This is a point, on which it will be necessary to remark before closing this subject.

§ 61. Founded also on Scripture authority and example.

The churches plead also in defence of taking the precedence in the choice of officers, that they are warranted in so doing by Scripture authority and example. For instance, we read in Acts i. 14-26, that on a certain occasion the disciples of Christ were assembled together. The number of them is specified: they were about an hundred and twenty. This select body, this primitive church, acted in the choice of a person to supply the vacancy, occasioned by the death of Judas Iscariot; and this too in the presence of the Apostle Peter.-At Acts vi. 3-7, we find the church of Jerusalem assembled again, and exercising the power in question in the choice. of Prochorus, Nicanor, and others to the office of dea

con.

The exercise of the power under consideration by the churches in the Apostolic age may be inferred also from Acts xiv. 23. This, it is true, is not obvious from the English translation, as it now stands; but the original of the word, ORDAINED, is the Greek participle, CHEIROTONESANTES, which implies, that the selection or choice of persons to the Eldership was made by the vote of the body of the disciples, [i. e. by the church,] and not directly by the Apostles.-All these passages are referred to in the Platform. The language of that instrument, CH. : X. § 5. is; “Officers are to be called by such churches, whereunto they are to minister. Of such moment is the preservation of this power, that the churches exercised it in the presence of the Apostles, Acts i. 23, vi. 3-5, xiv. 23."

$62. Necessary to the maintenance of purity in the ministry. And there are other considerations, having a connection with the rights or privileges of the churches, which we are attending to.-The framers of the Congregational System were inexpressibly anxious, that the ministry should be pure, devoted, holy. They well knew it to be the design and will of Christ, that his ministers should possess this character; and they were accordingly desirous, that no ecclesiastical regulations should be introduced but such as would tend to promote these great and merciful intentions of the Redeemer. Animated with such sentiments, ardently desirous of seeing the spread of true religion, it was impossible for them to abandon the principle, that the churches have a right to choose their own officers, and that it is their duty to do it. Among multitudes of decisive authorities on the subject before us, take the following striking passage from the RATIO DISCIPLINE of Cotton Mather, who had abundant opportunities, to ascertain the landmarks and the true spirit of Congregationalism.

"A body of Christians," he says, "associated for all the ordinances of the Gospel, are a church of our glorious Lord, which have among other precious privileges a Right from him to choose their own pastors. The churches, which have recovered the exercise of this right from the oppression of man, under which many churches of the Reformation are to this day groaning, ought to keep the precepts and the favors of the Lord, and not easily part with what he has given them."

"To introduce a practice, [that of allowing Parishes a precedence over the church,] in the choice of a pastor, which, being followed, may soon bring a pastor to be chosen for a church, which few, yea, none of the church. have ever voted for, would be to betray and even destroy a most valuable right, that such a Society, [i. e.

church,] have a claim unto, and many evil consequences are to be expected from it." RAT. DISC. Nov-ANGL. ART. I.-The evil consequences, alluded to, undoubt edly are, the introduction in a short time of a corrupt ministry; the subsequent corruption of the churches; and in this way the ultimate ruin of both. That such consequences would follow is obvious, when we remember the depravity of the human heart, and when we take into account, that multitudes are fond of having moral teachers, whose practice at least is as wanting in strictness and purity, as their own.

§ 63. The Church has no coercive power over the Parish.

It will no doubt be said, that the church, although they have a right to choose their own officers, have no right to impose or force their officers on the Congregation or Parish. This is granted. They neither possess, nor assume such a right And this is so obvious as to render a particular consideration of this point unnecessary.

§ 64. Grounds of the reference of the choice to the Society or Parish.

