asainst an overbear- 
 ing and violent majority by insisting on niuiual councils, as 
 this minority have dared to breathe in nkispers their opin- 
 ions, they must be put down. There must be but one sen- 
 timent, and Dr. IMorse's, and Dr. Worcester's reading must 
 be the giiage of that opinion. Thus, for example, Boston 
 for fifty years has nourished, may I say, has honoured and 
 loved and revered men whom //if^ call a sect of hereticks, i<s 
 Chaunceys, and Mayhews, and Clarkes, and Belknaps, and 
 many others enumerated in the eloquent letter of President 
 Adams to Dr. Morse, and she must now be both purified 
 and punished. Unhappily for the violent, these men have 
 been uncommonly learned and able- Another passion has 
 been excited. Those must be silenced who could not be 
 answered. Hence human learning has been decried, and 
 the University, the nurse of this detested literature, must 
 be rendered odious. 
 
 The true motives of this change are to counteract those 
 whom they please to call hereticks, that is, those who are 
 as learned, as able, and as liberal as themselves. This, I 
 presume, not an honest man of the orthodox party will deny. 
 He will not, to his conscience, whatever he may say to the 
 world. The means of effecting their object, is to get pos- 
 session of ecclesiaslical power, to coerce, intimidate, and* 
 
G7 
 
 finally expel the minority, and thus to overawe, if not com- 
 mand that citadel of learning and religion, our University, the 
 best and highest object of j-everence and afieclion in our 
 eountry. 
 
 If it be asked, in what manner, and by what course of 
 proceedings these designs are to be accomplished, we 
 answer, by the exercise of the powers granted to the pro- 
 posed Consociations, so often attempted to be established 
 in the early periods of our history, but as often defeated 
 by Jhe prudence and proper jealousy of the lay part of the 
 xommunity. 
 
 If any number of churches can be persuaded to enter 
 into these consociations, they expect to fix them forever in 
 a state of thraldom. Thus, suppose Dr. Morse's, or any 
 o.tt:er church, could be persuaded to join this new^ estab- 
 lishment ; upon the pastor's decease, no man can be permit- 
 ted to preach in such church upon probation, unless ap- 
 proved by the consociation. The people of the parish are 
 to have no vote on that question in the first instance. No- 
 body can be admitted into such a church, till approved by 
 the consociation. 
 
 If any number of the parishioners should know of a re- 
 spectable candidate, and should insist upon hearing him 
 against the will of the church, and should vote to settle 
 hi.n, the consociation to which the church has attached 
 itself, may refuse him ordination. The parish will have no 
 right to call in such churches as they may prefer. They 
 are to be bound down for ever to the consociation as the 
 Buperiour tribunal. 
 
 Such we say are the objects of this new plan. It is true, 
 the courts of law can, and will restrain them, but this does 
 not alter the nature of the project. 
 
68 
 
 In like manner, if a clergyman now seltled in any church 
 which may join Ihe consociations, should in the prosecution 
 of his studies change any of his opinions, with the perfect 
 approbation, both of his church and people, it will be com- 
 petent to any minister of the consociation to cite him as a 
 criminal to answer for his heretical opinions, and upon trial 
 he may be deposed from the ministerial office and dismissed 
 from his parisli. There are no Jimits prescribed to the ex- 
 tent of these consociations. Wherever the liberal clergy 
 iare now a majority, the consociators may, by enlarging the 
 limits of the consociations, outvote them, and make them a 
 minority. 
 
 Thus it would be in the power of a small majority in the 
 whole state, to control and displace the minority. 
 
 It is hoped also, that the authority and influence of these 
 great consociations will, by degrees, so far overawe the 
 churches which may not join them in the first instance, as 
 to give them an opportunity of filling up any vacancies 
 with clergymen devoted to their views. 
 
 It is, in short, an organized, affiliated association for the 
 purpose of rooting out all ministers who will not subscribe 
 to the creed of the authors of this plan. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 What are the rights of the Mcmliers of Congregational 
 Societies, as recognized by the Constituiiou and Judi- 
 cial decisions of this State ? 
 
 In examini'ig this branch of the subject, it is immaterial 
 vrbat powers church members formerly usurped, or what 
 fiythority ecclesiastical bodies anciently assumed. Th^ 
 
- 69 
 
 existing law must alone govern, and that law can only be 
 prononnced by the highest judicial authorities. As the 
 ecclesiastical power stood at the adoption of the constitu- 
 tion, so it must for ever remain, until that constitution shall 
 be altered or amended. 
 
 The church is now placed, as it ought to be in all coun- 
 tries, especially those which are free, in a situation distinct 
 from the other members of a parish, having no authority 
 over any but its own members, possessing no voice in the 
 choice or deposition of a pastor, nor any control over his 
 opinions or mode of preaching, greater than otJier mem- 
 bers of the same parish or society enjoy. 
 
 That such is the law of the land, fully, finally and per- 
 fectly settled, that the contract between a minister and his 
 parish is purely civil, and that no ecclesiastical body has, 
 or can have a right to interfere between them, except in 
 the mode pointed out by the Cambridge Platform, will be 
 abundantly proved by the following decisions of the Su- 
 preme Judicial Court. 
 
