Or was it necessary, that a vote of exclusion should pass in Association to lay a foundation for a pathetic address to my feelings, on the subject of reviewing my religious opinions? I am not offended at this expression of christian fidelity, if such it can claim to be; for if I should dare to pronounce any thing, affirmatively, concerning myself, I should say, I have anticipated it from early life. But supposing we have been on our knees for help to understand the Scriptures; does that suppose we have grown to infallibility, and discussion is at an end, having become needless? If I am convinced, that my studies have been accompanied with sincere prayer; does this entitle me to say to my brother; "All genuine religious experience agrees with my sentiments, and disagrees with yours; therefore, I am bound, in conscience, to drive you out from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord?" This is the language of Association, as we shall see by analyzing their vote.' p. 13. But to pass over the detail of minor circumstances, which show how silently the plot was prepared while the victim was unconscious of it, let us look at the recorded acts of the reverend inquisition. On the 15th of November, 1820 'the association made the following request of Mr. Field. As Mr. Field is disposed to be frank in disclosing his sentiments; has read manuscripts to the association upon important topics without the benefit of their deliberate remarks on the same; it is proposed, if he is willing, that this association have the opportunity of examining these manuscripts in such a way as they deem proper, that they may offer him their candid and serious opinion, as to the correctness of the sentiments they contain.' The request being complied with, a committee of three was chosen to examine the papers and report the result.' 6 The committee reported on the 14th of February following, and we present their report entire.* 'Rev. Brethren, we your Committee chosen to inquire of our brother the Kev. Joseph Field, a member of our body, concerning his Theological sentiments, which he had before communicated to the Association in writing, and which he expressed a readiness to make known for the perfect understanding of the Association, beg leave to report. 'We met at Mr. Field's, according to his invitation, Dec. 18, 1820. "Mr. Field received us with hospitality and expressed a willingness, candour, and readiness to facilitate our business; produced his MSS. read all the distinguishing passages we requested. The result of which we took down in writing verbatim as we now communicate to you in these several articles: *It will be perceived.' says Mr. Field, in p. 15, of his pamphlet, a passage which discloses a fact worthy of attention in the history of this case. 1. That the declaration to Adam, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," is not a threatening of penal evil, but a prediction of spiritual death. 2. That personal holiness in mankind is as really rewardable as sin. That virtue does as really deserve future good on its own account, as sin does future evil on its own account. 3. That Jesus Christ did not die as a substitute for sinners, that his atonement is not any thing like vicarious sufferings, but consists in actually reconciling the hearts of sinners, or in actually purifying them from sin and vice. 4. That the Divine Being is as really and absolutely one Being, or Person, as any individual man, or angel is one; that prior to any work of creation nothing like plurality, Trinity, or society was applicable to Deity. 5. That Jesus Christ is a created being, the Son of God only by creation, and the first being ever formed, and has an exalted intelligent nature conjoined with a human body; and that absolute Deity is united with him, and all the fulness of God dwells in him. 6 6. That the Holy Ghost is a creature as distinct from both Father and Son, as one man is distinct from other men; and at the same time God is united with him and acts by him in the works of grace and reconciliation. These several articles being read to Mr. Field, he acknowledged them to be a correct and fair expression of some of his religious sentiments. JOSIAH SPAULDING, THEO. PACKARD It was voted, 'to accept this report of the Committee which respects only their views of his sentiments without approving or disapproving.' The Committee was then requested to complete their report by offering to the association their opinion as to the correctness of Mr. Field's sentiments.' 6 Thus far all is mild and unthreatening. It is only proposed to examine his papers, and offer him their candid and serious opinion as to the correctness of the sentiments they contain: and no one could object to this. But how was this opinion' offered? For twelve months the committee was silent, but it was whispered about abroad, what the association were going to do.' The as ociation was as still as their committee; and when pressed to act decisively, 6 'not a word was said, more than this evasive reply from an aged member; "You need not trouble yourself, so long as we do not act against you;" or to this effect. Was it to be inferred from this, that in three months a sentence of judgment was to be definitively pronounced against me, without a moment's previous deliberation upon it, in my hearing? And besides this; at that self-same meeting, a question was proposed by a member, with the avowed design of procuring, what would be improperly called, a decree against church-members, who should favour Unitarianism; and the question was modified and remodified expressly to bring it into a shape not to offend me in respect to any peculiar sentiments of my own; and this not by any request of mine. Did this look as if I had but just three months to live longer, as a member of that body? And another thing still. When the preacher for another meeting was appointed; I was nominated as second, and, though I requested leave to decline the nomination, on the account of having repeatedly preached at Greenfield, upon Associational occasions, which no other member had done, it was overruled. Does this look as if, at that very time and place, I was to be laid under a solemn prohibition of preaching any more before that Reverend body? p. 11. At length, on a day when our author was absent from the meeting, the committee reported, the association voted, and the scribe sent the following account to the ejected member. 