Still it is important, that the Church and Parish should act together; that they should meet together in the same place of worship; and share mutually in certain of the benefits, connected with the ministry. The Church is to be increased from time to time by members taken from the Parish. Their interests are not diverse, although their situation is different.-And hence the great problem to be solved was, How a minister should be chosen, in the choice of whom the Parish should have a voice, and still the rights and purity of the Churches be suitably attended to and secured? And the solution, which Congregationalists have given, (apparently the only satisfactory one which they could give,) is this; The Church make a choice in the first instance; this choice they notify to the Parish

and invite them to concur; if the Parish do not concur, they choose again, and invite a concurrence as before; in some cases, repeating the process, in a spirit of conciliation, a number of times.*

*The remarkable assertion has been made in quarters, entitling it to attention, that the distinction, which has been drawn between the rights and duties of Churches and Parishes, did not formerly exist, at least in practice; and is not supported by ancient Congregational authorities. The incorrectness of that declaration will be manifest to any one, who carefully examines and weighs the passages referred to in the following works; Neal's History of the Puritans, Pt. ii. ch. ii; Bartlet's Model of the Primitive Congregational Way, ch. ii.; Richard Mather's Church Government and Church Covenant Discussed in an Answer to the Elders of the Churches in New England to xxxii Questions, Qss. i. ii. viii.; An Answer (ascribed to the same writer,) of the Elders of the several Churches in New England to Nine Positions, &c. iv. v.; Adam's Annals of Portsmouth, year 1670; Cotton's Way of the Churches of Christ in New England, ch. iii. §§ 1, 2; Emerson's History of the First Church in Boston, SECTS. i. ii.; Morton's Memorial, p. 17, Davis' Ed; Hookers's Survey of the Sum of Church Discipline, pp. 13, 14; Mass. Historical Collections, Vol. ii. 2d Series, Art. xii.; Cam. Platform, Chs. iii. iv. viii.; Winthrop, vol i. p. 94, Savage's Ed. Note 2; Increase Mather's Letter to the Church at Cambridge, prefixed to Cotton Mather's Life of Mitchel: Testimony of the Same to Good Order in the Churches of the Faithful, Case ii.; Owen's Inquiry into the Original, &c. of Churches, Chs. i. iv.; Rat. Disciplinæ Nov-Anglorum, Art. ii. -From these passages and multitudes of others which might be referred to, it is evident, that the early Churches in New England were select bodies; that the members of them were persons, possessing certain moral and religious characteristics, which were well understood; that they were separated from the mass of the people and bound together as distinct bodies by an express covenant; that they exercised certain powers, such as the choosing or the excluding of members, the administration of the sacraments, and the appointing of officers. In a word, they will be found to be such as we have represented them; bodies entirely distinct from the Parishes, although meeting together in the same places of worship, and sometimes exercising their powers conjointly.

§ 65. The concurrent action of the two a matter of agreement.

The system, then, is one of mutual agreement and concession. No tyranny is exercised by the Church; and no despotism is endured by the Parish; but the rights and duties of the Christian are joined in harmony with the rights and interests of the man. The church are true to the Savior in being true to what he has committed to them; while, at the same time, the claims of the Congregation are equitably considered and adjusted.

The ultimate good of the Parish, it should be remembered, is coincident with that of the Church, whatever the difference in their present situation. And it may be safely said, that the plan, which has been adopted, is as beneficial to the former as to the latter. At any rate, it cannot be safely altered by any further concessions on the part of the Churches to the Parishes. Such concessions would be inconsistent with that sense of duty, which ought to be the ultimate law of men's conduct. However it might be approved by the inconsiderate and irreligious world at large, it would be condemned by the tone and spirit of the whole Congregational history, as utter ingratitude and treachery to the Savior.

66. Of the support of the minister.

If the Church and Parish, pursuing the course, which has been mentioned, agree upon a person to be settled as a minister, the CALL is transmitted to the candidate or pastor elect; the concurrence of the Parish being at the same time made known. Arrangements are also made by the Church in connection with the Parish, (and still more frequently by the Parish alone, including the church members acting in their parochial capacity,) for his support; the terms of which are formally stated to the pastor elect at the same time with the communication of his Call. On the subject of supporting the ministry, the fol