 In the case of Avery vs. Tyringham, 3 Massachusetts 
 Term Reports, the main question was, whether a town could 
 dismiss a clergyman, without good cause, at its pleasure. 
 The court decided that it could not, and in delivering the 
 opinion of the Bench, Chief Justice Parsons added, " This 
 " article of the constitution (the 3d.) had without doubt 
 " made some alteration in the ecclesiastical establishments 
 " of the State. Under the colonial laws, the church mem- 
 " bers in full communion had the exclusive right of elect- 
 " ing and settling their minister, to whose support all the 
 " inhabitants of the town were obliged to contribute. 
 " Under the colony charter, no man could be a freeman 
 "unless he was a church member until 1662, and a ma- 
 " jority of the church constituted a majority of the legal vo- 
 
70 
 
 " fers of the town. After that time, inhabitants not church 
 " members, if freeholders, and having certain other quali- 
 " fications, might be admitted to the rights of freemen. — 
 " In consequence of this a ditTerent method of setthng a 
 " minister was adopted under the Provincial charter. — 
 * The church made the election and sent their proceedings 
 " to the town for their approbation. If the town approv- 
 *< ed the election, it also voted the salary and settlement. 
 " When the candidate accepted, he was solemnly introduc- 
 " ed to office by ordination, and became the settled minister, 
 " entitled to his salary and settlement under the votes of the 
 " town. 
 
 " If the town disapproved, and the church insisted on the 
 " election, it might call an ecclesiastical council, and if the 
 " council approved the election, the town was obliged to 
 " maintain the person chosen as the settled minister of the 
 " place ; but if the council disapproved, the church must 
 " have proceeded to a new election. 
 
 " By the constitution the rights of the town are enlarg- 
 " ed^ if it choose to exercise them, and those of the church 
 " impaired. 
 
 " If the church, when their election has been disapprov- 
 *' ed by the town, shall unwisely refuse to make a new elec- 
 " tion, or if the town for any cause shall abandon the an- 
 " cient usages of the country in settling a minister, it mai/f 
 " without ov AGAINST the consent of the church, elect a 
 " publick teacher and contract to support him." 
 
 The chief justice also, in direct contradiction to Dr. 
 Morse and his committee, declared, that for immorality or 
 even negligence there is now a competent remedy against 
 the pastor. We have therefore the same stable and fixed tri- 
 bunal in such cases, for which the committee appear to be 
 so anxious, and a much more important one than that which 
 they propose. He proceeds " There are also objections 
 
71 
 
 " to a minister founded in questions of doctrine and disci- 
 " pline. In all these cases, the parties, if they cannot 
 *' agree to dissolve the contract, may call to their assistance 
 " a council mutually chosen, and their advice, technically 
 " called their result, is so far of the nature of an award, 
 *' tha.t either parti/ conforming thereto will be justified." 
 
 This ascain contradicts all the assertions and reasoning of 
 the committee, as to the imperfect nature of mutual coun- 
 cils. 
 
 " If, adds the late learned Judge, in a case proper for a 
 " mutual council, either party should unreasonably, or 
 " without good cause, refuse their concurrence to a mutual 
 " choice, the aggrieved party may choose an impartial coua- 
 " cil Sind will be justified in conforming thereto. 
 
 " Thus a reasonable tribunal is established to decide 
 " on all cases of difficulty and controversy between a min- 
 " ister and his people, a tribunal, founded in ancient usage, 
 " resorted to in practice, and probably in many cases, but 
 " certainly in one, in which I was council, supported by the 
 " opinion of all the Judges of the Supreme Judicial Court." 
 
 Now in whom are we to place confidence as to the Laws 
 of the land, in Dr. Morse, or the judges of the highest 
 Courts ot Law ? 
 
 The former represents mutual councils as scenes of par- 
 tiality and prejudice, incompetent, inconclusive, inefTectual. 
 The latter say, they are founded in ancient usage, are 
 venerable and effectual in their operations and results. In 
 the case of Fuller vs. Inhabitants of Princeton, this last opin- 
 ion was fully established. 
 
 In the case of Burr vs. Inhabitants of first parish in 
 Sandwich, 9th Massachusetts Term Reports, the Chief 
 Justice again recognizes this doctrine of the perfect compe- 
 tencv of councils to afford relief; and in stronger terms. 
 
72 
 
 " The Law as applicable to the question before us, is not 
 " disputed by either of the parties. It is not denied, that 
 " in a proper case betsveen a minister and his parish for 
 " the advice of an ecclesiastical council, if eilber party 
 "offer to the other such a council to be mutually cho- 
 " sen, and the other without sufficient cause refuse Jo join in 
 " the choice^ the party offering may choose an ecclesiastical 
 " council, and the advice of the council so chosen, and act- 
 " ing fairly and honestly, will justify either party in adopt- 
 " ing their result." 
 
 In the same cause, the Chief Justice said, " Our ances- 
 " tors came to this country smarting from the rod of the 
 " hierarchy then In power in the country from which they 
 " emigrated. They were hostile to any ecclesiastical co- 
 " ercive jurisdiction ivhatever in all matters of doctrine 
 *' and discipline^ as repugnant to the liberties of the 
 " churches; and although synods were holden, and councils 
 " of the churches convened, yet no compulsory authority 
 " was vested in them : and the utility of any ecclesiastical 
 " coercive power has been doubted, as tending to repress a 
 "free and liberal inquiry after truth, and to substitute 
 
 " FOR THE ERROURS OF HERESY, SOMETIMES QUESTIONA- 
 
 " RLE, the VICE of hypocrisy^ always censurable." 
 
