though the discontented party did not constitute more than one third of the church, yet they plainly perceiv ed that their design was first to exclude their pastor, and then to excommunicate their brethren. That, in order to prevent this schism, they had offered to the complainants either that they should remain unmolested with the majority; or, that the majority, for the sake of peace, should dismiss their pastor, in order to remain unmolested with them; or, if this would not satisfy their opponents, Mr. Sherman's friends would retain and maintain their own minister, and let the discontented party have theirs. This concession, however, liberal as it was, did not satisfy the dissidents. Lastly, a deputation from the Congregation were heard before the Council, who stated, that not less than nine-tenths of the society were well satisfied with their minister, and had no desire to part with him, or to restrain him in his enquiries. Being," as they express it, "tenacious of the right of private judgment, they wish to indulge their minister in the same neither would they wish that he should act the hypocrite to gain the approbation of any man. And they apprehend that, in case Mr. Sherman is dismissed, the society will soon be found in a most unhappy situation, not likely to be settled with another minister for many years.

99

officiate, and was supported by his friends as long as he lived. In America, it is presumed that where the independent form of church government prevails, this principle is in general maintained. But in Connecticut, they have strangely deviated from the original freedom of the separate churches, by the institution of what is called the Consociation, a sort of spiritual court, which was established in Connecticut in the beginning of the last century. This court has power to interfere "upon all occasions ecclesiastical," and its censures are authorised and supported by the civil power. Each Consociation consists of ministers and messengers from every congregation which belongs to it. But no congregation is compelled to join it. As far as its power extends, it is properly a court of inquisition; and in some cases the members have discovered too much of an inquisitorial spirit.

Notwithstanding however these strong facts, this noble profession, and this conciliatory spirit, the prudent Council proceed, as a matter of expediency, to dismiss Mr. Sherman from his connection with the society and while they bear honorable testimony to his character and talents, and "recommend him to the kind reception of those who may see fit to employ him," they cautiously subjoin, that they do not consider themselves as giving their approbation of Mr. Sherman's peculiar phraseology or circumstantial difference of sentiment on the subject of the Trinity." And in their subsequent advice to Mr. Sherman, they admonish him to guard against a bold spirit of speculation, and an inordinate love of novelty.

It is not a little curious to contrast those differences of opinion which this venerable Council coolly describes under the soft expressions of peculiar phraseology and a circumstantial difference of sentiment. The man whom they gravely caution against a bold spirit of speculation and inordinate love of novelty, asserts the doctrine, that there is One God, the sole object of religious worship, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who is the prophet and messenger of God. While his orthodox opponents, to accommodate whom the Council think it expedient to dismiss their exemplary pastor, maintain as a doctrine essential to salvation, and which they "can never give up but with the Bible which contains it," that "the man Jesus is truly and properly God." Is the venerable Council serious in stating differences so glaring and so substantial as these, as nothing more than a "peculiar phraseology" and a "circumstantial difference of sentiment"? No! No! Opinions such as these can no more harmonize with each other than light and darkness, than Christ and Belial.They who hold doctrines so diametrically opposite cannot be fellow-worshippers in the same temple. It was expedient that they should separate. So far the Council judged right. But the difficulty lies in discovering the expedience, the justice, the common sense

of making the greater submit to the less; in deciding in opposition to the declared principles and wishes of two-thirds of the church and nine-tenths of the congregation. It is not to be doubted that the members of this Council were upright and honorable men. But as the case now stands, it is impossible to approve of their decision. Why is the majority to be sacrificed to the minority? Why is the upright, conscientious enquirer after truth to fall a victim to bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance? This surely is a miserable way of promoting either truth or peace. So the members of this truly respectable but too timid and cautious Council have themselves seen reason to acknowledge; and one of them at least has amply redeemed his character, and has himself very lately become a fellow-sufferer in the cause of truth.*

This gentleman is the Rev. Abiel Abbot, late pastor of the first church in Coventry in the state of Connecticut, where he was settled in February 1795, and continued to exercise his ministry peaceably and acceptably for fifteen years. In February 1810, some of the members of his church discovered in the worthy pastor symptoms of heresy, and after some discussion the church applied for advice to the Association which assembled in October, who again referred them to the Consociation which assembled in April, 1811. The Consociation summoned the worthy pastor to reply to the charge: but Mr. Abbot protested against their jurisdiction; neither himself, nor the church of which he was pastor, nor the congregation having ever joined the Consociation, or acknowledged its authority. The society likewise entered a similar protest. The Consociation however, nothing daunted, voted its own competency and authority, and in their way proceeded to examine the merits of the case; the result of which was, that the Rev. Abiel Abbot does neither preach nor believe the doctrine of the sacred Trinity; that he does neither preach aor believe the divinity of Jesus Christ;—that he does neither preach nor believe the doctrine of the atonement by the blood of Christ, nor of justification by his imputed righteousness and that doctrines contrary to these, and subversive of the Christian's faith and hope, are by him taught and inculeated. Voted, That the man who neither believes nor preaches the doctrines specified, is disqualified for the office of the Gospel ministry; for he has essentially renounced the Scriptures, has made shipwreck of faith, has denied the Messiah, &c. The Council therefore feel them

