LETTER. I.

WITH pleasure I take my pen to answer the questions you put to me. What is the RIGHT and POWER of Congregational Churches, to choose their Officers; to exercise Discipline; and to remove their Of­ficers from their Office, according to the CAMBRIDGE PLATFORM?

These enquiries are truly of importance: since peo­ple appear to be divided in their sentiments about them.

Perhaps I shall not be able to give a satisfactory answer to your questions; but, since you have desir­ed it, I will give you my idea of the subject, which I have acquired by attending to the principles and prac­tice of Congregational Churches, as I find them by their writers, both before and since their Platform, as well as the Platform itself. This you will allow is a just way to determine the Right and Power by the Platform; as those who composed, and practised upon it, must be allowed to be the best interpreters of it.

And though the Platform was composed by men under very different circumstances from what we are in this day; and having a different phraseology, and it being but short and summary; there is some obscur­ity [Page 4] as to the meaning of it, in all its parts; yet, by re­curring to the writings of those who lived in those days, we may find what their principles and practice were, and learn what the meaning and extent of the Platform is.

You ask, what is the Right and Power of Congrega­tional Churches to choose their officers, &c. Many people seem to blend these together, as if whatever any one has power to do, he has right to do also. But you will readily grant there is a distinction to be made. Persons may have a right to have, or to do things, which they have not power to do or perform: so also persons have power to do many things which they have no right to do, else there could be no such thing as evil works. Thus a thief has power to steal, to take some of my property from me; a ruffian may have power to wound and murder me; a slanderer may have power to destroy my character, and innumerable ways men may have power to hurt and wrong one an­other. But perhaps no one will in earnest pretend he has any right to injure his neighbour.

This may be applied to Churches: If they are sup­posed to have right to do every thing, they have pow­er to do; the enquiry is wholly at an end, what is their right and power; because, upon that supposition, they cannot do any thing wrong; and this, as extrava­gant as it is, seems to be the real sentiment of some; what else can be made of the professed sentiment and practice of those, who assert that a Church may do as they please and not be responsible, or under any check or control whatever? These however call themselves Congregationalists, and sometimes they will say they are Independents, as if both were the same thing. But the [Page 5] idea I have conceived of those two denominations, by examining the writings of the founders of CONGRE­GATIONALISM, is, that they are as different one from the other; as the system of religion and policy, by Moses, was, from the confusion of Babel. Those of Babel scattered into parties; and every person or party, did as they pleased, independent of each other. The system of policy by Moses was a well connected scheme, wherein was a proper subordination and check upon every individual family, and tribe; being responsible to each other for their conduct; with as much liberty to every individual as the present state admits of.

This is my idea of Congregationalism; it is a connected scheme, and, if well adhered to, would produce great beauty and order.

You will see that, in my answer to your questions, I shall not content myself in saying what Churches will do, or have power to do; but what they have both right and power to do: and this leads to enquire into the nature and constitution of Congregational Church­es, which will be the subject of my following letters.

LETTER. II.

THE definition of a Congregational Church, as I find it by the Platform and other writers, is, a number of professing believers in Christ, such as can conveniently congregate together for worship, covenanting and confed­erating together to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded.

[Page 6]This contains all his worship and ordinances; the sa­craments and discipline of his house; which consists in a friendly watch over each other, and using such means as Christ, the King, has instituted for the reclaiming and recovering of such as have fallen into any fault: and purging out or rejecting such as, after such means are used with them as Christ has instituted for their re-recovery, continue incorrigible.

This description of a Church, excludes from it eve­ry thing of the nature of legislation. They covenant to execute laws already made by Christ, the King; and no other. They cannot therefore, make any thing a crime, which is not made so in God's word. Neither may they take any other method of proceeding, than what Christ has instituted: if they do, they go out of their province, profane the name of Christ, pretending to do that as a Church of Christ, i. e. in his name, which he has not instituted. It would be as great an impro­priety for any Church to undertake to do thus; as it would be for any member of the judicial or executive authority in America, to undertake to execute the laws and customs of the piratical Algerines. And as much worse for any Church to do thus, as much more hei­nously impious, as Christ the Lord, in whose name they pretend to act, is greater than the authority of the American nation.

That such a covenanting together, is what consti­tutes a Church, was the idea of the founders of Con­gregational Churches in this country, appears by oth­er writers as well as the Platform. Mr. Hooker, who was in the highest repute for his piety, learning, and political genius, both in Europe and America, who early emigrated into this country, and after a short [Page 7] stay at Newtown, near Boston; he, with some planters, went to Connecticut River, to Hartford, there they be­gan a new colony, which, with the colony of Newha­ven, is now the State of Connecticut. It is said that Mr. Hooker instituted such a transcendent system of state policy and laws for the colony, as that, when they applied to the Crown for a charter, their constitution and laws commanded the admiration, astonishment and applause of the most sage counsellors in that old coun­try, which had for many ages been building on the po­licy of the Romans and politicians of the whole world. This great man wrote his Survey of Church Discipline, some years before the Platform was made; and if you compare, you will find the Platform was very much founded upon it.

In his Survey, Part 1, page 46, he says, "Mutual covenanting and confederating of Saints, in fellowship of the faith, according to the order of the Gospel, is that which gives constitution and being to the visible Church." Again, speaking of the same thing, "This Covenant is an engagement to walk in the ways of Christ." "This covenant (he says) may be either explicit or im­plicit. Explicit, when there is a formal covenant. Im­plicit, when they practise without a verbal, written, or formal covenant; yet is binding by their thus prac­tising." Page 50, to shew the reasons of a Church Covenant; he compares it to corporations for civil purposes. By the combination they have power over each other, for the purposes for which they are com­bined.

The same idea is fully expressed in the Platform, Chap. iv. Sec. 1. "Saints, by calling, must have a vi­sible political union among themselves; or else they [Page 8] are not yet a particular Church." Sec. 2d. "Particu­lar Churches cannot be distinguished one from another but by their forms.' Sec. 3d. "This form is a visible covenant, agreement and consent, whereby they give themselves unto the Lord, to the observing of the or­dinances of Christ, together in the same society; which is usually called the Church Covenant. For we see not otherwise how members can have power one over another." Again, Chap. vi, Sec. 1. "A church is a company of people combined together for the worship of God."

Mr. Davenport, who was first Minister of Newhaven after he came into this country in 1639, afterward be­came Pastor of the first Church in Boston, in his Pow­er of Congregational Churches, which he wrote about 18 years after the Platform, compares the Church to the natural body; to a body corporate; to a wife with her husband; and says, "All voluntary relations are by covenant." "Visible privileges, powers, &c. must be by visible confederation."

This covenant is for life, as essentially as the mar­riage covenant. Hence the Platform utterly disap­proves of persons forsaking the Church, Chap. xiii, Sec. 2d. "They who are joined with consent, should not depart without consent; except forced thereto." Which force, as explained by the Platform, and other writers, means personal or general persecution.

On this principle, the first settlers of New-England acted; they did not separate from the communion of the Church of England, but were driven out by perse­cution, and brought this noble Christian spirit across the Atlantic, and incorporated it into their Platform. This, I said, was a Christian spirit; for Christ himself [Page 9] never separated from the communion of the Jewish Church; though they were very corrupt and wicked in their principles and practices; but bore testimony against them. I might add, that Martin Luther never separated from the Church of Rome, but strove for a reformation; till he was driven out by the thunder­ing BULLS of the LATERAN: which he consider­ed as a dissolution of his solemn engagements. Thus he imitated his Lord and Master, Jesus Christ; which every Christian is bound to do. And, I doubt not you will join with me, when I assert, that for persons to separate from the Church, or withdraw from commun­ion with it, because of some faults or errors, real or supposed, in opinion or practice, in the Pastor or some of the members, or indeed by the whole Church; is schismatical, antichristian, and a flagrant violation of covenant obligations, and solemn vows.

The Platform considers this covenant bond so indis­solvable, that, as it may not be broken by any part's separating; so neither may the body of the Church dis­member any one. Chap. xiii, Sec. 7th. "The Church cannot make a member no member, but by excommunication."

This is not meant to preclude persons moving their habitations, when Providence calls thereto; but they are still members of the same Church; until, by letters recommendatory, they move their particular relation from one particular church to another; and they are still members of the Church by the same combination as long as they live, unless they so violate their covenant as to forfeit it.

A forfeiture also dissolves the marriage covenant and relation. And that God's Church, being formed [Page 10] by covenant, is of the same antiquity with the marriage covenant, Mr. Davenport asserts it was so, even from ADAM.

As all covenants must be ratified before witnesses: and those of great importance before some proper authority; so, this covenant or combination of a Church, is to be solemnized and ratified in presence of witnesses; and the authority of a Council of Churches; at least of Pastors of churches; who consider the propriety of their thus covenanting, and combining in church state; as also the fitness of the covenant they propose; the members sign the covenant in their presence. And the Council of Churches, or Pastors, thus publickly own the new church, a new branch, or member added to the body of the Churches. And thus they are consociat­ed with the other churches, by covenant of fellowship and combination, in their very formation. Their cov­enant among themselves and their consociation with oth­er churches, are blended and ratified by a most religious solemnization. See Platform, Chap. xv, Sec. 3d. and Mather's Ratio Disciplinae, page 8 and 9.

Thus, Sir, I have given you my idea of the forma­tion of a Congregational Church; I shall in my next give you my notion of the ORGANIZATION of a Church with officers.

LETTER III.

ALTHOUGH a number of professing believ­ers combined together to observe all things whatso­ever Christ has commanded, are a Church: yet they [Page 11] cannot perform what they have covenanted and com­bined for; without being ORGANIZED with Offi­cers.

Christ has, therefore, instituted Officers proper for the executing of all those laws and ordinances which he has commanded.

What those officers are, seems to have undergone a variety of sentiments among Christians of various denominations; and even among Congregationalists.

Mr. Hooker evidently supposed, there should be Pastor and Teacher, Ruling Elders and Deacons. And the Platform is evidently composed with the same idea. Yet the Synod which assembled at Boston, in 1662, but 14 years after the Platform was made; in their result assert, that, "A Church with a teaching El­der have full power and authority, from the Lord Jesus, regularly to administer all the ordinances of Christ." This being so soon after the Platform was made, there can be no doubt but that most of the same men were in this Synod, that were in making the Platform. And this being done by the same authority, and mostly by the same persons the Platform was; may be consider­ed as an appendix to it, and of the same authority, in these churches with that: and the general practice of these churches, having been according to it, I shall not enquire after any other ruling Officer in Christ's Church, beside a teaching Elder, Pastor, or Bishop.

This Officer is to teach and administer all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. He is necessarily and essentially a Ruler; for rule, government, and authority, must accompany a Teacher. Accordingly, the Ministers of Christ are spoken of as Rulers in his House, frequently in the New-Testament: and Christ's [Page 12] addressing the Churches, by addressing the Angel of the Church, is evidence that he considers it so. Such an Officer is now certainly belonging to the Church of Christ, as appears from what he says, Matt. xxviii. Lo I am with you always to the end of the world.

There is also another Officer instituted in Christ's Church to take care of the temporalities thereof, who is called Deacon.

These two Officers appear plain, according to scrip­ture, to belong to the Church. But the first is the principal one, without which the spiritual institutions of Christ's Kingdom cannot be executed. Which therefore will be the principal subject of enquiry.

LETTER IV.

I HAVE in my former letter considered what Officers are essential to the Church of Christ. I will now say something how a Church is to be furnished with those Officers according to Congregational principles. I shall specially attend to the first, without which the Church is incapable of carrying into execution what they have covenanted and combined to do.

Here again are a variety of opinions and practices. Episcopatians suppose a National Church, of which the King, or Supreme Magistrate, is head; who ap­points Archbishops and Bishops, having certain districts or bishopricks, containing a number of par­ishes, over which the Bishops appoint Curates, who [Page 13] are to their several parishes the same as Ministers are to our congregations. But here is no select Church, therefore no covenant, neither with each other, nor with their teacher; and he receives all his official au­thority from the bishop who send him. Here Church power and authority is derived from the King, prima­rily; and to the several orders from the higher dig­nitaries.

Presbyterians suppose that all ecclesiastical authority is in the Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods and General As­sembly: this last body is the highest authority in the Presbyterian Church. They admit lay Elders; but the brotherhood have no more voice in choosing their officers, exercising dicipline or removing their officers, than Episcopalian parishes have in choosing their of­ficers, &c.

These schemes, or plans of church policy, the Con­gregationalists disliked; supposing that they derived all church power and authority, both official and fra­ternal, directly from Christ; that they were not de­pendent on any superior order of men therefor. Hence they were called Independents. This they also disliked, and expressly rejected; as may be found in many of the early writers of this country, and particu­larly is rejected in the Platform, Chap. ii, Sec. 5th. For they held strong to a reciprocal dependence, du­ty and obligation upon, and toward each other: not only of members in the same congregation; but of Churches one upon, and to another. Hence one of their early writers, said of Congregational Churches, that they were INTERPENDENT.