 A more conclusive opinion on any judicial question was 
 never promulgated, and surely none was ever expressed in 
 language more elegant and forcible. If Chief Justice Par- 
 sons had never written any opinions on other subjects, 
 these alone would have rendered his memory dear to the 
 friends of religious liberty. This is not extravagant, be- 
 cause it is difficult to produce from any jurisprudist or phi- 
 losopher opinions, more correct, or more simply and elegant- 
 ly expressed. 
 
 Such then are the existing laws of Massachusetts with 
 regard to the ecclesiastical power : A system of laws and 
 
/3 
 
 principles which cannot be changed without the consent of 
 the whole people. From them it appears, that the whole 
 and uncontrolled power of settling a minister is rested in 
 the members of every parish, as distinct from the church, 
 if they see fit to exercise it — That the only legal mode of 
 removing a pastor is by a mutual council, or in case of re- 
 fusal of the pastor to join in it, by an ex parte council.—^ 
 That this remedy is ancient, venerable and recognized by 
 our courts of law as absolute and binding — That there can 
 be no other legal or constitutional ecclesiastical tribunal 
 with coercive powers ; and that in the opinion of the court, 
 such ajurisdiction as Dr. Morse now sets up, would be 
 opposed to the principles of our ancestors, to the usages of 
 the country, and to the rights and liberties of the people. 
 
 CONCLUSION, AND INFERENCES. 
 
 If such be the law of Massachusetts, recognized by its 
 highest judicial authority, in what manner can it be changed, 
 except by an alteration of the constitution, or by the inter- 
 ference of the legislature ; a mode which is itself perhaps 
 questionable ? 
 
 It would be injurious to these Reverend Gentlemen to 
 presume, that they contemplate a measure, which shall 
 have no other than a moral or honourable authority. It 
 would be unworthy of the labour they have bestowed on it, 
 if not a single order, or decree, or result, would have the 
 smallest legal or practical force. This would, in fact, over- 
 throw the only arguments in its favour, since the principal 
 objections to our old and venerable system, consist in its 
 inadequacy to effect its objects, and its want of coercive 
 powers. 
 
 10 
 
74 
 
 If, thererore, our judges understand the law, it is abso- 
 lutely itnpracdcable to give the smallest efficacy to the new 
 system of ecclesiastical dominion : certainly it is so without 
 the aid of the Legislature. It is hardiy to be presumed that 
 the Baptists, and Q,uakers, and Episcopalians in that body, 
 will lend their aid, in giving force, and extension, and domi- 
 nion to a sect, which is now the ruling one, and whose past 
 measures cannot excite in them the most perfect confidence 
 in its liberality. 
 
 Let us however, examine this question more nearly. 
 
 Suppose the Grand Association, after sounding, as they 
 profess to do, the sentiments of the people by this publi- 
 cation, should proceed at their next general self-created as- 
 sembly, to adopt Dr. Morse's report. 
 
 Among other powers, with which the Consociations are 
 vested by this project, they are substituted in the place of 
 mutual councils, and all the old ecclesiastical modes of trial 
 and relief are repealed. The consociations are to be em- 
 powered *' to hear and decide upon any complaint or alle- 
 gation touching ministerial character, against any minister 
 belonging to it, to acquit or find guilty, to advise and suSr 
 tain or depose, as the case may require." Now we ask, 
 suppose the grand association of ministers do as they pro- 
 pose, adopt this system ; will it bind their parishioners ? 
 No. 
 
 Will it bind their churches ? No. 
 
 Will it bind even the members who are present and vole 
 for it ? No. 
 
 A bargain or contract, in derogation of natural liberty and 
 the rights of conscience, is void. But admit that this salu- 
 tary principle of the common law does not here apply, 
 w'lich we think it does in the greatest force, still of what use 
 will your new code be, if it does not bind the parish or the 
 ;!hurch ! 
 
75 
 
 But it will be said, we are sensible of this, and we will 
 have fhe consent both of parish and church. 
 
 Then you must have the unanimous consent, for it is one 
 of the cases in which tlie majority cannot bind the minority. 
 The laws of the land, and the principles of religious liberty, 
 cannot be altered or abandoned, or surrendered by any ma- 
 jorities. 
 
 It is as if a parish were to vole to return to the British 
 Cro'.vn, or to invite Bonaparte to accept a diadem. The 
 minority could not be obliged by such votes. 
 
 But this is not all. The majority, who should vote for it, 
 would not be bound by i(. They might withdraw that ap- 
 probalion, ad libitum. A member of a parish or church 
 couk! not bind the purchaser of his estate or pew, neither 
 could he fetter the consciences of his children. I state 
 undeniable truttis. Your system then, as a compact, can 
 only extend to fhe individual who subscribes to it. 
 
 Thus, suppose a minister charged with heresy, and sup- 
 pose both him and his church to be members of your con- 
 federacy or consociation, suppose such minister deposed for 
 his errours,Dr. Worcester for example ; and suppose his pa- 
 rish, like Mr. Norton's of Weymouth, should agree with 
 him, and should order the decree of the consociation de- 
 posing their minister to be burnt by the common hangman, 
 what is your remedy ? None. 
 
