bers, with others, were formed into a religious society. Attended to an address of the aggrieved members of the church.

Read the result of a council, who convened at Wilton in March, 1823; also a letter accompanying said result, sent to the church; and also an answer of the church to the said result.* Attended to a remonstrance presented by several members of the church.

After examining the papers laid before them, and discussing the subjects which they contained, the council came to the following result.

Whereas certain members of the church in Wilton consider themselves aggrieved on account of the church's having departed from the intent of their former regulations and usages, in admitting persons into the church who did not profess the faith, which, they apprehend, was once delivered to the saints; and as they could not, by

in each particular case, that they should inquire concerning the number and situation of the society in relation to the means of providing public religious instruction.

*It might, perhaps, be understood that the church gave a particular answer to the result of the ex-parte council convened in March. This was not done. That council addressed nothing to the church; and no answer was thought requisite. As the church were ready to nego→ ciate and conclude upon a mutual council on any fair terms, they might well conceive that an ex-parte council at that time was premature, and according to usage of congregational churches, their intermeddling in any affairs of this church an intrusion entitled to no respect. By what is here called an answer, we presume they intended the remarks made on the result in a report of a committee. (See page 73.)

+ There are four reasons given by the council for the part they took towards forming these members into a separate church. The first is, that these members "consider themselves aggrieved," &c. As to feelings of grievance the declarations of these members might be good evidence, and, from the nature of the case, perhaps the only evidence ; but that which is alleged as matter of grievance, if true, was a fact that ought to have been proved, especially as it implicated others. What is the matter of grievance here alleged? It is nothing less than that the church admitted persons to become members of its body who did not profess the christian faith; for no other meaning in their connexion can fairly be put upon the words "the faith once delivered to the saints." That persons of this description have been admitted by this church to the privileges of members, we are confident could not be proved, because not true. We do not learn that any proof was even attempted; certainly none was contained in any papers mentioned in the result as having been examined by the council.

It may be here noticed, that a departure from "the intent of their former regulations and usages” is alleged against the church, whereas it evidently appears from what has gone before, that the great subject of uneasiness to the disaffected members was, that the church strictly adhered to their former regulations and usages.

remonstrance and entreaty, obtain redress of their griev ance; and as they cannot conscientiously have christian fellowship with the church of which they are now members; and they desire to be organized into a church

On what ground, in the second reason which they give, do the council assert that these members could not, by remonstrance and entreaty, obtain redress of the grievance just mentioned? No remonstrance or entreaty concerning such a grievance was ever made to the church. From the foregoing memorials, which contain all the remonstrances and entreaties ever made to the church on that subject, may be readily seen that the complaint was concerning certain votes and regulations of the church, and that it is no where in them so much as pretended that any improper person, or any who did not profess the christian faith, had been admitted into the church.

It ought to be distinctly noticed, that the admitting of improper and unchristian members is another and quite a different thing from the votes and regulations of the church. What then are we to think of the dressing up of one of these so different things for the other, and casting upon the church unheard such an unsupported and supposititious charge?

+ The third reason given by the council is, that these members cannot have christian fellowship with the church. If this, and certain parts of the other reasons given, could be considered merely as the representations of the dissatisfied members, and not the declarations or decisions of the council, the result would present a less uncandid and unfriendly aspect of the council towards the church. That the expressions used were so understood at the time by one of the council, (the Rev. Scribe) we are assured; and this understanding of them is more consonant to the candor, which, we are happy to say, has usually marked his course, and to the intercourse he still maintains with the church and its pastor. Whether the same meaning was attached to the language of the result by any other member of the council, we cannot say; but we are equally assured by the best authority, that it was not so understood by all of them. But whatever some members of the council might have understood to be the meaning of the result, it only concerns them as individuals, and can be urged only as matter of individual exculpation. When a council has given its result in writing, the same principles of construction apply to it as to the acts of other public bodies. Their meaning and intention must be sought in a fair construction of their language, and the import of it, as an act of the body, cannot be varied by the individual explanations of its members. The fair import of the language appears to be, that these members of the church could not, if they were guided by a pure and sufficiently enlightened conscience, hold fellowship with the church; for if the council had thought that these members were under a mistake in what they could not conscientiously do, they ought surely, for the sake of peace and good order, to have endeavored to rectify their mistake, and reconcile their consciences to a correct judgment and conduct.

What then is the black offence by which the church have rendered themselves unfit for the fellowship of christians? For if they are unfit for the christian fellowship of these members, they must be unfit for the fellowship of any other christian. What then was this offence, which degrades the church from the christian rank? If we may rely on the representation of their grievance, made by these members to the church, it is no other in substance than that the church suffer candid

*for their better spiritual improvement and edification; the council recommend it to them to request of the church a dissolution of their particular relationship with them; and having waited not exceeding one month, for the granting of their request; and having subscribed their names to the confession of faith which they had adopted in 1803, and to the covenant which is now in

ates for admission, as was done in the days of the apostles, to exhibit their faith by such forms of words of their own selection, as might best express their real belief. But if the council would include as a part of the offence, that a certain form had been used, which was much dwelt upon by the ex-parte council in March previous, as reprehensibly defective; that form contained every proposition, which was judged necessary by an inspired evangelist for admission to the privileges of a christian church. What then might be consistently inferred from the decision of the council? Would it not support in full the inference, that the churches established by the apostles and their inspired fellow laborers, ought not in good conscience to have had christian fellowship extended to them? Conscience is a very good word, but not so good, but that persons may deceive themselves in using it. It is, moreover, many times a very convenient word, as it will often serve for an answer where reason and common sense must be silent. Many wrong actions may be done for conscience' sake, for the apostles were told that the time would come when killing them would be thought to be doing God service. The dissevering a church and denying it christian fellowship, on account of so scriptural a regulation as that complained of, we are not, therefore, bound to believe right, though done ever so conscientiously. There are other principles also than conscience, which may come into operation even in ecclesiastical affairs, if a reverend member of the council did not mistake when he said: "It is pride which raises walls of separation in the sheep fold of Christ; walls, which are better calculated to weaken and injure the flock, than to prevent the assaults of the wolf."-(Rev. Mr. Moore's Ordination Sermon at Leominster, page 9.)

