0. 5. 4^ BX 7255 .B77 W54 1818 A review of ecclesiastical proceedings in the Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2009 witii funding from Princeton Tlieological Seminary Library littp://www.arcliive.org/details/reviewofecclesiaOOcong REVIEW^,, ' "^ OF ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE Congregational Church and Society in Brooklyn^ (Conn.) AND PARTICULARLY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RESULT OF THE CONSO^ CIATION OF WINDHAM COUNTY, IK FEBRUARY^ 1817, A CHARGE OF HERESY AGAINST THE JUNIOR PASTOR OF SAID CHURCH AND SOCIETY. BY LUTHER WILLSON, A. M. THEIR LATE PASTOR. V Judge not, that ye be not judged : for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged ; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." " By their fruits ye shall know them." *' Wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be en- treated ; full of mercy and good fruits ; without partiality, and without hy- pocrisy." WORCESTER : PRI^'TED BY WILLIAM MANNING. ^.TULY, 1818. A REVIEW, &c. [The following documents, with remarks, will afford, it is believed, satisfactory evidence that the Rev. Luther Willson, the junior pastor of the church in Brooklyn, who had altered his views upon the sub- ject of the Trinity, and was accused of heresy before the Consocia- tion of Windham County, was ever solicitous, from the commence- ment of the difficulty occasioned by his change of sentiments until the time of his dismission, to continue with the church and society m Brooklyn in peace, or to leave them peaceable and united among themselves, and in a manner consistent with the principles and char- acter of a Christian minister.] Record of the Church. In consequence of uneasiness and disaffection ia the church and among the people on account of erroneoue opinions supposed to be entertained by Mr. Willson, their junior pastor, — Dr. Whitney, their senior pastor, and some members of the church, thought it advisable that there should be a church-meeting appointed to converse u^ith Mr. Willson on the subject, and with his approbation and consent. Accordingly a meeting vi^as appointed on the 8th day of February, 1816, at 3 o'clock, P. M. at the meeting-house. The church accordingly met on said 8th day of February, at said place, for the purpose of inquiring as to a change or supposed change in the opinions of Mr. Willson. Considerable conversation took place on the subject, but no votes passed ; and the meeting was ad- journed to the 16th of the instant month, at 3 o'clock, P. M. in the meeting-house. " February 16th — The church met at time and place according to adjournment. After opening with prayer. 4 John Parish, Esq. was chosen Moderator,* and Capt. Mo- ses Clark, Scribe. The church then requested Mr. Will- son to make a statement of his views with respect to the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He accordingly de- clared it as ' his prevailing opinion, that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is not, in his own nature as a di- vine person, equal and eten.id with the Father, the su- preme, self- existent God.' Upon which declaration of Mr. Willson, the church immediately passed the following vote, viz. ' The doctrine of the Trinity is an essential or fundamental doctrine' — thirteen in the affirmative, five in the negative, and five neutral." Mr. W. after expressing his opinion in the terms thus recorded, declared himself ready to give his reasons for the change that had taken place in his views upon the Di- vinity of Christ, at that time, or at any time when the church should be disposed to hear them. The church did not, however, then^ nor have they shice^ discovered any desire to become acquainted with the process of mind, or the reasons, which produced a change in his opinion. After the vote upon the doctrine of the Trinity, which passed almost immediately upon its beine proposed to the church, at the urgent motion of two of its members, and apparently with a particular design to avoid an explanation of their views of this doctrine, or of the object and appli- cation of the vote ; Mr. W. requested those who joined in it, to inform him in what sense they viewed the doctrine of the Trinity to be essential, or fundamental ; whether they intended to be understood as declaring, by that act, that they considered a belief in this doctrine essential to salvation, or to Christian fellowship. Mr. W. observed, that he deemed it a matter of particular, practical impor- tance to a pastor, whose duty it was to propose individuals for admission to Christian privileges, to ascertain the sense of the church, whether they considered such a belief cs- * Dr. Whitney, the senior pastor, on account of the infirmities of age, was not able to be from his own house a*, thai season, to preside at the rtjeeting. Mr. W. the ju- nior pastor, expecting his change ot sentiments to be the paiticular subject of iuquiry and investigation, and apprehending ihc necessity of considerable conversation and diicussion on his part, which might not be prudent for him to allow himself in the capacity of a Moderator, suggested to the church the propriety of appointing one of their number to preside at the meeting, who would probably be considered more dis- interested and impartial. Accor4ingly Mf. Parish, a member of the cbuich, wa» choien iMode.-ator, sential to Christian fellowship ; stating, that if they consid= ered it thus essential, their views were very different from what he had always supposed ; and that it would be for his happiness and theirs, that his pastoral relation to them be dissolved. Obtaining no answer to his inquiries as to the meaning and application of the vote, and anxious to know their feelings with respect to liim as their pastor, he urged them to express their minds, (after being made ac- quainted with the change that had taken place in his views upon a doctrine which they then declared fundamental,) whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied with him as their minister. I'he church being unwilling to act in the case, though repeatedly and earnestly solicited, he request- ed those that were in the vote to call upon him, that he might have opportunity to converse with them, and ascer- tain Uieir sense of the vote, and also their views with re- spect to him as their pastor. Several of them called, a- greeably to his request ; while others, (about half the num- ber that were in the vote,) and some, indeed, aged and lead- ing members of the church,* never visited him, nor sought an opportunity to converse with him upon the subjcct.f It is here proper to remark, that two members who join- ed in the vote, being unacquainted with the views of those that moved it, and not sufficiently considering its obvious import, or the construction to which it was liable among those that were conversant with ecclesiastical affairs, had occasion, soon after, very much to regret their agency in giving sanction to such a record in the church. Upon re- flection, they saw, that without their concurrence the vote would not have passed ; that they had been instrumental in bringing it into the church, though unapprehensive, at the time, of the use that might be made of it, and of the consequences that might result from it. Their only view, when they acted, was to declare their firm belief in the Trinity as a doctrine of revelation ; as one, among odiers • Capt. Daniel Tyler and Deacon Joseph Scarborough, Whether these gentlemen considered the request of dieir pastor unreasonable, and undeserving their attention ; or were disinclined to a candid and full discussion of the subject under consideration; or were conscious, from their own feelings, of personal animos.*.es that rendered them averse to such an interview ; or were influenced by other motives, is best known to themselves. + It appeared from conversation with those that called upon Mr. W. that some in- tended, by their act, no nnore than a declaration of their settled belief in the Trinity : Oiiiers intended by it a publick disapprobation of Mr. W.'s sentiments : Not one, that I itcolkft, expressed ao opinion that a belief in the Tiioity wa» essential to communion. in connexion, that was essential to make up the Christian system. From conversation with Mr, W. the junior pastor, they were led to suppose (what afterwards proved true) that the construction put upon the vote declaring the doctrine of the Trinity to be fundamental, by those who claim to be of the orthodox faith, would require a publick assent to it, as necessary to Christian fellowship. With these views, and with serious concern for the evils that might arise from this act of the church, in which they concurred, they were anxious that a meeting should be appointed, to see if the church would not annul their vote upon the doctrine of the Trinity, or so explain and modify it as not to re- quire an assent to it as an indispensable qualification for Christian communion. Accordingly a petition was pre- pared and signed by them and others, that concurred in the same act, for the purpose of rescinding the vote, or procuring such an explanation as should allow those who might disbelieve the Trinity, the common rights and priv- ileges of members of the church. One of the individuals that signed the petition called upon the Rev. Dr. Whitney, the senior pastor, to converse with him, and obtain his opin- ion of the meaning of the vote. Dr. W. in conversation with him, satisfied his mind that the vote upon the doctrine of the Trinity would not be so construed and applied by the church as to preventthose from enjoying Christian privileges who could not acknowledge the truth of this doctrine. From this interview with Dr« W. he was induced to believe, that a difference of opinion upon this subject would by no means be considered by the church as interrupting the chanty and communion of its members. In consequence of this conversation, and relying upon tlie opinion of Dr. W. as to the sense and construction of the vote, the indi- viduals who had prepared the petition* proceeded no far- • The numbtr that signed the petition wai four— all of them in the vote that de- clared the docirine of the Trinity *to be fundamental, The petition would have gone forward to the church, and probably with the addition of more names that concurred in the vote, had it not been prevented by the conversation and opinion of the lenior pastor. Deducting the four that aigned the petition, and concurred in the vote upon the Trinity, from ihirleen, the whole number, leaves, at most, but nine in favour of a belief in the Trinity as necessary to communion. These four added to the ten, that did not concur in the vote, gives, at least, fourteen to nine, who did not consider a belief in the Trinity essential to communion. Thus the sense of a majority of the «huTch upon the subject of the Trinity, at the time the vote was passed, as it is col- lected from circumstances, and by a just calculation, was evidently in favour of e liberal communion. But still, I think, the terms of the vote are fairly interpreted in e diifcreut and restricted lense. ther in pursuance of their object. But, however much to be regretted^ Dr. W. and other members of the church,, who had hitherto been hberal in their opinions and con- duct, have since thought it necessary to practise upon a different principle. Church Record. " At a meeting of the congregational church in Brook- lyn, warned by the junior pastor of said church on the 24th of March, and holden on the 25th, 1816, Deacon Roger W. Williams was chosen Moderator, and David Prince, Clerk. Foted, that this meeting be adjourned to Friday next, at 1 o'clock, P. M. the 29th day of March instant." There is an important omission in this record; For what reason, or how it came, I am unable to say. Dr. W. the senior pastor, has uniformly kept the book of records. Wlien he was unable to attend the meetings, the votes and proceedings of the church were transmitted to him. When he attended, he has made the record ac- cording to his own recollection and judgment. In record- ing, he has sometimes omitted, and sometimes altered, ei- ther unintentionally and by accident, or because he thought best. Had the omissions and alterations been made only and apparently with, a view to exhibit the records with greater accuracy and precision, and in a more perfect form, without materially affecting the sense, there would be no occasion for this remark. A record of three successive meetings^ (the first, Febru- ary 8th, and the last, March 25th,) was made out, approved.^ and voted by the church. The following^ a part of the record of the meeting, March 25th, a copy of v^hich,. on the same paper with other records, was voted by the church, transmitted to Dr. W. and has since been lost, is here added, as it is important to illustrate after proceedings of a committee of the church before a Council on the first day of May, 1816. " This meeting of the church was appointed for the pur- pose of inquiring into the true meaning, extent and appli- cation of the vote at the last meeting, Feb. 16th; and also of ascertaining the sentiraents of fht church, whether they 8 were satisfied with Mr. W. as a Christian minister ; and whether they wished, or not, that his pastoral relation to them should be dissolved. No vote or resolution was passed explanatory of the vote above-mentioned, nor rela- tive to the other matters proposed for consideration."— [This record should have been inserted before the vote of adjournment.] Dr. W. the senior pastor, was particular to state in his record of this meeting, that it was w^irned by the junior pastor the 24.th of March, and held the next day ; while he omitted to mention the object for which it was appoint- ed, as contained in the record transmitted to him ; and al- so the fact, that the meeting was warned by the junior pas- tor with his concurrence and approbation. The purpose and time of the meeting were particularly stated to the se- nior pastor before it was notified, and he concurred in it without any objection, either as to the object or time of the appointment. The reasons that operated with the junior pastor in ap- pointing this meeting of the church, may be seen from a 3t:itement of facts. The church and society in Brooklyn had been considerably agitated for more than two months, through the influence of a few individuals, in consequence of a change in the views of the junior pastor respecting the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ. Several members of the church had been vigilant and active in endeavouring to produce an alarm in the church and society on account of this change. On the 16th of February, the church passed a vote upon the Trinity, which, from the circum- stances that occasioned and attended it, appeared to have been designed by those who moved it, as an implied pub- lick censure of the opinions of their pastor. The excite- ment among the people, arising from the apprehension that the errours of their pastor were destructive in their tenden- cy and fatal in their effects, must necessarily be regarded by a Christian minister with a feeling concern for his own situation, and for that of his people. Among those that professed the greatest zeal for truth, the most pointed pas- sages of scripture against false teachers had become cur- rent and familiar ; and though used, in some instances, with atadied caution, their uitended application and effect 9 were by no means doubtful in the minds of those tl^at were accustomed to hear them. As few had conversed with Mr. W. upon his pa;rticula^ sentiments, he wished the congregation to be acquuintec with his general views of the divinity of Christ, that the church and society might be prepared, if they were dis- posed, and circumstances should require it, to act deci- sively respecting him as their minister. He accordingly dehvered a publrck discourse, in which he endeavoured briefly to lay open his particular opinions, in distinction from what is commonly considered the orthodox faith ; opinions, which he had but intimated in publick before, in two short sentences of a former discourse. At the close of the publick exercises of the Sabbath, immediately after Mr. W.'s discourse, in which were exhibited his distinct and peculiar sentiments, a member of the church* (respect- ed for his age and standing, and distinguished for his zeal in opposition to Mr. W.) with much earnestness and vio- lence called upon the assembly, as they were about to re- tire, to pause J directed their attention to the preacher ; and; in view of the sentiments that had been delivered from the desk, denounced him as a false teacher, and admonish- ed the congregation to beware of his instructions, as full of philosophy and vain deceit. f In view of these facts, Mr. W. was anxious, as appears from the record that was omitted, [see the record,] and that ought to have been inserted, to know the minds of the church respecting him as tlieir minister, and with respect to the meaning of a certain vote, which, from its doubt- ful phraseology, the cautious silence of those that moved it, and their reluctance to explain at the time it was passed, appeared to have been introduced with a particular design, :]: and to have an alarming tendency upon the peace and tran- quillity of the church. While thus observing the move- ments of tliose that had influence in the church ; their *Capt. Daniel Tyler. ^ I will not omit to obstrve, that this is all ihs friendly admonition, within my reccllection, that this gentleman ever thought proper to administer to his pastor, either pu'olickly or privately, to leclaim him from what he considered a most daigerous er--- Eour, And, indeed, the admonition admininistered seemed piincipally intended as an alarm or warning to the congregation. X Mr, W. not being able to obtain an explanation, wished to know of them, if thej> intended by it to impose upon him any restriction as to avowing or pieashipg his »ei»- tiinsnis. They were silent; they gave him no answer. Q 10 piiblick acts, their private insinuations and publick re- proaches, evidently designed to destroy his reputation as a Christian teacher ; it was impossible for Mr. W. not to be ;solicitous to be relieved from the suspense necessarily at* tending his situation, by obtaining the sentiments of the church respecting him as their pastor. He hoped and be- lieved, that none v^^ho were opposed to his ministry would be so disingenuous as to conceal their sentiments with re- s])ect to him, or to express them in ambiguous terms^ They did not, however, think proper, at the meeting, (with the exception of a few individuals,) to disclose their sentiments in relation to the subjects proposed for consid- eration. And, indeed,, these individuals expressed noth- ')ig of their opinions and feelings in regard to the propriety of Mr. W.'s dismission. Before the meeting was adjourned, Mr. W. proposed to unite v/ith the church in calling a Mutual Council, to take a viev/ of all difficulties, and to give their advice. A Mu- tual Council was agreed upon at the adjourned meeting" for that purpose, and convened at the time appointed. Record of the Adjourned Meeting, " March 29th — The church met according to adjourn- ment. " Foted^ to accept of Mr. Willson's proposal to call a Mutual Council to consider existing matters of difficulty, and advise to measures for terminating them ; and agreed to invite the Rev. Joseph Sumner, D. D. of Shrewsbury, Andrew Lee. D. D. of Lisbon, and Rev. Abiel Williams, of Dudley, with delegates from the churches of which they are pastors, to meet at Brooklyn, on Wednesday, the first day of May next, at 10 o'clock, A. M. to afford that advice and direction, which it is hoped may happily tend to the restoration of peace among tis. '* Fated, that Joseph Scarborough, Esq. Capt. Moses Clark, and Capt. Benjamin Pierce, should be a committee to lay matters of grievance before the Council." The Council met at the time appointed, the first of IVIay ; and, after forming, adjourned to the meeting-house to attend to business. 11 Statement before the Council hy the Committee of the Church, " The committee of the church, appointed to lay their matters of grievance before this venerable Council, would beg leave to exhibit the following statement : *' That for a great length of time, under the ministration of their Rev. senior pastor, previous to his labours' being- interrupted by the infirmities of age, this church enjoyed linusual peace and tranquillit}*. "That, from its first organization, it hath uniformly professed the belief of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the real proper deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, as being essen- tial articles of the Christian system, and as lying at the foundation of all our hope. " That when the Rev. Luther Willson was ordained over this church as a colleague pastor, he was ordained by a Trinitarian Council ; and by the profession which he then made, was considered as being consentaneous with the church on these important subjects. " That, in process of time, the Rev. Luther Willson hath departed from these articles of faith ; and hath ex- pressly declared, not only in private, but also from the pul- pit, that it is his prevailing opinion, that the Lord Je^us Christ, the Son of God, is not, in his own nature as a di- vine person, equal and eternal with the Father, the supreme and self-existent God. '' That this change of opinion as to the character of the Saviour, being frequently and clearly evinced, has wound- ed the feelings of not a few, who feel it their indispensable duty to honour the Son even as they honour the Father, in obedience to what they find written, John v. 23 ; fully be- lieving, that they who do not honour the Son as they hon- our the Father, do not honour the Father. " And as the church, on account of this important change of sentiment, can no longer be edified under his ministration, they would request the advice of this venera- ble Council as to measures to be taken for the removal of difficulties and restoration of peace. — And may the bless- ing of God attend all efforts to accomplish these desirable ends." * 12 This statement, both for its contents and the circum- stances attending it, ought not to pass u ithout notice. 1. It declares, " that this church, from its first organi- 2:ation, has uniformly professed the belief of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the real proper deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, ns being essential articles of the Christian system, and as lying at the foundation of all our hope." Such a declaration, it is presumed, could nevtr have been expected by the church from any of its members, who arc distinguished for good sense, candour and integ- lity. The extreme incorrectness of this part of the state- ment must be obvious to every unbiassed mind, acquaint- ed uith the records and practice of the church. I'lie church in Brooklyn has long been distinguished from most of the other churches in the county of Wind- ham for its liberality in matters of faith. In making this declaration, I wish it to be understood, that this church has not required of its members a profession of their belief in the Trinity, the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, and other particular doctrines of what is commbnly called the orthodox creed, as most other churches have done.* It is well known, that several clerical gentlemen, and others in the county, who claim to be sound in the faith, have been accustomed to speak of the church and people in Brooklyn, and their aged pastor, in terms of disapproba- tion and reproach, for what they considered their lax and latitudinarian principles. The fact respecting the church in Brooklyn is believed to be simply this. Its members have generally considered them- selves believers in the Trinity, as also their pastor ; though an assent to this doctrine, or a profession of their belief in * I ir.fntion piher churchts, because it is probabic that ihe committee wished to bave it ur.dtrstcod by the Ecclesiastical CourcU, that this chuich was originally estab- lished, and h;id contioued to piaclise, upon the same principles wiih other churches •who were known to leco^nize, in theii adcnijsion ot members, what is commonly conside'ed the ouhodox lai;h ; or because tne best apology that can, peihaps, be of- fered by the committee for presenting a statement so incorrtct, is the fact, that it wsi prepared by a Rev. gentlfifian in ihe neighbourhood, Mr. Dow, of Thompson, to v,'ho!n they applied to assist them as counsel ; whose tone of religious sentiments is always torrai ; and who, in preparing the statement, probably drew it up under the impression, that the chuich in Brooklyn were, ox ought to have beev, as orthodox as tmidj and the church of which he was pastor. Ke probably thought it a favourable lime to lepifsent the church in 3fooklyn as declaring, through the agency of their committee, that thty had professed the same opinions, and were established, as to doc- kines, upon the saire foundation as other churches which he considered sound in the iiith, '1 lie committee, notwithstanding, aie rtsponsible for the statement; and ought net tQ ha^^e jieldtd iijipiitjlly to the views and feelings of their Rev. counsellor. 