does not become us to speak with confidence; yet as we much wish that it were finally settled, in order to the entire and universal harmony of our judicial proceedings, we will give our opinion. It is clear, that if by "the independence of the churches" be meant, as some have supposed, their power to constitute as well as elect their own pastors, and, when there is sufficient cause, remove them, the power given by the Platform to consociations, as well as constant and universal practice, is incompatible with it: for it is there expressly provided, that the "associated pastors shall take notice of any among themselves that may be accused to them of scandal or heresy," or "that may be cognizable to them," and "if they find occasion, shall direct to the calling of the council, (consociation,) where such offenders shall be duly proceeded against." The power of judicial proceedings in respect to pastors, and by fair implication to ministers of the gospel, is thus manifestly denied to belong to the churches. By their independence, therefore, we understand their power of government and discipline over their own members alone. In this respect they are independent of all foreign control. With them severally is the authority to execute the laws of Christ, and they are responsible to him alone for the exercise of it. No earthly tribunal is competent to assume authority over them, or to reverse their decisions. This power the Platform acknowledges to belong to them; the first article declaring, 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 discipline, according to the rule of God's word, in relation to all scandals that fall out within the same:" adding, " it may be meet in all cases of difficulty, for the respective pastors of particular churches in the neighborhood, to take advice of the elders of the churches in the neighborhood, before they proceed to censure in such cases." And does the Platform say any thing contrary to the obvious construction of this article? While it acknowledges the power and the obligation of discipline to belong to the churches originally, does it, at the same time, deny them an ultimate jurisdiction, and give it in certain cases to the consociation? It does say in the fifth article, that the consociation shall "hear and determine" the cases that come before it; that its decisions shall be "the final issue,” and all parties therein concerned shall sit down "determined thereby;" and further, that the consociation shall see that "its determinations are duly executed, in such a way as in its judgment shall be most agreeable to the word of God." The main subject of doubt concerning this article, is the meaning of the phrase, "final issue." Does it mean the final advice to be given in council, or the final act of adjudication in the case? Is the consociation to assume the jurisdiction originally belonging to the church; by its own authority pronouncing censure upon an offending party, or revoking the censure pronounced by the church, as, in its judgment, the laws of Christ may require ? or is it only to give a final decision in respect to the duty of the church in the case? If reference be had to the history of the times when the article was framed, the latter alternative would seem to be the true meaning. Dr. Trumbull and others, whose testimony has come down to us, say, with one voice, that the great evil to be remedied, was "the calling of council against council." When one conncil might be called after another, at the pleasure of the parties, controversies were prolonged without the possibility of knowing when they would end. To prevent this, as for other important reasons, the consociation of the churches was ordained, and its judgment in any case that should come before it, so far as the judgment of council could be, was to be "the final issue," and "all parties therein concerned were to sit down determined thereby."

That this is the whole intent of the article, is intimated by the form of expression in the concluding sentence of the article itself, where it is made the duty of the consociation " to see," not its judicial sentence carried into effect, but its "determination or judgment duly executed and attended;" thus acknowledging the power of execution to remain in the church, -" duly executed and attended in such way or manner, as shall in their judgment (the judgment of the consociation,) be most suitable and agreeable to the word of God." And what "that way and manner" is, according to the views of the framers, may be inferred from their their reference for authority, among other passages, to 2 Cor. ii. 6, where it appears that Paul himself would not use his authority to inflict sentence upon a member of the Corinthian church, but referred it to the church. "Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many." It makes great difference whether the consociation assume to itself the exercise of juridical power, or whether it only judge and determine, how that power ought to be exercised, in a particular case, by the church in which the case arises; for on the latter supposition the ultimate decision remains with the church. It may comply with the judgment of the consociation, or it may dissent; and on itself rests the responsibility of doing the one or the other, according to the laws of Christ. What then if the church proceed contrary to the judgment of the consociation? In the sixth article it is ordained, that " if any pastor and church doth obstinately refuse a due attendance and conformity to the determination of the council, (consociation,) that hath the cognizance of the case and determineth it as above, after due patience used, they shall be reputed guilty of scandalous contempt, and dealt with as the rule of God's word in such cases doth provide, and the sentence of non-communion shall be declared against such pastor and church. And the churches are to approve of the said sentence, by withdrawing from the communion of the pastor and church which so refuseth to be healed." Less power than this the consociation could not have, that it might regulate the terms of its own communion; that its decisions might have weight; or that a main end of its existence might be attained, bringing the cases before it to a " a final issue;" and the ground named for the exercise of it is manifestly sufficient, such conduct in a church rendering it unworthy of the christian name, and disqualifying it for all christian communion. But if, on the other hand, though the pastor and church do dissent from the judgment of the consociation, if there is no evidence of contumacy, and much more, if they appear to proceed honestly and conscientiously, no power of interference is delegated or intimated. The mere act of rejecting a result of the consociation, is not, then, in itself a ground of censure. We conclude, therefore, that consociations are not, according to the Platform, properly juridical bodies; and we believe with Mr. M., that their general modes of procedure agree with this view of the subject. We rest the more confidently in this construction, on account of its harmony with the views of the ecclesiastical fathers of New-England. That they strenuously insisted on the independent power of self-government in the churches, is well known; and yet the plan of consociation, on certain principles consistent with this, was from the first a subject of frequent and anxious thought and consultation. "The truth is," said the venerable Hooker, in his 'Survey of the Summe of Church Discipline,' " a particular congregation is the highest tribunal, unto which the party may appeal in their place; if private counsell, or the witness of two have seemed to proceed too much sharply, and with too much rigor against him, before the tribunal of the church the cause may easily be scanned, and sentence be executed according to Christ. If difficulties arise in the proceeding, the counsell of other churches should be sought to clear the truth; but the power of censure rests still in the congregation where Christ placed it." And yet in the same work he says: "She (the church,) is so far subject to the consociation of the churches, that she is bound, in case of doubt and difficulty, to crave their counsell, and if it be according to God, to follow it; and if she shall err from the rule, and continue obstinate therein, they have authority to renounce the right hand of fellowship with her." The synod of Cambridge, also, composed of "the elders and messengers" of the New-England churches, A. D. 1648, say : "Although churches be distinct, and therefore may not be confounded one with another, and equal, and therefore have no dominion one over another; yet all churches ought to preserve church communion one with another, because they are all united unto Christ, not only as a mystical, but as a political head, whence is derived a communion suitable thereto." From such views, long canvassed privately and publicly, grew the plan of Connecticut consociations; and therefore, in accordance with them, we choose to construe it.