But Independents admit of no such reciprocal obli­gation, connexion or dependence; and hold themselves [Page 14] at a loose to do just as they please, without any check or control. They sometimes affect to have connex­ion with Congregationalists, to serve a turn, and when it serves their turn will not admit they are connected. Wild enthusiastic ranters, who do not admit ordina­ry Ministers, but that every one might pray, exhort, &c. RAPIN THOYRAS, in his History of England, calls Independents; this however need not be consid­ered as inconsistent with calling any other disorderly people Independents, for they are properly the strange woman, Solomon speaks of. "Her ways are movea­ble that thou canst not know them," they are proper­ly an anarchy, a chaos; rather than any rule, order, or system.

The first settlers of this country were harrassed and pressed between these two extremes, of Prelacy on the one hand, and selfish, self sufficient, ungoverned disor­derly Independents on the other; and it is not to be wondered at, if their Platform is tinctured in phraseo­logy with both; but especially with the latter, to avoid the former, by which they were greatly persecuted. Yet inspired with the generous and christian principles of reciprocal duty, by love to serve one of another, consid­ering all Christ's Church as members one of another, members of the same body, having the same care one for another, that therefore all connexions and rela­tions in his kingdom are voluntary covenant combina­tions. They have considered, not only their embody­ing in church state, a covenant combination: but their organization with officers a covenant.

Thus Mr Hooker, "There is (says he) a particu­lar covenant between those that choose, and those that are chosen' and says, "The relation between Pastor [Page 15] and people is a covenant: that without this covenanting, there neither is, or ever was, or ever will be, a Pastor and Flock" Mr. Hooker further asserts, that "By choosing an officer they voluntarily subject themselves to him, according to the laws and orders of Christ." The same says Mr. Davenport, "The relation between pastor and people is a covenant." The Platform is very full in the same idea, Chap. viii. The organiz­ing with officers is by the election of the Church and the acceptance of the person chosen. Here is all the form and essence of a covenant, a proposal on the one part; and the acceptance of the proposal on the other part. The Church choose him to be such an officer therein as Christ has instituted; they covenant and en­gage to submit to him as such an officer. And he, by his acceptance, covenants and engages to be such an officer to them; so it is a mutual covenant and engag­ment on both sides.

Here also, in the Congregational system, the corpo­rate body or parish, including the Church; by a cor­porate act concur with the Church in their election or choice; and make proposals to the officer for his sup­port and maintenance, by which there is a parochial civil covenant and contract, blended with his office, to both Church and parish; by all which the Minister's relation to his people, becomes a complex relation; formed by a triplicate covenant with them. This also is for life, for it is so connected with the incorporating covenant of the Church, of which he is a member, and blended with his calling, which includes his local situ­ation, that they cannot properly or consistently be se­parated; he is a member of the body, and covenants to be such a member. This complex covenant, when [Page 16] properly solemnized, cannot be dissolved; unless by consent of all parties concerned, or the Minister for­feits it, by doing something inconsistent with his office, as Christ has instituted the office; for it is not for the Church to say what shall belong to the office; they may not presume to add to, or diminish from the duties or powers belonging thereto; for Christ has determin­ed the duties and powers of it. And it is not for the Church, or any man or order of men, to add to, or di­minish therefrom; if they do presume any such thing, they expose themselves, to have all the plagues added to them written in God's word; and to have their names taken away out of the Book of Life. Rev. xxii. 18, 19. This threatening in God's word, should make all very careful how they treat the laws of Christ, both as to his Ministers and all matters of discipline in his Church.

But though a single Congregational Church hath both right and power to choose and covenant with their of­ficer, i. e. Elder or Pastor. Or, as it is sometimes term­ed, call to office; yet it cannot, according to scripture, or Congregational principles or custom, put into office.

I shall in my next letter give you my idea of the Congregational principles and practice of investing or puting into office.

LETTER V.

AS I wrote you in my last letter, I shall now speak of ORDINATION, INSTALLATION, or putting in­to office.

I find much dispute has been about ordination. Some think it ought to be before election. I shall not [Page 17] enter that dispute; it being foreign from my purpose; for if a man has been ordained, yet according to Con­gregational principles and practice, he must be install­ed in office where he settles; before he is considered as the officer in that place. In which every ceremo­ny is performed, which is in ordination, except the lay­ing on of the hands of the Presbytery.

This laying on of the hands of the Presbytery in ordination, according to 1 Tim. iv. 14. is what is con­sidered as the ceremony confering the Presbytery, which Christ has instituted in his Church; so that this is something distinct from, and independent of, the person's particular relation to any people.

But what I have to enquire after, is, the ordaining or installing a man in that office relation to a Con­gregation. This, as I have before observed, from Mr. Hooker and others, is a covenant, and all covenants as I have before said, must be ratified before witnesses, and by proper authority, which the constitution, law, or custom has assigned for that purpose. Especially all covenants of any great importance must be ratified and solemnized with all those formalities. So the Platform, Chap. i. Sec. 4. speaking of Church affairs, says, "In respect of the manner according to civil and Church custom." And Chap. ix, Sec. 2. "Ordination is the solemn puting a man into his office in the Church, being like installing a magistrate in the Com­monwealth." Mr. Hooker speaks the same, Preface, page 16.

Here then, according to the Platform and Mr. Hooker; Ordination is the solemn installing the man in his office. And as it is fixing him in office relation [Page 18] to a congregation or flock, it is solemnizing the cov­enant between him and his people by proper au­thority.

This leads to enquire what is proper authority, for solemnizing this covenant, according to congregational principles and Church custom.

The Platform considers the power of ordination of their Pastor to be in the Church; but with this provi­so, that the Elders of other Churches may do it, if the Church where the officer is to be ordained desire it.

This sentiment in the Platform is obscure, and seems to favour lay ordination, and is that on which some wild, haughty, arrogant, supercilious, separately, inde­pendent people, have pretended to justify lay ordina­tion. But though there might be some degree of mis­take in the first settlers of this country as to this mat­ter; yet they are in my opinion, very excusable, seeing they had been so oppressed, harrassed and persecuted with prelatical impositions and depositions of Pastors; it would be strange, if not a miracle, if mere men, however wise and pious, should not vibrate in some degree into the opposite extreme; yet Dr. Stiles, who has spared no labour and attention to investigate the principles and customs of these Churches ever since the first settlement in this land, says, "that he has nev­er found with certainty, more than one instance of lay ordination of a person never before ordained, the last century; and this was done by advice, and under the inspection, of Ministers ordained by Bishops in Eng­land, one of whom prayed at the solemnity of conse­cration, and all gave their approbation and right hand of fellowship, which, in my opinion, says this ecclesi­astical [Page 19] historian, amounts to their performing the or­dination themselves, they being present and assisting in the transaction." (Election Sermon, page 60, 62.) ^*

The Doctor further observes, the time was very short in which this idea prevailed, and providentially brought no mischief, as the body of the Pastors had been ordained by Bishops in England. And says, that the ordination of our Clergy is regular and scriptural and may be traced in the line of Presbyters up to the Apos­tolic age.

Through this mistake, which those pious Patriarchs of this country were, as I have observed, drove into; we may candidly and justly attribute that obscurity in the Platform about ordination or installation. Yet by oth­er writings soon after, and the custom which uni­formly prevailed among Congregational Churches professedly on the Platform, it appears that the mean­ning of the Platform is; that the power of ordination or installation is in every Congregational Church in such a sense, as that no Bishop, Prelate or Presbytery have any right to impose a Minister upon them: but that their Minister or Elder, shall be ordained or in­stalled by coordinate Elders or Presbyters in Coun­cil of Churches of their own choice, jointly with their Pastor elect, who is a party in the solemnity. So that here is another covenant; for upon Congregational principles every Church transaction is, according to covenant or confederation, a voluntary covenant trans­action; [Page 20] in opposition to being forced by superiour power: see Mr. Davenport, page 29, and onward. Thus, in ordination or installation of a Pastor, the Church sends out, with consent of the Pastor elect, to such Churches as they please, inviting them with their Pastor and delegates to come and join in Council to ordain or install their Pastor elect. They come, look into their state and order; their covenant with their Pastor elect, and his qualifications for the office; and conclude to proceed, or not, as they find circum­stances. If they find all things proper, they proceed; and in the most public and solemn manner, ordain and solemnize the covenant between Pastor and People. And there covenant with both Pastor and people, in that relation to each other, by the RIGHT HAND OF FELLOWSHIP.

Here is the most public, solemn, religious cove­nant and combination of fellowship, union and reci­procity, consociating for mutual help, one to an­other.

Here is covenant upon covenant, one covenant so­lemnizing and ratifying another; the strongest, most solemn and sacred combination, professedly so­lemnized, even as an oath before God, Angels and Men, as witnesses to the confederation.

That what I have said, is the true intent and mean­ing of the Platform, though but obscurely hinted there­in, is evident; since the Synod in 1662, about 14 years after, in which must doubtless be most of the same members, who composed the Platform; in their result assert the communion, fellowship and consociation of [Page 21] Churches; and that the ordination, translation and deposition of Elders are important things to be per­formed by the consociation of Churches.

And this is of the more authority not only, as there were the same men to explain their meaning in the Platform: but it shews the sense of both Church and State at that time; as this Synod was convened by the order of the General Court to answer certain ques­tions, one of which was, "Whether, according to the word of God, there ought to be a consociation of Churches; and what should be the manner of it."

They answer that there ought to be a consociation of Churches; and propose about the same which is now partly practised in Connecticut, viz. those who live in a convenient vicinity to consociate; though with liberty reserved, without offence, to make use of others. They assert, that "there hath constantly been in these Churches a profession of communion, in giv­ing the right hand of fellowship at the gathering of a Church and ordination of Elders, which importeth a consociation, and obligeth to the practice of it." Here is the highest evidence of there being a constant pro­fession of communion in these Churches from the be­ginning in giving the right hand of fellowship at the gathering of Churches and ordination of Elders; for this was but about 41 years after the first arrival at Plymouth, and there cannot be a doubt but that there were many men in this Synod who had been eye wit­nesses all that time of the things they asserted: there is also the witness of the General Court of the same thing in their approbation and acceptance of that re­sult; which two bodies of men, so venerable, honour­able [Page 22] and respectable, is such superlative evidence of the order and fellowship of Congregational Churches in this country from the beginning, as ought to si­lence and shame all those schismatics who arrogantly and insolently pretend to patronize their disorderly In­dependent sentiments and conduct by the Platform.

Dr. Increase Mather, who was on the stage when that result was made, in his Testimony, in 1720, as­serts, that agreeable to that result, there was a law of the Colony which required the approbation of three or four Churches to every ordination: so that we have it from the highest authority or evidence, that the sense and practice of these Churches from the begin­ning was, that ordination, translation, and deposition of Elders should be by communion, fellowship, or con­sociation of Churches. And it also appears that both Church and State soon after the Platform was made, were so far from that independent, schismatical, despo­tic sentiment, which some of late a vow, that every in­dividual congregation hath right and power alone to call and put into office and dismiss from, and put out of office; that they made both a result of Synod and law of the State against it. But though they supposed the forming into particular consociations proper; yet, con­sidering the whole body of Congregational Churches one general consociation, out of which they might choose and employ such as occasion called; this practice has uniformly prevailed, by which it is become a Church custom, and, according to the Platform, is as binding as any thing can be. Hence the forming into partic­ular local consociations has never prevailed in Mas­sachusetts or Newhampshire.

[Page 23]You may perhaps conclude that I have brought in witnesses enough already against those schismatical, in­solent Independents, who do not blush to challenge the pious founders of Congregationalism to be for them. Doubtless when such an august body of wit­nesses, that venerable Synod of Divines, and that hon­ourable assembly of Politicians are brought in against those insolent usurpers, it is deservedly enough to con­demn them to perpetual banishment.

But witnesses throng in before me, as if eager to cast in their weight against those defamers of the cha­racters and principles of those pious fathers and found­ers of Congregationalism.

Dr. Cotton Mather, in his Ratio Disciplinae, asserts, that the manner and custom of solemnizing the ordi­nation of a Pastor is by inviting in a Council of oth­er Churches and proceeding as above described. And this account which he gives, you will allow to be in­contestibly true, since there is an attestation, to the truth of his account of the discipline of New-England Churches, by his father, Dr. Increase Mather; who according as he asserts his age, at the time of signing his attestation, was ten years old when the Platform was made, and had been above seventy years an eye witness of the practice of the Churches upon it from the beginning. And it is well known that he was a man of unquestionable probity, great learning, u­niversal knowledge, uncommon observation and accuracy. And he, in the same attestation, asserts in behalf of New-England Churches, that they disliked and disclaimed the name Independent: And that the reason that name was imposed upon them was, because [Page 24] they disowned a dependence on superiour ecclesiasti­cal power on earth, from which to derive their forms and officers: But says, they revere Synods and Ec­clesiastical Councils. He also in the same attestation speaks of Mr. Hooker's Survey of Church Discipline; as being esteemed a most accurate logical composure; as unanswerable; had the approbation of all the Min­isters that were then in that, and the next colony, (i. e.) Connecticut and Massachusetts Bay colonies. The same Mr. Hooker says, the Dr. "has leave to profess, that all or nearly all the Elders of those colonies ap­proved of what he had written, under their hands, and, by their desire in a common meeting, of his publishing it." From which writers, we have ample evidence, what the general sense and practice of the Ministers and Churches were, before and at the time of making the Platform; and since for seventy years, which brings it to the time of many persons now living.