13 it, has never been regarded in practice as essential to the Christian character, or to tlie enjoyment of Christian priv# ileajes in the church. The committee declare, that " the church have uniformly professed their belief of this doctrine, as lying at the foun- dation of all their hope." From this it would seem, that the church had ever pub- lickly avowed their belief in the doctrine of the Trinity as essential to the Christian's hope. It is however a fact, ca- pable of the most satisfactory and abundant proof, that, for nearly three years previous to this statement of the com- mittee, (during which time about thirty persons were ad- mitted, upon examination, to the communion of the church,) there was seldom, if ever, any inquiry of those that were admitted as members, respecting their belief in the Trini- ty, or the real proper deity of Jesus Christ. When individuals manifested a desire to become united to tlie church, as professed friends and disciples of Christ, it was usual for the pastors to be together to converse with them, and recommend them to the consideration and acceptance of the church. The conversation with these individuals was generally held at the house of the senior pastor, who, at the close of the conversation, almost uni- formly read to them the covenant that had been in use in the church, to obtain their assent to it. This covenant con- tains nothing of the Trinity, or of the real proper deity of Jesus Christ. Their assent to this covenant was consid- ered by the senior as well as junior pastor a sufficient test of their faith ; and I do not recollect the examination of any person upon the subject of the Trinity, or the essen- tial divinity of Christ. Thus it is so far from being true, that the church, a- greeably to the statement of the committee, has from its first organization professed a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity as a fundamental article of the Christian foith, that, for several years, as far as I am acquainted with the practice of the church, it has not required a professed belief in this doctrine in any instance ; and much less as a neces- sary qualification for Christian communion. Much has been said, in the late controversy, by individ- uals, of the original covenant, subscribed by those that first formed themselves into a church. This covenant recogv 14 nizes the distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as one God ; yet it does not maintain a professed belief m this distinction as necessary to Christian fellowship,* but particularly provides for the admission of any persons to the communion of the church who exhibit credible and satisfactory evidence of their piety, by religious and exem- plary conversation. But this covenant, it is to be observ- ed, as an ordinary test of faith and character, has long been out of use ; or, what is more probable, it was never used at all. It was unknown to most of the present members of the chi?rch, until the late controversy, and is still un- known to several of its most aged members. Indeed, it is fully believed, that the greater part of the church are still unacquainted with its contents, except what they have oc- casionally received from others. I shall here insert the only covenant used in the church in the admission of members, that the candid and intelli- gent may judge, whether this church have unformly pro- fessed a belief in the Trinity, &c. as lying at the founda- tion of all their hope. Coiienant, " You do now, in the presence of God, his holy angels, and this assembly, solemnh^, seriously, and sincerely, as far as you know your own heart, avouch the Lord Jeho^ vah, the only true and living God, to be your God ; and profess your belief of all the articles of the Christian faith, as revealed in the word of God, You give up yourself to God in Christ, acknowledging God the Father to be your God and sovereign. You give yourself to the Lord Jesus Christ as your only prophet and teacher ; your priest and atonement ; your king and lawgiver. You give yourself to the Holy Ghost, as your only sancti- fier and comforter. And you give up yourself to the * The following is ihe 3d article of the original covenant :— " Thirdly, Wc do covenant and promise fas much as ia us lies) the best spiritual good of all that at present are, or shall hereafter, in a way of gospel order, become members of this chuich, by instruction, reprehensioo, exhortation, consolation, aad spiritual watchfulness over them for good ; and we do farther covenant and promise (as God shall help) to receive, upon clfers, to our full communion in a church state, all such persons as are orthodox in faith, free from scandal, and able to examine them- selves and discern the Lord's body; as also to rest satisfied with such admittance of adult persons into (his church as is performed, either by making a confession of faith, and relation ol a work, of grace on their hearts, or producing testimonies of their reputed pic- /, or who do charitably discover :hs same by religious and exemplary conversation/' 15 watch and care of this church of our Lord Jesus Christ, promising, by the help of his Spirit, to walk with him and his church in all ways of holy communion and fellowship, and in due observance of all his ordinances, according to his will, as revealed in his word. This you profess and promise. " Min. — I then promisef in the name of this church, that, by assistance of the same Spirit, we will walk toward you in all Christian love and watchfulness, for our mutual comfort and edification in the Lord Jesus." I now proceed to notice other parts of the statement. — • The committee declare, " that when the Rev. Luther Willson was ordained over this church, as a colleague pas- tor, he was ordained by a Trinitarian Council ; and, by the profession which he then made, was considered as be- ing consentaneous with the church on these important subjects," That Mr. W. before and at the time of his ordination, avowed his belief in the Trinity, and the essential divinity of Christ, is true. But that he regarded such a belief as essential to the hope and privilege of a Christian, is wholly a mistake. At the time Mr. W. was a candidate for settlement in Brooklyn, a committee was appointed by the society, con- sisting principally of members of the church, to converse with him, and to ascertain if he was a Hopkinsian or an Arian, Upon examination, he gave them satisfactory evi- dence that he was not a Hopkinsian or an Arian. At the same time he was particular to inform them, that though he differed in opinion from Hopkinsians and x\rians, and believed them both to be in an errour as to their peculiar sentiments, yet he considered them as Christians, entitled to his respect and fellowship. He was explicit in stating; his views, that a diversity of opinion in these respects ought not to occasion distance and separation among breth- ren. He also stated to the committee, that in the course of years from the time he was licensed to preach, his views of Christian doctrines had in some respects altered, and that, in pursuing his inquiries, he still considered himself liable to change. He gave them no assurance that his o- pinions would continue the sarne^ even upon the subjects in IG question. He was e5:pilcit in declarinj^ his determination to adhere to the scriptures as the only rule of faith, and his endeavours to interpret them according to his best and most impartial judgment, whatever might be the result of his inquiries, and however diflerent might be his views in future upon the subjects in question, or upon any of the doctrines of Christianity. ' • Mr. \V. never gave the committee the least intimation of his belief in the Trinity as a fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion. He clearly expressed to them his flivourable opinion of both Jrians and Hopkinsians as real Christians, from whom the hand of fellowship ought not to be withheld. Such were his views, and such his pro- fession, when the church in Brooklyn invited him to settle with them as colleague pastor with Dr. Whitney. From conversation with the committee, the terms of the church covenant, the unanimity of the church in choosing him as their minister, and from acquaintance with their aged pastor, Mr. W. had not the least reason to believe, that the church in Brooklyn considered or professed a be- lief in the Trinity, as essential to tJieir salvation, or to the Christian's hope. If the church, at the time of Mr. W.'s settlement, _ attached such importance to the doctrine of the Trinity, they certainly did not make it known to him. The committee could not, therefore, state with any propriety^ that, " by the profession which he then niade, he was considered as being consentaneous with the church on these important subjects," if the church, agreeably to their statement, had uniformly profess- ed their belief of the l^inity, and of the proper deity of Christ, as essential to the Christian system, and as lying at the foundation of all their hope ; for they hierv, that Mr. W. at the time of his setdement, did not consider a belief in the Trinity and the deity of Christ, thus essential. It is fl)rtlicr stated, " that Mr. W.'s change of sentiments, being frequcndy and clearly evinced, had wounded the ieelings of not a 'i^w, who fully believed, that they who do 3^ot honour the Son" (meaning equally, in the character of Supreme) "as they honour the Father, do not honour the Father." It Is evident that the committee wished it to be under- stood by the Council, that the views of Mr. W- were so 17 erroneous as to prove him essentially deficient in Christian piety and obedience to God. For if those who do not honour the Son as they honour the Father, by acknowledg- ing him to be God, equal with the Father, do not honour the Father y^ they certainly do not possess the character of God's *The committee, it is presumed, indulged the hope of satisfying the minds of the Council, that a considerable number regarded the crrour of their pastor as absolutely inconsisteat with thristian principles ; and to effect their object in this particular, they inadvertently or intentionally, by the use of additional and qualifying terms^ spoke a language different from that of our Saviour in the passage to which they refer. Our Saviour says, ♦' He that honoureth not the Son, honouteih not the Father which hath sent him." The comtnittee would have it understood, that " they who do not honour the Sou as tk:y honour the Father, do not honour the Father." According 10 my understanding, there may be a difference between not honouring the Son at all, and not honouring him as use honour the Father. Suppose, for example, a worthy gentlemin possesses a large estate, and has many servants at his command, whom he employs to cuUivaie and improve it. Suppose, for his own convenience, he should commit the management of his affairs to his only son, who is as worthy as himself; and should require his servants to pay the same re- spect to hit son that they had done to the father; informing tlicm, that, if they did not obey and respect his son, he should consider it a matter of disrespect to himself. T-fay we not imagine these servants to be affectionate, obedient, and respectful to the son, though not equally as they were to the father ? And would it be just to con- clude, because they are not perfectly obedient to the will of the father in rendering every degree of reipect to the son that was required, that they do not honour iht son, nor the father, but are wholly disrespectful and disobedient to both ? — Allowing, for a mo- ment, the views of the committee to be correct, in requiring all to honour the Son (meaning in his character as God) equally as they honour the Father, does it necessarily Sollow, that all who do not thus honour the Son, do not honour him at all ? Is there ao medium betwetiii the highest reverence and absolute neglect or irreverence ? Is (there no medium between perfect faith and positive unbelief ? God requires us to be merciful even as he is merciful. But does it follow, because we are not as merciful as God, (I refer to the degree, not the nature of the virtue required) that we are destitute of mercy ? God requires servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things, showing all good fidelity. But are we to isfer, because ser- vants are not obedient in all things, and perject examples of fidelity, that they are not sn any degree obedient and faithful ? It it the duty of a son to love and honour a fa- ther according to his real dignity, kindness and virtue. But shall we conclude that the son who does not love him as affectionately, and honour him as highly as he deserves, is destitute of fi'i&l affection and respect, and in no degree the object of his father's com- placency and approbation ? For myself, I believe, that a son may not esteem and honour his father in proportion to the real worth and excellence of his character, and yet, in a degree, be respectful, affectionate, and obedient. So. I suppose, a believer in Christ, from imperfect knowledge, or a mistaken apprehension of his real dignity, (rather than from want ot et be a sincere friend, an obedient servant, a true dis- ciple; one who, ia honouring the Son, (though not so highly as he ought,) honours the Father, that sent him. To give the true meaning of the passage referred to in the statement, in which Christ is thought to claim far himself the worship of the supreme God, I will briefly remark, that the ground on which all meH arc to honour the Son even as they honour the Fa- ther, is not, his underived and esstntial divinity, but the ofSce he sustains as one c«f»< missioned or ordaimd -if God to be the Judge of the world. " The Father judgeth no man; but hath committeJ. .ill judgment unto the Son, f^jf all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, which hath seat him." The judgment of the Son, which he derives from the Father, and adnriniste^s by his authority and appointment, is as peifect and infalli- ble as if it were administered immediately by God himself. We are therefore to honoui' r.he judginens of the Si>i3 even as the judgmsnt of she Father. In the distiibution of 18 children ; they are not an example of that filial reverence; love and obedience which are essential to the character of a real Christian. The committee, it seems, wishing to heal and terminate existing difficulties, and in pursuance of an object so desirable, did not scruple to include their pastor in the number of those who were to be regarded as destitute of true ftiendship and piety to God. This I think a fair construction of this part of the statement ; for the individual whose errours are such that he does not honour God, hi& heavenly Father, can have na ckim to the character of sin- cere piety and exemplary virtue. He cannot be a friend of God, or disciple of Jesus Christ. The committee, in closing their statement, inform the Council, that, *' as the church, on accotmt of Mr. W.'s important change of sentiment,, can no longer be edified under his ministration, they v/ould request their advice as to measures to be taken for the removal of difficulties and restoration of peace." The committee wished the Council to understand, and therefore thought it proper to state, in direct terms, that the church could no longer be edified under Mr. W.'s ministration. How did the committee know this ? They certainly did not obtain their information from the churcho Mr. W. after his change of sentiments, had more than once earnestly requested the church, at publit:k meetings, and even at the last meeting before the convening of the Council, to declare whether they were dissatisfied with him as their minister ; but they had never expressed their dissatisfaction, or their desire that his pastoral labours a- mong them should be discontinued. From the complexion of the whole statement, it was ev» idently the plan of the committee so to manage the aflPair before the Council, as to convince them, if possible, of the necessity of Mr. W.'s dismission, with the expectation that tlie Council would advise to such an event. This was what the committee were desirous to have accomplish- rewards and punUhments, we may be $ure thai his decision is unerringly juit f for the VathcT imparts to him knowledge aad power adequate to the work, which he has ap- pointed hira. Of this our Saviour expressly intorms us. '• I can of mine own self do nothing. As I hear, I judge ; and my judgment is just ; becnuse I seek not mine own will, bat the will oj the Father, which hath sent me." Thus ws conclude: He tiiat does not honour the Son as one whom God hath sent, as one whom he has com- fitiisioned or appointed to render to all according Co their works, does not honour thr Fiiher, who gave him his authority. IP ed, althcugh the professed object of ciViling- the Council was "to obtain their advice and direction as to proper steps to be taken for healing and terminating existing diffi- culties." The whole business of calling a Council, from the time the proposal was made, until it was carried into eiFect, was -conducted upon principles apparently pacifick and concil- iatory, and professedly with a design to effect a reconcilia- tion and union, where differences existed. Thus it was understood by Mr. W. by the church, and by the society, who had a meeting for the purpose of expressing their ap- probation of the measure ; and thus it was understood by the Council, from the terms of the letter missive, prepared by Dr. W. the senior pdstor. But this was not the object of the committee. It was their design to manage the af= fair as cautiously and advantageously as possible, to ob= tain the advice of the Council in favour of Mr. W.'s dis= mission. If by any means they could convince the Coun- cil that such an event was necessary, or expedient, and could procure a result favourable to their views, they had scarcely a doubt, that their ultimate object would be ac- complished ; that all parties would concur in the Results, from a respect to the opinion of the Council ; and that the dismission of Mr. W. would eventually take place. With these views, the committee thought. it proper, in their statement, to rnagnify the difficulty on account of the change of sentiment, that a reconciliation might appear to the Council altogether impracticable, and that the removal of their pastor from his relation to the church in Brooklyn might appear the only method of restoring peace. The correctness of these remarks, as to the design of the committee, is sufficiently verified by the statement, com- pared with the covenant and records of the church. The statement represents the church in Brooklyn always to have been highly orthodox in their profession of the doc- trine of the Trinity, &c. as lying at the foundation of all their hope. The covenant says, no. It does not even re- cognize the distinction of three persons in one God j nor does it intimate that Christ is God. The committee represent the church as requesting " the advice of the Council as to measures to be taken for the iffemoval of difficulties and restoration of peace;" and the 20 reason assigned for making this request is, that "the church, on account of Mr. VV.'s important change of sen- timent, could no longer be edified under his ministration.'* The Council were requested to advise to measures for the removal of difFiculties. But how was it possible to re- move the difficulties without removing the pastor, inasi much " as the church" (according to the committee) " could no longer be edified under his ministration." — - Thus the committee employed their utmost ingenuity (or rather the ingenuity of their Rev. counsellor, who drew up the statement) to make it appear to the Council, without declaring it in direct terms, that the church considered the removal of Mr. W. from his pastoral labours among them the only method of removing difficulties and restoring peace. The records, however, (particularly the record omitted by the senior pastor) would make it evident, and did make it evident to the Council, that the church (though repeatedly requested to shovir their minds upon the subject) never declared themselves dissatisfied with Mr. W.'s min= istry, nor their opinion or wish in favour of his dismission. The introduction of the statement speaks of " the com- mittee of the church appointed to lay their matters of griev- ance before the Council." Dr. Whitney, the senior pastor,aI- so, in his record of the preceding meeting, used nearly the same language. From this it would seem, that the church were disaffected and figgrieved with Mr. W.'s ministry, and had authorized the committee to bring forward a complaint against their pastor. The record of the meeting March 29th, though made by the senior pastor, will however show, that the proposal to call a Council originated with Mr. W. and that the object of the proposal was to obtain the opinion and advice of a Council as to measures for ter • minating existing matters of difficulty. It never entered tho. mind of Mr, VV. that he and the church, in pursuance of conciliatory measures, were to appear before the Coun- cil in the attitude of systematick hostility and mutual re- crimination. It did not occur to him, that this would be the* proper method of "healing and terminating difficul- ties." Ke expected, before the Council, a candid and full disclosure of tlie circumstances that had occasioned the difficulties, and that tended to increase them. He indulged the hope, that all concerned would make it a matter of SI principle to state facts with fairness and precision, and that the whole affair would be conducted with a Christian spir. it, and in a manner ingenuous and respectful. Mr. W. had not the least expectation, when an arrangement was made to obtain the advice of a Council, that the commit- tee would represent the church in the capacity of complain- ants ; or that they would call in a neighbouring minister to prepare a false and exaggerated statement, and to re- proach their pastor for his infidelity ;* and especially, when they knew that the church had never declared themselves a,^grieved with his ministry, nor laboured with him to con- vince him of any errour or offence^ A few individuals (not a fourth part of the brethren of the church) had con- versed with Mr. W, respecting his chajige of sentiments, and had manifested their disapprobation pf his opinions ; but not one of them had said, or intimated, that his er- rours were such as to be inconsistent with the piety and virtue of a Christian. The committee, however, would have the Council believe, that the church considered the errour of their pastor to be fundamental ; that the church were aggrieved, and could no longer be edified with his ministry ; and that the church had appointed them to make this complaint, I now close these remarks upon the statement with a it\Y repetitions and additions. First. The statement is virtually a complaint against the pastor, unauthorized lay the church. Thus it was consid- ered by the Council ; [see the Resuk.] It implicitly rep- resents him essentially deficient in the faith and piety of the gospel ; an unedifying and unprofitable teacher in the Christian church. Secondly. The Council was called, by mutual agree- ment, " to give their advice and direction as to proper steps to be taken for healing and terminating existing dif. ficulties." • The Rev. gentleman wh* was counsel for the committee, in the coune of his re- marks before the Ecclesiastical Council, referring to Mr, W. spoke of him as an Ari- an. Mr. W. interrupting him, wished to be informed if he meant to apply to him that name in an appropriate sense, as designating one that believed our Saviour to be • created being. His reply was, " It matters not whether he believe, with Arius, that our Saviour is a created being, or with others that deny his r;it/ (/rWa^y ; we can no more commune with him that denies the jupreme deity of Jesus Christ, than with • Pagan or a Mnssulman." 22 Tfiirdly. The committee thought it proper, in pursu- ance of the object for which the Council was called, to in- vite the Rev. Mr. Dow, of Thompson, one of the most zealous orthodox clergymen in the county, to counsel and assist them. Fourthly. The Rev. Mr. Dow accordingly came, and assisted them in preparing the complaint ; and also thought it liis duty, in the course of his observations before the Council, and in his endeavours to restore peace, to assign their pastor, on the ground of faith, no more than a re- spectable rank v/ith Mussulmen and Pagans. Fifthly. The committee who invited, or employed, the Rev. gentleman to assist them, appeared to hear him with much patience, if not satisfaction ; at least, they manifested before the Council no displeasure at the censoriousness of his remarks. Sixthly. The complaint against the pastor was never seen nor approved by the church ; nor was a copy of it ever presented to the pastor, nor its contents made known to him, until it was read before the CounciL Seventhly, Deacon Scarborough, the chairman of the committee, to whom the statement, I have no doubt, is principally to be attributed, declared openly in society meeting, only two days before it was read to the Council, that he was not prepared to hold up his hand in favour of Mr. W.'s dismission. Eighthly. Another of the committee, the same day, be- ing asked by a member of the church, if the committee in- tended to bring any complaint, or charges, against Mr. W, before the Council, replied, that he did not know whether they should bring any complaint against him, or not. This was the manner in which the business was laid be- fore the Council by the committee, and these were some of the principal circumstances attending it.* *Tbe Ecclesiisticil Council, before whom the statement wat tnide, formed the firit of May about eleven o'clock, and immediately adjourned to the meeting-hoase. Afo ter attending to the ttatcmcat and a few observations connected with it, they adjourn- ed until two o'clock ; at which time the church met according to appointment, to be ia a capacity of attending to any questions that might b: proposed, and of acting upon any subjects that should be thought proper to be laid before them. After Mr. Dow, the counsel for the committee, had completed his remarks in support of the statement, Mr. Willson observed to the Council, that the church had never seen the statement; that they knew nothing uhat it contained. He wiihed, therefore, it might bs read ta the church, that they might express their minds upon it, and manifest by their vote, 'before the Council, whether they concurred in it. Ag soon at it was proposed by 23 The Result of the Council of May 1, 1816. ** At an Ecclesiastical Council convened at Brooklyrx,' by letters from the congregational church of Christ in said Brooklyn, on the first of May, 1816 ;• — present, Rev. JOSEPH SUMNER, D.D. dxos^n Moderator^ ANDREW LEE, D. D. Scribe , ABIEL WILLIAMS; Delegates y Thomas W. Ward ; Deacon Nathan Lord J Aaron Tufts. " The Council, after forming, adjourned to the meeting- house, where the Moderator addressed the throne of grace on the occasion. " In the letters missive written to the members of this Council, they are informed, * that matters disquieting^ and interrupting the peace of the church in this place, have re- cently occurred, and are of such magnitude and deleteri- ous tendency, as to lead to a wish for advice and assistance of sister churches in endeavours to prevent their increase, and to open a way for a happy termination of them. That a committee of the church will lay matters before the Council for their consideration and direction as to proper steps to be taken for healing and terminating the existing difficulties.' " When the Council had convened and formed, the committee of the church exhibited their complain*: against the Rev. Mr. Willson, junior pastor of said church, setting forth, that he had changed his sentiments since his settle- Mr. w. that the church ihould dechre their concurrence or non-concurrencc in the jtatement of the committee, the Rev. Dr. Whitney, the senior pastor, when he founl that the church were to be called upon to expresi their tninds upon the atatement, im- mediately arofe and »djourned the meetiog, without consulting the church or council as to the adjournment ; and thus prevented the chuich from declaring their minds in regard to the statement, and to their juiuor pastor, who had j'lst been censured by Mr. Dow, the committee's counsel, as one that denied the Christian faith. This was evidently done by the senior pastor to save the committee from merited reproach. Had the church acted in the case, they would no doubt have disapproved of the state- ment. The senior pastor was aware of this ; and, to save the committee fiom the censure of the church in making a fahe repreicntation, as contained in the statement, he aisolutely, without consulting the church, adjourned the meeting until the next d3,y to hear the Result of Council. The Council, however, were satisfied of the incorrect- ness of the statement from the examination of documents, and from the agreement ot f.he parties as lo «ev<;ral sasportant facts. mcnt aniong them, respecting the doctrine of the Trinity ; that he now declared it his prevailing opinion, ' that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is not, in his own na- ture as a divine person, equal and eternal with the Father, the supreme and self-existent God.' It also appeared that t:\e church at a meeting voted, that * the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential and fundamental doctrine.' But in what sense they considered it essential and fundamental, was left undetermined. *' On inquiry, it appears to this Council, that Mr. Will- son considers Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, a divine person, and entitled to divine homage ; that he assents to the covenant which hath been used in this church as cor- rect ; and fully and firmly believes the doctrines common- ly received in the churches of our country. " It does not appear to this Council, that either the church or society in this place consider Mr. Willson as iiaving forfeited his ministerial character by his change of sentiments, or that they wish his removal from office a- mong them. "'Fhe opinion of this Council respecting Mr. Willson's sentiments is not required. E\'ery church hath a right to choose their own pastor : Mr. Willson hath been chosen as tlie pastor of this church : That he is not yet the man of their choice, appears by nothing which hath been laid before this Council. "•' The Council, agreeably to the letters sent them, can thic^reforc only advise them to follow the things ivhich ?nake for peace^ and xuherehy one may edifij another. They earnestly recommend it to this church and society to put on charity^ which is the bond of perfectness — to bcai* with one another ; — would advise them to search the scrip-' turest and Judge of themselves what is right — what the scriptures teach respecting every Christian doctrine ; to receive v/hat they find there taught, and to act conscien- tiously !)cfoie God, as those who expect to give account of themselves to God ; and to give their brethren the same liberty which they assume to themselves. " In this state of darkness and doubt, entire uniformity af sentiments is not to be expected. Christians should bear v/ith one another, looking forward to the world of jight, where they wiJl doubtkss sec eye to eye, and rejoice ^3 together in the presence of their God and Redeemer. It is gratifying to this Council to find, that this church and society have long been blessed with peace and unity to an uncommon degree. They lament any interruption of these blessings at present ; but rejoice that there is no dif- ference now apparent among them, except a difference of opinion respecting one mysterious article of faith, which hath divided the church for many centuries. It is our hope and prayer to God for them, that this disagreement may not continue to cause divisions, but that they mav love as brethren, and bear with one another as becomes brethren in the Lord. *' The preceding passed unanimously as the Result of the Council, and is witnessed by each of us subscribing the same, JOSEPH SUMNER, ANDREW LEE, ARIEL WILLIAMS, THOMAS W. WARD, NATHAN LORD, AARON TUFTS." Immediately upon the publishing of the Result, the ma? jor part of the church declared, by vote, their approbation. Several members, that were opposed to Mr. W.'s minis- try, though they were solicitous to call tlie Council to ad- vise, manifested, by their vote, that they were dissatisfied with the Result.* A little more than a month after, several brethren made it manifest by a written communication, that they could not commune with the junior pastor and brethren of the church. *' To the Rev. Luther Willson', Junior Pastor^ and to the Brethren of the Church of Christ in Brooklyn. " We, who are members of said church, having our minds impressed with a sense of the present unhappy state. both of the church and society in this place, have thought • It soon appeared, that a Result formed upon pacifick and liberal principles, and inculcating a spirit of mutual foibearance and condescension, the duty of seaiching the jcripcures, and ths right of private judgment and free inquiry, was by no means acceptable to leveral memberj of the church. Peace, upon any principle '.hat would allow to their pastor and olherj an equal right of iaterpreting the scriptures for the.in- selves, and of occasionally avowing their opinions, wa« no peace for tktm woiSh poj- sessing. 