THE UNITARIAN ADVOCATE.

THE conductors of this Periodical, in their number for October, continue their remarks on Professor Stuart's Letter to Dr. Channing, and call the attention of their readers, first, to the subject of 'Ecclesiastical tribunals;' and secondly, to the objections which have been made to some recent Judicial decisions, touching the rights of the churches.

In the Letter of Mr. Stuart, Dr. Channing was quoted as follows.

"We are now threatened with new tribunals, or Consociations, whose office it will be to try ministers for their errors, to inspect the churches, and to advise and assist them in the extirpation of heresy.' Whilst the laity are slumbering, the ancient and free constitution of our churches is silently undermined, and is crumbling away. Since argument is insufficient to produce uniformity of opinion, recourse must be had to more powerful instruments of conviction; I mean, to ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS."

"It is a melancholy fact, that our long established form of Congregational church government is menaced, and TRIBUNALS unknown to our churches,—are to be introduced for the very purpose, that the supposed errors and mistakes of ministers and private Christians may be tried and punished as heresies; that is,

AS CRIMES."

The allegations in these quotations are among those which Mr. Stuart declares untrue, and from which he undertakes to vindicate himself and his Orthodox brethren. The conductors of the Advocate admit that the Orthodox have not now" any intention of introducing such tribunals amongst us," but insist that in 1815, the time when Dr. Channing first prefered these charges, an attempt of this nature was actually made; and they remark, at length, on the proposals then under consideration by the General Association of Massachusetts for a Consociation of the churches.* In reply to their remarks, it is proposed to consider the two following inquiries:

I. Were the Consociations, at that time proposed, such tribunals as those described by Dr. Channing? And

II. How was the proposal for a Consociation of the churches regarded and treated by the Orthodox clergy of the State?

To the first of these inquiries, we answer, without hesitation, in the negative. Dr. Channing says, "Our long established form of Congregational church government is menaced, and tribunals unknown to our churches are to be introduced." But Consociation was not "unknown to our churches." "The principles for it were explicitly set forth, in distinct propositions, by the venerable Synod,

*The conductors of the Advocate suppose that Professor Stuart must have forgotten these proposals for Consociation when he wrote his Letter to Dr. Channing, and, in a strain of affected sportiveness and triumph, they endeavor to assist his recollections on the subject. Now there is not the least reason to suppose that the proposals for Consociation were forgotten by Mr. Stuart. They could not have been forgotten. He quotes Dr. Channing speaking of "Consociations" by name. He might have a perfect recollection of all that was said and done on the subject of Consociations, and yet have no knowledge of any such tribunals for the trial and punishment of heretics, as Dr. Channing says the churches were threatened with.

composed of the elders and messengers of the churches, and holden at Boston in 1662." These propositions, prepared in many instances by the same individuals who, only fourteen years before, assisted in framing the Cambridge Platform, were incorporated in the Report made to the General Association in 1815, and were spoken of by the Committee who presented that Report as " especially suitable to be adopted; as a Consociation, founded upon them, and consistent with them, can be no innovation, but a recurrence to first principles, a restoration of our churches to their primitive order." Again, proposals for a Consociation of the churches in Massachusetts were made to the Convention of Congregational Ministers in May, 1706, and received the sanction of that body. In 1716, Dr. Increase Mather published his "Disquisition concerning Ecclesiastical Councils," in which he strongly urges Consociation, in the very form in which it was proposed in 1815, as a measure" not only lawful, but absolutely necessary for the establishment of the churches." The public will judge, therefore, whether the Consociations proposed in 1815 were, as Dr. Channing alleges, unknown to the churches of Massachusetts-a thing of which they had never before heard, and concerning which they had no knowledge.

But "our long established form of Congregational church government is menaced," &c. This implies two things; first, that the Consociations were, in case of refusal or reluctance, to be forced upon the churches; for we do not menace a man with that which is only offered him, and which he is free to accept or decline; and, secondly, that they are inconsistent with "Congregational church government." But so far were the proposals of 1815 from attempting to force Consociations on the churches, it was expressly provided, in one of the articles, that "no church can rightfully be considered or treated as belonging to a Consociation without its own voluntary consent, or restrained from regularly withdrawing itself from a Consociation whenever it shall see fit to withdraw.”