*The fourth reason given by the council, is the desire of these persons to be organized into a church. On the expedience of the thing desired, though a subject important to have been considered by the council, we here make no comment. But whether expedient or the reverse, a common regard to decorum and ecclesiastical usages demanded, that the church should have been first notified and consulted, upon the desire of any portion of its members residing in the same place to be constituted a separate church. Severe animadversion might justly be made on a procedure tending so much to the subversion of ecclesiastical order and discipline; but we leave the subject to the reflection of the reader.

+ The doings of the church, whatever they might be, relative to that request, were not to have the slightest effect upon the determin ation of the council or the organization of a separate church. This formality of making the request, which the council recommend, though they might hope by it to screen from view a glaring irregularity, can be viewed as little other than a mockery of the church.

The time they were to wait for their request to be granted might, for any thing in the result to the contrary, have been the shortest possible. After waiting one hour they might have performed the prescribed condition of subscribing their names, and the conditions would

their use, the council will then have* acknowledged them to be a regularly organized church.

The council sincerely lament that there should be such difference of religious sentiment and regulations in particular churches that divisions arise,† and it becomes necessary or expedient, that their different parts should separate for their tranquillity and improvement. The council are decidedly of opinion that when contention. between the parts of a church becomes sharp, it is better be fully performed. We may think the doings of this council to be no authority for establishing a separate church and the performance of the conditions imposed, of no importance; yet we remark that there has recently appeared some disposition to evade the plain import of this part of the result, and attribute to it the same meaning as it would have, if the words "not exceeding" were erased. In the prescribed conditions two things were to be done by these members, viz. making a request, and subscribing their names as directed, with a limitation of time for performing them. The answer of the church, as will be seen, neither refused nor unconditionally granted their request, and did not therefore necessarily put a stop to their waiting. The direction not to wait exceeding one month for the granting their request, clearly intimates that some act was to be done by these persons within such time. What was this act? The only act mentioned, which can be supposed to have been intended, was the subscrib ing their names as directed, which therefore, was to be done within a time not exceeding one month. Some limitation of the time appears very reasonable, as after a considerable lapse of time different circumstances might make the formation of a church more inexpedient. The limiting it to one month, (so that if these members should not in that time perform the prescribed conditions, there would be no acknowledgment from the council that they were a regularly organized church, and the doings of the council be without effect,) may appear sufficiently short, but we claim no right to object on that ac

count.

* We are not conscious of any unreasonable attachment to long practised forms and usages, yet we cannot help preferring the common method of installing churches in time present, as more solemn and impressive, rather than this newly invented contrivance of doing it in the second future conditional, with no one authorised to proclaim when the conditions are performed,

+ Where there is freedom of inquiry and examination, there will be more or less difference of sentiment; but divisions do not thence necessarily arise. They more often may be traced to the domineering spirit of individuals or a party, than to any necessity from a diversity of sentiment. "When christians consider those things essential, which are not essential; and cannot dispense with the least variation from their measure of faith, the way is open for disaffection and dis union between the members of Christ's body." (Rev. H. Moore's Ordination Sermon.)

As to "difference of regulations in particular churches" it is diffi cult to perceive why it should be so very pernicious for the church in Wilton to differ from some others in its regulations concerning the admission of members, and it not also be pernicious for the very churches represented in this council to differ as they all do from each other on the same subject.

to separate, like Paul and Barnabas,* than to continue united in collision. It is the devout desire of the council 'that correct sentiments of the doctrines of the gospel may prevail; that good order in the churches may be observed; and mutual charity and fellowship be exercised by all the members of Christ's body.

Wishing that grace, mercy and peace may be multiplied unto them, the council subscribe themselves their brethren in the faith and fellowship of the gospel. Voted unanimously.

EBENEZER HILL, Moderator.

HUMPHREY MOORE, Scribe.

Wilton, June 18th, 1823.

On the 22d of June the following letter was sent to the church.

LETTER.

To the Congregational Church in Wilton.

REV. AND BELOVED,

We the undersigned, now members of this church, considering ourselves aggrieved on account of this church having, in our view, departed from the intent of their former regulations and usages in admitting persons into

*The allusion to Paul and Barnabas is readily allowed to be very ingenious and happy, only, that it is not in the least degree applicable. It is no where found that Paul or Barnabas ever dismembered a church, or refused each other christian fellowship. That the dissatisfied members might have exhibited to the council convincing evidence of contending sharply against the church, we will not here dispute; but that the church had contended sharply with these members was to us a new suggestion. The fault of too great forbearance we know was imputed to the church by some, well acquainted with the whole proceedings. The conduct of the church in this affair, whether it had been too severe or mild, we cheerfully leave to the consideration of the reader.

+ We like good professions very well, but something more still better. The reader may compare this profession of the council with their conduct in interfering in the manner they have done with ecclesiastical order in this place.

If the operation of the principle were brought home to his own church, and a portion of its members (remaining in the same place) without giving any previous notice to the church of their desire or intention, had sought the aid of an ex-parte council to establish them as a distinct separate church, and had without testimonials of regular standing, received such countenance to their project as this council have given, would any one think it to be promoting good order, mutual charity and fellowship? We think not.