4 26 it our indispensable duty to address you on the subjectr Having a desire to follow the things that make for peacey we have endeavoured carefully to examine ourselves, and search alter the path of duty. We are constrained to say, that we think it our duty to content ourselves at present ■with a quiet and peaceable retirement ; for how can we commune together with such discordant sentiments, views and feeMngs ?* It is our earnest desire and prayer to God, that the great Shepherd would pour out his spirit upon us, ministers and people, that we might be led to a- dopt such measures as shall be for the glory of God^ and the good of his church and people in this place. Daniel Tyler, David Prince, Joseph Scarborough^ Joel Scarborough^ Moses Clark, Benjaniin Pierce^ Jezaniah Sumner, Delano Pierce^ William Bavretty Samuel Butts.\ «^'//m'10,, 181(>." * By this exampis, we leafo the method of withdiawing from a chareh, wSien we ISave a minister that wc are unwilling to hear. In the first place, if he does not preach what we beHeve to be the truth, we are not under obligation to take the steps pointed out in the New Testament, to convince and reclaim him ; but are at liberty to excite as much opposition to his ministry as we can, with the hope that the opposition we excite may induce him to ask. a dismission. Secondly, if he should not zsk a dismission, but propose to join us in calling a Mu- tual Council to give their advice, and to heal and terminate all dilHculties, we v/ill thank him for his proposal, and most cordially unite with him in calling a Council to advise us to peace. At the same time, wc will so manage the business be- fore the Council, as, if possible, to procure a Result in favour of his dismission. Thirdly, if the advice of the Council should not accord with our opinions and feel- ings, and a majority of the church should be disposed to conform to it, still we arc not to consider the Result of an advisory Council, or the voice of the church, as a nec.» essary rule for us. We think it best, as occasion requires, to be governed by a rule of oar oam. Fourthly, aa oui minister has neither asked a dismission on account of our dissatis> faction, nor the Council artvtsed to it, nor the chureti taken measures for its accom- jilishnient, we think it our duly, from a desire of peace, after a careful self-examina- tion, to content ourselves with a quHt and peaceaHe retirement. Though our covenant engagements rfq.uire us to watch over our minister and our brethren, and to haveacar« for their spiritual and immortal interest; and though we are expressly informed, that if we convert a brother who has cried from the truth, we shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins ; yet the efScacy of the means which God has ap- pointed for that purpose, we consider extremely uncertain : It is not therefore expe- dient to put forth any exertion to reclaim our minister or our brethren. After in- forming them, that their sentiments, views, and feelings, are such that we cannot with a good conscience commune with them, we, for the present, leaving them to them- selves, and praying that something may be clone for the honour of God, and the good of his church, quietly and peiiceahly retire. We do not think it proper to walk with the church of which we arc members "id all ways of holy commuuion and fellowfhip," according to our covenant ; but we will do all the good we can, in convincing the people, both at hom"* and abroad, of the errouis of our ministei, and of the foUy of those that adhere to him, peauably in a private way. + After receiving 'his communication, Mr. W. before the next communion, visited the bitthrcn who subscribed it. Two of them declared to him expressly in conveisjt- 27 Two sacramental occasions were observed, and none c' the above members were present. As they closed their communication with an earnest de- sire that suitable measures might be adopted for the hon- our o." God, and the good of the church and people in Brook,;'n, it was reasonably expected that they would soon propose some measures adapted to promote an object so desirable. Making no proposals whatever, and continuing to sepa- rate themselves from the communion, the junior pastor thought it best to make propositions to the church, em- bracing particular points of difference, and affording a full opportunity for all complaints and differences to be con- sidered and finally determined by a mutual and impartial Council, PROPOSITIONS to the Congregational Church in Brooklyn ; intend- ed, if approved by them, to be laid before the Society, for their concurrence, as far as it might be proper for the Society to act up- on them, in connexion with the Church. ** To the Brethren of the Congregational Church in Brook- iyn. *' Having contemplated the situation of this church and people in consequence of divisions, occasioned by my change of sentiments,* made known to the church, at their tion, that, thoagh they had signed the communication, they had not fully made up their minds to withdraw from communion ; and that when they signed it, it was un- derstood that they were at liberty to attend the communion, if they pleased. But they never attended. Their brethren, it is probable, convinced them that it was not best. I cannot but observe here, that one of the number that withdrew had not been able to attendpublick worship or communion for sometime,on account of sickness; and it wat not expected by many that he would ever be able to attend again, Mt.W. had frequent- ly visited him in his sickness; but he had never conversed with Mr. W. upon his change of sentiments, nor could he know any thing of his opinions but from report* WhaS was most remarkable, very soon after he withdrew, he desired Mr. W. to visit him, and asked him to pray with him, as readily as he had been accustomed t» do before; and there is not the least reason to believe, that he would have signed the commonica- tion, had he not, in his feeble situation, been particularly persuaded by his good breth- ren that visited him and conversed with him upon the subject. — —The number that withdrew was about a third p«rt of the brethren of the church. * At the meeting when this communication was made to the church, an opposer of Mr. W.'i ministry repeatedly mentioned, with much apparent satisfaction, that Mr. W. acknowhdgid kimse/f the occasion of the divisions that existed in the church and so- ciety, as if he had been the blameabU or criminal cause of those divisions. It was cus- tomary with certain individuals at that time, and has been during the controversy, to place all the sin of contention and division at the door of Mr. W. Mr. W. never, as I recollect, took it upon him to assert his guilt or innocence in the case; for he never supposed that his assertion would prove him cilhcr inpocent or guilty. 28 request, at a church meeting last February ; having con- bidered the continuance and progress of difficulties among us ; and having long expected that the brethren who were disaffected at my change of sentiments, and my ministry, would ingenuously and candidly forward some regular complaint against me, your junior pastor ; or some propo- sitions for an amicable adjustment of difficulties, or for an equitable, peaceable, and, as far as circumstances would admit, honourable dissolution of my pastoral connexion with this church ; and as no propositions of this kind have been made, nor any such proceeding adopted, (which I thought reasonable to be expected,) but a different course pursued, such as openly and decidedly to withdraw from our communion, at least for a time, without consulting our opinion and feelings upon a matter of such impor- tance ; I have thought proper to propose several things for your consideration. *' 1. Will you agree to adopt proper measures for as- certaining the minds and feelings of this church and peo- ple wit]i respect to ray dismission ; whether, all circum- That his change of sentiments has been the occasion o? divisiooi in Brooklyn, is a fact which he has uniformiy been disposed to admit, and of which he is perfectly willing that his enemies (if he has any) should avail themselves as much as they please. He has not yet discernment enough to know, that simply to be the occasion of any event, as happy oi calamitous in its effects, is a certain prooj of innocence or guilt. The con- duct of Judas in betraying Jesus, and of the Jews in crucifying him, was an occasion of the happiest effects to mankind; but Christians have never supposed Judas or the Jews to have been iooocent in thus being the occasion of so great good tj the world. The preaching of Christ and his apostles in Judea, and of his apostles in different parts of Asia and Europe, occaiioned, \n mzny places, a most important change in the leligion, customs and manners of the people, and also very serious divisions and per- secutions ; but Christians have never heen disposed to fix upon Christ, or his apostles, the imputation ot guilt, in being the occasion of such divisions. I notice these instances merely to show, that the conduct of an individual may be the occasion of good or ill effects, without furnishing any proof of his innocence or guilt. Indeed the conduct of a person is, sometimes, innocently the occasion of much evil, and crimiaaily the occasion of much good. It is proper here to state, that Mr. W. has often observed, publickly and privately, that he was willing the church and society in Brooklyn should enjoy their opinions Upon the Trinity, undisturbed by any efforts on his part to the contrary, provided they would grant hia the peaceable enjoyment of his opinions, without endeavouring to bring him into reproach for his supposed errours. While patiicuUr pers&ns were diligently employed in endeavouring to produce un- easiness and disaffection in the minds ot others, on account of his change of sentiments, he always considered himself at liberty to declare his views and give his reasons occa- sionally, both publickly and privately. From the time he altered his opinions, he had _ seldom introduced his peculiar sentimen's into his publick discourses, or conversed upon them privately, except when the subject was introduced bv others, or circum- stances lequired an apoiogy for opinions that were supposed to be dangerous ; and he never felt nor manifested the least reluctances in communing with his Tiinitarian breih- len, but, on the contrary, uniformly dicUrcd his dispositioa and leadiaeg} to coiC'. $aune witii theni| on all gscatlons. 29 stances considered, tliey wish, or think it best, or not, that my ministerial relation to this religious society should be dissolved ?* *' 2. Will you unite with me in calling a mutual and impartial Council, to determine, from a full representation and view of our situation, whether it is proper and best, that I should be dismissed from my relation to you as a Christian minister ; with this condition, nevertheless, that such a Council shall give their opinion with respect to sev- eral things to be hereafter noted ; to the correctness of which opinion, both with respect to these things, and the event of my dismission, all concerned, as far as it respects their conduct, shall subscribe and be satisfied ?t " I will now note the several things above referred to. " 1. That it be submitted to the opinion of the Council, whether it was proper, that the vote of the church, Febru- ary 16th, viz. * The doctrine of the Trinity is an essential or fundamental doctrine' — should pass and be continued, considering the circumstances attending it, without their explaining, when repeatedly called upon, whether it was meant, or not, to be considered, in its application, as essen- tial to Christian fellowship, or communion at the Lord's table. *^ 2. That it be submitted to the Council, whether it was a suitable and justifiable conduct towards a pastor, for the church (or, more properly, their committee) to make the statement which they did, with the circumstances ac-. companying it, before the Council convened the 1st of * Mr. W, wished to ascertain what proportion of the church ar>d society were in fa- vour of his dismission, lliat when the Council should take up the subject, they might be furnished with necessary information to form a proper Result. + Some were solicitous to know what was meant by subscribing and being lat'sfied. Mr. W. explained, and was willing lo h.table to the church.] " It does not apjjear from your communication (and ob^ scrvcitions upon it at the last churcli meeting) that you arc willing to express your minds in regard to calling a Coun- eil to terminate the divisions among us, until particular 35 sqirestions which you proposed, relative to the junior pas- ■tor's dismission, are determined by votes of the church ^nd society ; the decision of which questions, according to 't/our view of the case, may, or may not, render a Council necessary ; whereas, in our view, a Council is indispensa- bly necessary, from what we already know of our situation, to terminate the diiiicultics in the church, unless our divis- ions are immediately healed among ourselves ; an event exceedingly desirable, but which we see no good reason to expect at present. We are not able to discover, at present, a reasonable prospect of peace and tranquillity restored to the church in any other way, than by referring our differ- ences to the advice and judgment of others. We therefore think it reasonable and best to adopt the propositions of the junior pastor, as to all points of difference that they contain, to be referred to a Council for their consideration and opin- ion ; and also to abide by the decision of such Council ; while, at the same time, we are entirely willing, and are ready to agree, that the aggrieved, and all concerned, should refer any propositions or questions that they may wish, with such reasons as they may please to offer in sup- port of them, to the advice and judgment of said Council; provided, that all persons, whose characters may be impli- cated or impeached by such questions or propositions, may have a fair and full oppoi-tunity for their own defence. " And we are farther willing that the communication of the junior pastor to the church be subject to any correc- tions or explanations that may be necessary, without mate- rially affecting the substance ; or that may render it more acceptable, and better adapted to the object in view. We cannot but think that, thus far, in regard to your second communication, you will be ready to meet us, as to all matters of difference that relate to the church, in referring them for a settlement to the decision of the Council pro- posed ; and also in relerring our proceedings as a church (as far as it may be necessary) to the society for their con- sideration and concurrence. *' We now offer some remarks upon the method you pro- pose, for ascertaining the minds and feelings of this church and people with respect to the dismission of the junior pastor. *' The method you propose, in reference to that object, may be seen from what follows, as it is expressed in your communication : * We do think the first step to be taken 3t is, to see whether the church do approve or disapprove of Mr. Willson's sentiments ; and, secondly, to see whether the church do or do not wish the pastoral relation to be dissolved. And, thirdly, we are Dr. Lee, of Lisbon, Conn. KI^ Pope, of Spencer. Mass. Mr. Aikins, of Killingly, Conn. Mr. Fiske, of ^'e\v--Bramlree, Mass. Mr. Williams, of Dudley, Mass. Mr. Whipple, of Charlton, Mass. Mr Fisher, of Windham, Conn. Mr. Nelson, ui Leicester, Mass, A letter was sent to the second church in Canterbury. Conn, of which the Rev. Mr. Learned is pastor. A delfgatc from that cliirch was present at the ordination ; the past«r was not. In th*! choice of the Ordaining Council, the church exercised an equal right with the pastor elect. To the calling of this Council the aggiieved biethten would noS agree. Mr. W. further proposed, that the aggrieved brethren should name a particuljr number of ministers, of such principles and character as they might choose; and that he would name an equal number, and then they would agree upon the chairman. He also proposed, that the chairman should be a known Trinitaiian; but liberal in his- views of communion. He was willing to agree upon a Trinitarian of the same general character with lie Rev. Dr. Whitney, the senior pastor of the church in Brooklyn, or the Rev. Dr. Latbrop, of Wcst-SpfiDgfield. Mr. W. was aware of the difficulty of fixing upon any gentlemm precisely of this stamp. But he considered the proposal on his part aUogetricr liberal, and was ready serioiisly to join in selecting one as near- ly of that character as could be found Among others, Mr. W. mentioned the Rev. Dr. Puffer, of Berlin, and the Rev, Mr. Doggett, of Mendon, Mass.; gentlemen with v/hom he had no personal acquaintance, who had been named by a respectable oitho> dox clergyman in Connecticut, and who, he thought, upon inquiry, would be ascer- l»ined to be of the principles and character desired, The latter of these gentlemen had also been frequently mentioned with respect by one of Mr. W.'s principal opposeri. But no agreement was effected. At length the Rev. Mr. Pope, of Spencer, Mass. was nam- ed, by a'friend and cotcinpoiary of his ai col lege, a leading member of the church inop' position to Mr. W. Mr. W immediately agreed that Mr. P. should be the man. The gentleman, however, after a moment's reflection and consultation with his asso-' ciates, concluded not to agree upon Mr. Pope as chairman of the Council. What pos- sible objection theie cculd be lo Mr. P. who is particularly esteemed among the or= thodox for his amiablencss and good si^nsc, as well as integrity and soundness in the faith, I am unable to conjecture. In ei/ery attempt to agree upon a Council, the op. posers of Mr. W would content to no gentleman as chairman, but an individual, who, they were satisfied, aunsidcred a belief in the doctrine of tbe Triuity eiseotiaj to Chri^r. lian fellowship. . . frequent in the course of the season, bi?t for a time had been discontinued, were ai^ain revived. These meet- ings were favourable for maturing their plans, and making their arrangements. Some of the brethren who had ap- peared neutral and undecided, and others who had contin- ued in communion with Mr. W. and who had approved of his propositions, (but were somewhat anxious on account of his change of opinion,) were frequently and earnestly so- licited to attend their meetings, and, I may well suppose, to assist in concerting measures for the discipline or re- moval of their pastor. Several were, at length, induced to join them. Thus they continued their efforts, until they probably obtained a majority of individuals, active and ef- ficient members of the church, to come into their meas- ures. About the middle of December, a charge of here- sy was prepared, and one of their number was appointed at a private meeting (as it afterwards appeared) to present it to Mr. W. He however presented it as an individual, without any intimation or appearance of others' concurring. The charge was as follows : " You, Rev. Sir, are charged with departing from the faith once delivered to the saints, by denying- the doctrine of the Trinity, and the real proper deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, which I consider as a great and dangerous heresy, of which I entreat you as a Christian brother to repent and make retraction. WILLIAM BARRETT. «»3rooklyD, Dec. 17th, i8i6. " To the Rev, Luther Wilhon:' This charge was handed by Mr. B. without any intro- ductory observations. It was attentively read by Mr. W. After reading it, he observed, that he supposed nothing would give satisfaction, but a renunciation of what was considered his errour, and an acknowledgment of his her- esy, as stated in the charge. Mr. W. stated to Mr. B, that he should be glad to agree with him in opinion, if he could consistently with the convictions of his own mind. Mr. B. thought it unnecessary to enter into any convert sation upon the subject, as they had repeatedly conversed upon it before. He proposed to Mr. W. the only terms of reconciliation. Mr, W. wished them to be committed 44 to writing, that he might take them into consideration, and give him an answer the next day. Mr. B. consented. ^^ Brooklyn, December 18M, 1816. *' In explanation of my views relative to a charge made by me against the Rev. Luther Willson, contained in my communication to him, dated December 17th, I now state to him the only conditions which will afford reconciliation and satisfaction to me, and render the charge of no effect against the said Willson ; which conditions are as follow, viz. That he, the said Willson, shall agree with the church in calling a Council for his dismission, and be disipissed, or shall repent, and make retraction of his great and dan- gerous heresv, which is specified in the above-mentioned charge. ' WILLIAM BARRETT." Mr. W. upon deliberate reflection, could not comply with the conditions. Every person will judge for himself of the reasonableness and propriety of such conditions at any time, and, especially, held out to a pastor by a Chris- tian brother after presenting him vi^ith the charge of heresy. But he probably had his instructions ; and if there was any thing wrong in the affair, it must be placed to the ac- count of his brethren, who privately appointed him to bring forward the charge. After some days, Mr. B. with two of the brethren, vis- ited Mr. W. to take what was called the second step, pointed out in the 18th of Matthew. Mr. B. at the first of his interview with Mr. W. called upon them to witness his charge of heresy. It appeared, that the brethren con- sidered it the onlv business of their visit to be witnesses of the charge against their pastor. Mr. W. having ex- pressed his opinion, that it was always the duty of the com- plainant who felt himself injured, first to labour with his oflcnding brother to convince him of his errour or offence, and also the duty of those whom he should take with him, to join in the friendly office of admonition, one of them, appar- ently in doubt as to the obligation that was upon him, entered into conversation with Mr. W. upon the subject. The oth- er continued silent, considering it his only concern to be a witness of the charge of his brother B. As the brethren were about to take their leave, Mr. W. observed, that if they considered it a Christian duty to hear the apology of 45 * the accused tor his supposed errour, and to use their tn- deavoura to reclaim him, he wished for another interview, that he might lay before them his reasons in full for the opinion that was deemed heretical, and that he might have opportunitv to hear them upon a subject which they con- sidered of the greatest importance. They left him, appa- rently undetermined as to their duty in the case : they did not, however, think proper to visit him again. Mr. B. a few days after, handed Mr. W. the foUowmg complaint, addressed to the church : " To the Church of Christ in Brooklyn. ^'Brethren AWD BELOVED, . " The subscriber would lay before you the foUowmg complaint, viz. That the Rev. Luther Willson, colleague pastor of this church, has departed from the faith once de- livered to the saints, by denying the doctrine of the Trmi- ty, and the real proper deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, de- claring it to be his prevailing opinion, both in publick and private, that the Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God, is not in his own nature, as a divine person, equal and eternal with the Father, the supreme and self-existent God ; which sentiment we consider as an essential errour, so essential, that we can no longer, in conscience, sit under his admin- istration. The first and second steps have been taken in order to reclaim him, agreeable to the 18th of Matthew, but without producing the desired effect. This is there- fore to request this church to take due cognizance of the same, and to take proper measures for the Rev. Luther Willson to be brought to trial, where evidence of the above charee may be exhibited, and a regular decision obtain, ed.* " WILLL\M BARRETT. *' Brooklyn, Dec. 28th, 1816." • It is wortbv of note, that this brother, in telling his complaint to the church, (though it never reached any church, except the Consecution,) began in the "^g^^"> and at length became plural. The subscriber first appeared as an individual. When he had reached the middle of his complaint, he became we : '• which sentiment, hesays, «'eu« consider an essential errour, so essential, that we can, in conscience.no longer sit un- der his administration." I shall here undertake to account for this change from singular to plural. The probable method of accounting for the plural pronoun rue, is the habit of this brother and his companions.of saying we at their private meetings, where individuals acting in concert, and composing one body, were probably identihed la the complaint. The complainant, in company with his brethren, being accustomed to aay we on these occasions, it was not strange that, in copying or making out his com- munication to the church, he should begin in the singular, imperceptibly become plu- yal, and fhea fpin rcturo to the singular, ind snb&ciibe the complaiatas ao ladivjriu?.. AS After reading the complaint, which was handed on Sat- urday, Mr. W. inquired of Mr. B. whether he wished to have it communicated to the church the next day. Mr, B. observed, that as to that he might do as he pleased. After a moment's reflection, Mr. B. preferred that it should not be communicated at that time. It appeared from cir- cumstances, that Mr. B. furnished Mr. W. with the com- plaint, to apprize him of his intention soon to lay it before the church for their consideration. The same day that the complaint was received, Mr. W, had put into his hands by Roger W. Williams, a deacon of the church, the foUov/ing appointment of a church meeting : " To Brother Roger TV. TViUiams, a member of the Church of Christ in Brooklyn. ** You are hereby notified, that there will be a meeting of the church held at the meeting-house on Tuesday, the 51st instant, at one o'clock, P. M. to hear and consider the subject matter of complaint brought by brother Barrett a- gainst the Rev. Luther Willson for heresy, and to adopt £uch measures as may then be thought proper.* " JOSEPH SCARBOROUGH, Deacon of said Church, ''Brooklyn, Dec. 21th, 1816." The same day on which the complaint and notification were put into the hands of Mr. W. Dr. Whitney, the se- nior pastor, who did not, at that time, attend publick wor- ship, sent for Mr. W. the junior pastor, to call at his house, that he might inform him of the wish of several members of the church, that he, (the junior pastor,) after * It is obssTvablc, that Dca. Joseph Scarborough, in his notification Jo Dea. Roger W. Williams, addressed him as a brother, and not at an officer of the church. What could be the reason of this ? Was it possible for Dea, S. at the moment he wrote thii, to be so under the influence of unchristian feelings, as intentionally to insinuate, by neglecting to give the person notlEed his proper title, that he was unworthy of his of- fice in the church ? Was it mere accident or inadvertence ? Or could he suppose it s more affectionate mode of address to one with whom he had not been disposed to commune for about six months ? Or did he, in fact, possess so much sensibility and delicacy, in assuming to himself the power of appointing a church meeting, as to feel the impropriety of sending out a formal notificatioD to an officer in the church of the same rank with himself; and therefore, to give himself an air of superiority suited to the authority he had assumed, think it proper, in the aotification, to address Dee. V/. as a biothefg and ia signing it, to tubscrilj: hinneff u no c^ccr^ as dtacon oi tine church ? m llie exercises of the sabbath, the next day, should appoint a meeting of the church, to be held on Tuesday, at one- o'clock ; the same time stated in the notification of Dea, S. Dr. W. observed, that the business of the meeting he did not know ; of that he had not been informed. Mr, W. then presented him the notification signed officially by Dea. Scarborough, of prior date, containing the appoint- ment of a meeting at the same time, and stating the busi- ness of the meeting. Mr. W. supposed one notification to be sufficient, if it was regular and official, as it claimed to be. He was therefore unwilling to interfere, unless the senior pastor should direct the meeting to be publickly warned on the sablxith. Mr. W. observed, that he was willing to mention publickly the request that had been made to Dr. W. without taking upon himself the respon- sibility of appointing a meeting. The senior pastor, ap- pearing somewhat embarrassed at the officiousness of the good deacon, said to Mr. W. that on the whole he must do as he thought proper. Accordingly Mr. W. after the publick exercises of the sabbath, stated what had been communicated to him by the senior pastor, read the notification signed by Dea. Scarborough, and o))served, that he should not presume to interfere with the appointment of Dea. S. which claimed to be official, and was of earlier date. He also observed, that, in view of all circumstances, the brethren of the church would probably meet at the time specified ia the notice of Dea. S. At the time appointed for the meeting, the brethren of the church were generally together, and a neighbouring clergyman had come, at the request of Dea. Scarborough, to perform the duty of moderator, if a meeting should be held, and he should be requested by the church. The business was thus far planned and executed by Dea, S. and the aggrieved brethren with a fair prospect of success. This worthy gentleman and his associates probably con- sidered themselves the true church, and therefore thought it proper for them privately to know each other's minds, and to make what arrangements they pleased ; and, no doubt, considered it the duty of others readily to conform to them, not attempting in any way. to impede the progress of their pious and benevolent designs. But, unreasonable 48 and unchristian as it may seem, when the brethren of tiie church came together, some members were not altogether siatisficd with appearances ; and they even had the presump- tion (if I may be allowed the use of so strong a term) to call in question the regularity of the meeting, and to in- quire into the authority of Dea. S. to appoint a church meeting, and call in a moderator, without the knowledge and concurrence of the church, the pastors, or the other deacon. They thought it contrary to usage, and an extra- ordinary assumption for a junior deacon (junior in ofiice, though senior in age) to take it upon himself, imsolicited by the church, or any of its officers, officially to appoint a church meeting for the important purpose of dealing with a pastor for heresy, or of referring him over to the higher powers. It will also be recollected that this gentleman, who now seemed to have upon him, unrequested, the care of the whole church, less than three months before, openly declared himself a /j^r^z/ man^ and consequently an unsuit- able person to preside as moderator, when chosen by the cliurch. But the motives and feelings of men sometimes change, as well as their opinions ; and those that were once the most partial, may soon become the most disinterested and most unwearied in their exertions for the common good, and consequently most entitled to the respect and confidence of their brethren. It may appear to some absolutely inexcusable, and an indelible mark of reproach, in the conduct of a pastor, to be seen among the number that should object to the regu- larity of a meeting, warned by a deacon without the con- sent of the church, or any other of its officers ; but truth and justice require, that facts should be impartially stated ; and it was a fact, that Mr. W. the junior pastor, with otliers, objected to the regularity of the meeting, considering the circumstance of its notification. He also was so uncandid and imprudent, as seriously to declare his suspicion of par- ticular management on the part of the aggrieved brethren^ at their private meetings, to ascertain, by a previous knowl- edge of the minds of individuals, that a majority of the brethren, who would attend a publick meeting, were pre-- pared to sanction by vote, any thing that individuals of their number might propose.. 