 Yes. You will say, we can put the church out of com- 
 munion. So you can now do, without any coasociation. 
 
 This leads me to notice an alarming innovation in the pro- 
 posed project. Under the old system, no minister could 
 be brought to trial without a major vote of his own parish- 
 ioners. This repressed that vile spirit of litigation and 
 slander to which men are so prone. 
 
 By the present project we perceive, that a minister may 
 be accused before the consociation by any member of his 
 
76 
 
 cinircli, or by the minister of another church, even when 
 his whole parish are entirely satisfied with his doc- 
 trines and conduct. A more dreadful plan for convulsing 
 and tearing in pieces the church of Christ can scarcely be 
 conceived. 
 
 If then this plan can have no operation except with regard 
 to the churches who may join it ; if even these churches, 
 can bind themselves only, and not the whole parish 
 or society ; if they cannot bind even the minority of 
 the church, who may dissent either at first, or at any subse- 
 quent period ; if a clergyman can be settled against the 
 consent of the consociations, under the authority of the old 
 Platform ; if a pastor, deposed by the new consociations, 
 will still retain his sacerdotal character, and can sue for and 
 recover his salary, of what practical efficacy will the new 
 constilulion be ? That tiiis is so, we appeal to every sound 
 lawyer in ihe stale. We invite them to examine the con- 
 stitution, and tiie decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court, 
 and to say, whether any body, whether synod, council, or 
 the new fangled bodiescalled consociations, or associations, 
 have power to change the ecclesiastical government of the 
 Congresjational Churches ? 
 
 If these principles are correct, and we feel a high confi- 
 dence that they are so, how are the difficulties stated by 
 the comniiltee (which, in fact, have no existence) to be 
 remedied by this plan? 
 
 _ It is said, in high sounding language without meanmg, 
 that " the offender must stand for trial before the wholf 
 church," by which is intended, I presume, the whole Con- 
 gregational Church. It is not proposed, I should presume, 
 to summon Mr. Channing or Dr. Porter, before Dr. Baldwin, 
 Dr. Gardiner, or bishop Cheverus. 
 
 But where is the authority for the whole Congregational 
 Church to assemble, and settle dogmas of faith and try 
 
77 
 
 hereticks ? Did they ever admit such a jurisdiction ? No. 
 Their whole conduct and principles are opposed to it. 
 
 These, however, are not the whole difficulties of the case j 
 the greatest remains ■ 
 
 When the churches, or any number of them, shall have 
 entered into these Consociations, they may be Presbyteri- 
 ■ans, or Episcopalians, or Consociationalists, but they will 
 cease to be Congregationalists. This is no nice metaphy- 
 sical distinction, it is founded on principles not to be 
 refuted. 
 
 What is Congregationalism ? What is the distinctive cha- 
 racteristick of congregational churches, as opposed to other 
 sects ? It consists SOLELY, I repeat it, solely in the form 
 of church government, not in doctrine. The orthodox 
 congregationalists agree with the church of England in all 
 its arlicles of faith. It is only in their ideas as to the go- 
 vernment of the church that they differ. 
 
 The sect of congregationalists had scarcely an existence 
 before our ancestors emigrated to America ; and we have 
 shown by ample evidence, which we shall render more clear 
 by our Notes, that their essential characteristick was the 
 denial of any ecclesiastical coercive power. What greater 
 coercive power can there be, than that proposed by the 
 committee, to prevent the election of pastors, and to depose 
 a minister of Christ, against the will of his people ? 
 
 The consociations are therefore a departure from Congre- 
 gationalism. They will become a new sect. Whatever 
 name they usurp, the effect will be the same. 
 
 Every man, then, in any parish now congregational, which, 
 shall vote to join, and shall join the nerv sect, will be ab- 
 solved from his obligations to the pastor and parish. He 
 can lawfully refuse to contribute to the support of the con- 
 sociating sect on the plea that he is a congregationalist, and 
 cannot conscientiously attend a consociating minister ; that 
 
n 
 
 he is opposed in his conscience to ecclesiastical tyranny, 
 and that his money must go to the support of some congre- 
 gational clergyman. 
 
 He may join any congregational society in the state, and 
 his taxes must be paid over to such pastor of the old per- 
 suasion. 
 
 Who will deny these principles ? Will any sensible law- 
 yer, or other sound layman or divine dispute them ? He 
 must either deny our premises or conclusion. Will he 
 question our definition of Congregationalism? Let him find 
 a better, supported by as great authorities. Will he deny 
 that the Independents or congregationalists held, that each 
 church had full power within itself to govern and regulate 
 its affairs? That it was accountable to no synods, councils, 
 or other ecclesiastical tribunals ? 
 
 If he admits these premises, he surely cannot deny that 
 the proposed system is a direct and palpable departure from 
 these principles. If so, the new consociators will constiiute 
 a nev/ sect, to which the old congregationalists are no longer 
 held to adhere. 
 
 I have now closed my proposed inquiry. It would 
 ill suit such a serious, argumentative essay, to atteujpt to 
 make any appeal to the passions. If such a cour^jc had 
 been proper, I am little qualified to adopt it. I have 
 brought to this task only a deep and solemn conviction, I 
 may say, an aflfecting one, that the proposed measures will 
 end in the disunion of the congregational churches. 
 
