THE Compilers of the Platform of Church Discipline agreed upon Anno 1648 are evidently of Opinion, that there are no Churches instituted under the New-Testament Dispensation, but Congregational, and expressly disclaim the name of Independents. (a) Now the grand Distinction between Congregational Churches and those which are erected on the Independent Establishment consists in this; The Independents manage their Ecclesiastical Affairs solely among themselves, without supposing they are under any Obligation to ask Direction or Assistance of any other Churches: But the Congregational Churches, of which our Platform treats, are by our Constitutions in all Cases of Importance and Difficulty, to invite the Aid and Advice of neighbouring Churches, which our Fathers held to be an "Ordinance of Christ, though not absolutely necessary to the Being, yet many Times, thro' the iniquity of Men and perversness of Times, necessary to the well-being of Churches, for the Establishment of Truth and Peace therein."(b)
To suppose therefore that the Platform encourages the Churches upon its Establishment to transact their Important Affairs, without consulting the neighbouring Churches, where this Advice may be obtained, is directly to contradict the Judgment of our pious and learned Fathers upon this Point, to annihilate the Distinction which they had established between the Churches of the Independent and Congregational Persuasion, to represent the Platform as inconsistent with itself, to destroy that Communion of Churches which they supposed ought sacredly to be maintained, and to deprive the Churches of an Institution of Christ greatly important to their Order and Safety.
[Page 6] Our Fathers were too discerning to contradict themselves, and overthrow that goodly Frame of Church Government which they had erected with so much Wisdom and Judgment, after their maturest Inquiries, on a Scripture Foundation.
They with great Propriety and Justice assert,(c) That neither Diocesan Bishops, or Lay-Patrons, or Magistrates, as such, have Power to appoint Officers to a particular Church. This is the unalienable Right of the Brethren by a Free Election: Yet they expressly declare, that, in the Exercise of this Right, it is agreable to Congregational Principles, "and much conducing to well-being and Communion of Churches; that, where it may conveniently be done, neighbour Churches be advised withal, and their Help be made Use of."(d)
As the Platform evidently maintains that every Church hath Power, in the above described Method, to elect and proceed to the Settlement of their Officers, so it allows, that in Case of manifest Unworthiness, Delinquency or incorrigible offending, they have Power to depose or remove them: But the Compilers of the Platform are so far from supposing, that a Church should exercise this Power, without the Advice of other Churches; that in express Terms they are directed to proceed in so Important a Transaction by Advice from neighbouring Churches.—This is plain from the very Words of the Platform, ‘In Case an Elder offend incorrigibly, the Matter so requiring, as the Church had Power to Call to Office, so they have Power, according to Order (the Council of other Churches where it may be had, directing thereto) to remove him from his Office.(e)’ These Words must convince every unprejudiced Mind, that the removal of an Elder from Office, according to Order and the Method appointed in our Platform, cannot be accomplished, but by the Council of other Churches, where it may be had, directing thereto. Should a Church therefore of themselves, without asking or receiving Advice in the prescribed Method, proceed [Page 7]to dissolve the Relation between them and their Pastor, they would not only deviate from the Constitution we profess to be under, but act in direct Opposition to it. And of Consequence must be looked upon as irregular, and their Conduct must be in an higher Degree culpable, when they proceed not only without consulting, but contrary to the repeated Decisions of Ecclesiastical Councils regularly convened.
In Opposition to what has now been said, it hath been alledged, that the Platform(f) declares "that if the Church have Power to chuse their Officers and Ministers, then in Case of manifest Unworthiness and Delinquency, they have Power also to depose them." —This we readily grant; and that this Power resides in them only, and not in any Synod or Ecclesiastical Council, according to our Constitution—But then our Platform plainly points out on what Occasions, and in what Manner, they are to exercise this Power, viz. in Case of manifest Unworthiness and Delinquency—a Council of other Churches where it may be had, directing thereto, which is the only prescribed Method in which it can be done according to Order. To whom is this Delinquency or Unworthiness to be manifest?—Is it to that Church only to whom the Person accused belongs?—Alas! the unhappy Controversies which usually usher in every Attempt to remove an Elder from his Office, render them too much a Party to be the sole constituted Judges in this Affair—The Delinquency must be manifest to the Council of other Churches, who are appointed to be called upon this Occasion, as well as to the Church more immediately concerned: Without this it would be the greatest Absurdity for the Council to advise and direct to the Dismission.—This Advice and Direction being obtained, the Church proceed to the regular Exercise of their Power, and dissolve the Relation between them and their Elder. This is indisputably the Meaning of our Platform: And to take it in any different Sense is to charge it with the greatest Inconsistency.
