of the most intelligent of the parish, that their minister was verging towards doctrines that he had publicly disclaimed. In the year 1765, he published a volume of Sermons upon the doctrines of Christianity. They contain a learned system of scholastic theology, maintaining a middle course between the two opposite schemes of Calvin and Arminius. Upon some of the controverted points it is not easy to ascertain, which side his speculations favor the most. The volume is highly creditable to his memory as a scholar and a theologian, and when published was considered an acquisition to the literature of the country. When his people produced their allegations against him in 1773, they urged but few instances of false doctrine, and of them he fully exculpated himself before a Council. The principal charge of this character was, that he had said that "God was the author of Sin." The sermon was produced, where it was said to be contained. He stated that he never held the doctrine in its gross sense, but only that sin was by permission, as in the instance of hardening Pharoah's heart, and for the truth of this he appealed to the whole tenor of his preaching. On the whole, the council declare, that they have all the evidence they can desire that he never believed the doctrine, but that he holds the sentiment in as much detestation as his opposers. He had been previously exonerated by his church from this charge. In 1770 complaints were made against the pastor, concerning some innovations in the mode of singing, which were highly offensive to a majority of the brethren. The church passed some singular votes upon the subject. Before this period, the mode of performing this part of public worship, was offensive to people of refined taste. The New England version of Psalms and Hymns was the only sacred poetry that was allowed admittance into most of our Churches. These were read, line by line, by one of the Deacons, when another set the tune, in which the whole congregation were expected to unite. This practice became sacred from its antiquity, and was difficult to be assailed without lessening the dignity of the officers employed in the service. A strenuous effort for a reformation was, about this time, generally made. Mr. Mellen was among the most active of these reformers. In a Sermon preached at Marlborough, at a singing lecture, in 1773, he states that the object in reviving the spirit of Psalmody has reference to the poetry as well as the method of singing it. He suggests that the practice of reading the line by the Deacons is a modern innovation. In 1771, the church at Bolton, alledged various complaints against their pastor the Rev. Mr. Goss. A council was called, who exculpated him from the charges. A great controversy ensued, when the church finding they could obtain no relief from the advice of sister churches, proceeded to dissolve the pastoral relation between them and their minister. The neighbouring Clergy, considering this a high handed assumption of power upon the part of the laity, proceeded in council to pass censures upon the Bolton Church, in their corporate capacity; to deprive them of Covenant privileges, and to exclude them from all communion and fellowship with other Churches. The people being thus put upon the defensive, made a common cause of their troubles through all the towns in the vicinity. 1772. Nov. 1. Six of the Bolton brethren presented themselves at the communion, in the Sterling Church; the pastor declined administering the ordinance, while the proscribed members remained. The brethren voted that the Bolton men should not withdraw. Mr. Mellen availing himself of an obsolete article in the Cambridge platform, which was predicated upon the ground of a plurality of elders, assumed to himself the whole power of eldership, and declared his negative upon the vote of the Church, as he non-concurred. The brethren strenuously insisted upon their right, when a contention arose highly derogatory to the meekness and forbearance of the Christian character. The pastor, to avoid further confusion, withdrew from the meeting house, leaving the sacred emblems of brotherly love, of peace, and of humility. The communion was now suspended, and the contention greatly increased. men. The aged people who recollect this transaction, represent it as one of the deepest interest. The passions of men were wrought to the highest state of excitement. The struggle for civil liberty had commenced; the people had examined the subject, and had taken sides upon all great questions that concerned the rights of Unlawful power was to be opposed, to be sternly resisted in all cases whatever, under the most solemn circumstances, even to the horns of the altar. To desecrate the holy hour of sacramental communion, strikes every reflecting mind with horror. But the high resolve was taken, and our fathers would have been false to their trust, they would have violated the principles of their ancestors, and have betrayed the interests of posterity, had they yielded on this occasion. We have no apology to offer for those brethren who went upon this crusade for liberty, nor for those who invited them. Their conduct must be censurable, because more suitable opportunities for testing their patriotism frequently occurred.* 1773, Sept. A respectable ecclesiastical council was called, whereof the Rev. Mr. Dunbar of Stoughton was moderator, and the late Rev. Dr. Lothrop, of Boston, was scribe: they held a session of two or three days, during which time, they went into a patient investigation of all the charges and specifications made against the Pastor and brethren. The result exonerated Mr. Mellen and his friends from any severe censures; it was of course adopted by them, but rejected by a small majority of the brethren. The Church soon after called an exparte council, who advised to a mutual council, which met, but being much divided, they separated without coming to any result. Other councils assembled, whose deliberations terminated much in the same manner. The brethren concluding theirs was a case where the advice of neighboring Churches could not be had, boldly resorted to first principles, called a church meeting of their own accord, Nov. 1774, when they proceeded to dissolve the pastoral relation, and in this the Parish concurred.t The council very properly exculpate Mr. Mellen from any blame in the transactions of that day. He undoubtedly acted conscientiously; the error was in the council, for an attempt at arbitrary power, in regard to the Bolton Church. It is believed this was not a new exercise of ecclesiastical prerogative. It was usually styled, the third process. It is allowed by the Platform, Chap. xv. but is circumscribed, and to be preceded by admonition, and other previous steps, and is only to be exercised "when a Church be rent with division, or lies under open scandal,and refuses to consult with other Churches for healing or removing the same.' †The articles alledged against Mr. Mellen were of a three fold character: mal-administration, erroneous doctrine, and false speaking. Under the first head, the