'Your sentiments as exhibited in a former report, the committee declare that they have endeavoured to consider and weigh with candor and impartiality for a length of time, and concerning them have made up their minds according to their best judgment. And they are prepared to say, that notwithstanding all the argument and apparent evidence which they have ever found in their support, they are fully persuaded that these sentiments are not agreeable to Divine Revelation, nor according to the faith of the true church of Christ from age to age, nor in unison with the testimony of genuine experience, as felt and exhibited by those favoured individuals, who are savingly taught of God, and have the witness in themselves. While in due consideration of their liability to err in judgment they feel soberly convinced, that it is their duty thus to report, that these sentiments are fundamentally wrong and erroneous, and hurtful in their tendency, and will not bear the scrutiny of the Judgment Day. They only add that they most deeply regret, that in a day when union among the defenders of the faith is so desirable and needful, that any one of this body should have imbibed such sentiments, or attempt to give them influence and support. This report was unaniously accepted. 'Voted also as an expression of the feelings of this Body, that in the view of this report and communication it is conceived Mr. Field will not think it strange, or inconsistent, that the Association at present do not invite him to preach in his turn. 'A true copy from the records. MOSES MILLER, Scribe.' We do not think with Mr. Field that this is as outrageous an act as was ever committed. Christian ministers have done worse deeds of disobedience than this to their Lord's command→→→ The princes of the gentiles exercise dominion, but it shall not be so among you-one is your master, and all ye are brethren :—and a more violent and cruel step might have been taken here, if there had been power to execute it. It is not however the act itself, but the pretension, which is to be complained of. It is no great hardship to be refused liberty to preach before any association. But the principle on which this is justified, is the same precisely on which are justified all the pretensions of Romish infallibility, the cruelties of the inquisition, and the burnings of Smithfield. The exercise of the principle, too, is limited by the same circumstance in each case, and that is, the power of the majority. The old persecutors did all for the benefit of dissenters which they had power to do; and the Franklin Association have not stopped an inch short of their power. They have done all which their situation and the circumstances of the times enabled them to do; and no inquisition, presbytery, or council ever went beyond. They have gone upon the same principle, that they have a RIGHT to call a brother to account for his private opinions; which we take it is a direct denial of the fundamental principle of Protestantism, the right of private judgment in religion. The right of private judgment, as it is called, if it mean any thing, implies a corresponding obligation not to molest others in the enjoyment of the right. But every interference which renders the exercise of it dangerous, unsafe, inconvenient, is so for an infringement of the right itself, in consistent with protestant and christian liberty. It is a small thing, to be sure, not to be asked to preach by the Franklin Association; but it is a great thing for that association to set themselves up as an ecclesiastical tribunal; it is a great thing to assume and exercise dominion over faith, and make a brother suffer for his faith-to set a mark upon him which shall cause him to be gazed at, to be avoided, to be cried out against, to be evil spoken of as a false teacher, a proverb and a by-word, a mark of hissing and astonishment, for scorn to point her slow unmoving finger at.' A man may despise the threat of shutting against him ten or twelve pulpit doors; but it requires a strong heart to bear it well when he knows, that with them it is designed to shut against him the hearts of as many congregations, to make his prayers an abomination to them, his preaching odious, his person hateful, to cool the love of his friends, and separate him a lone and despised man from the circle in which he formerly moved with confidence, and leave him to cold looks of aversion where once he met a hearty sympathy. We have known men thus deserted, outcasts and exiles from the home and friendship of those that once loved them as their own souls, and we have seen something of the deep and trying wretchedness of spirit, the tears of agony, and nights passed in watching and groans-when, if a good conscience and 6 holy trust in God had not been their support, these victims of religious domination must have been hurried down with sorrow to the grave. Yet the dungeons of the Inquisition are destroyed, the fire, stake, and fetters have disappeared-and we are told there is no persecution. As if a man cannot suffer from any thing but the rack or the flames; as if the heart cannot be tortured as well as the body; as if a mind of sensibility may not be as keenly wrung by the loss of friends and of reputation, by coldness, calumny, and uncharitable judging, as by the weariness of a prison or the terrors of an execution. It is easy to turn all this into ridicule, and affect to sneer-it has been done and it will be done. But it is the sign of a hard and perverted heart, and no man can be guilty of it who is not thoroughly selfish. However unimportant, therefore, this matter may seem on the face of it, if we go back to its principle and follow it to its consequences, it becomes important. A small wrong is, in principle, as bad as a large one; and where the intention is to ruin a man's name and influence, it makes no difference, whether he be actually turned out of his parish, as is the way in Connecticut, or whether merely the pulpits of his brethren be shut against him by vote. If even they cannot tolerate him in a body, which, it is well known, oftentimes consists of members of very opposite faith, and to which doctrinal concord' is not supposed to be essential; what must be the inference, but that his opinions are ruinous in the extreme, and he a dangerous man? What could such a body of men do, that would be more likely to destroy a brother's influence in their churches? This doubtless was the design in the present instance. The ministers of Franklin Association were not afraid that Mr. Field would do any harm by preaching to their people: they had compelled him to preach for them only three months before this denunciation. No doubt they think him just as good and useful in the pulpit now, as he was then. But all they design, is, to strengthen the hands of orthodoxy; to do this they are ready to adopt any measure, and sacrifice any brother. After all the experience of eighteen centuries, men are still mad as ever for uniformity of faith, thirsty as ever for spiritual dominion, and arrogant as ever in their denunciations of heresy. They seem to have learned little else from the history of the church, except the efficacy of hard names and frightful epithets in keeping down opponents, and the use of fear and passion to render other doctrines and their advocates hateful. The world is witnessing at the present day a lamentable exhibition of this character-when all the flood-gates of evil speaking are opened on the great heresy of the times, and every mode of representation resorted to, to make it an object New Series-vol. IV, 15 |