As to Consociations being inconsistent with " Congregational church government," we have several remarks to offer. In the first place, it is very strange that the venerable men who planted the Congregational churches of Massachusetts and framed the Platform, should, only fourteen years after, publish a set of propositions, entirely inconsistent with the plan of government which they had previously adopted. Yet, as has been shown, the propositions, published and agreed on in 1662, were made "the basis" of the plan of Consociation proposed in 1815.-It is strange, too, that Doctors Increase and Cotton Mather, than whom no men better understood the constitution of our churches, or more highly valued it, should urge the adoption of a measure, which went to subvert and destroy this constitution. Yet they did urge the adoption of Consociation, in the same general form which they were made to assume in the proposals of 1815.-It is also strange, that the Congregational churches of Connecticut should continue and flourish, for than a hundred and twenty years, under the influence of a system at war with the first principles of Congregationalism. Yet they have continued and flourished, during all this period, in a consociated state.

In view of these facts, it may well be asked, What is there in a Consociation of Churches, inconsistent with the principles of Congregational government? A Consociation of churches is merely an agreement, voluntarily entered into by a convenient number of contiguous churches, that they will help to bear each other's burthens, and watch over one another in faithfulness and love; that they will mutually afford and accept counsel and aid in all cases of doubt and difficulty; and, in short, that they will walk together in a holy fellowship, according to some previously adopted rules. Now in all this we see nothing inconsistent with any principles of Congregational government. It is not inconsistent with such principles for a church to call a Council, when one is thought to be needed. But a Consociation is no other than a standing Council, previously agreed on, to be summoned together when a necessity occurs.* A Congregational church, said our fathers, "hath full power and authority within itself regularly to administer all the ordinances of Christ, and is not under any other ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatsoever." But a body possessing originally all this power may delegate some portion of it, if it pleases-to a mutual Council, to a Board of reference, or to a Consociation; and may again resume it, if it shall be abused. It is not inconsistent with the freedom of a people, or with their sovereignty, in a civil sense, that they choose to delegate a portion of their power. And no more is a delegation of ecclesiastical power inconsistent with the freedom and independence of the churches. In the proposals for Consociation, published in 1815, it is stated expressly, "that it will not be competent to the Consociation to hinder the exercise of the power delegated by Christ to each particular church, in regard to its own interior administrations and concerns, but by counsel from the word of God to direct and strengthen the same, upon all just occasions."

It is further alleged by Dr. Channing that these "tribunals are to be introduced for the very purpose, that the supposed errors and mistakes of ministers and private Christians may be tried and punished as heresies; that is, as crimes." But this, instead of being "the very purpose" for which Consociations were proposed in 1815, constituted, so far as appears, no part of the purpose. Nothing is said or intimated in the proposals then made about "the errors and mistakes of ministers and private Christians being tried and punished as crimes," and there is no evidence that any such idea ever entered the minds of the Committee by whom these proposals were reported. Indeed, there is abundant evidence that no such thought could have entered their minds. It is provided, in one of the articles, that the connected churches " agree to hold the Consociation as the proper body" [instead of selecting a Council for the purpose] "to hear and decide upon any complaint or allegation, touching ministerial character, against any minister belonging to it, to acquit, or to find guilty, to advise, sustain, or depose, as the case

In one of the Articles proposed in 1815, is contained the following provision: "The consociated churches with their Pastors agree to regard and use the particular Consociation to which they belong as the proper Council, made mutual by this agreement, as to all parties concerned, to be applied to by the churches and individuals in the connexion, in all cases in which the advice and assistance of a Council is requisite."

may require." But here is nothing about trying and punishing heretics as criminals-nothing which may not be done, and which has not frequently been done, by mutual Councils, under the present organization of our churches.