most prominent charges were for a supposed abuse in exercising his power as the constituted elder or presiding officer of the Church. He had declined putting questions to vote when proposed, had neglected to call Church meetings upon request, had arbitrarily dissolved them when called. But the principal charge under this head, and indeed the main cause of all the difficulties, was his exercise of the power of negativing or non-concurring the votes of the brethren. The councils apparently disclaim this right, and Mr. M. in his defence before them, gives it such an explanation as could not be objected to. He claims no power other than that of any brother by voting in the negative. In examining the various documents, it is difficult to ascertain what were his distinct views upon the subject, for immediately after this Council, he directs the communion table to be set, against the vote of the brethren, partly on the ground that he had negatived their vote. He afterwards claims the power in full and absolute terms, and attaches consequences to it, that never before had been understood. He considered the Pastor, Church, and Parish, as analogous to King, Lords, and Commons; that no vote could pass concerning their political relation, without a concurrence of the three branches. In 1771, the church at Bolton, alledged various complaints against their pastor the Rev. Mr. Goss. A council was called, who exculpated him from the charges. A great controversy ensued, when the church finding they could obtain no relief from the advice of sister churches, proceeded to dissolve the pastoral relation between them and their minister. The neighbouring Clergy, considering this a high handed assumption of power upon the part of the laity, proceeded in council to pass censures upon the Bolton Church, in their corporate capacity; to deprive them of Covenant privileges, and to exclude them from all communion and fellowship with other Churches. The people being thus put upon the defensive, made a common cause of their troubles through all the towns in the vicinity. 1772. Nov. 1. Six of the Bolton brethren presented themselves at the communion, in the Sterling Church; the pastor declined administering the ordinance, while the proscribed members remained. The brethren voted that the Bolton men should not withdraw. Mr. Mellen availing himself of an obsolete article in the Cambridge platform, which was predicated upon the ground of a plurality of elders, assumed to himself the whole power of eldership, and declared his negative upon the vote of the Church, as he non-concurred. The brethren strenuously insisted upon their right, when a contention arose highly derogatory to the meekness and forbearance of the Christian character. The pastor, to avoid further confusion, withdrew from the meeting house, leaving the sacred emblems of brotherly love, of peace, and of humility. The communion was now suspended, and the contention greatly increased. men. The aged people who recollect this transaction, represent it as one of the deepest interest. The passions of men were wrought to the highest state of excitement. The struggle for civil liberty had commenced; the people had examined the subject, and had taken sides upon all great questions that concerned the rights of Unlawful power was to be opposed, to be sternly resisted in all cases whatever, under the most solemn circumstances, even to the horns of the altar. To desecrate the holy hour of sacramental communion, strikes every reflecting mind with horror. But the high resolve was taken, and our fathers would have been false to their trust, they would have violated the principles of their ancestors, and have betrayed the interests of posterity, had they yielded on this occasion. We have no apology to offer for those brethren who went upon this crusade for liberty, nor for those who invited them. Their conduct must be censurable, because more suitable opportunities for testing their patriotism frequently occurred.* 1773, Sept. A respectable ecclesiastical council was called, whereof the Rev. Mr. Dunbar of Stoughton was moderator, and the late Rev. Dr. Lothrop, of Boston, was scribe: they held a session of two or three days, during which time, they went into a patient investigation of all the charges and specifications made against the Pastor and brethren. The result exonerated Mr. Mellen and his friends from any severe censures; it was of course adopted by them, but rejected by a small majority of the brethren. The Church soon after called an exparte council, who advised to a mutual council, which met, but being much divided, they separated without coming to any result. Other councils assembled, whose deliberations terminated much in the same manner. The brethren concluding theirs was a case where the advice of neighboring Churches could not be had, boldly resorted to first principles, called a church meeting of their own accord, Nov. 1774, when they proceeded to dissolve the pastoral relation, and in this the Parish concurred.† *The council very properly exculpate Mr. Mellen from any blame in the transactions of that day. He undoubtedly acted conscientiously; the error was in the council, for an attempt at arbitrary power, in regard to the Bolton Church. It is believed this was not a new exercise of ecclesiastical prerogative. It was usually styled, the third process. It is allowed by the Platform, Chap. xv. but is circumscribed, and to be preceded by admonition, and other previous steps, and is only to be exercised "when a Church be rent with division, or lies under open scandal,and refuses to consult with other Churches for healing or removing the same." + The articles alledged against Mr. Mellen were of a three fold character: mal-administration, erroneous doctrine, and false speaking. Under the first head, the most prominent charges were for a supposed abuse in exercising his power as the constituted elder or presiding officer of the Church. He had declined putting questions to vote when proposed, had neglected to call Church meetings upon request, had arbitrarily dissolved them when called. But the principal charge under this head, and indeed the main cause of all the difficulties, was his exercise of the power of negativing or non-concurring the votes of the brethren. The councils apparently disclaim this right, and Mr. M. in his defence before them, gives it such an explanation as could not be objected to. He claims no power other than that of any brother by voting in the negative. In examining the various documents, it is difficult to ascertain what were his distinct views upon the subject, for immediately after this Council, he directs the communion table to be set, against the vote of the brethren, partly on the ground that he had negatived their vote. He afterwards claims the power in full and absolute terms, and attaches consequences to it, that never before had been understood. He considered the Pastor, Church, and Parish, as analogous to King, Lords, and Commons; that no vote could pass concerning their political relation, without a concurrence of the three branches. |