49 The aggrieved brethren appeared extremely anxious to have the meeting formed by calling in the clergyman be- fore-mentioned, then at the house of the senior pastor, to preside. Mr. W. objected, at the same time declaring himself willing to have a meeting appointed to be held the next day, or at any time that would be most agreeable to the brethren ;* and he had no objection to the Rev. gen- tleman, invited by Dea. Scarborough, as moderator. The meeting not being formed, and the members of the church conversing with considerable freedom one with an- other, Mr. W. requested liberty of his brother Barrett (who, according to arrangements, was soon to appear his accuser before the church) to ask him a question. Mr. B. readily consented. As soon as he had consented, and the question was about to be proposed, several of his brethren, Dea. S. and others, (who were particularly dis- cerning, and whose attention was always awake, when there was a possibility of being exposed to their disadvan- tage,) immediately discovered great uneasiness, and warm- ly opposed Mr. W.'s putting any question to Mr. B. and disapproved of Mr. B.'s consentmg to hear it. This cir- cumstance only tended to confirm Mr. W. in the suspi- cion, that there was something undiscovered, that would not appear so well upon examination before the publick, as it did in a more private circle, where all were more of one accord and one mind. He therefore insisted upon putting the question to Mr. B. as he had consented to hear it, and as it was no interruption to any business be- Ibre the church ; observing, at the same time, that Mr. B. was at liberty to answer it, or not, as he pleased. Mr. W. observed, that if any members of the church chose not to hear the question proposed publickly , he would go aside with Mr. B. and propose it in the presence of only two or three of the brethren. The aggrieved, notwithstanding, were so highly offended at his determination to ask Mr. B. a ques- 'tion aside in the presence of a few of the brethren, and at his going aside with Mr. B. for that purpose, that they left • The Teaion why Mr. W. objected to the meeting being held at the time, and wish- ed it to be deferred until the next, or some future day, (though it was noc then stated,) was the probability of obtaining a knowledge of circumstances, that migh; pieveni . fundamental errour, and to prevent the increase of difficulties in the church. I will here mention some facts, that may be considered in connexion with the representation contained in this letter. These five brethren, calling themselves a committee, were the principal and most influential opposers of Mr. W.'s ministry. Three of the five, (one an officer of the church, and another a gentleman of publick and liberal ed- ucation) in the course of this year, in which so much had been done to convince a pastor of his errour, had never manifested a wish, nor sought an interview, to converse * Th: brethrea that made this communication, style themselves a Committee. Oi what ihey were a committee I know oot. Bat I will tafoim the publick, that tbey were oot a committee of the church. 5B with him upon the subject in question ; to inquire into the reasons that induced him to alter his sentiments, or to use their endeavours to convince him of his errour. Immediately after the vote of the church upon the doc- trine of the Trinity in February, 1816, in which they con- curred, Mr. W. expressly desired them to call upon him, that he might have opportunity to converse with them. But, anxious and earnest as they were for his recovery from unbelief, and for his spiritual welfare, they never thought it proper, either as Christians or neighbours, to re- gard his request. I will here remark, that after they with- drew from communion, the pastor called upon them, to as- certain their views and motives in withdrawing ; and one of them (Dea. Joseph Scarborough) at a particular inter- view upon withdrawing from communion, after manifest- ing a decided disinclination as to conversing with the pas- tor, very soon overcoming his reluctance, with a latitude and occasional severity, not the most worthy of imitation, conversed with him freely. At this time, the opinions of the pastor, among other things, were a subject of remark and reproof. I think, however, it may be said with pro- priety, that his opinions were not in any respect a subject of serious and candid discussion. The conversation was very desultory, and related principally to circumstances adventitious and incidental. Again it may be added, that Mr. Barrett, in taking what are called the tegular steps of discipline according to the 18th of Matthew, was cautious, at his first interview with the pastor, when he presented the charge of heresy ; and al- so at the second, when he came with two of his brethren ; not to enter into conversation with him, in the way of dis- cussion or admonition, upon the difrerence of opinion that existed between them. It is also a remarkable ftict, that but two of the brethren that had appeared in opposition to the pastor (one of them Mr. B.) had ever addressed him in direct terms as chargeable with heresy, until application was made to the Consociation ; and that comparatively few, not a fifth part of the brethren of the church, nor hajf the number of the aggrieved brethren, had ever admonished him of his errour -a-, fundamental. This is the zeal — these are the sincere, patient, and persevering exertions of man.?/ to reclaim a pastor from w i-xVx\ errour. Alas ! the cbsti- 56 nacy^ that could remain unyieldingy that could persist ia errour, after the efforts of so many^ and means so power- ful, affectionate, and long continued, had been employed to remove it. Copy of a Letter from Dr. Welch, to the junior pastor of the church in Brooklyn, citing him to appear before the Consociation, to an- swer to the *■' crime of heresy." " Windham, Jan. 16, 1817. «' Rev. Luther JVillson, Junior Pastor of the Chureh in Brooklyn. <' Sir — On a charge against you for the ' crime of her- esy, in departing from the f^ith once delivered to the saints, by denying the doctrine of the Trinity, ai;d the real proper deity of Jesus Christ,' application l^as been made that the Consociation of Windham County may be con v^ened. A meeting of said Consociation will accordingly be had, at the house of Capt. Daniel Tyler, in Siiid Brooklyn, on the first Wednesday in February next, at 10 o'clock, A. M. to hear and determine said case. You are therefore notified of said meeting of Consociation, that you may appear, and offer such plea and arguments in your defence as you may think proper. MOSES C. WELCH, ModW. of the last meeting of Consociation,'''* The meeting of the Consociation was held at the time appointed. The Consociation being organized, they adjourned to the meeting-house to attend to the business for which they "were convened. They met according to adjournment. A paper was then exhibited, containing a charge and complamt against the junior pastor of the church, and other things in connexion. The following were the contents : ^* Mr. Barrett's first charge is in the words following, viz. * You, Rev. Sir, are charged with departing from the faith once delivered to the saints, by denying the doctrine of the Trinity, and the real proper deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, which I consider as a great and dangerous heresy, of which I entreat you as a Christian br'.ulier to repent and make retraction. WILLIAM BARRETT. ' Brooklyn, Dec, Vlth, 18 16.' 57 ^Brooklyn, Dec, 18 tk, 181G. ^ III explanation of my views relative to a cliarge made by me against the Rev. Luther Wiilson, contained in my communication to him, dated Dec. 17th, 1816, 1 now state to him the only conditions which will afford reconciliation and satisfaction to me, and render the charge of no effect against the said Willson ; which conditions are as follow, viz. Tiie said Willson shall agree with the church in call- in? a Council for his dismission, and be dismissed, or shall repent, and make retraction of his great and dange- rous heresy^ which is specified in the above-mentioned charge. WILLIAM BARRETT.' * To the Church of Christ in Brooldyn. ^Brethren and beloved, * The subscriber would lay before you the following complaint, viz. That the Rev. Luther Willson, colleague pastor of this church, has departed from the faith once de- livered to the saints, by denying the doctrine of the Trini- ty, and the real proper deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, de- claring it to be his prevailing opinion, both in publick and private, that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is not, in his own nature, as a divine person, equal and eternal with the Father, the supreme and self-existent God ; which sentiment we consider as an essential errour,* so essential^ * •' An essential crrour." How essential ? "So essential that we can no longer incon< science sit under his administration." lUhis be a rule to determine that an errcur it essen<> till. viz. the np'nions and feelings of individals, meinbers of a church, who happen to be dissatisfied »viih a minister on account of his belief or disbelief of some particular dociriiie — I have '.cason to apptehend, that, in almost every church, a few disaffected members would find it easy to procure the denunciation and dismission of iheir pas- tor, p'ovidsd they could find \\\^ Consoda'aon of the same, opinions and feelings witb themselves. Thus a tew members of a church, and the Consociation, may a^wavs find a reason for deposing a minister, of whom they disapprove, even if the church as a body are satisRed with his ministry ; and the criterion, by which they determine his orrour to be essential, is not the authority of scripture, or the divine rule, but their own conscier.ces. The amount of it is this : If a minister believe what / believe, and preach the doc- trine that / think to be true, he must hi sound in tke Jaiih : the doctrine which he preaches is essentiil truth If, on the contrary, he preaches what /cannot consdentioas- iy hear, his doctrine cannot be true ; his crrour is essential. This is a remarkably easy method of determining when the irrrorir of a minister is f,ssentiaL I can think of but one inconvenience in this method of determining an es- sential errour. The inconvenience is this. Professing Christians have sometimes a great share of self-complacency, and are extremely conscious oi the perttction of their otun knowledge ; ?nd consequently by taking upon themiclves very freely the inspection and oversight of ethers' faith, they are apt to be troublesome to their more scrupulous and less confident brethren, who cannot see things so clearly, and who are sometimes so unfortunate as to differ from them in opinion. 58 that we can no longer, in conscience, sit under his admin- istration. The first and second steps have been taken in order to reclaim him, agreeabl}' to the 18th chapter of Mat- tiiew, but without producing the desired effect. This is therefore to request this church to take due cognizance of the same, and to take proper measures for die Rev. Luther Willson to be brought to trial, where evidence of the above eharge may be exhibited, and a regular decision obtained. ' WILLIAM BARRETT. ^Brooklyn, Bee, 28thy 1816.' ^Brooklyn, Jan. 3, 1817. ' To the Rev. Luther Wilson^ *SiR — With regard to the communication handed to you by Capt. Tyler, it is my wish not to have a church meeting ; but to bring the matter before the Consociation for a final decision. WILLIAM BARRETT.^ " A true copy from the files of Consociation. " S. P. WILLIAMS." The following was the Result of the Consociation : ** At a meeting of the Consociation of the County o£ Windham, regularly convened, in Brooklyn, at the house of Capt. Daniel Tyler, Feb. 5th, 1817, A. M. to hear and decide on a complaint against the Rev. Luther Willson, junior pastor of the first church in said place — " The following elders and messengers of the churches,, present : From the church in North-Mansfield, Rev. Moses C. Welch, D. D. ; Uea. Frederick Freeman. First church in Woodstock, Rev. Eliphalet Lyman ; Dea. Jedcdiah Kimball. First church in Lebanon, Rev. Zebulon Ely ; Broih. Joseph Leach. Church in South Society, Killingly, Rev. Israel Day. Second church ia Ash ford, Rev. William Storrs ; Broth, Allen Bosworth. First church in Hampton, Rev. Ludovicus Weld ; \ Dea. Abijah Fuller. First church in Thompson, Rev. Daniel Dow ; "Dea. Moses Bisby. Second church in Canterbury, Rev. Erasius Learned ; Broth. Asa Burgess. ¥irst church in Canterbury, Rev. Asa Meach ; Broth. Joseph Simms, 59 (Presbyterian) church in Mansfield, Rev. Samuel P. Williams j Dea. Amasa Palmer. Second church in Woodstock, Rev. Alvan Underwood ; Broth. John Perrin. Second church in Killingly, Rev. Roswell Whitmore ; Dea. James Danielson* First church in Pomfret, Rev. James Porter ; Dea. John H. Payson. Third church in Woodstock, Rev. Samuel Backus ; Broth. Rensellaer Child. First church in Windham, Rev. Cornelius B. Everest ; Dea. Charles Lee. Second church in Pomfret, ; Dea. Amasa Storrs. North church in Canterbury, ; Broth. Cornelius Adams. Church in Plainfield, ; Dea. Abel Andross. Church in Voluntown, ; Broth. Daniel Campbell. Church in Chaplin, ; Broth. Joseph Martin. *' The Consociation being organized by the choice of the Rev. Moses C. Welch, D. D. Moderator, and the Rev. Messrs. Williams and Dow, Scribes, was opened with praver by the moderator. " Adjourned till half past one o'clock, P. M. to meet at the meeting-house. Met accordingly. Prayer by the moderator. A request was made by certain members of the church, by the junior pastor of the church and by a committee of the first ecclesiastical society in Brooklyn, respectively, to be heard by counsel.* Granted. *' On behalf of the members of the church at whose re- quest the Consociation was convoked, a paper was exhib- ited, containing the charge of heresy against the Rev. Lu- ther Willson, in denying the doctrines of the Trinity, and the proper deity of Jesus Christ ; a statement that the reg- ular steps of discipline, prescribed by the Head of the Church in such cases, had been used to reclaim him, with- out success ; and also a request to the church to take proper measures to bring the offender to trial. *' It was then stated, that for this purpose the Consocia- tion had been convened, before whom the complainant ap- peared, ready to substantiate his charge. " Against proceeding to trial, it was objected on the part of the pastor, and also on the part of the society, that the Consociation have not jurisdiction in the case. * Here is a mistake in point of Fact, though undoubtedly unintentional. The Result n not correct^ in stating that the society requested to be heard by counsel, The (ociety bjd no counsel ; none appealed ia their bshalf but their committee. 60 '*The society, in support of their objection, presented a narrative of the proceedings of the several parties concern- ed during the unhappy difficuhies of the church. " After a deliberate, and, as they trust, candid hearing, both of pastor and society, the Consociation came to the following Result : — It appears from the records of the church and the concessions of the parties, that the church in Brooklyn was originally and voluntarily consociated ; that it has acknowledged this relation by a series of subse- quent consociational acts ; and that it has neither forfeited its privileges, or surrendered them. The constitution of the churches does not admit, that a consociated church inay be deprived of its privileges by the act of its pastor, or of any association of pastors ; but subjects the pastor of such church, no less than any other member, to its disci- pline. It supposes every person entering into connexion with such church, acquainted with its government, and solemnly covci.anting ta co-operate with it in carrying its system of discipline into effect. The Consociation, there- fore, are unanimously of the opinion, not only that they have jurisdiction in the case, but are imperiously bound, since all the attempts to adjust the difficulties in the church by Mutual Council have proved abortive, to listen to its complaint,* and, in humble dependence on the Head of the Church, endeavour to restore it to peace. "Adjourned till to-morrow, half past 8 o'clock, A.M. *' Feb. 6th — Met according to adjournment : attended to the minutes. Adjourned to the meeting-house : pray- er by the moderator. Several members having been chal- lenged by the accused, as having prejudged the case, were examined and acquitted. " The Rev. Daniel Dow, having requested from mo- tives of delicacy to be excused from acting in Council, had liberty to withdraw. " The counsel for the complainant proceeded, after of- fering evidence that the regular steps had been taken, to support by testimony the charge set forth in the complaint. Adjourned till 2 o'clock. Met accordingly. Attended ♦The Result, referring to the church, speaks of «' its complaint." To prevent misapprehension, I observe, that the chnrch did not authorize the complaint. They had not seen it ; nor had th(y aoy agencjr in calling the Coo&ocution, or laying the complaint before tbem. 61 iui ihcr to testimony. AdjoLirned for one hour. Met ac- cording to adjournment. Heard the accused at length in his own vindication, and the complainant by his counsel. Adjourned to the house of Capt. T3 ler. Met according- ly. Deliberated on the case. "x\djourned till half past 8 o'clock to-morrow morning. **Feb. 7th — Met according to adjournment. Prayer by the moderator. " The Consociation, having taken into serious consid- eration the whole subject submitted to their decision, agreed in the following result : *' First. That the charge against the Rev. Luther Will- son of denying the proper deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and consequently the mode of the divine bubsistence revealed in the gospel, is supported. '* Secondly. That the denial of this doctrine is a depart- ure from the fliith once delivered to the saints. " Thirdly. That this denial by the Rev. Luther Will- son disqualifies him for the office of a teacher in the Chris- tian church ; inasmuch as it is a rejection of an essential part of the counsel of God, a denial of the record God has given of his Son. '* Accordingly his pastoral office in the churches in our fellowship and connexion is now declared to be ended, and his pastoral relation to the church in Brooklyn in particu- lar ought to be, and is hereby dissolved. " In this decision, the Consociation assume no right, and take no liberty, other than is common to all men act- ing in the same relation and circumstances ; the right of exercising their own judgment, and the liberty of obeying God. Painful, therefore, as is the duty they have been called to perform, to have shrunk from it, for the con- sciousness of fallibility ever to be acknowledged, would have been virtually to annihilate our obligations to the church, and to its glorious Head. " While they deeply lament the necessity for the course they have taken, they are supported by the consciousness, that a supreme regard to their divine Lord and Master, and a sincere desire to fulfil their covenant engagements to the church, have guided and governed them in that course. "' Intreating the church and society to cultivate peace on Christian principles, and tenderly admonishing its latc^ 62 pastor to return to the Christian faith, tliey commend you iill to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and make you wise unto salvation. *' The following paper was handed in, when the Result was thus far made up. * To the venerable Ecclesiastical Council 7iow convened at Drooklyn., to hear and determine on a c/iarge of heresy iwainst the Rev. Luther Willson. * We, the subscribers, parties concerned, viewing it more desirable for the interests of religion and for the peace of the society in this town, that the case now under con- sideration should be setded by a Mutual Council, do re- quest the Council now convened, to direct to the choice of such Coimcil to l.car and determine the case of Mr. Will - son. The business of the JVIutual Council shall be to dis- miss Mr. Willson, and set him on such grounds, as to ministerial character, as they may judge proper. The Council to be chosen shall be of such a character, and chosen on such principles, as shall be approved by the Council now convened. * For Luther Jfillson^ J.NELSON. JOSEPH SCARBOROUGH, in behalf of the aggrieved Brethren^ JOHN PARISH, SHUBAEL BROWN, NATHAN WITTER, Jr. for the Society, '* ''• After consultation on this subject, the question. Will you accede to the above proposal ? was put, and passed in the affirmative. " Mr. Willson, on his part, having, in the apprehension of the Consociation, receded from the conciliatory terms in the above agreement, it was voted that the minutes be closed and published. " Passed in Consociation, Brooklyn, 7th February, 1817. " MOSES C. WELCH, Moderator. " SAMUEL P. WILLIAMS, Scribe, ■ ^' x\ true copy of the original minutes. *' S. P. WILLIAMS." 63 The Result of the Consociation states, that " agakist proceeding to trial, it was objected on the part of the pas- tor, and also on the part of the society, that the Consocia- tion had not jurisdiction in the case." The following was the declaration of the pastor against the authority of the Consociation to take cognizance of the complaint : "Brooklyn, Feb. 5, 1817. " To the Elders and Messengers of the Consociated Churches^ of the County of JVindliam^ now convened at Brooklyn to examine and detennine 7ipon the charge of heresy a- gainst the Rev. Luther JFiUsony Junior Pastor of this Church. *' The said Willson does hereby declare, that he does not consider himself amenable to this body, for such rea- son, or reasons, as he shall think proper to offer. " LUTHER WILLSON." After the reasons were offered, and the Consociation de- cided that they had jurisdiction, the pastor, still consider- ing his reasons against their authority to be good, and such as ought to have prevailed, he repeated in substance the protest which he had made before ; at the same time re- questing liberty to appear before them according to cir- cumstances, as far as their views of propriety and their in- dulgence would permit. ''Brooklyn, Feb. 6th, 1817. ** The subscriber again declares against the right of the jurisdiction of this Ecclesiastical Council over him for her- esy, or any crime ; at the same time begging leave to ap- pear before them, as far as may be proper, and as occasion may require, while they proceed to examine and deter- mine the charge of heresy presented against him by Wil- liam Barrett, a Christian brother. " LUTHER WILLSON." An important objection made to the jurisdiction of this Council, rested upon a vote of an association of ministers, in which the junior pastor of the church in Brooklyn con- curred, and in which he formally and expressly declared his dissent from the claims of consociation, aixl his adher^ ence to congregational principles. 64 The vote of the i.\ssocuition was as follows : " At a meetmg of the Eastern Association of the Coun- ty of Windham at the h.ouse of Rev. Elisha Atkins, in Kilhngiy, Oct. 12, 1813— present, Rev. iMessrs. JOSIAH WHITNEY, D. D. MocVr, ANDREW^ LEE, D. D. Scribe, ELISHA ATKINS, LUTHER WILLSON. *' A Consociation having lately been holclen in Canter- bury, by letters written by the Rev. Moses C. Welsh and Ludovicus Weld ; and the churches under the pastoral care of members of this Association, residing in the county of Windham, having been called on to send delegates to said Consociation ; and as, in our apprehension, the design of establishing a Consociation in said county is to bring the churches into bondage, on the motion of the moderator, the following expression of our sentiments on the subject was voted unanimously, viz. " 1. We believe that every regular church of Christ is invested by the great Head of the Church \vith plenary povv'er to judge, of itself, and for itself, what is right in matters of faith and discipline ; and that neither churches nor their pastors have power given them of God, to lord it over one another, or censure one another, because they use the power Christ hath given them. '■'■ 2. We censure none because they differ in opinion from ourselves respecting these matters ; are willing to hold communion with them, to ask counsel of them, and give counsel to them, as occasion may require; but we disclaim all right to bind them by our decisions, or to con- j:idcr ourselves bound by theirs, farther than we judge them agreeable to the divine rule. *' .3. We conceive it to be our duty to maintain and de- fend the liberty of the churches, and to stand fast ourselves in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not 5,11 ffer any man or body of men to bring us into bondage. "4. As such are our views, such our understanding of the scriptures, we discard the claims made by the Conso- ciations in this state, to give law to the churches, and to judge for them in matters of faith or discipline, and de- clare ourselves adherents to the congregational system. 