Another witness against Independents, that the ordi­nation of a Pastor is a covenant, and asserting the con­sociation of Churches, is Dr. Samuel Mather, who in his Apology, says, "That our platform of Church discipline is deemed a Covenant." And for the proof of this, he observes, that the platform was composed by these churches in a body representative. And further to establish this idea, he notices the unanimous vote of the Synod in 1679, approving of the Platform for the substance of it, desiring that the Churches might con­tinue stedfast in the order of the Gospel according to what is therein held forth, from the word of God.' The Dr. here observes, that the original compilers of the Platform, as well as this Synod; reserved an entire [Page 25] and perpetual liberty in their covenant and combina­tion, to search the Scriptures and go according to them; that, doing thus, they were still within this Consocia­ting Covenant, and fully kept it. He further argues, "that it is to be deemed a covenant from the Synods and Councils which have met by virtue of it; main­taining a constant fellowship, in many federal overt acts; and so have transmitted this covenant they made to succeeding generations, in gathering new churches, and ordaining Pastors from time to time; these churches, he says, have so often renewed their original pact or cov­enant.

You will readily see from what has been offered from the writings and practice of Congregationalists, why they so much disliked Independents. All men of principle must detest them, they are properly a pest to society, while they hold themselves at a loose from check or control; but Congregationalism is all by covenants, holding themselves under the strongest ties, the most sacred obligations: the whole scheme of church order and discipline, is by covenants, by which the parties confederate together in the most solemn mutual engagement; in which are many covenants blended together, viz. The Church Covenant, form­ing or connecting an individual Church; which is blended with the Consociating Covenant that combines the Churches together; and here is the Pastor's Cove­nant with his people, both ecclesiastical and parochial, blended with the Church and Consociating Covenant by the manner of ordaining or installing him in office by the Fellowship of Churches. All which if it were only merely lawful thus to unite, without its being any [Page 26] duty thus to combine, would be of the nature of a vow; and could not be violated in any branch thereof with­out being highly displeasing to God. Eccle. v. 4. When thou vowest a vow vnto God defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools. Hence for any people after they have chosen and installed a minister; if they after­wards conceive a notion that he is weak or not so po­lite or popular a speaker as they wish for, or whatever; if it be not a real crime that he is guilty of; for the people to raise a cry against him to turn him away; is at least, after vows to make enquiry, as in Prov. xx. 25, or, Saying before the Angel it was an error, Eccle. v. 4, that they have made a foolish choice and covenant. This neither the law of God or man admits of, that men should avail themselves of their own blunders, or to stuliify themselves; for God has said, in this very case, he hath no pleasure in fools, but is angry with them to destroy the work of their hands.

The scriptures are very full and frequent in speak­ing against the violating of covenants; covenant break­ers are repeatedly reckoned in scripture, in the black­est catalogue of criminals, and God often threatened and punished covenant breakers in the severest manner. Thus the covenant which Joshua and the princes of Is­rael made with the Gibeonites, though it was obtained by collusion, and they were not the people they pre­tended they were, yet, God would not suffer that cove­nant to be broken with impunity. You recollect how God afflicted the whole nation of Israel for Saul's vi­olating this Covenant with the Gibeonites, many gener­ations after it was made; and how Saul's posterity of the third generation had to suffer even a violent igno­minious [Page 27] death for his breaking this Covenant; this shews how greatly God abhors Covenant breakers; and will not forget their perfidy; they entail curses on their posterity.

This affair of the Gibeonites, and God's dealings re­specting it, shews the absurdity of their notion, who pretend that ancestors have no right to make cove­nants binding on their posterity, that parents cannot make covenants to affect or bind their children, that rulers cannot make covenants to affect or bind their peo­ple: And, in a word, argue that no one can be obligated only by his own personal act: Such very highly and dar­ingly impeach the divine conduct in the affair of the Gibe­onites.

For there was a covenant made by Joshua and the princes of the congregation, with the Gibeonites, which God held sacred above four hundred years after, and punished all Israel with famine three years successively for Saul's breaking this Covenant. And finally Saul's children and grandchildren many of them must die for it, and then God was entreated for the land.

Covenant breakers of all kinds; and especially those who break this sacred complex Covenant of which I am treating, in any branch of it, either with individuals in the same Church, by separating, or other­wise; or with their Minister, by forsaking of him, or by violently turning him away; or with other Church­es, by breaking fellowship with them; they would do well to consider what an accumulated scene of wrath and curses from the Almighty they are treasuring up for themselves and posterity.

Instances of God's threatening and punishing cov­enant breakers are numerous. You remember how [Page 28] God threatened and punished Sennacharib for his per­fidy in breaking Covenant with Hezekiah. The Angel of the Lord destroyed an hundred and eighty five thousand of his army in one night, and wholly broke it up: he went home and there was treacherously and paricidiously assassinated when at his devotion.

Zedekiah is another instance of God's threatening and punishing perfidy; when he had sworn fealty to the King of Babylon, sent to Egypt for help against the king he had sworn to. As I live, saith the Lord God, surely in the place where the King dwelleth, who made him King, whose oath he despised, and whose Cove­nant he broke, even with him in the midst of Babylon he shall die. Ezek. xvii. 16.

I need not multiply instances; you well remember, that God says, Though it be but a man's Covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth there­to.

But when it is considered that these Covenants of which I am treating are not merely man's Covenants, but are God's Covenants, what he has instituted for us to observe; and that his dealings with man are feder­al; even in innocency it was a Covenant; and the scheme of restoration by grace, is a Covenant with Christ, and through him with all believers, has given him for a Covenant of the people; and has set us so­cial ordinances to perform, commanding us to do them. And when Christ, who is the Covenant of the people, in his last prayer, prayed for their unity, and, by his Apostle, asserted, that his Church is one, as the natural body, all the members caring one for another. This Church combination, will appear to be, not merely a [Page 29] man's Covenant; and not only a personal covenanting one with another; but a Covenant with God, com­manded by him, and is the strongest obligation upon every one of the members, bound by so many sacred Covenants, that whoever presumes to violate this com­plicated confederation, they make such a wound, frac­ture or dislocation in the body of Christ, as they can never answer before him, who has declared, that, Who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

For if offending the least member deserves such a heavy doom; what shall they deserve who offend and wound the whole body; therein trampling on the di­vine law; and violating their own most solemn and sa­cred vows and covenant personal obligations.

By this view of the matter may be seen, in the most striking light, why Mr. Hooker, the Platform, and other venerable writers, were so decidedly against sep­arations from the Church, and other schismatical con­duct; even though there are some things amiss which ought to be healed. And those who are sensible of the disease should be in the use of such means as Christ instituted for healing; and not rend away, wounding and dismembering the body.

If those that despised human temporal Covenants were subjected to such a heavy doom, as Saul, Sennacherib and Zedekiah were; of how much sorer punishments shall they be thought worthy who tread under foot so many sacred Covenants with God, Jesus Christ, and one another.

LETTER. VI.

A CHURCH formed and organized as I have said, is fitted to execute all those laws and ordinances they confederate for.

Those things which are merely official, such as dis­pensing the word and ordinances, leading and ruling the Church; are peculiarly and solely the province of the Pastor, therefore do not strictly come under the pre­sent enquiry about the right and power of the Church. But there is a right and power of a Church thus or­ganized to exercise DISCIPLINE; they all covenant to watch over each other, not for their halting, but for their good; that if any one falls, the other may help him up; if any one goes astray, i. e. does any thing contrary to any divine rule; to use such means as Christ has instituted to recover him. Hence, the Platform repeatedly asserts, that it is to be done to ED­IFICATION. In the 1st, Chap. Sec. 4th, says, with respect to the end, must be done to edification. Again in the same Sec. "Must be done in such a manner as is most expedient for edification; so that the end in view, or object to be obtained in Church discipline, and the manner of obtaining it, must be for edification. Or, as the Apostle says, by love to serve one another. And the Platform in Chap. xiv. repeatedly asserts, that the object of Church discipline is, to recover and gain a lapsed member.

[Page 31]In this every member has a right and power; and, it may be added, is under obligation, by the laws of God, and by his own Covenant, to tell his brother his fault, privately; and endeavour to recover him; and if he hear thee thou hast gained thy brother. If he will not, then to take one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

But, if he neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church, Mat. xviii. This is plain, simple, and easy to be un­derstood; and is directed to by the Platform, Chap. x. Sec. v. yet has of latter years seldom been prac­tised.

Many absurd notions, and wicked practices have been advanced to evade, and avoid this plain simple law of the Lord Jesus Christ, the sole King and Law-giver of his Church. Some have in earnest pretend­ed that this law of Christ respected only private per­sonal offences, known only to the offender, and one individual offended. But it is plain this cannot be any thing intended; for no WORD is to be advanced to the Church, but what may be established by the mouth of two or three witnesses.

To supply the want of witnesses they will obliquely charge the Person with something, and demand of him whether it is not so? We understand you did, or said— You know whether you said so! Or, you must be sen­sible that you * * * *. You ought to own the truth: DID NOT YOU SAY SO? If he will not deny it, he is to be deemed guilty; or, however, if he declines own­ing or denying of it; he is condemned as criminally obstinate. All such kind of procedures, you will join [Page 32] with me in saying, are horridly wicked practices; have for their precedent the Papal Inquisition; and that it is a real virtue in any one not to answer such questions; because it is following the example of Christ, when he in like manner, was accused and interrogated; and it ought to be remembered that, that great example of the world, and especially of all christians, never did give a direct answer to any captious question, in all we have recorded of him. And the conduct of Christ when he was under trial shew that he infinitely abhors such a practice; that therefore he was infinitely far from intending any such thing, in his Law in Matth. 13th. And as all such or similar practices are not only con­trary to the Laws of Christ, but are contrary to human rights, as have long been adopted and established in the English nation, and particularly and expressly by the American States; that no man shall be compelled to accuse or excuse himself, or produce witnesses against himself. Therefore such practise is an insult upon, if not treason against the constitution and laws of both God and man.

Another wicked practice to avoid this divine law of the Supreme Majesty of heaven and earth, is, the col­lecting in companies either with or without the per­son who is the object of their enquiry, to confer with him, or with one onother, to be agreed how to pro­ceed with a brother, or Pastor: if it is the Pastor; a very proper preparatory for such meeting is, to collect in companies on Sabbath-noons, and some of the lead­ing Church members find fault with his preaching, and one tells one thing, another another thing, and many of the things so long ago that if they are true, must un­doubtedly be in a great measure, if not wholly forgot. [Page 33] Or however or whatever the particulars are, they are talking against him by the walls, and in the doors of the house, as the people did against Ezekiel; ^* and in pro­per time they are prepared to have a more gene­ral collection or meeting, and require the object of their inquisitions to be with them. Such kind of meetings whatever they may call them, are unlawful assemblies, they are riots both as to Church and State, being expressly repugnant to the constitution, laws and rules of both. Mr. Hooker says, "Such a company wants precept or example." He means examples to jus­tify it. For as to examples of people meeting to­gether in an unlawful, riotous manner, there are a multitude of them recorded in Scripture. Thus the people gathered together against Moses and Aaron, against David, and many of the Prophets; thus a­gainst Christ, Stephen and many of the Apostles: The collection against the Apostle Paul, at Ephesus, was an eminent pattern for all such kind of meetings.

But for any Church of Christ, or company of peo­ple, to pretend to meet as a Church of Christ, to en­quire into matters of complaint against any of its members; without matters properly stated, and the accused's being privately and previously informed of what they have against him, according to the law, in the xviii th of Matth. and to pretend to proceed to act upon matters of complaint thus; is a high, and (when objected to by any of its members) is an audacious profanation of the name, and insult of the majesty of [Page 34] the Lord Jesus Christ. And it is no less an insult of the constitution of Massachusetts, which expressly pro­vides that "No subject shall be held to answer for any crime or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, sub­stantially and formally, described to him." Declaration of Rights, Art. xii. Hence if any Church Member in Massachusetts be arraigned before a Church, to answer to any matters not introduced according to the 18th of Matth. and said Declaration of Rights, he has full right, according to the Platform, to deny their juris­diction, and avoid their action: for that asserts, that as to the manner of Church proceedings, it must be ac­cording to Civil and Church custom. The Bible, the Platform, the Constitution therefore, are all against them; and if they pretend to proceed in that manner it is no better than riotous conduct, and void by all the rules and order of proceedings in both Church and State.

