The result was not the same in Connecticut. Ministers and delegates from the counties of Hartford, Fairfield, New London, and New Haven, assembled at Saybrook in September of 1708. They agreed on a System of Consociations or permanent Mutual Councils instead of the plan of occasional Mutual and Ex-parte Councils. These Articles, although they relate chiefly to Associations of ministers and the powers and methods of Consociations, are commonly known under the name of the Saybrook Platform; and in general the Congregational churches of Connecticut have been regulated by it in respect to Councils to this day. (See No. II. Appendix.)

§ 165. Objections to permanent or Consociated Councils.

As repeatedly ineffectual attempts have been made to establish the system of permanent Councils beyond the limits of Connecticut and Rhode Island, it seems proper to notice some of the objections, which have been made to a plan, in favor of which its friends assert very much can be said.

(1) It is objected, first, that the system is unfavorable to the rights of individuals and churches, and, therefore, inconsistent with the grounds, on which Congregationalists first set out. If individuals or churches do not submit to the Council's decision, according to the Saybrook plan, they expose themselves to the highest moral punishment, that of excommunication; however conscientious they may be. This is thought by some to be not wholly in unison with the fundamental Congregational principle, that the Bible and a man's conscience are his ultimate law. Besides, the files of precedents, which are accumulated in the records of such Councils, are not known to the churches generally; nor are the churches

suitably consulted in the formation of the same, although they are to be governed by them.

A second objection is, that they tend to foster feelings of pride, and place and power, the seeds of which are so deeply implanted in our corrupt nature. On this subject Ecclesiastical History in all its stages teaches a lesson, which has been too dearly purchased, to be lightly regarded, or readily forgotten. It appears from Mosheim, (Volume 1.) that in the second century the churches were independent of each other except in the bonds of mutual prayer, love, and beneficence. Afterwards the churches of whole provinces were formed into one large and standing Ecclesiastical body, possessed of certain powers; such as making laws or canons, obligatory on particular churches. In due season, the officers of these formidable bodies claimed for themselves epithets of honor, prerogatives, and observances of particular respect, in virtue of said office; and thus arose, not to mention other significant titles, Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and Popes.

This is the natural result, say these objectors, of giv-. ing permanent power to any body of men. Men accumulate power, as they do riches; the larger the heap, the more likely it is to grow. Therefore, it is best to stand upon First Principles, and to endure any defects of occasional Councils, rather than encounter the hidden, but certain hazards of those, which are permanent.

§ 166. Objections to Councils, which are not permanent. On the other hand, it is said, that lay-members have a part in the Councils of Consociations, and therefore, as they are particularly interested in preserving the rights of individuals and churches, the fears of some future unjust domination on the part of pastors are exaggerated. And while the alarms sounded in respect to Consocia tions, are groundless, the supporters of them insist, that

the advantages they possess over Occasional Mutual Councils, are obvious. The former know the questions, submitted to them, but know not the parties; while the latter are truly and avowedly the creatures of parties.And hence it often happens, as the parties naturally select the churches which they suppose to be favorable to themselves, that they are equally or nearly equally divided; come to no decision; or form a decision, which is weakened and deprived of its due effects by the suspicion of the interference of private motives. But Consociations, being permanently constituted, are rightly supposed to be free from any undue bias; and their decisions are, therefore, entitled to the greater weight.

§ 167. Of the progress and improvement of the Congregational system.

On this subject a single remark remains to be made. The system of Order and Government of the Congregational churches was not adopted at once, but gradually, as the leadings of Providence, the teaching of prayer, and the searching of the Scriptures opened the way. And when we remember, how they have thus been led, from one step to another, in the introduction of a system in so many respects unexceptionable, we may indulge the hope, that on the subject under consideration, the churches will at last find the right way, and be united in the same practice. May we not anticipate, that the system of Church Conferences, which was so early and earnestly proposed by the fathers of these churches, although but recently introduced, will be the means of diminishing the obstacles in the way of a satisfactory and uniform arrangement in respect to Councils? They furnish suitable occasions for an amicable interchange of sentiment on all general religious interests; and, although they might not be considered the proper bodies for introducing or amending a system of Church Discipline and Order, they

might properly take measures for assembling an ecclesiastical body, a Synod for instance, to which such an important work would be appropriate. And as it is well known, that the Congregational churches of this country often met together in former times in Synods, to consult on the general welfare, why may they not unite again, in a similar manner, to examine, revise, and perfect their generally excellent Order and Government?

CHAPTER XVII.

EX PARTE COUNCILS.

§ 168. Of the nature of Ex-Parte Councils.

1

Another tribunal, that of Ex-Parte Councils, is known among the great body of Congregationalists. In those sections of these churches, where permanent Councils are established, there is not supposed to be that occasion for them, as in other parts, and they are rarely, if ever resorted to. Like mutual Councils, they imply the existence of two parties; but they differ in this, that they are called by one of the parties without the concurrent action of the other.

An Ex-Parte Council, therefore, is an ecclesiastical tribunal assembled by an aggrieved individual or a number of aggrieved individuals, to sit as judges in their own case. In the settlement of secular difficulties, we find something analogous to Mutual Councils in Courts of justice and also in those mutually constituted tribunals, denominated References; but an Ex-Parte adjudication seems to be an anomaly in civil government.

§ 169. Circumstances that warrant an aggrieved person or persons in calling an Ex-Parte Council.

It sometimes happens, that a person is injured, in consequence of some application to the church which has been refused, or some censure passed upon him by the church, or in some other way. Such a person is said to be aggrieved; but he has a remedy. "The person aggrieved, (says Mather, RAT. DIsc. Art. ix. § 1,) applies himself to the pastor, and by him to the church with humble remonstrances of the hardships, which he apprehends used upon him, desiring them to review his case, and if this do not obtain, then to accommodate him in calling a Council of neighbor churches, chosen with mutual satisfaction, to judge of the proceedings.—If they refuse to do it, he may do it without them, only still informing them what he does.

He writes LETTERS to what churches in the neigh borhood he pleases; briefly declaring, that he apprehends himself to suffer by an administration, that needs to be more thoroughly inquired into; and intreating the Pastors with the Delegates of the churches, to whom he now makes his address to come to the place, and at the time specified in the LETTERS, and consider the case, whereof a full representation shall then and there be laid before them; and give their ADVICE, which he hopes' will be with all sincerity and humility hearkened to."

§ 170. Duty of the Churches, summoned to an Ex-Parte Council.

It being settled, as it clearly is, that an aggrieved individual or individuals have a right to direct Letters Missive for the purpose of assembling an Ex-parte Council, it becomes the duty of the churches, to which they are addressed, to assemble accordingly, unless they see reasons for not thus doing. As, however, the request is made against the opinion and wishes of a majority of