6d *^ The above a true copy from the records of said Asso- ciation. « Test, ANDREW LEE, Scribe:' The counsel for Mr. W. who discussed the question of Jurisdiction, has furnished the following with his own hand, as the substance of the argument founded upon the act of Mr. W. as a member of the Association. " The above declaration of the Association, of which Mr. Willson had become a member, was a principal ground of objection made to the jurisdiction of the Consociation over the junior pastor of tlie church in Brooklyn. And this was conceived to be sufficient, even if no other objec- tions had been offered relative to the same point. The ar- gument was presented to the Consociation in the following light. " A Consociation, according to the Saybrook Platform, is composed of pastors and churches, who mutually and re- spectively agree to be bound by the rules there prescribed for such bodies. Each must be bound by its own act, and not by the act of the other. Granting, therefore, that this church were now unquestionably connected with the Con- sociation of Windham County, it would not follow that the pastor is under its jurisdiction. He is not, unless he has placed himself there by his own act. " That this is not an unfounded assertion, contrived up merely for the present occasion, may be shown from the publick declaration of the Consociation in Tolland county, in defence of their own proceedings in the dismission of Mr. Abbot, of Coventry. In assigning the reasons why their jurisdiction extended to him, which he had underta- ken to deny, in a publication relating to the subject, they say, (page il,) 'No one, i. e. no minister, was formally inquired of, upon his associating with a consociated body, and receiving the charge of a consociated church, whether he viewed himself as belon^ng to consociation. It be- longed to the individual formally to decline ; to manifest that he " differed or dissented," if such were his choice. The propriety of this is admitted even by the " statement." But no such act of his appears till after the complaint of his church ; but, on the contrary, in every thing by which 9 his brethren since 1790 expressed their *' consent" to be considered of the Consociation, he conducted Hke them.' *' As this is the hingttage of an Association in a matter exactly similar to that now before this body, it will surely be admitted as an authority proper to be appealed to and re- lied upon. It is admitted, that a pastor may dissent from his church, * if such be his choice,' as to being in connex- ion with consociation ; and the reason why Mr. Abbe's dissent was not considered as valid by the Consociation of Tolland County, was, because it came too late. It was ne>t offered until a complaint had been made against him to the Consociation. The acts by which Mr. Abbot is supposed to have signified his consent to belong to, and to be under the jurisdiction of the Consociation, are stated in the following quotation : * He took charge of a oonsociated church, succeeded a consociated pastor, and joined the as- sociated pastors, who in a ibrmal manner voted, and en- tered it upon their records, that they formstd their body according to the general plan of ecclesiastical polity adopted in the Sayhrook Platform. Notwithstanding which, he did not follow the rule which himself had sancaoned, he did not ^'withdraw or dissent," but continued with the Association, wasappointed and acted as regibter oi the same several years, and by appointment attended as a delegate the General As- sociation. His brethren, therefore, cor.siderthemselves and him as having belonged to consociation, and do not agree with him, that " it cannot admit of a moment's doubt, thai he was independent of its jurisdiction." ' " Here we have the reasons in full, why Mr. Abbot was claimed by the Consociation in Tolland. They are princi- pally derived from his connexion with the Association of consociated pastors, and not manifesting that he dissented from them with respect to consociation. If, then, these were the reasons upon which the Consociation claimed ju- risdiction over Mr. Abbot, and the course which he ought to have pursued to render himself independent of that juris- diction is here pointed out, what can be the ground of such claim over the junior pastor in Brooklyn ? He has surely dissented in language not to be misunderstood. He has not only not joined an Association of consociated pastors, as did Mr. Abbot ; but he has joined one which said with united voice, that they * discard the claims made bv tli** 67 Consociations in this state, to give law to the churches, and to judge for them in matters either of faith or discipline;' and which ' declared themselves adherents to the congre- gational sjstem.' '* This declaration or dissent of the junior pastor of this church was made in the most publick body with which he had any connexion,^ It was not delayed until a complaint was entered against him, nor until difficulties began to arise between him and his people ; but it was made the first time that the subject was ever proposed to him ; at the very time that he united with the Association to which he be- longed, while there was entire peace and union between him and his church. By what act, then, has he ever put himself under the jurisdiction of this body ? " Will it be said, that, by taking charge of a consociated church, in connexion with a consociated senior pastor^ he has thus shown his choice to be of the Consociation ^ When the junior pastor, now before you, was ordained, no reference was had to the Consociation of Windham Coun- ty. The church in Brooklyn had never intimated to Mr, Willson that they considered tliemselves as belonging to it. And you have evidence in this associational act, that the senior pastor of this church, whose ministerial life in this place has been more than half the time that Consocia- tions have existed in the state, held this language to his colleague from the beginning, * We have no connexion with any Consociation.' For he and all in the Associa- tion unite in saying, that an attempt was then making to establish a Consociation ; which is to say, that they consid*. ered the one formerly existing, as extinct. It was for this rea- son that they raised their voices against it, and imanimously opposed the existence of a Consociation withm tlieir limits. What propriety, then, could there have been in Mr. Will- son's dissenting upon his ordination ? If the aged and ven- erable pastor of this church was not able to inform him, whether they then belonged to a Consociation, who could furnish the evidence ? Was it to be expected, under such circumstances, that Mr. Willson could have had the most remote apprehension, that, by settling in Brooklyn in the manner he did, he consented to put himself under the ju- risdiction of this body ? Has he ever done a single act by 6i8 vVhicti such consent can be fairly inferred ?* On the cou, trary, has not every act which relates to the subject held out this language, * I am not of the Consociation ?' Will it then be said, that there is that kind of right in this body to exercise jurisdiction over Mr. VVillson, which they could wish to have, in case they proceed ? And will they proceed in the trial of this cause, when it is so contrary to the wish of almost all concerned ? It is believed, that, up- on due consideration, this body will not view it as expedi^ ent to attend to the complaint exhibited against the junior pastor of this church. In this belief, the subject is sub- mitted to your candid and impartial consideration." This argument, which maintains the right of the junioi' pastor to dissent^ in the manner in which he did dissent, by his act in the Association of which he was a member, does not expressly deny the connexion of the church of which he was a pastor, with the consociated churches of Wind- ham county. That the church in Brooklyn once belonged to the Con- sociation of the County of Windham, and " had acknowl- edged this relation by a series of consociational acts," was not disputed. It was readily admitted by all parties. At the same time, important circumstances and considerations were presented to the Council, which furnished presump- tive evidence, that the present Consociation of Windham * I will here observe, that it was stated before the Consociation at Brooklyn, that Mr. XK at a church faceting manifested his assent to belocg to the Consociation. Tt was represented, that a motion was once before the church to be unconsociatcd, and that Mr. W. prevented the church from acting upon it. The following was the fact : — The Rev Dr. Whitney, the senior pastor, a short time after the vote of the Association, (which contained an entire dissent from the Con- aociation intended to be tstabliihei in the county, and an express declaration in fa> your of the congregational system,) brought forward a motion before the church, sim- ilar to the one acted upon by the Association. By this motion, the church were called upon, not to withdraw ordisconnect themselves from a Consociation to which they be- longed ; but publickly to declare their opinion against a consociational system of government, and their strict adherence to congregational principles. When the motioa was before the church, one of the brethren arose, and obseived, that he was not ac- quainted with Consociations, and, for his part, he wished for an opportunity to obtaiit information upon the subject before he acted. Upon this, Mr. W. the junior pastor, pbserved, that if any mrmber of the church wished particularly for information upon the subject, it was reasonable and proper that he should have time to obtain it. It was said, that, in consequence of this observation of the junior pastor, the motion was not acted upon. The meeting was dissolved; and, as th« church from that time ne\'cr re- <;eived any letter to meet in Consociation, the subject was never called up afterwards, until the difHculty respecting Mr. W.'s change of sentiments had commenced. Mr. W. the junior pastor, gave do opinion in favour of consociation ; nor did he iatimate that fie considered the church consociated* This is the act of Mr. W« by which he is nid tohtvc a^snited to be of the Coniociation. 69 County Wci3 not the same as that which existed half a cen- tury before ; and, consequently, that the church in Brook- lyn, which had in no instance sent messengers to the pres- ent Consociation, or in any manner acknowledged its au- thority, could not be considered as belonging to it, or any of its members as subject to its jurisdiction. I shall not here be at pains to note the particulars that were then pre- sented, but shall enter immediately upon the examination of documents, with which I was then unacquainted, which are now in my possession, and which furnish satisfactory and conclusive evidence, distinct from any thing that is yet brought into view, that the Consociation had not juris- diction in the case. I, We have the opinion of a convention of ministers and delegates from the churches of Windham Original Asso- ciation, in the year 18Q0, that there was then no Consocia- tion in the county ; that some visible bond of social imiou among the churches was much needed, to unite their views and interests, and to promote their particular and general welfare. The convention, in pursuance of an object so desirable as the purity, union, and prosperity of the church- es, adopted and recommended a Plan of Consociation ma- terially different from the system of consociation formerly established by the constitution of the churches, called Say- brook Platform. This plan was adopted and published by the convention, accompanied with an address, recommend- ing it to the approbation and acceptance of the several churches within their limits ; but it never went into effect ; it was not adopted by the churches to which it was pro- posed. It, however, furnishes the clear and decided opin- ion of the ministers and delegates of most of the churches in the county of Windham, that they were not then con- nected with a Consociation, but were solicitous that a sys- tem of consociation, or some visible bond of social union, should be established among them. The following is the plan recommended by the conven- tion in 1800 : " A Plan of Consociation adopted and recommended by a CoU' vention of Churches in JVindham County ^ A'by. 1800. " The subject of Consociation, or some visible bond of social union among our churches, having been, for years, a matter of serious consideration with the associated 70 ministers of Windham county, tliey, at length, agreed on a special meeting for that purpose, and thrit the churches be requested to attend by delegation. A circular letter was, accordingly, prepared, and sent to the several church- es, requesting them, individually, to send a delegate, to meet in convention, for the purpose of deliberating on this important business. The motion meeting the approbation of every church to whom a letter was addressed, the con- vention met, and tlie following is the remit of their deiib- trations : " At a convention of the ministers of the original Asso- ciation of Windham county, with delegates from the seve- ral churches, at Mansfield, Nov. 11, 1800, for the purpose of conferring on a mode of Consociation, or some visible bond of social union among our churches, there were present, Pastors. Delegates from ihc churches* !?er. Ms.SBTS.T.bDnms Brockiaay, MoJV. Moften C. Welch, Scribe, Brother Frederick Freemari^ John Giirlcy, Deacon Daniel Abelf .'Andrew Judson, Deac. JVoah Fain, Elijihalct Lymartf Dcac. Jedidiah Morse, Walter Lyon, Deac. Joshua Grosvenory Knock Fond, Brother Isaac Kendall, Zehulon Ely, Brother Solomon Williamsj Israel Day, Brother David Cady-, William Graves, Deac. jiaron Lyon, William Storrs, Deac. William Walker, Jjudovicus Weld, Brother William Hundngtonf Elijah WaterrnaUf Deac- Thomas Tileston, John Sherman, Brother Benjamin Storrs, Daniel Doiv, Brother Thomas Dyke, and [ We stWoodstock vacant.] Brother Ebenezer Smith. " The moderator opened the convention by prayer ; af- ter which they adjourned to attend publick worship, and to proceed to business immediately after divine service. '•"Met accordingly, and continued the session, by ad- journment, until the evening of Nov. 12th, during which, alter solemn addresses to the Father of Light, for counsel and direction in the important affair, a Plan of Consocia- tion was exhibited, and seriously discussed, consisting of the following articles : '^Article I. The Consociation shall consist of those pastors ajid churches, by delegation, who agree to adopt 71 {his and the following articles ; which shall be the consti- tution of church government for the Consociation ot' Windham County, and shall go into operation when nine churches shall agree to and adopt the same. ** Art. II. Every church that has a settled pastor shall be represented by one ruling elder or delegate, to be chosen annually. Every church that has no settled min- iscer, and is wishing to support one, shall be entitled to be represented by one ruling elder or delegate. The elders o. delegates not known, shall produce certificates from the churches which they represent. "Art. III. A majority of the Consociation shall be competent to the dispatch of business. "Art. IV. A Moderator shall be chosen by ballot, who sliali continue in office one year ; a Scribe to minute the doings, and reasons of any judgment that may be ren- dered ; and a standing Register to record the same. Any other officers that may be found necessary and convenient, shall be annually appointed. " Art. V. The Consociation shall have cognizance of all things that regard the welfare of the particular churches belonging to the body. " Particularly, " 1. They shall be considered as having the right, at aM times, to originate, and adopt, for themselves, and propose to the churches, any rules or regulations, which they may judge to be calculated for the edification and well ordering of the same. "2. It shall be considered as their duty to assist the pastors and churches of the body, by their counsel and ad- vice, in aay cases of difficulty, when applied to for the purpose. " 3. rhey shall have a right to censure irreclaimable pastors, churches, or individual members of the churches of the body, who fall into heretical sentiments, or scanda- lous immoralities, upon complaints regularly laid before them. " 4. A complaint cannot be received by this body, or considered as coming regulaily before them, unless the previous steps have been taken, pointed out by our Lord, in Mat. xviii, 15, 16, 17. 72 ** 5. Wiien a member of any particular cluircli, belong' ing to this body, shall view himself aggrieved, or injured, by his being laid under censure, he shall have the right of appeal to the Consociation. "Art. VI. Pastors elected by churches belonging to the Consociation, shall, previously to their ordination, be approved by the body, or their committee. The Conso- ciation shall also examine and approbate candidates for the gospel ministry. ** Art. VII. In Consociation every member shall have an equal vote. "Art. VIII. The Consociation shall meet, annually, on the first Tuesday in September ; at which meeting a sermon shall be delivered. And when any emergency shall require, it shall be the duty of the moderator, or, in case of his absence, the senior pastor, with the advice of one other member, by a circular letter, stating the busi* ness, addressed to each minister, or delegate, where the church is vacant, to convene the body, at a time not less than ten days after notice. It shall also be the duty of the person, or persons, who apply for such special meeting, seasonably to convey the letters. " Art. IX. At the annual meeting, the members shall report to the body the state of religion in each particular church, viz. the number of its members, additions, dimi- nutions by death, excommunication, or otherways, the preceding year. " Art. X. The foregoing articles may be amended by calling a special convention, whenever a majority of the churches shall signify their desire for the same to the Con - sociation. And in case of emendations agreed upon by such convention, they shall be referred to the individual churches for their adoption, and when adopted unanimous- ly by them, shall become a part of this constitution. " Foted, unanimously, in convention, that we agree tc- the foregoing articles, as a system of church government agreeable to the word of God ; and they are accordingly recommended to the several churches for their concur- rence and adoption. "^ yoted^ to appoint Messrs. Welch, Eli/y Waterman^ Sherman, Dow, IVilhams and Freeman, a committee to correct, and prepare this result for the press, and procure ^3 a publication of tlie same, together with some arguments and scripture proof in support of it ; and, also, to add a se- rious address to the churches, on the subject of Christian union and fellowship. "Attest, THOMAS BROCKWAY, Mod'r, MOSES C. WELCH, Scribe:' In looking over this Constitution, regarding it as a me- morial of the wisdom and piety of this large and respecta- ble convention, we are led to ask, why this solicitude for years to form and establish a Consociation in Windham county, or some visible bond of union among the church- es, if the churches were then in possession of a system of Consociation, voluntarily adopted, and sanctioned nearly a century before, by the highest ecclesiastical and civil au- thority ? Was it possible that these ministers and dele- gates (many or most of them) when forming this Constitu- tion, and recommending it to the several churches for their adoption, were actually consociated according to the plan of ecclesiastical polity contained in Saybrook Platform ? If they were thus consociated, in what light are the proceed- ings of this convention to be viewed ? Surely they must bear the character of open hostility to the ecclesiastical constitution of the state. But will any believe that the members of this convention were thus employed in pre- paring and recommending a plan of Consociation, when, at that very moment, they knew that their churches were con- sociated, and were bound to maintain an inviolable regard to that system of union, government, and discipline, con- tained in their ancient constitution? None will believe this. We therefore conclude, that, when these fifteen pas-^ tors and as many delegates unanimously adopted and rec= ommended to the churches a plan of Consociation, or a vis- ible bond of social union, they wTre unanimously of the opinion, that the Consociation, v/hich once existed, had sometime become extinct, and that, consequently, they were at liberty to form one upon such principles as appear- ed best adapted to promote the union, order, and general interest of the churches. The proceedings of this convention furnish the best evidence that we could have of the united opinion of min- isters and churches, that in the year 1800 tliere wa? no 10 Consociation in Windham county, no bond of social unioa among the churches, no constitution of church govern- ment, by which the " churches were consociated for mutu- al affording to each other such assistance as might be req[- uisite upon all occasions ecclesiastical."* And if, as is evident from the unanimous opinion of the convention, there was no Consociation in Windham county in the year 1800, '^hen the present Consociation must have been form- ed and established since, and could have no more juris-- diction over a pastor G employed in planning and recommending a system ot Consociation) did not considc:. thf- churches as consori.itcd as having^ a constituli:^ , a visible lend of social union. lalso to know, that the church in Brooklyn from that time (and how much longer I shall not inquire) had not been connected with any Consociation at the time of the trial of the junior pastor. The first Consociation of which wc have any account since the convention of churches in 1800, was in the year 1812, in Eastford society inAshford. From the book of rec- ords kept by the Consociation, the following is extracted : " At a Consociation of the churches of Windham Orig- inal Association,*- coiivened by letters missive at the house of Ephraim Spaulding, in Eastford society in Ashfordj Dec. 22, 1812— present, &c. " The jurisdiction of the Consociation was objected to. The question being submitted, whether the church in Eastford and its pastor are in regular connexion with the consociated churches, voted in the affirmative." This Consociation was called to judge upon a complaint of a member of the church against the pastor. How it was formed, or on what jjrinciple jurisdiction was claimed, I know not. The records do not furnish the information ; nor have I received it from any other source. Tlie next meeting of a Consociation was at Canterbury. *' At a regular meeting of the Consociation of Windham County, convened at the meeting-house in the first society in Canterbury, on the first Tuesday in October, 1813, there v/ere present," &c* I have good reason to believe, from various considera- tions, that the present Consociation of Windliam County was formed at Canterbury in October, 1813. 1. It may be seen by comparing the records, that the Consociation at Canterbury, nine months after the meeting at Eastford, was not the same as tliat at Eastford nine months before. The council at Eastford Vv'as a *' Consociation of the churches of IVindham Original Association,'''* The council •There were two Associations in the county of Windham — the Original and the EaiUrn. The chuich in Brooklyn belonged to the Eastern Association ; they could not, therefore, belong to ihe Consociation at Eastford, because this Consociation included only the churches of the Original Association. The church in Brooklyn, therefore, was necessarily excluded from the CoQJociation at Eastford, aad had oo igtter sent to them tJU meet ia that council. 76 at Canterbury was " the Consociation of Wmdham County,'^ The former was limited to the churches of a particular As- sociation ; and in consequence of this, several churches in the county (the church in Brooklyn among the number) were necessarily excluded. The latter was so designated as to include all the churches in the county that should choose to become connected with it. 2. If the Consociation at Canterbury, in October, was the same as that at Eastford in December before, it was manifestly irregular in its appointment. This none will deny ; for the irregularity was such as could not have occurred, in the opinion of any one conversant with Say- brook Platform, through inadvertence, or mere mistake* The Platform very plainly made it the duty of the mode- rator of the last meeting of the Council, if he were living, w'lxh the advice and consent of two more elders, to call a Council (or Consociation) when they should judge there was need of it. " That member who was chosen at the last session of any Council to be moderator, shall, with the advice and consent of two more elders, (or, in case of the moderator's death, any two elders of the same Consocia- tion,) call another Council within the circuit, when they shall judge there is need thereof."* The Rev. Dr. Welch, of Mansfield, was moderator of the Council at Eastford. It was therefore his duty as moderator, as he was living, with the concurrence of two more elders, when they saw there was need of a Council at Canterbury, to appoint a meeting, and call the consociated churches together. But the Rev. Dr. Welch did not appoint the meeting at Can- terbury as moderator of the last Council, as the Platform directs. The Rev. Moses C. Welch and Ludovicus Weld (claiming no official authority) sent out letters to all, or nearly all the churches in the county, desiring or request- ing them to meet in Consociation at Canterbury. On the supposition that a Consociation was theti formed without any regard to its connexion with the Council at Eastford, these ministers considering this Council evi- dently irregular, and therefore of no account,! might send •See the loth article of discipline. + These gentlemen probably iinew, that the Consociation at Eastford was irregnh^t because (sccording to the unanimous opinion of the convention in 1800, of which they wcic members) at the time of its appointment there was do Consociation in the 'County. And, evea if, at that titDc, there wa< a Coasociation ia ehe county, the Coan^ n out letters as they did, not signing them officially as be- longing to a Consociation, without any impropriety, or the violation of any rule ; and all the churches, or any of them, that came together, whether formerly consociated or not, might join in Consociation according to the tenour of the letter, call it a regular meeting, proceed to business, and make any appointments or arrangements for the future, that they should think necessary and proper. 3. The Rev. gentlemen that wrote to the churches to meet and join in Consociation, sent letters to several churches, who were knov/n never to have had any connex- ion with Say brook Platform, or a consociational form of government, but to have adopted a different constitution, or to have had no constitution, other than the Bible, and that which they had formed for themselves. And can any believe, that these rentlemen, when sendino: out their let- ters, considered themselves as acting in an official capacity, and authorized by Saybrook Platform to notify churches to meet and act in Consociation, which, from their establish- ment, had no more been consociated than the churches in Rhode-Island or Massachusetts? This is incredible. It is not within the limits of probability or conjecture, that these gentlemen, who published their opinion in 1800, that no Consociation existed in the county, assumed to them- selves, in 1813, the authority and responsibility of calling together churches that were never consociated, to sit and act in a Consociation that had long been established by a particular constitution. The conclusion therefore is this. These ministers, and many others, had no doubt been anxious for years, that a Consociation, or some visible bond of union among the churches, should be established in the county. They had made an attempt in 1800, and failed. But the object was too important to be given up. A council of the churches^ claiming to be a Consociation, (on what principle it is not easy to imagine,) met at Eastford ; but its limits extended cil at Eastford was evidently irregular, according to Ssyirook Platform ; and therefore they did not think it proper cfidaUy to appoint a Consociation at Canterbury on the ground of its connexion with the Council at Eastford. The Council at Eastford could not have b^en a regular ecclesiastical tribunal according to Saybrook PUtform.. because one church (if not more) that was represented in that Council, had never adopted this Platform ; but was originally established by vote, and had continued, upon Cambridge Platform, a constitution of church discipliaej essactially diifcrsol from the constitution foimed at Saybrook. no farther than a particular association of ministers. A considerable number of churches, some once consociated, and others separate, congregational, or upon Cambridge Platform, were not included. As a general union in faith, order, and discrpline, was a favourite ol^ject with many of the ckrgy as well as laity, it was probably thought desira- ble to extend the privilege of such union to all the church- es in the county, that were in imm.ediate fellowship, and that v^'ould agree thus to unite. The Rev. Messrs. Welch and Wekl, in all probability, from the influence of these principles and views, and v/ith an assurance of the concur- rent approbation and influence of many, who felt an inter- «fst in the same benevolent object, wrote tp the several churches in the county, (w hether formerly consociated or not,) requesting them to meet in Consociation at Canter- bury. These gentlemen very prudently sent out their let- ters (if I am not mistaken in my recollection) not in terms of official authority^ as members of a Consociation, but ia the capacity of individuals. A letter was sent to the church in Brooklvn. It was in the care of the senior pastor ; but being overlooked or for- gotten at the proper time to read it publiekly, it was not communicated to the church. 