Mr. Hooker in his Survey, speaking of Church procedings in discipline, says, "Common human infir­mities must not be made crimes of. If the matter be doubtful, and yet so much ground that we think we cannot be clear without rebuking him; search into the matter; for it is a safe rule when there is not ground of conviction, not to censure. If there is ground of conviction, then proceed according to the rule in the 18th of Matthew. He says, if these things were well attended; those mistakes, clashings, sayings, gainsay­ings, and the many offences committed among breth­ren, while they come to reform an offence given, would easily be prevented through the help and assist­ance of Christ; if the party that comes to rebuke would be sure,

[Page 35] First, That the sin was committed.

Secondly, That he hath evidence, that such a broth­er committed it.

Thirdly. That such a rule is fair and full to con­vince of such a sin.

The Majesty of Christ's Ordinance would appear with much evidence; and with much ease and com­fort on all hands; in all the degrees of it; in private, before one or two, or before the Church."

He further says, "The preparation of the action lies in two things.

The Cause must be examined presently.

The Examination recorded exactly.

HE THAT COMPLAINS MUST KNOW TWO RULES.

First, He must not dare complain, unless he can plainly and peremptorily lay in his accusation of another, touching such speeches and carriages. I say, peremptori­ly accuse. Because I would prevent such weak and windy kind of expressions, as too often we meet with. I take it so: I conceive it so: It was so reported: I met with it in that manner."

If Mr. Hooker was against such weak and windy accusations or witnessing; most certainly he would be against such a wicked and abusive accusation or witnessing as the following: There is a gener­al uneasiness: It is in every body's mouth: We really believe he is a bad man: He must be cast out: Away with him. By such kind of witnessing or rather clam­ours, the virtuous Naboth, and the Holy Jesus lost their lives. Of Naboth they said, He blasphemed God and the King, but told no fact or words of blasphe­my: For they knew he had used none.

[Page 36]So as to Christ: Away with him: Crucify him. Pi­late said, what evil hath he done? They would not risque the issue upon FACTS: but say, If he were not a malefactor we would not have delivered him unto thee.

All such kind of accusations, witnessing, or clam­ours, where facts are not clearly stated and proved, are false and wicked; and will most certainly be rejected and detested by all rational judicious people.

We will hear further from Mr. Hooker, he says, " Secondly, as his (i. e. the complainer's) accusation must be plain; so his proofs must be direct and preg­nant; that such words for the substance and reality of them were spoken, and such things done. There must be two witnesses to establish every word.

ON THE ELDERS' PART TWO RULES, if attended to, make great riddance of occasions, and prevent dis­tempers.

First, let the accusation be presently and exactly record­ed; together with the answer thereto, in like manner; for experience teacheth, that in a multiplicity of de­bates, parties are apt to forget, or else not willing to remember; and some ready to mistake, add, alter, va­ry in expression as they see there may be an advan­tage come to their own, or disadvantage to the con­trary cause.

Secondly, Let the Elders confine all parties to the point in hand, and not suffer them by extravagancies to darken the truth."

Speaking of Church censures, he says "It must not be for small petty aberrations; but such as are abomina­ble; carry the face of evil in their forehead, upon the first well grounded consideration of reason; pertina­ciously and obstinately persisted in."

[Page 37]From what has been extracted from Mr. Hooker, it appears, that the only proper season of complain­ing, of an offending member, is immediately. Mr. Hooker says, presently. This in every view is neces­sary; not only that it be done, while things are fresh in the mind, so as that truth may be investigated; but to suffer sin long on a fellow member, they make themselves transgressors; and to rake up old things, or pretend matters of long standing, when things must in a great measure be forgot; must have all the appear­ance of falsehood and ought to be treated as slander.

The Civil law provides that actions of trespass shall be outlawed in a short term of years; with proper savings, where inevitable necessity prevents bringing the action within the general limitation. And the Platform says, that Church matters should be conduct­ed according to civil custom. And Christ has limited actions of traspass in his Kingdom even shorter than any civil State, Luke xvii. 3, 4. Take heed to your­selves; if thy brother trespass against thee rebuke him; and if he repent forgive him. And if he traspass against thee seven times in a day; and seven times in a day turn again unto thee saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him. All this proves in the most decided manner that Christ's Law is, that the accusation shall be made im­mediately. Take heed to yourselves; if thy brother tres­pass, thou shall rebuke him. As much as to say, if you neglect rebuking of him you make his sin your own. Therefore take heed to yourselves, that you do not make his sin your own: his speaking in the next verse of se­ven times in a day, proves that he means it should be done immediately; else, there could not be so many times in a day. He does not set any particular length [Page 38] of time; the case may be such that it cannot be done instantly after the fault is committed; the person may not be in a proper temper of mind to admit a rebuke; or some other circumstances. But, it is a plain law that it shall be done as soon as circumstances and the nature of things will admit of it; or it is outlawed in his Kingdom; the person has fixed the sin on himself, and if he brings an accusation against his brother af­ter that, it is slander. All this perfectly agrees with Mr. Hooker, where he says, "It must be done PRE­SENTLY."

You will also readily see by what I have entertained you with, from that great divine and politician Mr. Hooker; the same which I have said before: That the only proper or legal way of introducing accusations into the Church and conducting them therein, is ac­cording to the xviiith of Matthew. First privately tell the offender, or supposed offender, his fault: This can be no other than, to point out to him the fact he has done, and the divine law or rule he has thereby violated. And this Mr. Hooker has proved, by un­answerable reasons, should be done in writing. This must be attended to in the next trial before one or two; also before the Church; and this is the most peaceable and likely way to recover a lapsed mem­ber; and to maintain order and peace in the whole Church.

In this way, the person is privately and previously certified what he has to answer to, as I before shewed, that the Bible, Platform and Constitution; or rights of mankind require.

Although different faults require different Church animadversions; as heresy is to have a first and second [Page 39] admonition before rejection: But moral scandal re­quires immediate rejection; yet there is but one way to introduce all matters of offence for trial into the Church, viz. as above stated from the Bible and the rights of mankind.

And if any Church pretends or presumes to act up­on a case, any other way introduced; and especially when that is claimed by the party accused; they act out of character, and it invalidates all their procedings therein; and though they may have power to pass votes and condemn a member; yet they have no right to do so any more than a civil Court have right to arrest a man contrary to the Constitution and law; which if any Judges of court should presume to do, their being judges would not legitimate their conduct; any more than if any other men should set up a mock court and trial and condemn a man: but it would be much worse for judges to do thus, as they thereby vi­olate their trust, and insult that authority which had thus dignified them. And it is still as much more hei­nous for a Church of Christ to presume to go on so, in a pretended trial contrary to his law; as it is pro­faning Divine Authority, and violating their own most solemn vows and engagements.

LETTER VII.

A CONGREGATIONAL Church, organized as I have said, and regularly assembled with a cause before them, introduced according to Christ's law, un­der [Page 40] the presidency of their pastor, have both right and power, to proceed decently and orderly to hear, ex­amine, try and finally determine the cause; if they can do it to the general satisfaction of the whole body. But if there arises a difference to that degree they cannot acquiesce; they are then according to the ex­ample in the xvth chap. of Acts, to refer it to a Conso­ciation, or Council of Churches, verse 2d. When there­fore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dis­putation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up to Je­rusalem, unto the Apostles and Elders about this question. Here was a dissension among them, and a mutual a­greement to refer it to a Council of Apostles and El­ders at Jerusalem. It appears that it was a mutual a­greement, because both parties had an equal voice in it. Paul and Barnabas were evidently one party, and they went to this Council; and no doubt those certain others who were sent, were of the other party. Hence therefore, is a Scripture example for a mutual Council, by which is meant mutual in the choice of the parties, or an equal choice in both parties. Not that the mem­bers of the Council should come together agreed in sentiment about the matter in question. Such a Coun­cil would not answer to the pattern, for there was MUCH DISPUTING in that Council, verse 7th. Here therefore is a divine rule for all Christian Churches when there is a division and dissension among them.

And especially Congregational Churches, are under covenant obligation by their Platform, in case of divi­sion and dissension to refer it to a Council, see Chap. xv. Sec. 2. "If a Church be rent with divisions a­mong themselves, or lie under any open scandal, and [Page 41] yet refuse to consult with other Churches, for healing or removing of the same, it is matter of just offence, both to the Lord Jesus and to other Churches."

Agreeable to what I have now said; you may find that Mr. Hooker, in his Survey of Church Discipline, Part III. p. 40, says, "When evils are presented to the Church and there is a mutual and joint concurrence of all; every particular congregation hath received power from Christ to proceed to excommunication without any more ado. But in case things prove doubtful and the difference grow wide and great, it is then seasonable to crave the help of neighbouring Churches, that they may see the truth cleared, the erring parties may be convinced, the way also warranted; which being done either all will agree; or the major part of the Church hath POWER and RIGHT to proceed; and the disseating part are bound to sit down satisfied therewith. But in case the Council of consociated Churches shall ad­vise to withold, they must stay their proceedings."

Mr. Hooker here plainly asserts a decisive power in Councils, so far, that all parties must be guided by their result. And his sentiment herein exactly agrees with the pattern Acts xv. That Council had a right and au­thority to lay a burden on the Church, i. e. assign them something to observe, verses 28 and 29, and they were under obligation to observe and do according to what they directed; for it was an ordinance of Christ that his Churches should be thus counselled and directed by other Churches in Council, and it seemed good to the Holy Ghost. If, therefore, they neglected or refused to observe and conform to the result, they rebelled against Christ, the King and resisted the Holy Ghost.

[Page 42]But here some will say, that Council, in Acts, was di­vinely inspired, and could say, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, what they wrote. I am willing to allow that they were divinely inspired to set an example, for all Christians and Councils, how to investigate the truth, and find out the will of God, viz. by disputing, by attending to facts and comparing them with the Scriptures. This it is evident that Council did. First there was much disputing, verse 7. Then Peter, and Paul, and Barnabas gave in their testimony; that the HOLY GHOST and God's miracles attended the uncir­cumcision, making no difference between them and the circumcision. Then James sums up the evidence and compares it with the Scriptures, and observes that it a­grees with the words of the Prophet. From all which they deduce by fair reason and argument, that it SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST; and when they had thus argued it out, and proved that it seem­ed good to the Holy Ghost; it seemed good to them too, i. e. according to reason. So all religious or ec­clesiastical decisions ought to be as fairly argued as that Council did, by comparing facts with Scripture, so as to appear ACCORDING TO GOD'S WORD AND HUMAN REASON.

But though it is not to be expected that a Council of uninspired men, will always proceed so impartially, accurately and judiciously, in examining evidence; and comparing of facts and Scripture, as that Council in the xvth of Acts did; yet they are doubtless as likely, and more so, to act impartially, accurately and jud­iciously, than the brethren of a Church heated with con­tention and biased with prejudice.

[Page 43]Councils therefore being an ordinance of God, and as likely a way to have disputes and differences settled properly as the imperfection of human affairs admits of; differing parties in Churches are under obligation by the word of God, and human reason, to agree and refer their differences to an Ecclesiastical Council: as the differing parties in Antioch did, to the Council at Jerusalem. Who, when the matter was referred to them, had a right to judge, and direct them what to do; or, as they term it, lay a burden upon them, which they were under obligation to observe and conform to.

But for a party to go off from the result, even if it is the major part; let them call themselves THE ORIG­INAL CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH; or, THE NEW REFORMED CATHOLIC SOCIETY; or whatever; or if it is nearly every member of the Church against their Pastor; or even the Pastor and Church against a private member; it is disorderly and schismatical, resisting God's ordinance, in that pattern in Acts, and a violation of their own solemn Covenant and Com­bination, as Dr. Mather terms it, in many overt acts; especially in their inviting in such Council. And such Church, or part of a Church, are by such conduct out of fellowship of all Congregational Churches; and ought to be so treated: As they violate the fellow­ship of Churches, and reject their advice, they ought to be rejected by all to whom they seek for assistance; until they comply with the advice given them; or otherwise settle it to the satisfaction of the parties con­cerned.

Mr. Wise, in his vindication of New England Churches, speaking of decrees or results of Synods or, Councils, asserts, "That they are obligatory; else it [Page 44] would be fruitless to make wearisome journies with great cost and pains to determine such things as they judge expedient for the Churches well being; if after all it were indifferent whether they were obeyed or not; especially when things are fairly settled by joint suf­frage in Synods: Some small set of wise men, hold themselves wiser than whole Synods; and afterwards of their own heads, in their more private apartments, set forward new schemes; which is itself disorderly; and a way to keep the Churches constantly fluctuating like the ocean; considering that, in Synods, all sorts of persons have their full liberty in debates and votes, in drawing up their decisions; it is a bold intrusion, and little better than defying and trampling under foot the unity of the Churches, to run counter with Synodical settlements, till they are fairly repealed by the like power which made the settlements."

LETTER. VIII.

WHEN it will serve a turn and persons wish to avoid a result, or part of it, and regard only what their own humour or caprice dictates, you will hear it confidently asserted, Councils are only ADVISORY; that they are not binding or decisive; but all power is in the Church.