Our principal objection to the judicial power of a consociation is not, as some have said, that it is " a grievous wrong to compel a whole church to walk in fellowship with a man whom they conscientiously believe to have been convicted, on sufficient evidence, of crimes which render him unworthy of the communion of saints." For is it not as grievous a wrong for a church to compel an individual member to walk in fellowship with one whom he conscientiously believes, on sufficient evidence before the church, to be guilty of such crimes, and for whose conviction accordingly he has solemnly declared his judgment? Yet such is the imperfection of judicial proceedings at human tribunals, that this case must often exist; and therefore the only possible way for a tolerable fellowship in the household of faith, is, to "submit ourselves one to another, in the fear of God." But our objection is, that the church itself, as such, is made directly responsible, by the authority of Christ, for the execution of his laws in matters of discipline; that she is best qualified, in all ordinary cases, for this purpose; that the sense of this responsibility resting upon her, and a due discharge of it, are essential to that mutual watchfulness, tenderness, caution, and free and faithful intercommunion, on which her spirituality and union depend; that the delegation of it to other tribunals tends rather to prolong difficulties than to heal them, and confirm the power of indulged sin, than seasonably and effectually arrest it ; and that, as all experience shows, it cannot be so delegated, without great danger of its perversion to purposes of spiritual and systemized despotism. We are not insensible that churches, like other popular assemblies, may become the seat of the worst despotism; that they are liable to be blinded by prejudice, passion, and worldly partiality, and have sometimes given their high and sacred sanction to acts of cruel injustice, entering, more painfully than any other, into the deep feelings of the soul. But we have hitherto found our consociations a happy safeguard, and not the less effectual because they have not come with the arm of authority. In almost every case, their judgment is in fact decisive, and in a multitude of cases has been eminently happy. The fathers of New-England saw the need of them. Hooker, about a week before his death, is said to have remarked with great earnestness, "We must agree upon constant meetings of ministers, and settle the consociation of churches, or we are undone." The result has justified their wisdom. Our consociations have rectified errors, settled differences, removed heretical teachers, and given consistency, harmony, stability and effect, to ecclesiastical proceedings, as nothing else, so far as we see, in accordance with our general scheme of church organization, could have done. On this subjcet, already extended much beyond our original design, we add only the remark, that the efficiency of Congregationalism, like that of civil freedom, which is its younger sister and companion, depends most entirely on the vitality of christian principle in the community. If the sense of accountableness to God, the constraining power of his love, and realizing faith in the world to come, once lose their hold upon our consciences and hearts, our discipline is gone, as our laws are dead, and all our inestimable institutions worthless. When this shall be, we shall need the strong arm of ecclesiastical power in the church, as of regal majesty in the state, for the maintenance of a tolerable external order; but then, whether the name of Congregationalism or Republicanism remains or not, our glory will have departed.

While we have taken occasion to make these remarks on the principles of our system, it would be injustice to Mr. Mitchell, if our readers should infer, that his book was mainly designed to establish these. It was written, he informs us, " with reference to the youthful and growing congregation of which he is the pastor;" and while he very properly commends to them the principles and the memory of their puritan ancestors, his main design is to lead them on in their steps. The topics are various, and those on which every good pastor would desire to have his people well-informed, and of one mind. The nature of the church-covenant, and the object, manner, spirit and importance of the mutual watchfulness pledged in it; the end of church-discipline, the offenses which require it, and the mode of procedure, the duty of attending church-meetings, and their importance in relation to various concerns, and particularly at this time, the adoption of specific articles on the subject of temperance. The relations of pastor and people, the peculiar advantages of a settled ministry over a system of itinerancy, and the reciprocal duties of a people to their pastor; the qualifications and duties of deacons, and their introduction to office; religious meetings, including public worship, the evening before the social prayer-meeting, the preparatory lecture, and the monthly concert ; means of revival, new measures, lay-preaching, female exhortation, and hasty admissions to the church; relations of church and society, the support of ministers, and the different modes of providing for parish expenses; meeting-houses, and the opening of them for secular purposes; intercourse of churches with each other, in the transfer of pastors and members, in occasional exchanges of ministers, in councils and associations; intercourse with other denominations, with those in communion and those not in communion with us; measures adopted for proselyting, and how their influence