4. Another circumstance worthy of notice, was the subse- quent omission of sending letters to the church m Brooklyn. The Consociation voted at Canterbury, that they would henceforward meet annually. The first annual meeting was at Lebanon ; the next at Thompson. The church in Brook- lyn, that was requested to send a messenger or delegate to join the meeting at Canterbury, received no notice to meet at Lebanon or Thompson. No letter was sent. Why this omission — why this neglect, if the church in Brooklyn belonged to the Consociation ? Was it not well known to the moderator, when he appointed these several meetings, that the church in Brooklyn was formerly consociated ? Was not the name of the Rev. Josiah Whitney, a pastor of iht church, before the publick, (in a late publication in the iieighbourhood of the moderator,) as a member of the Con- sociation of Windham County, Avhich met at Coventry in 1761? ii the Consociation at Lebanon or Thompson was the same as that at Coventry, the church in Brooklyn would Ir9 as certainly have been called upon lo send a mes- senger or delegate, as any other church in the county* But the church in Brooklyn was not notified to send a messenger to either of these meetin-i^s. These circum- stances furnish a strong presumption that the present Con^ sociation is not the same as that at Coventry in the year 1761. If it had been the same, the church in Brooklyn would have received due notification v/ith others. But on the supposition that the present Consociation commenced its existence and operations at Canterbury, we account for the omission of Brooklyn in after appointments. The church in Brooklyn, not sending a delegate agreeably t& the request of Messrs. Welch and Weld, the moderator would easily conclude, that they were not disposed to joia the Consociation, and consequently it would be of no use to send to them again. If the church in Brooklyn was. consociated, it was certainly incumbent upon the modera- tor, in appointing the meeting at Lebanon, and also at Thompson, to give due notice to this consociated clmrclv and call upon them, to send a delegate. Otherwise the meeting, in both cases, must have been irregular. Surely the moderator cannot be charg-eable with such an oversis:ht: or neglect. Some of these circumstiiuces, not the least important, were offered to the Consociation at Brooklyn as an objection, and were considered by the pastor as afford- ing presumptive evidence against their jurisdiction. 5. I shall now bring into view proceedings of the Con- sociation at Thompson in October, 1815, from which i* will appear, that the. present Consociation is not the samt as formerly o. " At a meeting of the Consociation of Windham Coun- ty in Thompson, October 3, 1815 — " Votedy That this Consociation, formed generally on the plan usually styled Saybrook Platform, put such a con- struction on the 4th article of discipline, as shall allow ev- ery church to send only one messenger or delegate ; which delegate shall have an equal vote with an elcfer or pastor. " \\\ consequence of the above vote, the Rev. Eliphalet Lyman, and Jonatlian Morse delegate, from the first church in Woodstock, and the Rev. HoUis Sampson, and Abiiah Dean delegate; froiu th>e second church in Ashford^ e;; • 80 liibited their credentials, and took their seats as members of the Consociation." The Consociation, at this meeting, furnish the informa- tion, that it was formed generally upon Saybrook Plat- form ; and they aj^ree to put such a construction upon a particular article of discipline as to limit every church be- longing to it to the representation of one messenger, and as to grant to each messenger an equal vote with an elder ; whereas the article itself, in language too plain to be mis- understood, allows a church to send more than one mes- senger, and does not allow a messenger an equal vote with an elder. The Consociation, to make way for the admis- sion of churches into their union, that would not become consociated without an accommodation to their views, put what they call a construction upon an article of discipline, directly contrary to its obvious and undisputed meaning ; and also to make way for the construction, which the terms of the article could not possibly admit, they declare the Consociation to have been formed generally (not entirely and exclusively) upon the plan usually styled Saybrook Platform. The qualifying term generally was evidently used to show, that this Consociation, when it was formed, though it adopted Saybrook Platform, as a constitution of church government, upon general principles, in preference to forming one essentially neiv^ did not bind themselves to adhere to it invariably, according to its true meaning ; but considered themselves at liberty, in some instances at least, to deviate, to omit, to alter, and ptobably to add, as par- ticular circumstances and the interest of religion might render it necessary or expedient. Suppose this Consociation to be the same as that which was knov/n in the county half a century before ; what was the necessity of giving publick information, at this late pe- liod, that it was formed upon Saybrook Platform ? Did any one ever imagine, that the Consociation of Windham. County was formed upon any other platform ? If not, what was the propriety (not to say necessity) of a vote, contain- ing information of a fact, that was never disputed ? Con- tinuinp- the supposition, that this Consociation was the same as formerly, I would further inquire, by what means 81 its members, at Thompson, had ascertained, that it was formed upon Saybrook Platform in a restricted and quali- jied sense ; not wholly and exclusively, but only generally? To what ancient records had they access, by which they came to the knowledge of the important fact, that the Consocia- tion of the County of Windham, in its earliest establishment, did not adopt the ecclesiastical constitution of the state, uhsolutely and without reserve ? Let them bring forward an authentick record, from which it will appear, that the first Consociation in Windham county was " formed gen- erally upon the plan styled Saybrook Platform ;" and that it allowed each church to send only one messenger, and this messenger, without exception, to have an equal vote with an elder ; and the present Consociation will so far be acknowledged the same as formerly. But until this record is produced, it will not be thus acknowledged ; and some, no doubt, will believe, that many who were in the vote declaring it to have been formed generally upon Saybrook Platform, were better acquainted with the time, place, and other circumstances of its formation, from personal knowl- edge, than from ancient records in their possession. I would further remark upon the proceedings at Thomp- son, that, in consequence of the vote declaring the Conso- ciation to have been formed generally upon Saybrook Plat- form, and allowing each church to send only one messen- ger, and each messenger an equal vote with an elder, the pastor and delegate of a particular church, that was for- merly consociated, became members of this Consociation. It is particularly observable., that this Consociation pass- ed a votCy containing information, that it was not formed entirely upon Saybrook Platform ; and also, by vote, put such a construction upon an article of discipline as was di- rectly contrary to its obvious meaning, in order to take in- to their connexion a pastor and his church, who were both declared by a Consociation at Eastford, not three years be- fore, to "be in regular connexion with the consociated churches." The Rev. Mr. Sampson, and his church, (the second church in Ashford, Eastford society,) over whom the Consociation at Eastford claimed jurisdiction in 1812, would not, it seems, jom the Consociation in 1815, until a vote was passed conformable to their views, and to make it evident, that the Consociation at Thompson was \$\ some 11 respects upon adifterent plan from that, upon which it was established before, when the pastor and church were con- sidered as belonging to it, and subject to its jurisdiction. This circumstance is sufficient, of itself, to determine the question, that the Consociation at Thompson in 1815 was not the same as that at Eastford in 1812 ; for none will be- lieve, that the Consociation at Thompson were so com- plaisant to the Rev. Mr. Sampson and his church, as to al- ter or modify their constitution of church government to receive them into their connexion, when, in Jact, they were consociated already, and both the church and its pas- tor had long been an essential part of their community. 6. The present Consociation is known to be established upon a principle, in one respect, so different from the for- mer Consociation of Windham County, that it could have no jurisdiction over a pastor of the church in Brooklyn, even if the pastor were consociated agreeably to the an- cient constitution of the churches. The Platform says, " that, according to the common practice of our churches, nothing shall be deemed an act or judgment of any Council, which hath not the major part of the elders present concurring, and such a number of the messengers present as makes a majority of the Council.'* Thus the Platform makes the concurrence of a major part of the elders of the consociated churches, or of the elders that are present, at the meeting of a Council, indispensably requisite to the validity of any decision. An act or judg- ment of a Council J which has not the concurrence of at least a majority of the elders present, is nothing. The pastor of a consociated church, upon trial for any offence, is hereby assured, that the representation of the churches can in no instance affect his ministerial and pastoral rela- tions without the consent of a tnajojity of the consociated elders. The Council at Brooklyn, that formed the Result upon a charge of heresy against the junior pastor, consisted of fourteen elders and nineteen messengers. According to the Platform, not less than eight of these fourteen elders must have concurred in the decision, and such a number of messengers as was necessary to make a majority of the Council. Otherwise, the act or judgment of the Council would be of no more account, than that of as many citi- S3 zens or freemen, assuming to tliemselvcs the jurisdiction of an ecclesiastical tribunal. The Platform made it nec- essary,' that, of thirty-three elders and messengers present, (the whole number of the Council,) seventeen (which were a majority of the Council) should concur in the Result ; and that eight of the seventeen should be elders. But the Consociation at Brooklyn was, infact^ establish- ed upon a principle essentially differe?it. It appears from the proceedings, froin a particular act of the Consocia- tion at Thompson, that each messenger was entitled to an equal vote with an elder. This principle having been set- tled before the meeting at Brooklyn, it was in the power of the messengers of that Council, of themselves^ to de- nounce and depose the pastor for heresy, (if they were dis- posed to do it,) even if every elder had raised his voice a- gainst it. And how is it possible, that a Consociation, which, in a particular case, does not necessarily require the concurrence of an individual elder present, in order to a decision, should be the same as that, which, in all cases, necessarily requires the concurrence of a majority ? When it may be ainrmed in any instance, without absur- dity, that the Consociation does not require the concur- rence of a single elder present^ and, at the same time, does require the concurrence of, at least, a majority of the el- ders present^ in reference to the same act, then, and not till then, can the Consociation at Brooklyn, in 1817, be con- sidered, on any prmciple, as entitled to jurisdiction, or claim to be established upon the same constitution as formerly^ when it adhered to Saybrook Platform, without restriction, as a rule of discipline in church government. 7. Another proof that the Consociation at Brooklyn had not jurisdiction (on the supposition that the pastor and church were consociated agreeably to the Platform) is the fact, that several churches, represented in that Council, had never adopted the Platform as an ecclesiastical constitution. One church that was represented in the Consociation at Brooklyn, has covenanted, from its first establishment, to refer any difficulties that should render a Council necessa- ry, to a mutual, decisive Council of neighbouring church- es, without any reference to Cotisociationy or Saybrook Platform.^ *Thc church here alluded to, b«Iorgi to the west paiiih in Sillingly, jometimes cillea Wutfield. 84 Other churclies were represented in the Council at Brooklyn, which had formally rejected this Platform, and were strictly congregational ;*" or which were established upon a different constitution, called Cambridge Platform. \ These churches, by their delegates, acted as judges upon a charge of heresy against the junior pastor of a church, which never had any connexion v/ith a Consociation that was not established solely upon Saybrook Platform, What would be thought, if the chief justice of the state of Connecticut should send out a communication, request- ing the supreme judges of Massachusetts to sit and act in a judicial capacity, and give judgment in a particular case, as members of the Supreme Court of Connecticut ; and these judges should comply with the message, and become a part of that court as assistants and associates in judg- ment? Would the decision of such a court be legal? Would it not be illegal, and the court be liable to impeach- ment and degradation ? What, then, shall we say, when the moderator of a Consociation, the presiding officer of an ecclesiastical tribunal, calls upon churches, that do not be- *The following is an extract from the records of a church in Canterbury, that was fepresented in the Consociation at Brooklyn : '* Although it be not expressed in the aforesaid covenant, that we actually dissented from Saybrook. regulation of church discipline, yet we ever understood ourselves to have done it. We do therefore here solemnly declare with our whole hearts, that we do dissent from the discipline set up and expressed in said regulation ; it appearing to us to be contrary to the authority of Christ in his church, set up in his word, which we look upon complete : and none can pretend to amend or add to it, without cast- ing open contempt on Christ and his Holy Spiritj The said regulation takes the pow- er from the brethren of the church, and also puts an absolute and decisive power ia the Consociation, contrary to Christ ; and also has created an association, not created 'or warranted by Christ in his word. These things, this church looks upon to be an- tichrijtian, unsciiptural,and leads to a papal usurpation over the consciences of Christ's childien." «' The foregoing is a true copy of an extract from the second covenant of the strict corfgregational church in Canterbury. Examined by me, "CORNELIUS ADAMS, Clerk of saiiQkurch." + The following is an extract from the records of another church, in Canterbury, that was represented in the ecclesiastical tribunal at Brooklyn : ♦'We promise to submit ourselves to the watch and discipline of Christ's church, agreeable to the scriptures, as a congregational church, according to Cambridge Plat- form." " The above is a true copy of an article of agreement, entered into and signed by the brethren ef the church in Westminster society, Canterbury, November loth, 1770. From the records of said church. Attest, ERASTUS LEARNED. *' Canterbury, June 16th, 1818." The Rev. Mr. Learned, the present pastor of the church in Westminster society, on the 16th of June, 1818, iniormed me, that he knew of nothing upon the church rec- ords, from which it would appear, that the church hjid ever adopted a dtffeieal con<- -ititutioo ot church disciplineu at long to the Consociation, to sit and judge as members of this body ; and these churches, that have never adopted the constitution, or have formally rejected it, obey the call, and become members of a court, in which they have no consti- tutional authority to advise or to act ? Can the decision of such a court be legal ? Is it not illegal? And what could save the whole court from impeachment and degradation, but the favourable circumstance, that, as an ecclesiastical body, their authority is supreme^ their judgment is final; it can never be re-examined or reversed by a higher ecclesiastical tribunal ? In view of what has been said upon the subject of juris- diction, the candid will decide, whether the Council at Brooklyn had any phusiblQ or possible foundation lor the authority, which they claimed in taking cognizance of the complaint against the junior pastor; and whether this Council (especially the individuals who were members of the convention in 1800) ought not to have kjiown, that their claim to jurisdiction was unconstitutional and oppres- sive ; an unwarrantable assumption of power, I shall now attend to the proceedings of the Consocia- tion, after they unanimously decided that they had juris- diction. " Feb. 6th," (the second day of the session,} " the Council met according to adjournment. Several mem- bers, having been challenged by the accused, as having- prejudged the case, were examined and acquitted." On the morning of the second day, after the meeting- was opened, and the minutes were read, containing the de- termination of the Council to exercise jurisdiction, Mr. W. the pastor accused, again protested against their right to proceed. At the same time, knowing their determina- tion, he requested liberty to appear before them, as cir- cumstances might require, and as far as they could con- sistently grant his request ; that the whole affair of difficul- ty and discipline might be properly understood by ali that were present on the occasion. Immediately after the complaint was read, Mr. W. ob- served, that several elders, members of the Council, had already excluded him from their ministerial fellowship, in view of the opinion for which he was charged with heresy §6 He stated, that he considered this renunciation of ministe- rial connexion with an individual, with whom they had been associated as brethren, a real and weighty objection to their acting as judges upon the complaint. These el- ders had expressly and openly refused to Mr. W. the ordi- nary privilege of ministerial intercourse. In their individ- ual capacity as Christian ministers, they had thus virtually declared the junior pastor cf the church in Brooklyn, " dis- Tjualilied for tlie office of a teacher in the Christian church," on account of the V€7'y sentbnent, for w inch the charge of heresy was presented against him, and for which he was ultimately condemned ; and yet the Council decided that these elders had all the qiialiiications requisite to an impar- tial judgment in deciding upon the complairit. This w^is the method in Avh.ich the pastor challenged several mem- bers of the Council, and this Vias the decision of the Con- sociation of Windham County. " The Rev. Daniel Dov/," as appears from the Result, " from m.otives of delicacy, requested to be excused from noting in the case, and had liberty to withdraw." The motives and delicacy of this gentleman must not be called in question. The reader will recollect the pecu- liar delicacy which he manifested as a Christian on a for- mer occasion, when he spoke of the jimior pastor of the church in Brooklyn as a mere suitable companion (in a re- ligious sense) for Mahometans and Infidels, than for Chris- tians. It was decided by tlie Consociation, that this gen- tleman, who, about nine months before, appeared as an ad- vocate against the pastor, and publickly reproached him as chargeable with infidelity for his departure from the faith, was a competent judge in the case before them. But the counsel for the complainant, suggesting the propriety of his retiring from the seat of judgment, as he had previous- ly been an advocate against the pastor before an Ecclesias- tical Council, he requested to be excused ; and the Con- sociation, in accommodation to his feelings, consented to excuse him. " The counsel for the complainant" (continues the Re- sult) " proceeded, after offering evidence that the regular .steps of discipline had been taken, to support by testimony the charge set forth in the complaint." 87 The Council appear to have been satisfied from the evi- dence offered, that the regular steps of discipline had been taken. It is a matter of some consequence, I imagine, to ascertain what the regular steps are. Never did I sup- pose, that the steps of discipline could be completed, so as to obtain a final judgment, until the accuser had laid his complaint before the church to which the parties belonged, and the accused had been favoured with an opportunity to hear the church upon the subject of complaint exhibited agamst him. But it is extremely diPJcult to know, in the case of the junior pastor of the church in Brooklyn, who was his accuser, or who ^vere his accusers, before the Con- sociation, agreeable to any regular process of discipline. The Result, in the first place, informs us, that, " on be^ half of the members of the church at whose request the Consociation was convoked^ a paper was exhibited, contain- ing the charge of heresy against the Rev. Luther Willson." From this it appears, that the charge of heresy was exhib- ited in behalf of five brethren of the church (considered as individuals, or a committee) who applied for the calling of the Consociation. It is however certain, that these breth- ren had never taken any steps with the pastor upon the charge of heresy : they had taken neither the first, second, nor third. The " paper exhibited" contained no intimation of any steps taken on their part. The individuals, or com- mittee, that applied to the moderator to call the Council, v/hen they appeared before the Council at the time of the trial, did not pretend it, nor did any circumstances furnish evidence of the fact. The members of the church in whose behalf the charge of heresy was exhibited, had never entered upon a course of discipline, until they exhibited brother Barrett's charge before the Consociation. If tliat vuas a step of discipline,, to take the charge of heresy out of the hands of a brother, and bring it before the consociatcd churches of Windham county, before it had ijeen referred to the church in Brook- lyn, it must be placed to their credit, though all other and previous steps, on their part, had been conscientiously omitted. The Result, after declaring that " the charge of heresy was exhibited in behalf of the members of the church at whose request the Consociation was conyoked/' speaks of 88 " the complainant." " The complahiant appeared, ready to substantiate his charge;" "the counsel for the com- plainant," &c. By the complainant, I suppose we are to understand Mr. B. who took the first and second steps, ac- cording to tlie 18th of Matthew, and thus finished his course of discipline ; for it does not appear that he ever ap- plied to the cliurch, or to the Consociation, to take cogni- zance of his complaint, tliough he had evidently intended it. It appears that he lent or transferred his charge of heresy, and the complaint he had prepared to lay before the church, with the explanations attending them, to his breth- ren \w whose behalf the charge was exhibited, to be dis- posed of or used by them, as they, in their wisdom, should think best. Mr. B. it seems, prepared a complaint, addressed to the church in Brooklyn, (not to the Consociation of Windham County,) but never laid it before them. The pastor was always ready to answer to the complaint at a regular meeting of the church, and never objected to the appoint- ment of a church meeting to take into consideration the charge against him. But Mr. B. and his orthodox breth- ren, after the disappointment occasioned by the discovery of their secret combination at the irregular meeting of Dea. Scarborough, did not wish a meeting of the church to lay the complaint before them. "Whether, therefore, Mr. B. as an individual, or the committee that applied to the Consociation, or all of them, jointly and severally, are to be considered as supporting the charge of heresy before the Council, it is an important fact^ that no complaint was ever presented to the church in Brooklyn against the pas- tor ; and consequently tlie third step (far the most impor- tant of all) in the process of discipline, was never taken by any member or members of the church. This fact was particularly stated, and was perfectly known to the Conso- ciation, when sitting in judgment upon the complaint. The knowledge of this important circumstance appear- ed, for a short time, to embarrass tlieir proceeding. But, fortunately for the Consociation, (who had probably deter- mined to surmount every obstacle that stood in the way of the pastor's dismission,) by a singular pov.-er of invention, they hit upon an expedient that removed the difficulty at once. They quickly discovered, that the Consociation of 89 Wlndhatn County was tlie ehiirch in Brooklyn^ to which the complaint of Mr. B. was addressed ; that the govern- ment of the church, as it respected the pastor, was whothj in the Consociation, or Council of the churches, then as- sembled ; and therefore the third ste-p in the process of discijjline was then taken, if it never had been before ; and thus the way was clear to dispose of the pastor, as their ^v'isdom and prudence might direct. I have no doubt, that this was an entire departure from the ancient constitu- tion, and from the usage of the churches, and a much greater novelty in the history of the church than the new doctrine that had been preached in Brooklyn. But it was a happy expedient to meet the occasion ; and I am satis- fied, that nothing but the inventive genius of a Consocia- tion could have discovered it. The Consociation decided, that an individual of the church in Brooklyn was competent to take the first and second steps ; to accuse and admonish its pastor for here- sy, and to forward a complaint against him ; while the church, as a body, was not competent to take cognizance of the complaint ; to judge, or to admonish. The Conso- ciation, thus absohitely assuming to themselves, without the request or consent of the church, its authority and government, proceeded to an examination of the case. It was readily admitted by the accused, and the fact was established by evidence, that he denied the supreme divin- ity of Jesus Christ, and consequently rejected what is commonly called the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of three equal persons in one God. He also considered it an act of justice to himself, re- •jpectful to the Council, and adapted to remove false im- pressions that had been made upon the publick, briefly to lay open his views upon the subject in question, to state his reasons for his change of opinion, and particularly to make it appear to the Council, and to all that were present^ that the charge of heresy could not, by any authority^ be supported against him. Thus he thought it proper, from a regard to his character and standing as a Christian min- ister, and by the permission and indulgence of the Coun- cil, publickly to offer an apology for opinions, which had often been represented as in the highest degree dangerous ; and with a view to correct tlie misapprehensions that pre- 12 /ailed respecting .tlicm. He indulged the hope, that hls!' apology would be satisfactory ; that, at least, it would so far prevail, as to prevent an immediate and final decision against the pastor ; a decision, from which he apprehended the most serious and lasting divisions in the Christian so- ciety M'ith which he was connected. "The Consociation,"" after attending tathe evidence of fi.icts, the apology of the accused, and the reasoning of the counsel for the complainant,. " agreed in tJie following Re» suit : *' First. That the charge against the Rev. Luther Will- son, of denying the proper deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and consequently the mode of the divine subsistence revealed in the gospel, is supported. *' Secondly. That the denial of this doctrine is a departs lire from the faith once delivered to the saints. " Thirdly.. That this dernal by the Rev. Luther Willson disqualifies him for the office of a teacher in. the Christian church ; inasmuch as it is a rejection of an essential part of the counsel of God,, a denial of the record God. has giv- en of his Sc>n« *' Accordingly, liis pastoral office in the churches in our fellowship and connexion is now declared to be ended." This Result is so remarkable in several respects, that it ought to be preserved to future generations, as a memorial of the character of the Consociation of Windham County, The Consociation, rather than to fail of the object for wliich they were called, when they found that the third step of discipline had not been taken, assumed to be the church in Brooklyn, It was expected, from this assumption, that something decisive would be done. The pastor accused %vas cited to answer to " the crime of heresy ;" audit was sup- posed, that he would either be condemned for heresy, and accordingly admonished, or be honourably acquitted. But, it seems, he was neither condemned nor admonished for her- esy y nor acquitted; but he had inflicted upon him all the pirn- ishment of the crime that v/as alleged against him. The Consociation, after a full examination of the case^^ did not presume, in making out their Result, to declare the pastor guilty of heresy ; and yet they rejected him. They deprived him (as far as it was in their power to do it) of every privilege that belongs to a Christian minister. 9^1 TFhe were not guilty of heresy^ what authority had thcj^ 'to reject him? It" he were^ why did they waX say it, and give the reasons of their judgnient, derived from the scrip- tures ? " To the law and to the testimony ; if they speak not according to this vjord^ it is because there is no light in them." If the Consociation meant to adhere to the rule of discipline pointed out in the 18th of Matthew, as they professed, why did they not regard it in their decision ? Allowing them to be the churchy as they claimed, why did they not give the pastor an opportunity ^o /2i?