Mr. Sherman being thus unexpectedly dismissed from a congregation where he had passed eight years

selves required by Jesus Christ, the great God and Saviour, &c. to declare, and they hereby do declare, that the ministerial relation between the Rev. A. A. and the first church at Coventry ought to be, and is dissolved, &c.

Such at the commencement of the nineteenth century was the language, and such were the extravagant claims, of an assembly of Protestant Christian Ministers, assuming the title of the Consociation of the County of Tolland in the State of Conneeticut. Neither the Fathers of the Council of Trent, nor those of Nice, nor of any intervening Council, whether general or special, ever pretended to higher authority, nor made a bolder claim to inspiration or infallibility.

Mr. Abbot however, and his friends, the great majority of his society, not feeling themselves inclined to submit to the dictates of the inspired Council. resolved that the unwarranted censure of the Consociation should have no effect upon their mutual connexion; and he still continued to officiate among them as before. Nevertheless, to guard on the one hand against the interposition of the secular arm, and on the other to testify his respect to the Council itself, the members of which were individually respectable, this amiable and persecuted confessor thought it advisable to invite a Mutual Council of grave and learned divines from the State of Massachusetts, to deliberate how far it was his duty to respect the decision of the Tolland Consociation. The very sensible and pious answer of Dr. Osgood, who declined attending, contains many very just and pertinent observations. "For myself," says he, "I have little faith in, or respect for, Ecclesiastical Councils. I have long thought them unauthorised in Scripture, and for the most part worse than useless, excepting as mere referees or arbiters mutually chosen by parties at variance to settle their disputes." Speaking of the censure of the Consociation, he adds, "It is indeed a most extraordinary procedure, in this land of republican liberty, where all Ecclesiastical Establishments are explicitly disclaimed. This consideration, however, assures you, that though the tongues and pens of Ecclesiastical Councils be as free and unrestrained as those of any other description of citizens, yet they have no power to execute their decrees; and you have no more reason to tremble at the anathema of the Consociation of Tolland County, than at a bull of the Roman Pontiff. It might, therefore, perhaps, be advisable to let it pass with a little notice; suffering it to have no other effect than to render you a better Christian and a better man."

These are the observations and advice of a wise and good man; which perhaps it would have been most prudent to have

in harmony and usefulness, now found himself cast out upon the world destitute almost of the necessaries of life, and under the ban of a powerful party, who were determined to the utmost to obstruct his future exertions, and to drive him from the ministry. Happily, though the will was good, the power was wanting. The pastor and the congregation appear to have regarded it as their duty to acquiesce in the decision of the council, however painful and in an affecting address which was presented by the Society to Mr. Sherman, they express their deep regret at the unexpected dissolution of their connexion, when they most wished for its continuance,-when they most wanted

followed. The Mutual Council, however, convened by Mr. Abbot and his friends, assembled at Coventry on the 5th of June, 1811, the venerable Dr. Lathrop in the chair; and after due deliberation, they conclude that the Consociation had no right to dissolve the connexion between the pastor and the soeiety, the great majority of whom manifest a warm attachment to his person and ministry; but, that from considerations of expediency, they do dissolve it, and declare that it is dissolved accordingly." Thus again, we see the sacred cause of Chris tian truth, saerifised to a mean and temporising policy; and the faithful champion of truth, the amiable, useful, and beloved pastor, torn from his weeping flock, and consigned to poverty and solitude, for the sake of preserving a hollow, deceitful, temporary peace. But this cannot last long; nor can such a measure be approved by the great Head of the church. Of this strange event, the virtuous sufferer has published a fair and interesting narrative, which is written with a temper and spirit truly Christian. "I will bring," says he, "no railing accusation. The men from whom I have differed, I have loved: the men from whom I have suffered, I have respected; and to none am I conscious, to this hour, of feeling an unfriendly sentiment. From the heart I wish them grace, mercy, and peace." It is, however, but justice to the members of this perhaps, too cautious Council, to add, that they do not presume to judge of the faith of their unfortunate brother; that they express the highest respect for his moral character, and that they cordially recommend him to the pastoral office in some other church. And if there be, as I am sure there is, a love of truth, virtue, and liberty, in the New-England States, this able, honest, and pious sufferer for truth, will not be suffered to remain long in silence and seclusion.