 I know the zeal with which the system is pursued, and I • 
 augur but little eflfcct from my feeble exertions to stop the 
 headlong current. Every effort will be made to prevent 
 this essay from being read, sober and dispassionate as it is. 
 But the day will assuredly arrive, when the principles laid 
 down in the preceding Inquiry will be developed by abler 
 men, and will be very generally admitted. 
 
79 
 
 The rupture and convulsion of many parishes in which 
 the clergy, who favour these violent measures, now 
 feel secure ; the general disgust at such an assumption of 
 power, fhe refusal of many individuals, in parishes where 
 the majority may join the consociations, to submit to their 
 authority, and the general admiration of the conduct of those 
 ministers, who shall have adhered to the ancient and vene- 
 rable system of religious freedom transmitted to us by our 
 ancestors, will finally and inevitably produce an assent to 
 the principles we have advanced, and as general a censure 
 and condemnation of the few restless men, by whom these 
 changes have been introduced. 
 
 A LAYMAN. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 NOTE 1st. 
 
 AS some persons may be disposed lo doubt the authority of 
 Chief Justice Parsons in tlie historical part of his opinions, be- 
 cause they do not favour tlie views of the friends of the new sys- 
 tem of ecclesiastical dominion, we have thought it best to cite 
 some passages from the Rev. Wm. Hubbard's history of New 
 England, a work of the first authority, and conclusive on this 
 subject; since he was cotemjjorary with Cotton iviather, the 
 author of the fa?nous Manuscript, was as orthodox as any man 
 then or now living, and must have felt disposed to give ail due 
 weight to the ecclesiastical power. It will be seen that Chief 
 Justice Parsons drew his knowledge on this subject, in a great 
 measure, from this pure orthodox source. 
 
 It appears, that Messrs. SheKon and Higginson of Salem, 
 were elected by the people and ordained by them, without the 
 aid of any other Churches or Pastors. Plymouth had been in- 
 vited to send messengers, but they arrived after the ordination. 
 Hubbard, 119. printed copy. 
 
 " Whatever sinister apprehensions are or ever were taken up 
 about the religion of the Colony of New England, they aimed 
 only at the primitive pattern described in the word of God, and 
 practice of the apostolical churches." Hubbard 181. 
 
 We have shewn from Mosheim that there was no ecclesiastical 
 authority in the apostolical churches, out of the limits of each 
 separate church. 
 
 One of the principles of church government in Massachusetts, 
 according to Hubbard, was the following : 
 
 4th. " That there is no jurisdiction to which such particular 
 " churches are or ought to be subject (be it placed in classis, 
 " or synod) by way of aiitherUative censure, or any church power, 
 " extrinsical to the said cJuirches, which they ought to have de- 
 " pendence upon any other sort of men for the exercise of." 
 Hubbard 184. 
 
 In 1637 the first synod was called in New-England, not by ec- 
 clesiastical but by the civil authority. It will not do lo exam- 
 ine ils proceedings too minutely. It is certain, they have no ten- 
 dency to increase our veneration for councils and synods. The 
 only ^^ise thing they appear to have said or done was " disch.im- 
 ing any judicial power." " For according to the princi;)!es of 
 Congregational churches, the question only is to be carried to (he 
 syno<i, but the case remains with the particular chxirch to A'lhich 
 the person is related." 
 
 11 
 
" Disputes ran so high in that synod, that the magistrates 
 ■were compelled (o interfere to prevent disturbance. Some of the 
 Boston members were disgusted and withdrew." Hnbbard 301-2. 
 
 " In lfc)42, Mr. Carter was ordained pastor of Wobura. There 
 "was some dirierence about the manner of his ordination, for, in re- 
 gard they had no other officer in the church besides, nor any 
 members that thought themselves tit to solemnize such an ordi- 
 nance, they were advised by some, to desire the elders of other 
 chinches to [>erform it, by imposing hands on Mr. Carter ; but 
 others, supposing it might be the means or occasion of introduc- 
 ing the dependency of churches, &c. and so of a presbytery, were 
 not so free to admit thereof, and therefore it was [)erformed by one 
 of iheir own memtsers, though not so well to the satisfaction of 
 some uf the magistrates and ministers then present; and since that 
 time it hath been more frequent to desire the elders of neighbour- 
 ing church'^s, to ordain such, as are l\y the churches ^.nA people 
 chosen to be their officers. Hubbard 408. 
 
 Here we see the extreme jealousy of our ancestors, and that 
 the present us'ges as toordmation are only matters of courtesy ; 
 h^'nvifrcqv.nitly submitted to in order to please some weaker 
 maa Si rates, who could not relish scriptural simplicity. 
 
 The next great council was the synod in 1648. On which we 
 rem ".rk : 
 
 1. That a law was necessary to call it, no ecclesiastical pow- 
 er l>eing comuetent so to do. 
 
 2. 'i'haf even that synod was looked upon with a jealous eye. 
 Some of llie deputies or memliers of the General Court question- 
 ed the power of the Court. "• As also, because the main end was, 
 for an agreement of one uniform practice in all the churches, to 
 be ccmrnended to the General Court which seemed to give power 
 either to the synod or the Court to compel the churches to prac- 
 tice whiit shall be so estHi)!ished; but being assured that the 
 synod would have no authoritative power, but the court would 
 have liberty to ado|)t or not just as they pleased, the objections 
 were withdrawn." Hubbard 533. 
 