<2:r the church upon the subject of his oifence, according to the Christian rule,* before they -proc&QfX^iiXo final judgment m declaring him disqualified for the ministerial and pastoral office? Why did they violate 2^. plain and sacred rule^ in rejecting him from their fellowship, before they had endeavoured to convince him of his errour, and to persuade him to repent- ance ? Bid the necessity ef the. case require such precipi- tancy, as to induce them to neglect the means, which God had put into their hands for the conviction and reformation of alDrother? Or did the members of this venerable Coun- cil, in the fulness and benevolence of their hearts, consider his future usefulness and happiness of so:little importance, as to be unworthy of an effort for his -salvation ? I will here notice the direction of St. Paul to Titus: ^^ A man that is an heretick, after the first and second ad- monition, reject." This precept is plain, and is as impor- tant to be regarded as a mysterious article of faith. If the pastor were not a heretick, (as I have before observed/) why did they reject him ? If he were, why did they not declare it, and obey the direction of an apostle, in using the means appointed for his conviction ? Why did they not administer the repeated and salutary reproof, before they excluded him from their fellowship ?f Were they, in ♦Says our Savir jr, ''If he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an -feeathcQ tnau and ? publican." Tbis plainly supposes, that the church, is to be hea'df and that the individual is not to be deprived of his standing in the Christian comtnuw nity, until he has neglected or rejuied to hear the churchy whose duty it is to labour with hiui to effect a reformation in his opinions or conduct, according to his faults But the Consociation were not heard, until the pastor was rejected and dismissed* They must either have considered themselves incompetent to admonish, or have been apprehensive that their admonitions would be effectual, or, what is- more probable, they were in too much haste to attend to it, Such was their haste and zeal to accom- plish the business for which they came, {the dismission of the pastor,) that the most .obvious and important rules of Christian discipline were comparatively of no account. + Is it not, beyond a question, the duty of a church, or of those who are entrusted -wi^ its goveiaaoent, ••to admonish aa offending member, in order to conviction," 92 this respect, unacquainted with their Christian obligations ? Or did these infallible interpreters of the mysteries of God esteem it a light thing to disregard his precepts ? Are these the pure, the disinterested, the merciful ? Or has it become a maxim among Christians, that a good end sajic- tions the use ofunlaivful means ? I will not omit to notice an objection to the tenour of the above remarks, whicli, I am persuaded, would never have occurred to me, had it not been suggested by indi* viduals since the Result of the Consociation. The Chris- tian precept is, "A man that is an heretick, after the first and second admonition, reject." This precept the Conso- ciation entirely disregarded; for when they assumed the government of the church, they administered no admoni' tion before the sentence of rejection was pronounced. But it has been said, that the first and second admonition was administered to the accused by liis brother Barrett, in tak- ing the first and second steps ; and, consequently, that the Consociation, possessing the authority of the church, might with propriety reject him without ani/ admonition. This objection shows to what extent the ingenuity of men will carry them in support of a bad cause, or to save them- selves from merited reproach. The Consociation mani- festly decided, by taking upon themselves the government of the church in Brooklyn, that the church, as a body, were not competent to judge upon the charge of heresy against their pastor. And will it be said, that an individual of the church was compet;ent to admonish a pastor for a *' crim.e," of which the whole church were not competent to judge ? Or vv^ill it be said, that the pastor could be ad- monished for a " crime," of which it was not yet deter- mined, by any competent judgment, that he was guilty ? Who, by any legal authority, can admonish an individual for an offence, of which he is not competent to judge ; and before the guilt or innocence of the accused has been de- cided by a proper tribunal ? before he can be depiived of his Christian or pastoral standing ? If this view of church discipline be just, (which I cannot think will be disputed,) it was certainly incum- bent upon the Consociation, allowing them to be the church, or entrusted with its gov- ernment, as they claitr.ed, to have admonished the pastor, before they removed him from their fellowship in the pastoral office. It was a necessary part of discipline (and especially if they viewed bis errour to be fundamental) to labour for his conviction, wiih the hope that he might renounce his errour, 2nd still be tiseful to the pecplecl his charge in preaching the gos^l of ChiijJ, S3 The Consociation, in their proceedings thus far, (in die- daring the pastor disqualified for the ministry, and in re- jecting him from their fellowship in the pastoral office,) 7tovel and extraordinary as they were, had not yet com- pleted the climax of irregularity and oppression- To fin- ish the work, which they had determined to accomplish, and that the character of their proceedings might be iini- Jhrmly irregular throughout, they completed the exercise of their assumed po^ver over the pastor, by declaring, that " his pastoral relation to the church in Brooklyn, in par- ticular, ought to be, and is hereby dissolved." The Con- sociation, having assumed the government of the church in Brooklyn without their request or consent, concluded that it was with them to determine, whom the church should have, or, rather, whom they should not have, for their pastor. Saybrook Platform says expressly, " that each particular church hath light to choose their own officers." JBut the Consociation say, no; the church in Brooklyn have not a right to choose their own officers. Although this particular church had chosen the Rev. Luther IVillson as their pastor, and had in no instance manifested a wish for his dismission, nor had any agency in calling the Con- sociation to advise or to judge, yet we (say the Consocia- tion) rue determine that this man shall not be their pastor; " his pastoral relation to the church in Brooklyn ought to be, and is hereby dissolved,'''"^ " In this decision," says the Result, " the Consociation assume no right, and take no liberty, other than is common to all men acting in the same relation and circumstances ; the right of exercising their own judgment, and the liberty of obeying God." This sentence is constructed widi admirable caution* It is in all respects worthy of the wisdom of the venerable Council that composed it. Any body of men, at this age of the church, in the exercise of the most arbitrary power, may use this language with considerable safety ; for pre- cedents are numerous, in the history of the church, of the authority of Councils against the right of private judg- * I have, as yet, found nothing in the Platform that authorizes any earthly power to take froDi a church their pastor without their consent. It ought also to be considered, that the members of the church, who appUed to the moderator to call the Consociation^ 4id not, in their communication, request the pastor's dismission; but only that. the cue should Uc determined a§rccable to Saybrook Platform, 94 anent, and in isupport of the pretensions of practical infaltu lility m matters of faith. iL\Q\\ the Roman Pontiff, issu- ing his decree, as " vicar of Jesus Christ, and m the name of the Holy Trinity," would not, I am persuaded, hesitate to say, in support of his supremacy in the Catholick church, that he ** assumes no rio^ht, and takes no Uberty, other than is common to all men ^ acting in the same relation and cir^ cumstances ; the right of exercising his own judgment, and the hberty of obeying God." I shall make no further remarks upon the Result, as it respects the heresy of the pastor, than just to observe, that the Consociation appear to have been sincere ; for they de- clared themselves " supported by the consciousness, that a supreme regard to their divine Lord and Master, and a sin- -cere desire to fulfil their covenant engagements to the church, had guided and governed them in their course." They also, after they had excluded the pastor from every privilege as a Christian minister, " tenderly admonished liim to return to the Christian fiiith." How Hir the individuals who composed this Council, -and who concurred in the decision, acted from the influ- ence of pious and Christian motives, in their impatient zeal to preserve the purity of the orthodox faith, and in pro- iiouncing sentence thus irregularly against a pastor for 'what they considered an essential errour, it is not mr/ province to judge, or to express an opinion. " There is one lawgiver y who is able to save and to destroy." The time is not far distant, when the pastor that was condemn- ed, and they that condemned him, as unworthy of the min- istry, will appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, where every righteous decision on earth will be approved and con- firmed, and every unjust judgment be condemned and re- versed. At the day of final retribution, the light of anoth- er world will exhibit every individual in his true charac- ter. "Every work will be brought into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." " The time is at hand." *' In that day, God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." " He that is inijust, will be unjust still ; and he that is righteous, will be ri.(:hteous still." I p.nw come to the conclusion of the Result, which has fespeci to a commuulcatioii made to the Council convened,, 95 (ftQntaining a request, that they would direct to the choictJ of a Mutual Council to hear and determine the case of Mr. Willson, and to dissolve his pastoral relation. " To the venerable Ecclesiastical Council noiv convened at Brooklyn to hear and determine on a charge of heresy against the Rev. Lather Willson, " We the subscribers, parties concerned,, viewing it more desirable for the interest of religion, and for the peace of the society in this town, that the case now underr consideration should be settled by a Mutual Council, do request the Council now convened, to direct to the choice of such Council to hear and determine the case of Mro> Willson. The business of the Mutual Council shall be to dismiss Mr. Willson, and set him on such ground, as to ministerial character, as they may judge proper. The Council to be chosen shall be of such a character,, and ehosen on such principles, as shall be approved by the Council now convened. " For Luther Willson^ J. NELSON. JOSEPH SCARBOROUGH, in behalf of the aggrieved Brethrem JOHN PARISH, SHUBAEL BROWN, NATHAN WITTER, Jr. for the Society.'''' '"^ After consultatfon on this subject, the question, Will you accede to the above proposal ? was put, and passed m the affirmative. " Mr. Willson, on his part, having, in the apprehension of the Consociation, receded from the conciliatory terms in the above agreement, it was voted that the minutes be closed and published." From this it seems, that the Consociation and Mr. Will- son had made an agreement, the terms of which, on the part of the Consociation, were liberal and conciliatory; and that, notwithstanding the pacifick disposition of this venerable body, Mr. Willson had neither honour nor integ^ ritij sufficient to abide by the agreement which he had 96 Inade. I shall here just observe, before I relate the cir* eu instances of the affair, that the Consociation in this in- stance, as in all their proceedings, fell into a great mistake. Mr. VV. never made any agreement with the Consociation, to which he did not scrupulously adhere. I shall now state the principal circumstances, as far as I know them and have been informed, relative to an attempt for a Mutual Council ; and relative to the closing part of the Result, in which Mr. VV. is represented as " having re- ceded from the conciliatory terms of agreement." The session of the Consociation at Brooklyn was con- tinued the most of three days. The first day v/as entirely occupied upon the subject of jurisdiction. The Conso- ciation decided in the evening, that they had jurisdiction in the case. The second day was employed, from early in the morning until late in the evening, in the examination of the case ; in hearing the statement and apology of the accused, and the argument of the counsel in support of the complaint. On the morniiig of the second day, before the trial commenced, the counsel for the complainant, the Hon. Mr. Perkins, of Ashford, and the counsel for the ac- cused, the Rev. Mr. Fiske, of New-Braintree, (Mass.) used their influence and exertions in recommending a Mutual Council to hear and determine the case under con- sideration, and to dismiss Mr. Wiilson from his pastoral office. These gentlemen, from a regard to the peace of the society in Brooklyn, urged before the Consociation, the reasonableness and expeaienc}'^ of the measure. The Consociation decided, and repeated their decision with emphasis, that they were imperioushf bound to attend to the complaint. These gentlemen still continued to cm- ploy their influence with the parties to effect an agreement for a Council, until all hope of its accomplishment was given up. Late in the evening, the trial was finished. The next morning, one of the society's committee call- ed at the house of Mr. Wiilson, and expressed a desire, from a regard to the situation of the society, that an agree- ment upon a Mutual Council might be effected. Mr. W. observed, that he had always been ready to agree upon a Mutual Council ; that a serious, but unsuccessful attempt had been made for that purpose by the counsel of both parties the day before j that enough had l^een done ; that 97 for his part, he chose that the Consociation should finish the business in their own way ; that they should acquit, or condemn, as they pleased. The gentleman of the com- mittee replied, that he had been conversing with the ag- grieved brethren, and that they appeared sincerely and ear- nestly disposed to agree upon a Mutual Council. Mr. W. answered, that if they were desirous of such an agreement, they certainly could have no objection to coming forward with a proposition ; that he was ready to receive, and to take into consideration, any proposals that they were dis- posed to make ; that he was entirely averse to offering any terms on his part, until he had received proposals from them. As they were conversing upon the subject, anoth- er of the society's committee came in, and soon after, one of the aggrieved brethren, and also one of their counsel ; all expressing their desire that au agreement for a Mutual Council might take place, with the hope, that if the parties should agree, the Consociation would approve of the meas- ure. In these circumstances, Mr. Willson indulged the hope, that an agreement upon such a Council to determine the case, and to dissolve his pastoral relation, might possibly be the means cf restoring peace to the church, and of pre- venting unhappy divisions in the society. Accordingly he authorized his counsel, Mr. Fiske, and his friend, Mr. Nel- son, to join the parties concerned, and to agree upon such measures as they thought prudent and safe for him^ and as would also be adapted to promote the interest of religion, and particularly the peace and happiness of the society in Brooklyn. Mr. Fiske and Mr. Nelson immediately left the house of Mr. ^V. and joined the committee and the aggrieved brethren in concerting measures for the settlement of the "whole aftair by a Mutual Council. With the general be- lief that the Consociation, at this stage of the business, would not be tenacious of exercising the power which they claimed as an ecclesiastical tribunal, the parties forwarded a respectful proposal, containing a request, that the Conso- ciation would direct to the choice of a Mutual Council to dismiss Mr. Willson ; " the Council to be of such a char- acter, and chosen on such principles, as the Consociatioa should approve." This proposal, when handed to the 13 9.^ Consociation by Mr. Nelson, was accompanied particular''- lij vvitli a list of names, exhibiting a specimen, or cxpiana- tidn, as to the character of tlie Council, to which Mr. Willson would a2:rce ; that the Consociation miijht decide at once, whether they would accept the projjosal or not. The Consociation did not, however, decide in the presence of the parties, that they would accept, or reject it. And altb.ough they ultimately concluded to accept it, (as is de- clared in the Result,} yet their decision in this respect was never made knoun to the parties, until the Result was published. It was generally believed, that the character of the Council (as appeared from the list. of names) would be acceptable, as they were all Trinitarians, and most or all of them v/hat is commonly called Calvinistick. The names that were presented by Mr. Nelson as a specimen, Vv'cre aSi Ibllow, all belonging to Massachusetts : Rev. Dr. CRANE, of Northhridge, Mx. STONE, 'Brookfdd, ]Mr. SNELL, Xorth-Brookfield, Dr. PUFFi:R, Berlin, Dr. PARSONS, Amherst, Mr. ROCKWOOli, IVestborough, Mr. BAl^ES, Didham, Mr. FISKE, Wrentham, Dr. HOLMES, Cambridge,. Mr. TOxMLINSON, Qakhmiu To a Council of this general Gliaracter, Mr. Wii'lson was ready to agree ; and Mr. Nelson, who acted for him in signing the proposal, has repeatedly aiid expressly declared, that he never cave to the Consociation anv intimation, that Mr. Willson would agree to a Council which should be of a character more favourable to their views. The Consociation therefore, when they received this projjosal, received it with the explanation that accompa- nied it;- and consequentiv, if they acceded to it, had no claiin upon Mr. \Vills(jn for a Council more orthodox, than was ni'prescnted by the list of names offered as a sjiec- imcn. r shall here insert the declaration of the Rev. Mr. Fiske, Mr. W.'s counsel, relative to the same point. This declaration is from Mr. Fiske's own hand, communicated to Mr. W. at his request, and with an expectation that it V9 nvoiild be made publick. " \yith respect to the phrase in ^the proposal presented to the Consociation, that ' the ■Council to be chosen shall be of such a character, and chosen on such principles, as shall be approved by the Council now convened,' it was understood to imply, and was so explained before each party, that the said Council should consist of men holding to the doctrine of the Trin- ity, and that it should be chosen in a fair and liberal man- ner, the Consociation being judges ofthis.*' Some members of the '•Consociation have said, that Mr. Fiske, in settling the manner of choosing the Council, en- ■couraged them to believe, that a ^* bunch of names," " a plenty of Trinitarian names, would be presented,"* out cJi which the Consociation might select the number of which the Council was to consist. .1 think it -proper here to re- mark, that while these members declare that Mr. Fiske gave the fullest encouragement, that a " bunch of names should be presented, out of which the Council might be selected," still they expressly admit, (I have it in writing from their own hand,) that he told them "he had not the assent of Mr. Willson to act upon." Allowing, therefore, the statement of these members to be correct, how could Mr, W. be bound to the Consociation to execute the pro- posal in a particular manner, when the Consociation were expressly informed by his counsel, that he had not assent- cd to this method of carrying the proposal into effect? I think it obvious, that in such a case, the agreement, as to the method of choosing the Council, could not be com- pleted, until Mr. W. had assented ; and to this method, he certainly never did assent, either in person, or by proxy. Whatever was the conversation upon the method of choosing the Council, I have frequently been informed that the conclusion was, that the parties should retire, and that the Consociation would deliberate upon the case, as to accepting the proposal. The parties accordingly retired lo a particular apartment of the house in which tlie Conso- ciation were sitting. After a short time, two gentlemen of the Consociation, appearing as a committee, stated to the parties, that they were not authorized to say that the * The phrase, " bunch of name*," and •' plenty of Trinitarian names/* isthelan- •fruage of gentlemen that were members of the Consociation, used in a letter to Mr. W, a'hc Rev, Mr. Fiske, Mr. W.'t counsrl, will not, I presume, acknowledge it to be his. 100 propasal would be accepted ; but they requested the par- ties to send in names. Mr. VVilison, who had not as yet been present at any part of the conversation, or been ac- quainted with the process of the business thus far, was now called from his own house, to join the aggrieved brethren, and the committee of the society, in agreeing upon the names of a Council to lay before the Consocia- tion. Mr. Willson, Dea. Scarborough, the agent of the aggrieved brethren, and the committee of the society, soon met, and agreed upon a Mutual Council. The number of pastors of which the Council was to consist was nine. They were the following; six in Massachusetts, and three in Connecticut : Rev. Dr. CRANE, of Northhridge, Mr. SNELL, North- Br ookjield, Mr. STONE, Brookfield, Mr. ELY, Monson, Dr. HOLMES, Cambridge, Mr. FISKE, Wrentham, Mr. NOTT, Franklin, Mr. Mc EWEN, New -London, Mr. NELSON, Lisbon. The names were handed to the Consociation by Mr. Willson, all parties being present, and expressly declaring their concurrence. The parties then retired ; Mr. Willsoii to his own house, with no other expectation, than that the Consociation would approve and confirm the choice, or reject the proposition, and finish the business, as if no pro- posal had been made. After a few minutes, one of the society's committee handed to Mr. Willson, as he was at dinner, a small piece of paper, containing the following words : *' Three more names." Neither the paper, nor the gentleman who handed it, could give any explanation of its meaning. It was not inquired, who sent it ; nor was it mentioned. Mr. W. conjectured, that it came from Dea. Scarborough, one of the parties in the choice of the Council. But as the paper was not directed to him, and was not signed by any one, and he did not know (nor could Mr. Fiske and Mr. Nelson, who were present, in- form him) that he was under any obligation to furnish more names, he sent the paper back to the person, or place, from whence it came, with this answer : that he was satis- 101 fied with the names upon which tlie parties had agreed, a^nd that he had no more to otFer. It was not long before it was intimated to Mr. W. that the Consociation considered liis sending back the paper as lie did, an insult. Unable to conjecture what could be the import of these indications, he immediately requested Mr. Nelson, who signed the proposal in his behalf, and was acquainted with the general process of the business, to go to the Consociation, and, if what had been intimated were true, to ascertain the oifence, in order that tiie circum- stances might be explained, and properly understood. Mr. Nelson accordingly went ; and as soon as he had opened the door where this venerable body were in session, and before he had time to introduce the subject of his mes- sage, he was significantly informed, that they could not be interrupted.* Meeting with this repulse, and averse to any thing that should appear like intrusion, he immediate- ly retired, without accomplishing the business for which he went. After Mr. Nelson's return, Mr. Willson, and Mr. Par- ish, one of the society's committee, made an attempt to gain admittance to the presence of the Consociation, with the hope of rectifying the mistake, or misunderstanding, that had unfortunately occurred. With difficulty they en- tered the room. The members of the Consociation, hav- ing finished their business, were all standing, and appeared to be preparing to move to the meeting-house. As soon as Mr. W. and Mr. P. had entered the door, there seemed to be a particular commotion^ and, as far as the counte- nances of men are an index of tlteir feelings, an evident ^Lversion with many, and particularly the moderator, to hear or to notice any thing that the}^ were about to say. Mr. W. observed, that an intimation had been given that the Consociation considered his sending back the paper as he did, highly disrespectful ; that he was very sorry such an impression should be received ; that no disrespect was intended ; that he did not know that the paper came frorr\ them. Mr. Parish also stated, that he understood there was a mistake about names, and that they wished to have * Mr. Nelson has expressly and repeatedly declared, and is ready to certify it with the solemnity of an oath, that the appearance of this body, at the time he entered the room, was extrcmtly repulsivt ; that they manifested a degree of excitement acd irrita^- tion not to have been expected in a deliberative assembly. 102 it corrected ; but such ^vas the commotion, *that it was dif- ficult for Mr. W. and Mr. P. to be heard. When they aper witholit tnore natties. 1. The nine gentlemen, agreed upon by all parties to compose the Council, were so completelij answerable to the eharncter of the list of names offered by Mr. Nelson as a specimen, that when the Consociation wrote upon the pa- per, *' three more names," they did not intimate an objec- tion to the principles or character of an individual of the Colmcil upon which the parties had agreed. A call, there- fore, for more names was disingenuous and unreasonable, unless they could offer some objection to the character of the persons whose names had been presented ; or had stat- ed that the character of several who were in the list was iin^ known to them. 2. The paper handetl to Mr. W. had no form, by v/hicli it could be considered as exhibiting a claim or demand upon him for any thing. It was not directed to him ; nor had il; any signature, by which he could know from whence is: came. If the Consociation had any communication to make in writing, requesting more names, it ought to have been made to the parties jointly and mutually concerned, and to have been signed officially by the scribe or modera- tor. But it \vi\s not made to the parties that subscribed the proposal, (one of which, without the others, was not con;- petent to an agreement,) nor was it made to either party in any form that was intelligible. And, surely, a papc^- which was not directed to iht parties jointly ^ or to either par ty^ nor signed by the moderator, scribe, or a committee of the Coni?ociation, could have no more authority ^ or furnish 105 any more claim upon Mr. Willson, than a piece of paper entirely blank. If the Consociation, in makins^ a communication to Mr. Willson, had not time, or did not think it of importance enough, to give it their signature, that he might know from whom it came, I should suppose their sense of propriety- might have readily suggested an excuse for not sending more names, and have saved their extreme susceptibility and keen resentments. 3. The Consociation had no claim upon Mr. Willson for more names upon ariy principle whatever. This was ex- pressly declared, at the time the paper was presented, by the Rev. Messrs. Fiske and Nelson, who were the only agents on the part of Mr. \V. in making or settling proposals for a Mutual Council.