But though we allow the executive power is in the Church; yet they have not right to exercise this pow­er, in case of division, or respecting their Pastor, unless it be agreeable to the advice of Council.

[Page 45]The Platform in the very beginning of it, fixes as a fundamental maxim of the whole structure of Church order and discipline; that, " In respect to the manner; decently and in order, according to the nature of the things themselves, AND CIVIL AND CHURCH CUSTOM."

You will readily grant there is no decency nor order, for Churches to go on and continue in a broil, con­tention and division, without seeking help for a settle­ment of their divisions or differences; neither that it can be decent or orderly, when they have invited a Council, to set their result at nought, or to mutilate, mangle or distort a result to just what they please, or to nothing, or to take part and reject the rest of it.

You will also grant that this is not according to Church CUSTOM, as we have it from Mr. Hooker, the Platform, the Mathers and other venerable writers.

And if we examine the matter by Civil CUSTOM we shall find it will exactly agree with what Mr. Hook­er says about Councils, that the Church must proceed or not, according to the advice of Council. For ac­cording to the wisdom and experience of ages, the Supreme Executive in civil policy, is to do the most important executive acts by and with the advice and consent of Council. And it would be invalid, and such a high handed usurpation as would merit an impeach­ment, and degrading from his office, if he should pre­tend to do such things without, or contrary to the ad­vice of Council. Thus it is with the King of Eng­land, thus with the President of the United States, thus also with the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Do our Churches or some parties of them claim a more despotic power than the King of England, whom they have long since dubbed a tyrant. [Page 46] Do they wish to be more uncontrolable than President Washington, who is so universally esteemed one of the first characters for probity, wisdom, impartiality and in­tegrity? And why should any of our Churches or parties of them, claim to themselves an exemption from all check or control, so much above the Governor of Massachu­setts; who cannot appoint and commission a common Justice of the Peace; nor issue out a death warrant against a malefactor, even after he has had a full and fair trial by jury, in a Judicial court, without the ad­vice and consent of Council? Yet some of our Churches, or parties of Churches, claim an exclusive right and prerogative to appoint and invest officers; and to degrade them at pleasure; and to be accusers, witnesses, judges, and executioners; and have the in­solence to claim all this by the Platform; when that, in the very first chapter, places the SCRIPTURES and CIVIL and CHURCH CUSTOM as the foundation of the whole superstructure of Church proceedings and discipline; but according to what is already observed, the Scriptures and Civil and Church Custom are all a­against them.

But this prerogative which they claim, outvies the claims or pretensions of the despots of ancient Baby­lon, who had their Counsellors; and even shames the pusillanimity of the whore of Babylon who reign­eth over the Kings of the earth; whose Executive, the POPE himself, with all his infallibility and despotism, does not presume or pretend to determine and execute his important Church matters without the advice of Council, viz. the CARDINALS in CONCLAVE.

Well might Dr. Mather say, as in his Apology, speaking of the consociation of Congregational [Page 47] Churches, and of such as will not consociate, "they (i. e. Congregationalists) judge it will not be safe or prudent for any Christian to commit his soul to the direction and conduct of such an independent Church."

Mr. Wise, also in his Vindication of the Govern­ment of New England Churches, speaking of regular establishments of civil and Church communities, says, "for particular subjects to break in upon them, is to violate the Law of Nature, and is a high usurpation upon the first grand immunities of mankind, and says, such rebels in States, and usurpers in Churches, af­front the world."

But here is an outcry about conscience; that Coun­cils must not have any decisive power, control or check upon the Church, for say they, that will be en­croaching upon the conscience of the Church!

This appears to be a partial defiled conscience, be­cause it is only on one side; and does not allow all to have a conscience. For suppose a Church have a complaint against a member, and the major part con­demn him; a Council comes, and advises to take off the censure; is the Church's conscience encroached upon? they say it is. I say then the conscience of the minor part is encroached upon by the major part; and have as good a right to challenge exemption from conforming to the major part, as the major part have right to challenge exemption from the determination of the Council.

Hence this must be a partial conscience; monopoliz­ing all conscience to the party which makes the cry.

But here again they will say, that results of Council bind no farther than they are according to the word of God. Upon the same ground I demand, are individ­uals [Page 48] in a Church bound any further than the doings of a Church are according to the word of God? And another important question arises, Who is to be judge, whether the doings of a Council, or a Church, are a­greeable to the word of God? The answer must be, the party or person it respects, and who dislike it; or the objection means nothing, has no force in it. So here is a conscience which effectually prevents any is­sue or settlement of differences, throws all into parties, breaks up societies; which I think cannot be a con­science void of offence, either toward God, or toward man, but must be offensive to both, therefore must be an evil conscience.

You may ask what cases properly require a Coun­cil? I will not be so vain as to pretend I can describe all cases that may arise, and which properly require a Council. However, you will readily see by what has been adduced from the Scriptures, the Platform, and other approved authors, that, the settling and remov­ing of a Pastor require Councils.

Also when there is a division in a Church which they cannot reconcile among themselves. This implies that there must be proper essays among themselves for re­conciliation; therefore, that things should, when the condition and circumstances of the Church will admit, always be heared and tried in the Church before they are brought to a Council. Here, if the parties agree, and send for a mutual Council, there is no difficulty. But if either party refuses, it is a question of consid­erable importance, what shall be done? The Plat­form assigns the third way of communion; this would answer if the Churches would carry it into execution, but through a modesty in the Churches lest [Page 49] they should seem officious, this has rarely ever been at­tempted. Both Church and State were soon sensible of the imbecility of this method; therefore, about 14 years after, viz. in 1662, the General Court called a Synod, to answer some questions, one of which was, "Whether, according to the word of God, there ought to be a consociation of Churches, and what should be the manner of it?"

The Synod answer, that "there hath constantly been in these Churches a profession of communion in giving the right hand of fellowship at the gathering of Church­es, and ordination of Elders; which importeth a consociation, and obligeth to the practice of it."

They propose consociations of those who live in convenient vicinity; though with liberty reserved with­out offence, to make use of others. But considering all Congregational Churches as one general consocia­tion, out of which any parties may choose at pleasure; that plan of classical or local consociations never was adopted in Massachusetts; yet, in conformity thereto, most of the Ministers have formed themselves into asso­ciations. The question therefore returns; what shall be done in case of difficulty in a Church, and one par­ty refuses to join in calling in a Council? It will no doubt be answered, if we were formed into consocia­tions according to the proposal of that Synod, they might apply to the Consociation and that would be val­id, being established by both Church and State. But it was equally acknowledged by both Church and State at the same time; that all Congregational Churches are one general consociation. Hence by plain and conclusive reason; if one party is obstinate and will not join in applying to the Consociation, [Page 50] when the case requires it; according to the principles and constitution of Congregational Churches; the other party, after having used proper means to induce them to it, has a right to call in such Churches as they think proper, and it must be valid; for every man ought to find his remedy, and not be defeated because his antagonist is obstinate, and the other party is justly holden to abide the consequences; for, in the very formation of a Church they are consociated, and ev­ery member is included in the consociating covenant, and all are bound to conform to consociation acts re­specting them; and if they refuse, they break their covenant, and forfeit their relation, and ought to be considered as excommunicates, or outlaws; till they will regularly reunite with the Consociation, by con­forming to their decrees; or properly join with the other party, in mutually applying to the Consociation according to Church usage or custom.

But here some make a difficulty in what you will scarcely think they can make any, viz. about a Mutual Council. You will scarcely believe this can need any explanation.

I assure you I should not think it needed any; had I not heard several absurd and contemptible aphorisms, in earnest asserted, and obstinately maintained; to serve a selfish, contracted design. In which are the following, viz. A Mutual Council is one chosen by both Parties involving into one Body! Or when one Party (for certain reasons) gives up to, or consents that the other Party may choose all; this is a Mutual Council. These you will readily conceive are made by the Party who know they have numbers sufficient to swallow up the other Party and not feel any incumbrance thereby [Page 51] You will also readily see that these schemes are repug­nant to any such thing as Mutual: where there is but one acting body, there can be no mutual actions of parts or parties, simplicity and mutuality being repugnant to each other.

But I have heard other schemes for a mutual Coun­cil, which though not so selfish as the above, yet are a great mistake, and wholly inconsistent with the pattern we have in the 15th Chap. of Acts. The scheme is, for both parties to agree to all the men, so as to get a Coun­cil all of one mind as much as possible. This certainly is not according to the pattern, for there was much dis­puting among them. And, in such a Council, all of one mind about a question before them, there is no means to bring the truth to light; and if they happen to be in an error, they are likely to remain so. Consequently where there are differing parties, it appears most ac­cording to Scripture and reason, that each party should equally choose; and this is the only way there can be any mutual choice; consequently Mutual Council. But many object against this, saying the Council come to­gether like two armies. But so long as we know that this method is according to Scripture, reason, and the most likely way to investigate the truth; we need not be terrified by any epithets that may be put upon it.

LETTER IX.

I NOW give you my thoughts, as to the Right and Power of Congregational Churches to dismiss or remove their Officers. I shall confine myself to the [Page 52] dismissing of a Pastor; for other Officers of the Church, even if they have Ruling Elders, are never considered as having any official power out of their own Church; or to do any official act. Hence their introduction into office is never taken notice of by other Churches, neither were they considered by the Synod in 1662, as being essential to the organization of a Church. Moreover, as to any other Officer in the Church beside the Pastor; their being in office or out of office does not affect their local situation, or temporal circumstances. But a Pastor's or Minister's local situation and condition of life are wholly deter­mined by his office. For the Lord hath ordained, that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel; even as all other occupations live of their labours, or by their occupations. For Christ, when he sent out his Disciples, forbade their taking with them of their own estate to live upon; either purse or scrip; for the la­bourer is worthy of his meat, and of his wages or hire. Hence, God provided in his law to Israel, even that the Priesthood should be hereditary, with a suitable living annexed; so that the ministering office in his Church might not run out, and be void. For it would be irrational and inconsistent with God's creation of man and institutions to him, for any man to undertake a calling which in its own nature would divest him of all the social enjoyments, and good things of this life; which God had created for man and conferred upon him. And though God has not made the ministerial office in the Christian dispensation hereditary; yet he has very plainly instituted, that a Bishop should have a family, and ordained that he should live by his la­bour in his office, and lay up for his family, as another [Page 53] man may, by his labour and occupation. All which are absolutely incompatible with an unsettled life; therefore fully amounts to an institution of God, that a Bishop's office is for life; indefeasable, unless he for­feits it by misdemeanor. Hence the Platform assigns incorrigible offending as the only ground of removing an Elder from his office. This essentially implies that there have been means used to reclaim the Elder, for no one can be deemed incorrigible, till means have been used to recover or gain him. This must be done according to Christ's law, as I have before shown, re­specting discipline; or it can be no means to recover or gain him. There be those who pretend that these private steps are not to be used with the Pastor; but no one that ever I heard, did or could assign any scrip­ture or reason why a Pastor should be deprived of this privilege. Christ no where makes any such exemp­tion; but by the Apostle Paul to Timothy, appears rather to ratify it to them, above others, where he says; a gainst an Elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three Witnesses. This, so literally referring to the law in the 18th of Matth. is a plain command or interdiction, against calling an Elder in question as faulty, unless on the most regular process and decided proof according to law. ^* It is evident by the express letter of the Platform, that a Minister shall not be re­moved for some foibles; or as Mr. Hooker calls them petty aberrations; nor even if he is overtaken in a real [Page 54] fault, some violation of a divine rule; unless he con­tinue irreclaimable in it. All this must be manifest, Chap. viii. Sec. 7. Here is a question. To whom is this to be manifest? Is it to the accusers? Why may we not as well say it must be manifest to the ac­cused? One party has as good a right to be judges as the other. What is said in the 10th Chap. Sec. 6, de­cides this; it must be manifest or evident to the Coun­cil of other Churches; who are to direct to the removal of an incorrigibly offending Elder; in order that the Church may have right and power to dismiss or remove him.

That this is the true intent and meaning of the Platform, as to dismissing an Elder; you will readily allow when you recollect what I before mentioned from Mr. Hooker, where he asserts, that a Church must proceed or not, according to the advice of the Coun­cil. And you will be further established in this construction of the Platform, by viewing the senti­ments or various other writers both before and since the Platform, and the uniform practice of the compil­ers of it, and their successors for above an hundred years; in which you will find previous to the Plat­form, beside Mr. Hooker, Mr. Cotton on the Keys: which book it is asserted by ancient writers, was used as a guide or Platform, by the New England Churches, before the Platform was made. Dr. Increase Mather and other Ministers of Boston, in their Testimony to the order of the Churches, in the year 1720, say, that in Mr. Cotton's Book of the Keys he asserts, "That it is an ordinance of Christ, for particular Churches to join together in a consociation among themselves, to administer their Church affairs which are [Page 55] of weighty, difficult, and common concernment; of which kind he reckons the Election, Ordination or Excommu­nication of an Elder or any Person of public note."