 " Still, many of liie churches could not swallow it, because 
 they feared it was the intention to have ecclesiastical laws ^to 
 bind tiie church. Hubl>ard 534. 
 
 3d. It must be noticed, that the proceedings of the synod were 
 considered of no account, till adopted by the Legislature. 
 
 It was this synod which framed the Cambridge Platform. It 
 Avasdul}' passed into a law by the legislative adoption; and, ac- 
 cording to Hubbard, by that rule the Churches of New-England 
 have ever since been ordered. This whs written about forty 
 years afier. One of the main principles of the Platform is as 
 follows: — 
 
Ill 
 
 "13. Particular churches, though they are distinct, and 
 sb have not power one over another, yet because they are united 
 to Christ, not only as a mystical but a political head, they ought 
 to have communion one with another by way of mutual care, 
 consultation, admonition, and participation in tlie same ordi- 
 nances." Hubbard 540. 
 
 JNot a syllable of deposition, or trial of offences committed by 
 one church, by any number of churches convened. They never 
 carried it farther than requiring the advice of mutual councils. 
 
 "In these i)ropositions," says Hubbard, " are summed up in 
 brief the principles of the Congregational Churches of New- 
 England, as to Church government ; which is the only point wherein 
 they differ from the rest of the reformed churches, whether En- 
 glish, Belgick or Gallick." 
 
 See our argument on this point in the conclusion of our essay. 
 
 In 1680, a synud again declared, that there was noihiug re- 
 specting doctrine, but what concerns worship and di,scipline, that 
 caused their ancestors to remove to the deserts of America, that 
 there they might have liberty to practise accordingly : " and as 
 to what concerns Church Coverninenl, they refer to the [ilatform 
 of discipline agreed upon by the messengers of their churches in 
 1648, solemnly owned and confirmed in the last synod." 
 
 Hubbard, p. 623. 
 
 This was thirty two years after the adoi tion of th;;t Platform. 
 They had seen its eif^^cts, were saiistied with it, and ratified it 
 solemnly again. The allegations of Dr. Morse, that they were 
 soon discontented with it are unibuniled. There always have 
 been some men, who wanted a stricter mode of discipline, but 
 the Churches, in all periods, have been, and we believe still 
 are, opposed to any change of the ancient Platform. 
 
 NOTE 2d. 
 
 The Reverend Dr. Worcester, of Salem, in his third letter to 
 Mr. C banning, asserts, that Dr. Cotton Mather's ;;rOj;osals were 
 rejected by the Committee, •' that not a scrip of them was re- 
 tained, and that rather than to have submitted to them, some of 
 the Committee, if not (he whole, woubl have resisted unto blood." 
 It is a little singular, that (troj;os;'ls of so bad a cliaracter should 
 have been received with so much respect; that they should have 
 been introduced into the Panoplist as an " invaluai le relick," 
 and treated i>y the association with so much attention. The 
 only object of using Dr. Cotton Mather's manuscri[d tnnst have 
 been, to increase the evidence in favoin- of Consi^cialious by the 
 weight of atdhmiy. Now the uuthority of a mm capable of 
 proposing measures, which would call for " resistance unto 
 
IV 
 
 blood," appears to us to he of little weight. The same remark 
 v»ouI(l appiy lo all the nine inini^ters who proposed the plan, and 
 to the whole convention who adopted it. it is immaterial to 
 whfit part of the old plan the objection notv lies. If any feature 
 was so odious as to require resistance, it must have been because 
 it was rej)uonant to our rights. Any men capable of proposing 
 ani/ thins: so repugnant, are not entitled to our confidence in 
 such matters. But Dr. Worcester's is not a fair representation 
 of the c;:se. Our venerable fathers are very much calumniated. 
 Their plan may be found in the Panoplist of July, 1815. We 
 assert, without fear of refutation, that the old plan is less odious, 
 more liberal, and less calculated to destroy our liberties, than the 
 new one. There was no power given to the consociations in 
 the former, to determine who should be settled and deposed., an 
 authority expressly given in the present plan. So far from being 
 whollij rejected, it is all retained and enlarged, except a single 
 feature as to the associations, which was its best trait. 
 
 The same remark may l»e marie on the quotations from Cot- 
 ton, and Hooker, and ail the early fathers of New-England. 
 Tiiere is not one of tiiem who docs not distinctly, in clear and 
 forcilde terms, condemn the principles now set up in the present 
 plan, as auti-chrislian. When they speak of consociations, they 
 did not contemfdate standing judiciary councils. They expli- 
 citly repel ti^e idea. We beg our readers to consult the passage* 
 as we have done, and judge between us. 
 