* • The following is the testimony of the Rev. Mr. FUke, who was acquainted Mrith all the important facts, and the whok process of the business, relative to ihe aS^airof a Muiual Council. This testimony was communicated (o Mr. W. at his request, in Sep- tember following the result of the Consociation, and a short lime before the convening of the Council that dismissed htm from his pastoral relation to the society in Brookjyn, «• With respect to that part of the Result of Consociation, wherein they charge Mr. Willson with being the cause of preventing a transfer of thequestion pending before that body to a Mutual Council, by hi* receding from the terms ot agreement, which hede$irviih ihe society in the choice of a minister, they would at c»ce be satisfied with the same Council to dismiss Mr. Willson, in which they readily united to ordain him. The proposition was ultimately laid before them, but they did not agree to it. The aggrieved brethren considered the Consociation a very suitable Council to dismiss Mr. W. from his pastoral relation to the ckurch, though, with a single exception, the pastors that composed that Council (several ol them the nearest neighbours to Brooklyn) were treated by the church, at the time when arrangements were made for his ordina- tion, with open neglect. None of them (except one) were invited by the church to as- sist in his ordination, because they were considered Hopkiusians. But when these Hopkinsians had joined a few of the good people in Brooklyn, in their endeavours to excite the opinion of the publick agaifist their junior pastor for his Aiian heresy, (as it •was. called,) they were thought to be the beit men and best judges that could be employ- ed to take cognizance ot his errours, and to pronounce sentence against him as a dan- gerous man. Arid besides, these ministers (if they had not offered their services in the ■work of judgment) were very willing to come at the request of their brethren, with %vhom they most cordially sympathized, and for whose relief they felt it their duty to unite their most faithful and persevciing exertions. iilr this people. Should the method of reconciliation proposed, be approved by the society and obtain their sanction, but meet with opposition from those who have been accustom- ed to style themselves the aggrieved ; or should the ag- grieved approve of the plan suggested, and concur with the society, and yet the church refuse to act upon it ; we submit to the consideration of the society, the propriety and expediency of uniting with the Rev. Mr. Willson, in calling an Ecclesiastical Council, as soon as may be con- venient, to take cognizance and determine in regard to his ministerial character, to express their opinion upon sub- jects of interest and importance to the society, and to afford us their advice in our present situation. All which is submitted by your humble servants, Roger IF. JFilliams,'^ John Parish, Aaron Davison, John IFuiiamSf )> Committee. Joab Fasset, Benjamin Gilbert, Nathan Witter, Jun. ^ * The above approved and concurred in. ' LUTHER WILLSON. '■Brooklyn, June I2th, 1817.' " The above is a true copy of record. " ELEAZER MATHER, Societij Clerk. "■Juneau, 1818." The society, upon their acceptance of this report of their committee, passed a vote, " that they would unite with the church in calling a Council to dismiss Mr. Willson, pro- vided the aggrieved brethren would agree with the other members of the church, in declaring the church entirely disconnected with the Consociation of W indham County, who claimed jurisdiction over them ; also annul their vote respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, and put themselves on the covenant, as before said vote was passed ; and unite with the society. in calling the Council that ordained Mr. Willson, to dissolve his pastoral relation to the people in Brooklyn, to examine into the proceedings and Result of the Consociation with respect to him, and to recommend 118^ fiirni, or not, in the character of a Christian minister, as ihcy sliould judge proper." A committee was appointed by the society to lay the vote containing the above proposition before the aggrieved brethren and Dr. Whitney, and afterwards (if they thought proper) before the church, to see if they would agree to the proposition. The committee were to use their en- deavours to effect a reconciliation and agreement, and to ie[)ort to the society. The society meeting was adjourned to the 26th of June. At the adjourned meeting, the com- mittee made their report. No agreement was effected. The aggrieved brethren. Dr. Whitney, and the church, -^vould not agree to the proposition on the part of the so- ciety. The church had a meeting, previous to the adjourned -meeting of the society, on the same day ; at which they ex- pressed their disapprobation of Mr. Willson's perform- ing publick services on the sabbath, as he had done for scymt time, in reading sermons, and leading in the exer- cises of publick worship.^ The society voted, immedi- * The vote of the church, attested at the time it was passed, was as follows: «« June s5, 1817 — footed, That they" (the church) " disapproved of Mr. WiIhoa'« o^ciaiing on sabbaths, as he had done for some time past. •' Attest, JOSIAM WHITNEY, Pastor." The following was the vote of the ehurch, as it was entered upon the book of rec- ttrds by the Rev. Dr. Whitney, their pastor : " The following question was put to the ichuich — Da you approve or disapprove of Mr. Willion'a going into the meeting-house, aiid oHiciating on sabbaths, as he has done for some time past, aince hii dismission by the Consociation ? Voted in the negative. " It will be observed, that the pastor, in entering the vote of the chnrch upon the book of Kcords, added the following important clause, " since his dismission by the Con- eociaticm." By this addition, the records represent the church as having recognized, by their vote, the jurisdiction of the Consociation, and the correctness of their decision, rdative to the ministerial character of the junior pastor ; whereas the church had nev- «r, by any publick act, directly acknowledged the authority of the Consociation in the case of Mr. V/ilbon ; and the senior pastor himself, only a few years before, by his corcurrcr.ee in the vote of an Association, which was moved by him, expressly de- clared his deierminztion to resist the claims of the Consociation, as an unscriptural and oaauthorized tribunal. (See the vote of the Association, page 64 of this Review.) The above is one of several important instances of an incorrect record, made by the Rev. Dr. Whitney, the pastor of the church. I mention this instance, as I have before mentioned omissions, that the next generation (should it ever come to a knowledge of this review) may not rely with implicit confidence upon the records of the church, as containing a coriect and entiie representation of its proceedings in the late coutrovcrsy lesppcting the junior pastor. It is with serious regret that I have bad occasion to make use of the name of the Fev, Dr. Whitney, as having a p.nrt in the history of the lau controversy. The part that he Kas taken in the late difiiculty at Brooklyn, was what Mr. W. the junior pas> tor cculd never have expected, from his acquaintance and connexion with him for several vtsrs in the duties of the pastoral office. Until the la e controversy com- menced, ih; pastors had been associated, as was supposed by Mr. W. in entire friend- ship ^cd cordiality, notwithstanding their difference of opinion, for some lime before 119 ately after, to request Mr. Willson to preach, in the same manner as hedid previously to the meeting of the Consoci ^ ation, when the pulpit was not occupied by Dr. W. the se- nior pastor. Mr. W. having become entirely satisfied, that the Consociation had no jurisdiction that could affect his pastoral relation to the society, who claimed him as their minister, was ready to perform the publick duties of a minister at their request. The individuals who moved that Mr. Willson should be requested to preach, had not the least expectation, at the time the motion was made, that Dr. Whitney, the se- nior pastor, would be able to preach more than half the day, each sabbath ; as he had repeatedly declared, that he could not preach more than one sermon a day. But to prevent Mr. W. from preaching, he, from that time, con- tinued to perform the morning and evening services of ev- ery sabbath through the summer. At the advanced age of eighty.five, he literally endured the burden and heat oV the day through the warm season, except in two instances, when he introduced other gentlemen to preach, directly- contrary to a vote of the society in March, and a publick request of the society in June. By every possible management of the aggrieved breth- ren at their private meetings, after their attempts to ac- complish their purpose at pubHck meetings had failed ; by the effects produced from the Result of the Consociation ^ and by the private and publick influence of Dr. Whitney, the senior pastor, in favour of the views and wishes of the aggrieved brethren ; a majority of the church had novv? -ipenly taken their stand against the junior pastor. They; had publickly disapproved of his services, and had refused to unite in calling a Mutual Council ; while the society claimed and supported him as their minister. At the meeting of the society, 26th of June, a commit- tee was appointed to unite with Mr. Willson in (tailing arv Ecclesiastical Council, to examine into the proceedings of Mr. W.'« change of lentiraents was made publick, upon the subject of the Trinity. And, in my opinion, the best apology that can be offered for this aged and reverend gentleman, who had formerly been highly respected by many, and cfnstueJ by oth- ers, for his liberality in matters of faith, is the particular influence of a few meinbe.s of the church ; upon whose partial and disingenuous representations respecting Mr. W. and the divisions in the church and society, he had relied with too much confidence • and in whoje interests and feelings, sanctified bv the sacred name of conscience, hs had, from long babiUof imimtcy ind local attachments, too strongly parlicipatcd. 120 the Consociation, to give their advice and to express their opinion upon matters of interest and importance to the so- ciety. I'he society also voted, at the request of Mr. VV. that, if the Council advised to his dismission, they should proceed to dissolve his pastoral relation. About the middle of July, Mr. Willson and the com- mittee agreed upon a Mutual Council, to convene on the 17th of September. They sent letters to nine churches.* Keceiving information that several of the pastors could not attend at the time appointed, they sent letters to two more. On the 17th of September, the pastors and delegates of but three of the churches sent to, arrived.! Mr. W. and the committee agreed to request the pastors and delegates who were present, to form a Council, They accordingly form- ed, and the following was their Result : "RESULT OF COUNCIL. ** In pursuance of a letter missive from the committee of the First Ecclesiastical Society in Brooklyn, Connecti- cut, and the Rev. Luther Willson, the following individu- als assembled at the house of John Parish, Esq. in said town, Sept. 17, 1817, viz. " From the church of Shrewsbury, Rev. JOSEPH SUM- NER, D.D. Pc^^or— Brother Thomas W. Ward, DeU egate. *' From the 2d church of Worcester, AARON BAN- CROFT, D. D. Pc^^or— Deacon William Trow- bridge, Delegate, " From the 1st Congregational Church of Providence, Rev. HENRY EDES, Pfl-^^or— Brother Joseph Cady, jun. Delegate, * I will here note, that letters, containing copies of the letter sent to the churches, were seasonably forwarded to the aggrieved brethren, the moderator of the Consocia- tion, and Dr, Whitney, that they might have opportunity to make any representation that they pleased, before the Council to be convened, relative to the decision of the Consociation, and the business and objects for which the Council was called. + On the next week after the Council, iv/o pastors of churches sent to, came to Brooklyn, and the pastor and delegate of an'thsr church arrived at Providence on their way; and there being informed that the Cotincil had tijeL the week before, they pro- ceeded no farther, but immediately returned. Had it not been for an unfortunate misunderstanding as to the litne the Council were to convene, (which I shall not here be pjrticular to explain,) a majority of the chufchcs sent to would have been present in Council by tbeir pastors and delegates.. -• 121 ^* It became a question, whether it be expedient fof tb? above individuals to form into a Council, they being a mi^ nor part of the churches to which the letter missive was addressed. " While in conversation on this subject, they received the following communication from the committee and the Rev. Mr. Willson : 'BrooJdijJi, Sept, 17, 1817. * To the Rev. Gentlemen and Delegates present frorii several of the churches, to which we sent letters, applying for their assistance and advice by the attendance of their Rev. Pastors and Delegates to join in council— we present the following request, (respectfully submitting it to the consideration of the gentlemen present,) that they form a Council to examine and result upon the subjects proposed for their investigation, opinion and advice, as contained in the letter missive, Joh?! Parish, ll Roger IF. Williams, \ Benjamin Gilbert, >>^ ^"'^^^^'^ John kViUiams^ Shubael Brown^ J * Luther JFillsoUj in concurrence with the committee.* " In consequence of the above request, the Counci! formed, by electing the Rev. Dr. Sumner, IVIoderator, and the Rev. Dr. Bancroft, Scribe, *' Adjourned to the meeting-house. " The scribe was appointed a committee to wait upon the Rev.- Dr. Whitney, to inform him that the Council was in session, and ready to attend to the publick hearing. " The Rev. moderator opened the business with prayer. " The Council patiently and seriously attended to the communications of the committee of the society and pas- tor. After a full liearing of a narrative of all the facts and circumstances respecting existing difficulties- — adjourned to the house of John Parish, Esq. " Upon due deliberation— Fo^^f/, unanimously, the fol- lowing as the Result of Council : " This Council has been deeply impressed by the pub- lick hearing, to which they have attended at the particular request of the Rev. Mr. Willson, and the committee of the 16 122 society ; and the}' feel the greatest s}'mpath}r for them un- der the severe conflicts with which Divine Providence has permitted their Christian faith and constancy to be tri- cd. But, as the Council is composed of a minor part of the churches whose assistance and advice were expected;, they deem it improper for them to give any opinion re- specting the jurisdiction of the Consociation of Windham County, or respecting their Result in this place ; subjects,, which involve not only the ecclesiastical rights of this so- ciety, the ministerial character and standing of the Rev. Mr. Willson in this church, but also the highest interests of Christianity through the community. *' The Council is, however, wiUing to express an opin- ion, as desired, on the expediency of a dissolution of the pastoral relation between the Rev. Mr. Willson and the society. *' In consideration of the very peculiar circumstances now existing among this Christian people, they are con- strained to say, that they think his dismission adviseable. *' As the parties have invested this Council with the necessary power in this case, they do hereby declare the pastoral relation between the Rev. Luther Willson and the first ecclesiastical society in Brooklyn dissolved. , " Should implicit submission be yielded to the proceed- ings of Consociation by churches confessedly consociated, yet this Council without reserve give it as their settled opinion, that the decision of Consociation respecting an article of faith, which has been a subject of controversy in every age of the Christian church, and on which the great- est and best men have been divided, does not affect the clerical character of a preacher of the gosj^el among churches and societies not consociated* " With high satisfaction this Comicil notice^ that through the long and bitter controversy which has existed among this people^ the moral character of the Rev. Mr. Willson remains uninnpeached, and that no ministerial de- ficiencies or defects have been alleged against him. They cheerfully declare, that the review of the measures and conduct of Mr. Willson, through the various scenes of this unhappy controversy, has given the most satisfactory- evidence of a pacifick and charitable temper, and of those. P-iild and conciliatory virtues which are among the bright- 123 est ornaments of the Christian character, and the most ef- Scacious means of ministerial usefulness. " The Council appreciate his theological attainmentSj and ministerial qualifications. They invite him to Chris- tian and ministerial communion in their own churches, and they cordially recommend him to every portion of the Christian community, where the great Head of the Church may call him. They devoutly pray, that God may crown his futUFe days with peace, add lustre to his future exam- ple, success to his future labours, length to his life, anda at last, to his fidelity a crown of glor}^ *'The Council tender their condolence to the society under their heavy afHictions. The society well know the ecclesiastical and civil laws of the state. They can duly estimate the worth of their Christian rights. While they are disposed vigorously to exert themselves to maintain the liberty wherewith Christ has made them free, they will endeavour to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. While they repel every attempt from others to exercise dominion over their own faith, they will readily grant to all the liberty they claim, and steadily pursue the things which make for peacCj and things whereby one may edify another. " The Council commend you to God. May he delight to dwell with and bless you. May he imbue your minds with that wisdom which is from above ; which is first pure; then peaceable; gentle, and easy to be entreated; full of mercy and good fruits ; without partiality and with- out hypocrisy. " Now unto Him who is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glo- ry with exceeding joy — to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen, JOSEPH SUMNER, AARON BANCROFT, HENRY EDES, THOMAS W. WARD, WILLIAM TROWBRIDGE, JOSEPH CADY, Jr. f Brooklyn^ September iSt/iy 1817." ** A true copy. Attest, "AARON BANCROFT, Scribe^^ 124 As soon as Mr. Willson was dismissed from his pasto- ral relation to the society, it became a serious question among those who adhered to the power of the Consocia- tion, whether he was a member of the church. This ques- tion had employed considerable thought and conversation among ministers and Chrihtians, who were professedl}^ con- versant with ecclesiastical proceedings. Mr. W. chiimed to be a member of the church after the decision of the Consociation. His connexion with the church was, how- ever, denied by leading members who had been opposed to his ministry. After the question had been referred to the General Association, and to the Consociation of Wind- ham County, it was finally settled that he was a m.embcr. Consequently, the church, at a meeting in October, voted to suspend hiin from all Christian privileges, until he should repent of the heresy, with whicli he had been charged. " At a meeting of the congregational church in Brook- lyn, Oct. 27th, 1817, the church passed the following votei ' Whereas Mr. Luther Willson has been found guilty on a charge of heresy by the Consociation of this county, and has been frequently admonished by the members of this church for that crime ; also by the Consociation ia their late Result ; therefore it is the opinion of this church, that he ought to be, and is hereby suspended from the communion of this church, till he retracts and reforms.' *' Cony of the original vote, examined by " JOSIAH WHITNEY, Pastor:' The church had now, by the influence of the Consocia- tion, and of the Rev. Dr. Whitney, their pastor, entered into the views of the aggrieved brethren, and acted with decision in the case of Mr. Willson. This first act of the church, that was of a definite and decided character, after they had adopted the new system which had been prepared for them, is precisely what was to have been expect- ed. As to the circumstances which it mentions as the ground of Mr. W.'s suspension, it is characterised with bubtilty and misrepresentation. This vote was prepared before the meeting, and was moved by one who had been a leading individual among the aggrieved brethren ; and it was no doubt intended as a record to inform posterity, that the church in Brooklyn 125 once had a pastor who was charged ivith lieresy^ and that the Consociation found him guilty of the crime which was alleged against him ; whereas the Consociation, for reasons that are not known, (as the subject was not discussed by them in pubHck,) did not presume to declare Mr. W. guilty . of heresy. There is apparently a remarkable cau- tion m the Result, not to declare the pastor guilty of the " crime of heresy," the " crime" for which he was cited to ansvvci. This act of the church was also to inform the publick, that the church and the Consociation had been faithful, ac- cording to their Christian obligations, in using their en- deavours to convince the pastor of the crime, with* which he had been charged, and of which, previously to their ad- monition, diey had judged him guilty. The vote declares, that " the members of the church had frequently admonished the pastor for that crime." The phrase, " tlie members of the church," would convey to every reader, that the author meant by it the members of the church generally, or collectively. In direct contra- diction, therefore, to what I consider the obvious sense of this vote, I now tuke it upon me to state, (what I have de- clared in substance before,) that, of about thirty brethren of the church, not so many as four ever admonished Mr. W. for the crime of heresy, (unless publick reproaches, or observations and hints that are incidental, are called admo- nitions ;) nor so many as six ever admonished him of his errour as fundamental^ as essential to salvation, or to the Christian character. As to the admonition of the Consociation, mentioned in the vote, I will refer the reader to the Result, which con- tains the only admonition administered by that body. After they had deposed Mr. W. from the ministry, re- jected him from their fellowship, and dissolved his pastoral relation to the church in Brooklyn, they are complaisant enough to say — " and tenderly admonishing their late pas- tor to return to the Christian faith ;" and, as a farther ex- pression of their tenderness, and to give efficacy to their reproof by a direct and personal application, they were care- ful to inform the pastor and the publick, (after refusing an ex- planation of a misunderstanding that had unfortunately oc- curred,) that the pastor v/as so deficient in moral rectitude, 126 ifs to violate an agreement, which, on their part, was pacif- ick and liberal. To close my observations upon the vote of the church, I Will state, that no admonition was administered to Mr. W. by the church, or any of its members, at the meeting when lie was suspended from communion. I have now finished ray Review of the controversy rela- tive to Mr. W.'s ministrj^ and his connexion with the church. I feel it to be a matter of regret, that I cannot, consistently with the limits which I had prescribed to my- self in this Review, extend the history of the church in Brooklyn to a later period. I shall here only observe, that after the suspension of Mr. W. from CGmmunlon, tlie principal authors of the new system, " in the full tide" (as they apprehended) " of suc- cessful experiment," entered upon a course of discipline (or of wliat some would call persecution) against several inembers of the church. They had now commenced the work of reformation upon a more extensive plan. Three raembers who had been active and influential in support of Mr. W.'s ministry, and especially of his Christian and ministerial rights, were selected as victims of their pious zeal, to be sacrificed upon the altar of truth and love. The business of reformation, having all the interest of nov- elty, went on rapidly for a time. The principal actors m this scene, who were naturally of a warm temperament, and were distinguished for their resolution and perseverance, appeared strong in the faith, and full of expectation. But unfortunately, in their progress, they discovered many and increasing difiiculties, which they had not foreseen. They saw, when it was too late, that, in their first movements, there was a capital defect. They soon learnt by experi- ence, that what they had recently gained in zeal, they had lost in prudence and management. Obliged to contend with the current of publick opinion, and with obstacles tliat were numerous and unexpected, they considered their course too critical and adventurous to be pursued. Their neal abated ; their operations were suspended ; and the ob- ject of reformation, by direct and decisive measures, was relinquished, at least for a time. How soon the work of discipline will be revived, (an employment in which they engaged with much apparent satisfaction,) it is di^cult to 127 conjecture. I am however satisfied, that they who en- gaged in it before, will not enter upon it ag;ain, until thejr are prepared to act more deliberately, and are favoured with a fair prospect of success. The church in Brooklyn in its present situation, instead of resembling *• a city set on an hill, and giving light to the world," has more the resemblance of " a city that is broken down and without walls." In consequence of the pretensions of some of its mem- bers to pre-eminent purity and soundness in the faith, of private animosities, and of disaftection and hatred, occasion- ed by a self-confident and schismatick spirit, there has been no observance of a sacramental communion for more than a year. And how is it to be expected, that asperities will be softened, animosities extinguished, and Christian hu- mility and truth prevail, until the members in general, by an example of forbearance and condescension, practically allow to each other, in their difference of opinion, the ex- ercise and enjoyment of equal rights ; and, in the faithful observance of the ordinances of Christ, cultivate a meek and benevolent spirit. I think it proper to remark, that while the church has been thrown into confusion by its divisions, and the charity and communion of its members have been seriously interrupted by a difference of opinion that is inevitable a^ mong Christians in this state of imperfection, the society have as yet maintained those principles of religious liberty, which are essential to the permanent existence and general welfare of every community. And I hope they will con- tinue to realize, that the rights secured to a Christian soci- ety by these principles, are too valuable to be given away at the exorbitant claims of ecclesiastical interference — to» sacred to be regarded with indifference. I trust they will never think so lightly of their Christian rights, as to acqui- esce in a system of intolerance and restrictive communion. Let every citizen, and every Christian, duly estimate the worth of a good conscience, and the importance of a cor- rect knowledge of Christian doctrines and precepts, as one who must give an account to his Lord. But let him nev- er resign his understanding, which was given him by the inspiration of the Almighty, to the fallible guidance and authority of men. And let opiaions be estimated, more par- 120 ticularly, by their habitual and practical influence in form* ing the moral character, and in contributing to the happi- ness of societv. Religion, as to its motives and obligations, its spirit, ten- dency, and ultimate effects, is not to be regarded with in- difference and insensibility. Any subject that is worthy of inquiry and investigation, and, especially, that involves in it important consequences, cither immediate or remote, demands attention, and may well excite a degree of solici- tude and zeal. And I trust it will be universally agreed, that religion, as to the objects it contemplates, the duties it enjoins, and the ends it pursues, is a subject of this kind. But we must not be unmindful, that religious zeal should always be accompanied ^vith knowledge, and with true and practical humility. Otherwise it will grow into enthu- siasm, and we shall have more occasion to deplore its des- olations, than to admire its wisdom, or to rejoice in its amiable and happy effects. There are two extremes, to which Christians in different circumstances, and of different sensibility, imagination, and habits of thinkins:, are ant to incline. In the one case, we discover too great an adherence to certain mysterious and inexplicable doctrines ; and in the other, too much inclina- tion to determine the credibility of the doctrines of revela- tion by what is frequently called the test of reason and phi- losophy. In the first instance, faith, valuing itself too much for its superior discoveries and attainments, and thus degenerating into obstinacy and superstition, loses almost the whole of that practical character, which is humble, a- miable, and attractive. Reason, on the contrary, averse in its general principles to any thing like mystery, making too' little use of the affections in religion, and reducing almost every thing to the cold calculations of abstract and philosophical principles — exhibits nothing to the observer but the unanimated features of a lifeless form. But, if I am not mistaken, there is a happy temperature in religion, which neither oppresses by its intolerance, con- sumes with its zeal, nor congeals with its frigid calcula- tions. It rather inspires and enlivens, until it diffuses through the soul a genial warmth, and exhibits, in the con- versation and life, that powerful and attractive simplicity, which cannot fail to engage the affections, and command 129 respect. Let it therefore be the care of every Christian^ every church, and every society, to preserve the happy medium between the extremes. Amidst all their specu- lations, and differences of opinion, let them (if they please) use their endeavours to convince a!>.d persuade. At the same time, conscious of the imperfections of the human mind, the deceitfulness of the heart, and of the frailty of human nature, let them endeavour to possess "the unity ©f the Spirit in the bond of peace." Let all remember, that " now we see throueii a e'lass darkly" — "now we know m part'' — "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three ; but the greatest of these is charity." im ARTICLES, j'^or the Administration of Church Discifiline, unanimatiaty tgreed vfi» on, and consented to, by the Elders and all the Churches in the Colom ny of Connecticut , in J^etv- England, convened by Delegation in a General Council, at Saybrook, Sefitember 9, 170ft. T. THAT the elder or elders of a particular church, with the consent of the brethren of the same, have power and ought to exercise church