You will be gratified in hearing something from the compositions and writings since the Platform.

In this venerable throng, is the Synod in 1662, (a­bout 14 years after the Platform) which assert the du­ty and importance of Consociations or Councils, in matters of more than ordinary importance; as Ordina­tion, Translation, and Deposition of Elders and such like.

It is evident that writers both before and since the Platform, consider the relation between Pastor and People very sacred, and not to be rashly and precipi­tately dissolved, even if both sides were disposed for it, not to be done without the advice or concurrence of a Council of other Churches. Dr. Increase Ma­ther and other Ministers, in their beforementioned Testimony, say, "That as there is, according to the order and practice of these Churches, a Council for the ordaining a Pastor; it stands to reason that there should as much be requisite for his removing."

But there are still more important reasons those writers allege against the dissolution of the relation between a Pastor and his People, viz. because they consider it a Covenant and very similar to the mar­riage relation.

And here I cannot forget Mr. Hooker. He says it is of the nature of the marriage relation in many re­spects. And Mr. Wise, in his Church's Quarrel Es­poused, compares the relation between Minister and People to the marriage relation. His words are. "Husband and Wife, Pastor and Church, by our sort of government, are bound for term of life, or so long [Page 56] as both shall live; these Churches are settled Congre­gational, and by their principles, the ordination is, as it were, the nuptials or marriage day of two lovers, that nothing but death, or a bill of divorce (for betray­ing the glory of the union) can part." This, as far as I have had opportunity to observe, has been the ge­neral notion and sense of people: but however more or less general it may have been; yet Mr. Wise's observation and comparison will appear to be just, when we consider, that, upon Congregational principles, the Minister's relation to his people is by mutual and vo­luntary choice and covenant; and his office relation is blended with his relation as a Brother in the Church, and also blended with his local situation and living in the world, through the whole of his life; that they can­not be parted: and has therefore nearly all the per­petual indissolvable ties that the marriage relation has.

And when we advert to scripture, we shall find, that God made it more indissolvable than the relation be­tween husband and wife: for the latter he allowed to be dissolved because of the hardness of their hearts; but the former he made hereditary. Yet this was not so, but that for high crimes and misdemeanors they might be deposed. Thus Solomon thrust out Abi­ather, for treason. This is the only instance we have in the Bible of any Priest's being regularly deposed by lawful authority. And Christ, though he reprobat­ed the practice of their putting away their wives for e­very cause; yet he allowed that the relation might be dissolved in case of fornication. And very similar to that, as if copied in imitation of it, the Platform al­lows a People to put away their Minister, for incorrigi­bly offending.

[Page 57]But as the marriage relation is not to be dissolved by either party, even in case of fornication, without the decree of divorce by proper authority: So neith­er may a Church put away their Minister, even in case of incorrigibly offending, without the Council of other Churches properly introduced, directing thereto. When, according to such direction, they have both Right and Power to remove him from his office; or put him away.

LETTER X.

IN my last letter, I said that Abiather was the on­ly instance in the Bible, of a Priest's being regularly deposed by lawful authority; which I suppose you will allow to be true; notwithstanding Jeroboam when he set up his false religion, cast out, and in a sense de­posed, the Priests of the Lord. And his having the major part of Israel on his side did not sanctify his conduct herein; but it is always spoken of as his sin.

But, in the New Testament, we read of no Bishop or Elder's being superseded or deposed: Or of their forsaking or leaving their people.

Yet some in our day assert, that a Church may, or have a right to dismiss, or turn away their Minister, when they please, with a Council, or without; or contrary to a Council, and it will be valid. Otherwise, as the case may be, they cannot get rid of a Minister when he ought to be dismissed.

[Page 58]This sentiment will justify all the villany that can be committed. Upon this doctrine or sentiment, a man may turn his wise out doors, when he pleases, and it will be a valid divorce.

A russian may assassinate a man when he pleases; and it will be a lawful and just putting him to death.

A thief or a robber may take away a man's proper­ty from him when he pleases, and it will be a righteous conversion of property.

For the case may be, that a woman ought to be divorced, a man ought to die, a man ought to have his dues of an­other; when neither of these things can be obtained in due course of law; on this sentiment, therefore, the woman is not abused by her husband, nor the de­ceased injured by the assassin, nor the plundered per­son, wronged by the robber: for according to this sentiment, the husband, the assassin, the robber, have a right to perform all those acts of violence: and there is no outrage or villany which may not be amply vin­dicated by it; and especially all perfidy, breach of faith, and violation of covenants and contracts; for this, which is asserted in the very sentiment itself, is a right to break the most solemn, sacred and complicat­ed covenants that can possibly be made.

Those of this cast call themselves Independents; and have the audacity to father their sentiments on the Platform; when that utterly rejects Independents. But let them call themselves what they will, according to what I have before noticed from the Synod in 1662, and from Dr. Mather, of the determinations of the General Court; and the practice of the Churches from the beginning; these Independents are OUT­LAWS of both Church and State, and they very grosly [Page 59] defame the Platform in pretending to father such sen­timents upon it; and they are unsufferably assuming and arrogant; for by their pretending to father such sentiments on the Platform, they no less than boldy assert that they understand it, better than the compil­ers of it, and Ministers and General Court in the time of it; and for some years after, while the compil­ers of it were alive. Such arrogant monopolizers of wisdom, as Mr. Wise says, " Defy and trample under foot the Honour and Authority of the Churches; and as he says in another place, such Usurpers in Churches, Affront the World." And that the more, when the way they must explain or read the Platform to get their senti­ment from it, must be to read it, as the vain wretch did the Bible, to prove from it, there is no God; who reads only these words, and asserts that it is proved from the Bible there is none. Or as another, to prove that the Bible directed to hearken to bad advice, reads it, My son if sinners entice thee consent THOU. But if they should say, these are fabulous; they may turn to Mat. iv. 6. and find an example; which you will al­low, they cannot deny, either the authenticity of the example; or the fitness of the Author for their pattern. The example is, It is written he shall give his angels charge concerning thee, and in their hands they shall bear thee up. Here the words, To keep in all thy ways; are omitted in what was pretended to be quoted. So these Independents, as they call themselves, must read the Platform to make what they pretend from it. As the Church had power to call to office, so they have power to remove him from his office. Here, as in the above text of Scripture, an essential part is omitted, viz. The Council of other Churches, where it may be had, direct­ing thereto.

[Page 60]But though the Platform is somewhat obscure as to this matter and many others, and is easily accounted for; considering they had so newly escaped the fur­nace of Prelacy, and kept their eye so intently on that, to guard against it, that they did not so strongly, in words, guard against evils among themselves. Yet it is evident they were far from practising any such things, as the licentious pretended Independents of the present day, claim by it. And the Synod in 1662, as I have frequently observed, set this matter in a clear light; whose result, is of as much and the same author­ity with the Platform itself, being sanctioned by both Church and State as much as that, and is as really a part of the Platform of these Churches, as the expla­natory Charter by King George, was really a part of the Charter of the Massachusetts Bay, as that by Wil­liam and Mary. Or as a codicil to a will, is as real­ly part of the will as the body of it; and must be ex­ecuted, as much as any part of it.

Those ancient worthies, were not so vain and arro­gant as to suppose they had arrived at the ne plus ultra of wisdom, when they first composed the Platform in 1648.

Again I have seen it in writing seriously asserted for a SENTIMENT, "That, the majority of a people ex­pressing their minds against their Minister, that he should not continue their Minister, it so vacates his office relation to them, that it is right for any other man to officiate in his place, whether he is willing or not."

This sentiment has for its precedent in the Bible, the conduct of Jeroboam and the majority of Israel, thrusting out the Priests of the Lord, and supplying their place with others; which I mentioned to you [Page 61] before; and you will join with me in saying it mat­ters not as to its being right, whether those that are introduced to supply, are of the lowest of the people; or those that esteem themselves the highest.

This SENTIMENT also censures the conduct of Mo­ses and Aaron, that they did not leave the people and give place to Korah, Dathan and Abiram when the major part of the people had so expressly decided a­gainst Moses, the servant of the Lord, and Aaron his Priest. For according to this sentiment, it was right for Korah, to assume and occupy the Priest's Office instead of Aaron, when the majority of the people were so de­cidedly for it. And it also impeaches the divine con­duct in the miraculous fire, and chasm in the earth, which destroyed them and their associates; and that Moses and Aaron were not rather the victims of ven­geance for their obstinacy and impiety in not being willing immediately to give place to them, when the majority of the people had so expressly decided a­gainst their continuing in office: For Vox populi, vox est Dei; Et, Voluntas populi Suprema est lex. These are fundamental maxims: yet the Declaration of Rights in Massachusetts Constitution of Government, has the audacity to claim that it shall be a Government of Laws, and not of Men.

The above sentiment is no doubt founded on a mis­taken notion many people imbibe and obstinately hold, as to the temporary mission of Christ to the twelve; when he sent them to preach the kingdom of Heaven is at hand, to work miracles, &c. He tells them whoso­ever shall not receive you, &c. when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust off your feet, &c. [Page 62] and in the same mission he tells them, if they persecute you in one city, flee to another. This direction of Christ to his Disciples in this short temporal itinerant mission, they obstinately hold and urge is a direction to settled Ministers. But it cannot be any thing to them; for as to them, the people have received them; and if they start off and flee, when difficulties, or some disagreea­ble things arise, they prove themselves not to be true Ministers of Christ, or Pastors of his flock; but hire­lings who flee when they see the wolf come or coming.

This direction therefore of Christ to his Disciples, in that mission to pass from one place to another, can be no direction to settled Ministers; to suppose it to be a direction to them carries in it a contradiction in terms.

But the Commission which was to last to the end of the world, was, to preach the Gospel to every Creature; to teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded, which includes all the divine precepts, and to administer his ordinances; all which was at first to the Apostles, extraordinary Officers from Christ, who were to introduce the Gospel, being accompanied with the power of Miracles. This belonging to their mission, it was incompatible with a settled life. But after they had planted Churches, they ordained Bish­ops, Pastors, Teachers or Elders, to rule and feed the Church; whose office relation was more especially stated and local, which is the office now in the Church of Christ which is under consideration.

This office relation, as you have heard, is blended with so many covenant ties, and connected with so many conditions and circumstances of very great mag­nitude and importance; and so ratified, established [Page 63] and made permanent by God's Word; that it may not be trifled with, or slightly dissolved. Thus Dr. Math­er and other Ministers of Boston, in their Testimony before mentioned, speaking of the removal of a Pastor, where the Pastor himself is for parting, say, it must be proceeded in with great caution, that it becomes not any Minister to seek it by offering himself to it. That the reasons for removal be laid before authentic judges, such as are most likely to pass an impartial judgment upon them, that nothing less than a Council of Church­es may be those judges, and that the reasons be found such as are consistent with the solemn vow he is under.

In the Preface of said Testimony it is said that, about 20 years after the Platform, it was asserted and vindi­cated, that the ordaining, deposing and translating of a Pastor should be by common consent; and that it was so in the next ages after the Apostles. By this common consent, they mean not only the Pastor and Peo­ple, but other Churches.

From all which you will see that it is a violation of our Congregational principles, and therefore unlawful, for a Pastor and people to part, by his motion, or by theirs, or both; or by the people pretending a fault in him; without the advice and concurrence of a Coun­cil. As the Platform makes no provision for remov­ing an Elder from his office; but upon incorrigibly of­fending, and the Council of other Churches directing to the dismission. All other pretences of dismission of an Elder are absolutely unknown by the Platform.

However I will not pretend to assert that there can be no dissolution of the relation, between Pastor and People, unless by his incorrigibly offending and the ad­vice [Page 64] of Council. There may be by agreement to part, and a Council assenting to it, as Dr. Mather and Min­isters of Boston propose; which you recollect; and I will not say it is a violation of Congregational princi­ples, or unlawful. And there have been instances of later years where Councils have advised to a separa­tion on account of the uneasiness of the people; with proviso for a settlement of his contract; similar to Moses' suffering Israel to put away their wives because of the hardness of their hearts. But from the begin­ning it was not so. Neither from the beginning of God's instituting the Priesthood; nor from the beginning of setting up Congregationalism in this country. For as I before said, the Platform knows of no such way of Minister and People parting. But though these various grounds or occasions of Pastor and People's parting, have been tolerated, and may be thought to be reason­able or lawful where it is done by agreement or con­sent of all parties, viz. the Pastor, the People, and the Consociation, i. e. a Council of Churches. Yet for any Minister to break from his People without their consent, and the advice of Council; or for any people to pretend to dismiss or turn away their Minis­ter of themselves at their own pleasure, and by their own power, is such a breach of faith and infraction on the whole foundation of society as I presume cannot be found among the most savage nations; I am very certain the aboriginals of this country would scorn such perfidy. And for them to pretend to justify it by the Platform, because the Platform positively asserts and scrupulously reserves to Ministers and People the right of covenanting and contracting, and of holding this right, in opposition to prelatical imposition or deseasance; [Page 65] and therein saying that they have a right to choose and refuse; that the Churches' having a right to covenant; no power, without their consent, can dissolve it. For any to say, or pretend to argue, that because a people have a right to make a covenant or contract, they have a right to break it and avoid their obligation at plea­sure, without the agreement or consent of all par­ties, or a forfeiture on one side; is a heinous reproach on the compilers of the Platform, and an affront upon common sense.