Let it not be understood from anything here said, that we are in favor of Consociations, or that we desire to see the churches of this Commonwealth consociated. Such an order of things may be expedient, or it may not be; we touch not that question. The churches have a right to consider and judge of the matter as they please.Our single object has been to show, that the Consociations, proposed in 1815, have no resemblance to the "tribunals" described by Dr. Channing, and consequently furnish no colorable ground for the allegations he has made. He describes "tribunals unknown to our churches," whereas Consociations had long been known to them. He describes something with which the churches were "menaced;" whereas Consociations, had the proposals for them been approved, would only have been offered to the churches, to be received or rejected, as they thought best. He describes something inconsistent with "Congregational church government;" but Consociations are entirely consistent with such government. He describes " tribunals to be introduced, for the very purpose" of trying and punishing heretics as criminals; but the Consociations, proposed in 1815, contemplate no such object as this. Where then is the resemblance between the two? And how little reason did the proposal for Consociations furnish, for the sweeping charges which have been made to grow out of it?

We were to inquire, in the second place, how the proposals for a Consociation of the churches, of which so much has been said, were regarded and treated by the Orthodox clergy. It has been commonly represented by Unitarians, that these proposals originated with this body of men, and were regarded by them with great complacence. They intended and expected to fasten them on the churches, and to make them the instrument of embarrassing and removing every minister who could not enter into their views. But by the vigilance and exertions of their opponents, the people were led to take the alarm, and the whole project was mercifully defeated.' He can have had but little acquaintance with leading Unitarians, or their works, who does not know that this is the manner in which they have usually spoken of this subject; but no respresentation, certainly, could be more unfounded.-In the summer of 1814, the plan of Consociation, approved and confirmed by the Convention of Congregational Ministers in 1706, was submitted to the General Association of Massachusetts. A Committee was appointed to consider the same, and report the next year. The next year they did report, and their report was ordered to " be printed, and copies sent to the several Associations, for the purpose of ascertaining the public sentiment respecting the plan of ecclesiastical order therein presented." At the next meeting, in 1816, the subject was called up, and finally disposed of. In what manner? By adopting the proposals for Consociation, and forcing them upon the reluctant churches? No, but by leaving the churches to do just as they pleased. "The Association wish not to prescribe opinions to their brethren, neither

would they recommend any reform to be made in the church, otherwise than in conscientious obedience to its Supreme Head. They believe that the Report of the Committee" (proposing Consociations) "accords in its general principles, with the examples and precepts of the New Testament; and in those parts of the Commonwealth, in which the sentiments of ministers and churches are favorable to its adoption, this Association have no objection against their proceeding immediately to organize themselves into Consociations, upon the general principles of said Report."

The truth of the case, in few words, is this: the plan for consociating the churches of Massachusetts, which was first attempted in 1662, and again by the Mathers in the early part of the next century, was brought forward, the third time, by individuals of the clergy, in 1814. The proposal was made to a body of Orthodox ministers, and never went beyond these ministers. It was never submitted to the churches, or to the people, so far as we know, in a single instance. The result was, that the clergy, after much consideration, did not think proper to urge its adoption. They waived the whole subject by saying, that if the churches in any part of the State wished to consociate, they had no objection. The plan of consociating the churches, therefore, whether good or bad, was put to rest, not by the people, not by the churches, not by Unitarians, (whose opposition weighed not a feather in the minds of those to whom the subject was submitted) but solely THROugh the influENCE OF THE ORTHODOX CLERGY.

We We say these things, not because we are anxious that our clergy should have the credit of this measure, if any credit belongs to it; but because what we have stated is the truth, and truth which ought to be known and understood. This is a subject on which Unitarians have vapored, and boasted, and accused and censured those who deserve no censure, long enough. It is time that it should be explained, and set in a proper light; and we are much obliged to our neighbors of the Advocate for affording us so favorable an opportunity of introducing it to the consideration of our readers.

The other subject, to which the conductors of the Advocate call the attention of their readers, is despatched by them in few words; and we shall not need to employ many in reply. That we have objected to certain decisions of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, affecting the interests of our churches, (as every citizen who thinks with us has an undoubted right to do,) is certain. We have not called in question the ability of the Judges, much less their integrity: but as some Unitarians say of "the writers of the books of Scripture," we think them "men, and therefore fallible." In the Report of the decision of the Dedham case, we are sure that important historical facts, of which we can judge as well as lawyers, are greatly misrepresented. We are sure, also, that the Chief Justice did travel out of his professional sphere, and go into a discussion of theological questions. Is not the question respecting the proper qualifications for communion at the Lord's table a theological question? one which has been agitated by theologians in this country for more than a hundred years, and is still unsettled? And did not Chief