 But the conclusive answer to all these cases, and one which 
 might have superseded all others, is ; To what does an authority 
 of this sort amount, which appears to have had no influence on 
 the age in which it was produced, nor in the many generations 
 which have followed? From 1646 to 1706, there were some 
 very active men who tried to enlarge the ecclesiastical power. 
 .At one time they pressed a synod, as in 1662, into their ser- 
 vice — at another, the Convention. But they never had influence 
 enough to procure the adoption of their plan bj' a single church. 
 The efforts of Mr. Wise, of Ij-swich, defeated them with the peo- 
 ple. They never dared to pultlish the doings of the convention, 
 and we are indebted to Mr. Wise for a knowledge of them. A 
 whole century has since elapsed, and thej- are now brought out of 
 their retirement, like the relicks of some saint, which the Catho- 
 licks often fancy emit a grateful odour. Yet, even now, Dr. 
 Worcester tells us that he would, like Mr. Mlse, " resist it unt© 
 blood." So much for the nudn authority, of Dr. Morae. 
 
NOTE 3(1. 
 
 While Massachusetts, in 1706, indignantly and wisely spurned 
 the ecclesiastical fetters which hud heen forged for her, Connec- 
 ticut proved more submissive. Cotton Mather's plan was adop- 
 ted it Sayhrook. But that plan, as I have stated, did not, like 
 Morse's, authorize consociations to interfere in the ordination of 
 ministers. Not a sentence referred to it. Those ceremonies 
 were accordingly conducted, as before, on the old Congregation- 
 al plan, by calling in the neighbouring churches. Matters went 
 on quietly in this way for fifty years. Now mark the inevitable 
 progress of usurpation ! In the year 1758 the town of Walling- 
 ford, in New-Haven county, elected the Rev. James Dana 
 their minister. The neighbouring churches were called in to 
 ordain him as usual. But a few very turbulent men in the parish 
 appealed to the Consociation, and charged Dr. Dana with the 
 heresy of Arminianism. It was a new case. There was no 
 preceilent, and no law for the consociation. But when did men 
 ever refuse to exercise power when invited ? They cited the 
 parish and Pastor as culprits. They forbade ordination. The 
 town despised them as usurpers, and proceeded. The consocia- 
 tion then de|)osed Dr. Dana from the ministry, and excommuni- 
 cated the church. This would have been pretty well for Hilde- 
 brand himself. But they distanced the Pontiff. They declared 
 the venerable ordaining council, who adhered to publick liberty 
 and law, disorderly persons. All these proceedings Avere in op- 
 position to the Platform which gave them existence. The town 
 however knew its rights. Dr. Dana continued to act, and the 
 Consociation was ridiculed and despised. But mark the result. 
 What was impudent assumption in 1758, has now become law 
 by usurpation. The Consociation has reduced all the people and 
 all the churches of Connecticut to the worst of all servitudes ; 
 for a church can neither ordain nor retain a beloved Pastor 
 against the will of these usurping consociations. The limits of 
 these notes, too extended already, will not permit me to enlarge 
 on this case. 
 
 The curious may see it ably displayed in sundry pamphlets 
 hy Jonathan Todd, and William Hart, 1750, and R. JVolcott, 
 1760, which may be found in the Boston AthensBum, and proba- 
 bly at Cambridge. 
 
 I must, however, cite one or two passages from one of them, 
 which having been written nearer the age of the attempted usur- 
 pation in 1706, is entitled to more credit than even Dr. Morse, 
 " You," says this writer, (addressing one of the usurping Priests 
 of that day,) " You say, that the churches are sick of their Plat- 
 " form, and that several memorials have been presented to the 
 
Vi 
 
 " General Court of iMassnchusetts, prayina; for a synod to pro- 
 *' mole tiiat so miici; <ksircd plan of Ct»iis(Jciatio( s. «f}uu had 
 " informed us, that liie clnirchrs in Iha) Province h.id jjresenled 
 " ttipse rntmorii^is, it would h-ive been to your purpose ; hut you 
 •' .-ire too wise to tell us tvho presented (hem. Bovvever, Mr. 
 *' Wisf has toid us. It was a set of ambi; ous clerLfynaen, that 
 " had ccfif-pirdto brtray the liherlies of the churches, for wliich 
 " he calls ihesn traitort;." See AVoicott, page 9, printed in Bos- 
 ton, 1760. 
 
 So it would seem, that am'ntion and a desire to betray the 
 liberties of (he churches are not of recent growth only. The 
 same writer says. " The Congregational platform fdlows the 
 " chnrchifi to choose a cc liici! known to them to be wise and 
 "just. T/iW, your scheme, denies and sul\jects them wholly to 
 " the Consociation. Jt is certainly a greater privilege to ask 
 " council of men wise and friendly, than to be hound to men in 
 *' an endless succession in some post, whom we know not, and 
 " c«nnot depend upon. Cranmer and Ridley, two good bishops, 
 "were succeeded Isy Gardiner and Bonner, twomonsurs; and 
 " what has been, may be. There is no dispute, other bodies 
 " have a right to ask counsel of men best able to direct them, 
 " and why should not churches have the same?" 
 
 Thus we see, if there were usurpers in 1 758, there were also 
 chamiaous for religious freedom. God grant the latter race may 
 never be extinct ! 
 
 NOTE 4th. 
 