And for any people to turn away or reject their Minister when he is old, or by infirmity is past, or nearly past, his labour; resembles the practice of those savage nations who turn off their parent into the deserts in their old age, to perish.

A reflection on what I have wrote in this and the foregoing letter, I doubt not will induce you to join with me, in saying, that the practice which is so preva­lent, and growing at this day, of Minister and People making particular agreements about parting, on any other conditions, or in any other way, than the general plan of the Scriptures and Platform, is very improper, and a great evil. It is unsafe both for Minister and Peo­ple. Many people seem to be fond of having it express­ed in their settling a Minister, that he shall be dismissed when a major part or a major vote shall be against him. They must allow the same to the Minister. Such a precarious tenure is no settlement either of Minister or People, and must in its own nature keep Ministers and People perpetually fluctuating.

The Minister does not stand upon good behaviour, but upon pleasure; he is therefore under a temptation to be a timeserver, if he wishes to stay with the Peo­ple: [Page 66] And at the same time he is also under a tempta­tion to be plotting for a more promising and perma­nent place and employment; and prudence and duty will dictate, that he always is looking out and ready for a retreat. And in this case, if he has a proper forecast, he will see that he has a much larger salary that he may lay up for old age, or infirmity, when he is near past his labour. When it will be almost a miracle if the people do not take care to rid themselves of a burden; when he is so old or infirm he cannot settle again, or go into any other business, and must lose the rest of his time: and if he does not take care of this to have an additional salary, it will be his pru­dence to avail himself of his own liberty to go, and take his day before him. And this precarious scheme must in its own nature tend to breed jealously be­tween Minister and People; and it is inviting to rest­less, litigious minds, innumerable occasions to excite a party and dismiss a Minister in a heat; it may be, in revenge upon the Minister, or some other persons in the town or parish.

I have not mentioned all the evils I discern in that way; neither do I suppose I could possibly think of all it is exposed to. I will only add, that it is so con­trary to what God has established, as to the religious order of men, that doubtless it must be exposed to innumerable evils; the greatest of which is, it tends to run out the Ministry, and all religious order, es­pecially since it is a departure from order and a breach of the Fellowship of Churches.

LETTER XI.

THEORY, which leads into the principles of any art or science, will leave it still in a great measure in obscurity without experience. Thus you see it was with the compilers of the Platform, and other writers of that day, there appears profound theory in their compositions; but for want of experience, some dark sayings, which men of corrupt minds wrest as they do also the holy Scriptures: notwithstanding those wise and pious worthies, by practice and experience, soon discovered and explained them, not only by particu­lar able writers, but by the same formality and author­ity by which the Platform itself was made. But not­withstanding all the light which they have offered and left for their successors, those who choose darkness rather than light, who love not the truth, but delight in iniquity; have furnished us of the present day with many very striking instances of the subversion of or­der in Congregationalism.

A few cases of this kind may reflect some light on what I have essayed to give you as the theory of Con­gregationalism.

Among which cases you will join with me in con­sidering it as a very dark scene in PROVIDENCE, when a People violently break off from their Minister; and, because they can have a majority, employ a strang­er, like a young Korah, to crowd out their aged Pastor, whom they ought highly to esteem, in love, for his work [Page 68] sake; and to venerate as a Father. Yet they load him with calumny, by accusations to destroy his min­isterial character. And like the people running upon Stephen, stop their ears against his repeated and earnest entreaties to join with him in calling in a Mutual Coun­cil. They pretend to dismiss him, yet refuse to give an official copy of their proceedings. To crown their insults, a boy is sent to inform him they have no more service for him. The Pastor, with a few friends that adhered to him, called in a Council twice, who inces­santly laboured to bring them to peace, but unsuccess­fully; they acquit the Pastor of the accusations against him, and approve of his conduct. But the majority, like the multitude against Christ, cry out, away with this man and choose Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a rob­ber. So here they chose another, rather than their ag­ed and Reverend Pastor, to rob him of his people, his Meeting House and his living; and send to other Churches, as the people applied to Pilate to assist and gratify them in their outrage.

What they will stile themselves, I know not; neith­er do I know of any ONE class or denomination they rank with. I will therefore for the present, leave them with the stile of POLYKAKONONYMOUS.

There is no pleasure in relating such tales. But e­vil conduct and consequences, by the divine direction, are sometimes to be related for an admonition to those that come after; to the intent they should not lust af­ter evil things.

A wealthy people who had always been favoured with Ministers of the most respectable characters, their Minister by age and incidental infirmities became un­able to supply; they employ a candidate, they invite [Page 69] him to settle with them, colleague with their aged Pas­tor; he accepts their invitation. But, before ordina­tion, several respectable characters in the parish be­came suspicious of his character; a large and respectable Council was invited for ordination, who had several sessions, and after a long and deliberate hearing, con­cluded, it was not proper he should be ordained there.

The major part determined they would have him, in opposition to this full, fair and deliberate trial and de­cision of that Mutual Council, the only constitutional power to determine it; break off from Congregation­alism, erect themselves into a separate society by the name of The New Reformed Catholic Society in—. Their refuse condidate joins with them, and they send to Churches, and raise a Posse to FOSTER their proceedings and conduct; and thus a venerable di­vine, and once happy people, are almost desolate.

The wise Man tells us, the way of the strange wo­man is variable. You will not wonder therefore that the following case differs in many things from those I have related.

A respectable town which had long been noted for union and good order; settled a Minister in peace. But soon there arose a disaffection, and some move­ments against him. The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: The breach is constantly increas­ing. So here the contention increased till the disaffected party called in an ex parte Council, who advised them to deal with their Pastor according to the xviiith of Matth. and, if they could not obtain satisfaction there­by, to seek for a Mutual Council. They execute the process. The Church acquit the Pastor. The op­posers [Page 70] are not satisfied; the Church offer to join in a Mutual Council. But the disaffected do not ac­cede to it: they call in their ex parte Council again; who, upon their arrival, express their sur­prize; and being so sensible of their condition, they prudently waved entering into any examination of the Scripture Authority of the proceedings of the Church; and RETIRED.

Both parties then joined and invited a large Mutu­al Council, who came, deliberated on their matters, and resulted thereon. In which they advised the Church to exercise tenderness and candour to their Pastor, and all parties concerned, carefully to guard against prejudice and cultivate a spirit of Christian love.

Within a month after this Mutual Council, a town meeting was called to take measures to remove their Minister; and to choose a committee to supply the pulpit with a preacher, and to take care of the meet­ing house until it can be done. Many of the inhabi­tants protested against their proceedings.

They met, and voted they had no further service for their Minister.

About six weeks after the above Mutual Council and advice; without any new matter offered to the Pastor or Church; part of the Church send out for a Council. They came, expressing their regret of a division in the town; they recognize those that are disaffected with their Minister The Original Church.

Soon after this, about half the Church form, and stile themselves, The Original Church, in—, vote the dismission of their Minister. The town vote it also.

Soon after these movements the Pastor warned a Church meeting. In which meeting, the Pastor [Page 71] and Church mutually agreed to invite in a Coun­cil, to look into their situation and give their ad­vice. They came, attended to their matters, and result­ed; that the Mutual Council, left the Pastor and Church in good standing, and that they have done nothing since to forfeit their standing, and advise to hold on and persevere.

Between the time of sending for this Council, and their coming; the town shut the meeting house against the Pastor. And soon after supply the pulpit with oth­er preachers.

You will say, those who conduct thus, are not Con­gregationalists; they do not act as if they were under any covenant obligation, either to their Pastor, or to one another; or in any consociated connexion or ob­ligation to other Churches; nor under any obligation to their Pastor or one another to seek and conform to consociated advice and counsel. Certainly they can­not be considered as Congregationalists. Neither can they be called Independents; for they seek help from other Churches; which is incompatible with Inde­pendency.

But these, though they seek help; it is not that they hold to any reciprocity of duty or obligation; what they are after is to get their own ends answered; but they do not hold themselves responsible, or under a­ny obligation to conform to their advice or determina­tion, as you see in the cases.

You will ask, if they are neither Congregationalists nor Independents. What are they?

I answer. They are a mongrel production between both. And you will recollect that mongrels and mus­lins and linsey woolsey, were forbidden by the divine law; it is supposed by expositors that this law original­ly had a special eye to mixtures in religion, and for­bidding [Page 72] them; to guard them from admitting any heathen institutions with the ordinances of God. In this view you will grant that law is of as much force now as ever. Hence the Bible is expressly against them.

I suppose you will not envy any set of existences the honour of being the sires or manufacturers of such mongrels or linsey woolsey productions.

However, though the Bible is against them, yet there is a sampler of them in the Bible; turn to the xviith Chap. 2d Kings. You find that the people who dwelt in the cities of Samaria were infested with lions; which they attributed to their not knowing the manner of the God of the land; and they got one of the Priests of the land to teach them the manner of the God; and he taught them. Howbeit every nation made Gods of their own. So they feared the Lord and served their own Gods.

You will please to observe the analogy. It is those that occupy the place of Congregationalists, as those of old did the land of Israel. They meet with difficulty in their religious schemes. They send for Congrega­tionalists, to teach them the manner of the God, or to put on the mask. Howbeit they are not Congrega­tionalists after all. They still serve their own Gods. Serve their own views, without any regard to recipro­cal duty and responsibility. The analogy goes through, those of old and these now; all agree in seek­ing help as to their difficulties from the Priest of the Lord. Yet there was then a variety among them as to their Gods. One was Ne [...]gol, another Ashimo, &c. So it is now; one is the New Reformed Catholic, another The Original Church, &c.

[Page 73]The analogy appears to me so exact, that I see not why they may not with those of old, properly be de­nominated SAMARITANS.

In the 4th Chap. of Ezra you find, that those an­cient Samaritans applied to the Governor, Priest, and chief Fathers, offering to join and be connected with them in building the house of God; but they would have nothing to do with them, or have any connexion with them. Which no doubt you will esteem a divine ex­ample, how to treat all such Samaritanist people. And as those wise and pious Fathers asserted they would build the House of God, as the King had command­ed: So Congregationalists, I suppose, would do well to be tenacious of their constitution as was established by civil authority.

After I had written the foregoing cases I recollect­ed a case of a Minister with his people which I saw published in the Massachusetts Spy, 25th of April, 1793.

It would be too tedious to give you even a minute account of what is there published. I will give you the general idea which I collected from said publica­tion. Which is, that there arose a disturbance with the Minister about his domestic affairs, particularly a­bout his daughter; that they accused and judged him without any regard to the law of Christ in the 18th Chap. of Matth. That the Minister repeatedly offer­ed to refer all matters to a mutual Council; which they as often refused.

But at length, in December 1791, they had a Coun­cil, which they claimed the exclusive prerogative of choosing all themselves. The Minister consented to this. This Council result, that a separation take place [Page 74] upon condition that if they could not agree on the pecuniary terms of their separation, they submit the matter to indifferent men mutually chosen, and abide the award. The Minister offered to leave them, according to that result of their own Council. But the people would not comply with it, although they vow­ed to comply with it; but instead of doing any thing to comply with their result, they pretended to dismiss their Minister themselves: and did shut the Meeting House against him. The Minister has since often call­ed upon them to settle with him according to that re­sult; and used proper means to induce them to join with him in calling in a mutual Council, which they have always rejected. They applied to gentlemen to preach with them; but being unsuccessful, they appli­ed to the Church under the care of the Moderator of their own Council, to send their Minister to preach, &c. among them. That Church returned answer to them that they could not think their Minister was dismissed according to the result. The Minister called in a res­pectable Council, who in their result say, that his past­oral relation continues, notwithstanding all the people have done to dismiss him, and that he is in good stand­ing, not having forfeited his ministerial character. And very solemnly exhort the people to return to their duty under his ministry, or if they wish for a dissolu­tion, to comply unreservedly with the result of their own Council. The Minister has since repeatedly urg­ed them to a settlement; and it appears has always of­fered, and stood ready, to submit all their differences to indifferent men mutually chosen; but the people al­ways refused, claiming to themselves the sole and ex­clusive prerogative of accusing, judging and execut­ing, [Page 75] and of dissolving their own engagements at plea­sure, though ratified in the most religious and sacred manner; defying and condemning all advice and de­cisions, of men and bodies of men, even when they had desired it, and promised, (i. e. voted) to comply with it. They are not Independents, for they seek help, but it is in a supercilious manner as if all were to serve them. They are not merely what I have above called Samaritans; for they vie with the Pope, in ex­alting himself with INFALLIBILITY above all obliga­tion, usurping a right and power to break FAITH and dispense with obligations at pleasure.