 The Ralio Discipline Fratrum Ncr-Anglonim is a rare book. 
 Whether the committee and the reviewer hoped to induce the 
 pul>lick to iselieve that Dr. Cotton Mather, its author, was in 
 f;.vour of their system, I cannot say. Such was the impression 
 mule on my mind from their |)artial quotations, as mutilated as 
 some of the passages of scr pture have been in some theological 
 wri{ings. We aflirm that Dr. Mather was, on the whole, well 
 satisiied with the state of the church in 1719, when he wrote 
 this 'u)ok. He speaks of other people desiring a change, but lie 
 thv);ight none necessary. The Committee of the Grand Associ-* 
 ation, for examjile, quote this sentence. "When councils are 
 called \-y litigant parties in churches, it had been hithriio in the 
 lil.erty of each [.arty to cb.oose and call their own coimdls where 
 they j>!e;;sed, which left room for much partiality to operate, and 
 GUP council to succeed and oppose another with an endless con- 
 fusion more proper for Babel than a city of God." So f-ir the 
 quot »lioii, and one would infer from it, that these were his own 
 opinions: far from it — he merely states the | leas of the disaf- 
 fected and ambitious. He adds, " Through the blessing of God 
 
VII 
 
 their Saviour, the churches had not, in fact, seen much of this 
 confusion, and it may be, the pr?<ri,/U servants of God had it 
 more in fear than 'there was any need of." This certainly 
 takes away the authority of Mather to the point of the ecils ex- 
 perienced in his day, which was more than seventy years after 
 the platform was adopted. In his judgment, it wds idk far, 
 rather than solid reason, which led to the proposed cousociauuns 
 of which he was then treating. He adds in another pa,<j;e, tliat 
 the consociation scheme succeeded in one state (l-onnecticut) 
 but failed in the other New-England States, because "some cou- 
 " siderable persons among the ministers and brethren thon'ilit the 
 " liberties of particular churches were in danger of weing limited 
 " and infringed l»y them." So far he Is quoted i)y the committee 
 and the Panoj^list reviewer, but they omit the conclusion of ;he 
 same sentence. " Accordingly, the churches go on in !he old 
 *' method, of which an account has been given, and htanan pru- 
 " dence being oiiiiged to stop where it is, the spirit of our Saviour 
 " so descends with his operations, that councils rarely miss of 
 " their desired eifect." 
 
 This was fourteen years after the scheme of tyranny of 1706 
 had failed. Dr. Mather, in his preface, stales live points in 
 which all the New-England churches agreed. 1st, That the 
 people had a right, when they pleased, to form a church. 
 2d. That each church has full, entire, and independent powers 
 to elect officers, &c, 3d. That Pastors, so elected, have full au- 
 thority to administer sacraments, Szc. 4th. That in matters of 
 common concern only, which affect the tranquillity o'l othfr church- 
 es, they ought to ask and pay great regard to advice. 5th. That 
 the scriptures are a sufficient rule of f.ith, worshi;), and manners. 
 He adds, "The Eleutherians (or friends of freedom) will con- 
 sider how far any further agreement, (than in those points,) may- 
 be necessary, and whether these unreasonable sons of Protrustes, 
 the narrow souled and imperious bigots for uniformity, will do 
 religion any real service by the pressing of it." In all this we 
 agree with Dr. Mather. 
 
 It is i)retended both by the Committee and Reviewer, that de- 
 fects in the Platform wee early perceived and lamented, and you 
 would infer, if you did o know these reverend combatants, that 
 the church was at that early day in a dicadful state. 
 
 Dr. Mather himself is my authority against them. His work 
 was l>efore them, and in face of it they m;ike these assertions. 
 
 In his Ratio Disciplinee, after the jjlatform had had a trial of 
 aeventj'-five jtears, he says, "If the church refuse to give to 
 any council an account of a matter, (upon trial,) a thing that 
 perhaps mver happened," 'tc. Again ; " The church persisting 
 in irregularity, they run the hazard of a proceeding, which was 
 never above once come into, withdrawing communion." " He 
 
via 
 
 " thanks Christ, that the end is obtained without BUCh extremi- 
 " lies." 
 
 Where do the comini((ee procure their facts ? Surely Hub- 
 bard and the author of (he Magnalia, and of the Ratio Disciplina^, 
 must have known the disorders in the church, had they existed. 
 
 In page 170, Dr. Mather asserts, "that the councils of New- 
 " England rarely meet with contradictions from the cliurches 
 " whose cases are submitted." " The New-England councils 
 have been so regularly composed, that there has been little 
 occasion for the old complaint, omne concilium parit belbtm" 
 That is to say, they had done better than the old authoritative 
 councils. 
 
 " Tlie synods of New-England know no weapons," says Dr. 
 Matlitr, " but those which are spiritual. They pretend to no 
 juridical authority, nor any signijicancy but what is merely in- 
 striiclivt and suasory." 
 
 He adrls, the churches of New-England cannot better express 
 themselves than in the language of Festus Hommius. " The 
 decrees of councils ought not to be propounded unto, or obtruded 
 on the churches as Prfetorian sayings, but they should be sent 
 to the churches, that they may be examined by them according 
 to the word of Got), and that if they he found to agree with it, 
 they may be approved.'- This submits the whole j)ower to the 
 churches. Let any one read the report prefixed to this essay, 
 or the history of the church at AValliugford, and then say, wheth- 
 er the one or the other coincide with Hommius' ideas of the 
 power of councils, w hich, Mather says, expressed the sense of our 
 New-England fathers. 
 
im 
 
 
 9t^^3^-,:^i^?^Li}^-