You will ask, if they are neither Independents nor what I have denominated Samaritans; what are they? I know not what they will stile themselves. You know people of high taste affect to name their children after some high personage, and to stile or denominate themselves by some eminent patron, high character, personage or important name. I am content they should search the whole world for a patron, personage, or name, till they come to ADAM, and then they may denominate themselves ADAMITES.

LETTER. XII.

YOU will observe in the course of these letters, that the Minister's connexion with his people includes in it a civil covenant or contract blended with his other covenants with them; which is of great import­ance, [Page 76] since his office is so blended with his occupation, his local situation, his domestic comfort, and almost all circumstances of life.

Accordingly, the Platform does not fail to assert the right and duty of civil authority's making provision for the support and maintenance of Ministers, which the civil authority have generally done where Congre­gationalism has prevailed; and I am well assured there was an old law of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, among other laws ratified and perpetuated by the con­stitution of Massachusetts: Which enacts, "That the respective Churches shall be encouraged in the peaceable and regular profession and practice of their Church order and discipline."

I have in these letters given you my idea of what their order and discipline is; as established by their Platform, Synods and usage; now for more than an hundred and forty years. And Mr. Wise, in his Church's Quarrel espoused, says "Custom, when full of days, and of noble examples, becomes the common law of a nation, and is as sovereign and pleadable as the dictates of parliamentary power." But you will readily join with me, in saying, there is no peace, regu­larity or order, in such conduct as the cases I have mentioned. Nor any custom of noble examples to legitimate or countenance them.

But such conduct, if countenanced and prevalent, must, in its own nature, run out the Ministry; for it must be inconsistent with common prudence for men to undertake a calling which in its own nature and ac­cording to the tenor of it, destroys them as to this world. It is what God never required of any or­der of men; but his word is expressly and abundant­ly [Page 77] against it, especially in his instituting religious offi­cers, both in the Old and New Testament. It is very common for many people to cry out against a minister; if he takes any proper care of his secular interest, to call him a worldling, and say he is only after money; or some such opprobrious epithets. But therein they very highly and audaciously reproach the divine insti­tution concerning that order of men, as well as vilify his servants.

But such disorder and clamour, not only destroys Ministers; but destroys society, makes divisions in Par­ishes, and disables them from supporting the public worship of God; and thus destroys religion, and de­feats social happiness, and not only oppugnates the di­vine law, but undermines civil government: and in Massachusetts may properly be considered as a conspir­acy against their constitution, which states as a funda­mental maxim, "That the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government ES­SENTIALLY depend upon piety, religion, and morality. And that these cannot be generally diffused through a community; but by the institution of the public worsh­ip of God and of public instruction in piety, religion, and morality; therefore provides that the several towns, parishes, &c. shall make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support of public Protestant Teach­ers of religion, &c. And that the several towns, par­ishes, &c. shall contract with their Teachers for their, support and maintenance." Hence such schemes and practices as are inconsistent with, and subversive of the regular establishment of public Teachers of re­ligion, morality, and piety, are essentially treason against that constitution.

[Page 78]Should therefore any such cases come before the civil authority, may we not depend that the civil ma­gistrates, who are the guardians of Liberty and defend­ers of the Constitution, will exert their authority to crush such treasons, and hold such covenants and con­tracts sacred; not suffering people wantonly and arbi­trarily to avoid their contracts; or dispense with their own engagements.

LETTER XIII.

THE investigation of CONGREGATIONALISM has required the obviating so many perversions which selfish minds have loaded upon it, to serve partial views: and has lead into so many observations on the various false notions and wicked practices which have been fathered upon the Platform; that I doubt not you will take pleasure in a summary review of the whole; in a concluding epistle.

CONGREGATIONALISM, as contained in the Scrip­tures, and explained by the Platform and other approv­ed authors, Is Congregations' covenanting to Walk in all the Laws, Statutes, and Ordinances of God.

1st. So many as can conveniently congregate togeth­er, or whose local situation and circumstances conve­niently admit of it; covenant to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded.

2d. This Covenant being of so great importance, it must be ratified before proper witnesses and author­ity; [Page 79] which is called the gathering a new Church, un­der the countenance, and by the advice and assistance of a Council of Churches; or at least of ministers. The members of the New Church signing in their presence, and receiving from them the right hand of fellowship: Or at least, an owning of them in some explicit manner, a new branch added to the body of the Churches. This is a Consociating Covenant.

3d. This Congregational Church, thus formed, have Right and Power to choose proper Officers, such as Christ, the King, has instituted. And particularly which is the most important, a Pastor. Which choice or election is a proposal to him for a Covenant to be such an officer among and over them, as Christ has instituted. And he, by accepting; it becomes a con­federation between them. And the parish or corporate body including the Church, concurring, and con­tracting with him as to temporalities; it becomes a threefold Covenant between Pastor or Minister and people.

4th. Although each Congregation hath an exclu­sive right to choose and Covenant with their own offic­ers; yet as to their Pastor, they have not right by their own immediate hands, to put him into office: But me­diately by a Council of other Churches, with their Elders; which Council, the Church, with the consent and concurrence of the Pastor elect, hath both right and power to call in. Which Council, hath right and power to approve or disapprove of their proceedings: and if they disapprove of their proceedings, their choice will be void; because official authority to administer Christ's ordinances is derived from him by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; and also be­cause this Covenant between Pastor and People is of [Page 80] such importance, that, it must be ratified before proper witnesses and by proper authority. Which only is such a Council; according to Congregationalism. But being performed by them, another, viz. a Conso­ciating Covenant, by the right hand of fellowship, is added to, and blended with the Pastor's and peoples' Covenants, and their relation becomes a fourfold covenant relation.

5th. A Church thus organized with a ruling Officer, hath Right and Power to exercise all parts of Discipline of Christ's Institution, according to his laws: Intro­ducing all matters of complaint or accusation into the Church for a hearing and trial according to the 18th Chap. of Matth. having previously stated in writing the fact committed, and the Divine Law transgressed, to the person accused, in the first and second step with him; for there can be no trespass, sin or fault, where there is no Divine Law or Rule transgressed.

The case thus before the Church, they have Right and Power to proceed according to the Laws of Christ, under the presidency of their Pastor, and finish it; unless there is a division about it; or it respects the Pastor: In which cases they are to call in a Council.

Here the case is plain, if both parties mutually agree, and invite one by mutual choice. But if one party is obstinate, and will not join in such mutual choice and invitation; it is a question of some import­ance; what shall be done?

The Platform proposes the third way of Communion. But this has rarely ever been attempted to be carried into practice; it is probable, for the same reason, that when a matter is of public notoriety in the Church, [Page 81] every one excuses himself from undertaking to deal with an offender that he may not seem officious.

It seems both Church and State early saw this; therefore called together the Synod in 1662, to an­swer the question, Whether there ought not to be Con­sociations? The Synod answered, there ought to be. Yet this never was carried into execution. Perhaps all would say, if there were classical consociations and one party would not join; the other would have a right to complain to the Consociation, as well as to complain to a Civil Court in a civil matter.

I query why he may not complain to the Consocia­tion now, taking such and so many of them as he thinks proper, after he has properly invited and reason­ably waited on the adverse party to join with him? I see not why this should not be valid, and the adverse party holden to abide the consequences. For all Con­gregational Churches, are considered as one general Consociation combined for those purposes; so combin­ed by the manner of gathering a Church, and settling a Minister, in which transactions every party and in­dividual by the nature and design of them, covenant and engage to call in Councils; in all such cases as Congregational principles require them.

Such a Council ought not to be deemed a party Council, any more than a Civil Court, is a party court, because one man sues another before it, whom he can­not induce to settle with him otherwise.

This can give no countenance to those ex parte Councils, who take up matters before they have been properly prepared; or who go directly in the face of a fair mutual Council; or soon after them, and pretend [Page 82] to act relative to those things which have been before the mutual Council, contrary to what they have done. Such may be called party Councils indeed; and may doubtless be reckoned of those who, Mr. Wise says, defy and trample under foot the Honour and Authority of the Churches.

You will readily notice, from what I have said in the course of my letters, that, upon Congregational principles, a single Church is the executive power, in matters of discipline; yet must execute or stay execut­ing in cases of division, and respecting their Pastor, ac­cording to advice of Council, similar to executive pow­ers, in civil administration. Which if they neglect or refuse to do; their doings are invalid and void: And they forfeit the Fellowship of Churches; and a Coun­cil have a Right and Power to declare sentence of Noncommunion against them.

6th. A Church has Right and Power to remove their Pastor from his office, for offending incorrigibly; a Council of other Churches directing thereto. And they may, by advice of Council, dismiss their Pastor in other cases, as I have said in the foregoing letters, when it is agreed to by all parties.

But their having a Right and Power to choose their Officers; or to call to office, by no means gives them or implies a power to reject them at pleasure, or to put them out of office, after they are in office; any more than a man's having a right to choose a wife and to choose the officer that shall marry them, implies that he has a right to turn away his wife at pleasure.

But people having this right to Covenant with their Minister, makes so much stronger against their break­ing [Page 83] from him, or pretending to turn him away: as a man's own voluntary act, is stronger against him than what is in any sense imposed upon him. So the Plat­form, Chap. viii. Sec. 6th, "The Church being free, cannot become subject to any, but by a free election; yet when such a people do choose any to be over them in the Lord, then they do become subject."

And as a man has no right to break from his own voluntary Covenant; so no one has any right to absolve him from his Covenant; or defease him of it.

This brings up to view the true intent and meaning of the Platform. Where it speaks of the right of the people to choose and remove their own Officers. It is an assertion of a Congregation's having a right to Cov­enant with their Officers, and to hold and enjoy their choice, in opposition to Prelatical imposition, or de­feasance of Church Officers. And thus to assert and fix this Covenant, where it ought to be, viz. on the same ground with all other Covenants of importance. Hence also Congregationalists do not admit that a Council should dissolve this Covenant. Neither can one party dissolve it.

But all covenants, being by mutual, voluntary con­sent of parties, cannot be dissolved; but by mutual consent and agreement of the original covenanting contracting parties, or by forfeiture on the one part.

And here you will notice that a Minister's cove­nant with his People is involved in the consociating covenant by the manner of solemnizing and ratifying of it. The Covenant between Minister and People, therefore, cannot regularly be dissolved without the consent and concurrence of a Council of Churches. [Page 84] This is sacredly reserved to every individual contract­ing party, the mutual and exclusive right of voluntary consent, to dissolve his voluntary Covenant.

Hence, should a Minister break away from his People without consent or agreement; he breaks Covenant with them, both ecclesiastical and civil; and breaks Covenant also with the Consociating Churches, and thereby forfeits his Covenant relation to them; and official character; and breaks his civil contract, forfeits that; and ought to pay damages as indifferent men shall judge, and this has been the case in several instances; where the Minister did not break away; but only was the first mover for parting, and they parted regularly by Council.

It is in all respects the same on the other side as to the People; with respect to their Minister. Should they wish to have him leave them, or the relation dis­solved without his incorrigible offence, it ought to be by advice of Council, and an allowance of damages to him as indifferent men shall judge.

But if they crowd him away without his consent or the concurrence of a Council, they forfeit their fel­lowship with the Consociating Churches; and ought to continue his salary till they give a regular dismis­sion, and aggravated damages beside: as indifferent men shall judge.

Again should both Minister and People agree and dissolve their Covenant, without a Council; it would be irregular, inconsistent with Congregational princi­ples, and a breach of Fellowship of Churches.

Again, should an Elder offend incorrigibly, whereby he forfeits his Covenant and contract with his People. [Page 85] The People being one party, cannot, according to any rule of God or man, be judges of the delinquency or forfeiture of the other party; any more than the oth­er party may be judge of himself, which certainly he has as good a right to; as they have to judge him. Moreover, they not being coordinate officers; nor of a coordinate calling: neither having authority to put into office; cannot be proper judges of his offi­cial character, nor put out of office, according to the very words of the Platform. Chap. viii. "to consti­tute in office, and remove from office; are acts belong­ing to the same power."

But a Council of other Churches properly introduc­ed, and regularly hearing and judging upon the cause, and finding him incorrigibly offending; and directing to a dismission. The Church hath then Right and Power to dismiss him.

Yet even then, if the Church will not dismiss, will not consent to give up their Covenant with him, he is not dismissed; the Council cannot destroy the Cove­nant. The right of covenanting contracting parties must forever remain sacred to the parties who made the covenant, contract or confederation. Yet howev­er they cannot be considered in Fellowship with oth­er Churches so long as they remain so, until such ad­vice is conformed to: or, as Mr. Wise says, is repeal­ed by a like power which made it.

I have now, my dear Friend, in compliance with your desire, in the course of my letters, given you my idea of CONGREGATIONALISM: have endeavoured to wipe off the reproach, and obviate the absurdities which [Page 86] many have loaded it with, by their foolish sentiments and wicked practices, which they have audaciously as­scribed to it.

That IT may be rightly understood and carefully practised by our CHURCHES,