[Page 8] Upon this Point it is very observable, that the Platform makes Use of a very different Form of Expression, respecting the Introduction and Deposition of Church Officers:—As to the former, the Words of the Platform are these ‘we judge it much conducing to the well-being and Communion of Churches, that where it may be conveniently done, Neighbour Churches be advised withal, and their Help be made Use of in the Trial of Church Officers in order to their Choice.(g)’ But as to the latter, viz. the Deposition of an Elder, the Platform rises in Expression, and uses a much stronger Term,—‘The Council of other Churches directing thereto;’ most evidently signifying it to be their Mind of the Compilers, that a Church, even in Case of incorrigible Offence in an Elder, may not, according to Order, proceed of themselves alone to his Deposition, but that the Power they have, in so momentous a Matter, is to exercised under the Countenance and Direction of a Council of other Churches regularly called.
Our illustrious Ancestors had too much Acquaintance with the Passions and Prejudices incident to human Nature, and too warm a Zeal for the Safety of the Churches, and the usefulness of the Ministry, to leave a Decision of so great and common Concern entirely to those whose Minds may have been heated by previous Contentions, and their Judgments biassed by various Prejudices and Prepossessions.
If this be allowed, every Church will have a Constitutional Right, whenever they see fit, under the Pretence of Unworthiness and Delinquency in their Minister, after many Years faithful Service, to dismiss him from his Office, and resign him and his Family to seek a Maintenance from public Charity.
What a Discouragement would this be to well-qualified Persons from entering into the Ministry under such a Constitution—Soon [Page 9]would our Pulpits be vacant, or filled with men, no ways prepared for that important Service.
Upon the whole, We are fully of Opinion, that it is contrary to the Spirit and Letter of the Platform, for any Church to exercise the Power of dissolving the Relation between them and their Pastor, unless they act under the Direction of neighbouring Churches, regularly called and convened, where such Direction may be obtained; and where a Church is rent with Divisions among themselves, and do not consult other Churches, they neglect to make Use of the Remedy which our Ecclesiastical Constitution hath in such Cases provided and enjoined.
These are not merely our own peculiar Sentiments as to the meaning of that Church-Order, which is pointed out in our Ecclesiastical Constitution, but they are confirmed by the Suffrages of the most eminent Divines of our Communion, who lived at or near the Time when the Order of the Government of Congregational Churches was established.
We have made a careful Inquiry into the Practice of the Churches, with Respect to Church Order, which, if it hath been uniform, must be esteemed a faithful Exposition of the Sentiments of the venerable Synod who compiled the Platform, and have the Satisfaction to find the Construction we have given of the Platform abundantly confirmed by the Writings of those Divines who were present at that Synod, and of the Ministers of the succeeding Age.
Before the Synod of 1648, the Churches of the Province had no Platform of their Church Government.* Till that [Page 10]Time, the venerable John Cotton's Book of the Power of the Keys, in which the learned Author endeavours to lay out the just Line and Bounds of all Church Power, was generally received as the Directory of these Churches in this Matter. In this Treatise he says, he is for that great Work of Communion and Consociation of Churches, p. 57. And speaking of the Liableness of Elders and Brethren to abuse their Power, ‘he asserts the necessary Communion of Churches in Synods, who have Authority to determine, declare and enjoin such Things as may rectify the Male-Administrations,—which fall under their Cognizance: But still, so as to leave unto the particular Churches themselves the formal Acts, which are to be done pursuant unto the Advice of the Council. (h)’ Upon the Churches scandalous and obstinate Refusal to comply with the Advice and Determination of Council, "The Council," says he, ‘may withdraw Communion from them, as from those who will not be counselled against a notorious Mismanagement of the Jurisdiction which the Lord Jesus Christ has given them.’ Upon these Citations we beg leave to remark, that, when the Disorders of Elders or Brethren had been such as in need the Counsel of other Churches, it was the Opinion of Mr. Cotton, that the Church was to act pursuant to the Advice given them. It could not act contrary to it without destroying its Communion with other Churches, even a Refusal to act agreable to the Advice given them, if it appeared to be scandalous and obstinate, was a sufficient Reason for other Churches to withdraw Communion from them.
Dr. Increase Mather in his seasonable Testimony,(i) speaking of Mr. Cotton's Book of the Keys, affirms that it ‘has all along been of high Account in the Churches of this Country;’ and that ‘in that Book, (as well as a the Preface to it written by Dr. Goodwin) there is a full Testimony borne, to the Interest which Councils ought to [Page 11]have in ordering the Affairs of consociated Churches.’ He has given us the following remarkable Citation from it, which will help us to form just Sentiments of the Opinion and Practice of our venerable Fathers in the early Days of this Country. ‘It is an holy Ordinance of Christ for particular Churches to join together, in a Consociation among themselves, to administer their Church Affairs, which are of Weight and Difficulty and common Concernment, not without common Consultation and Consent of other Churches about them. Now Church Affairs of Weight and Difficulty and common Concernment, we account to be, the Election and Ordination of Elders, Excommunication of an Elder, or of any Person of public Note and Employment; the Translation of an Elder from one Church to another.’ Upon which we observe, That, in the Opinion of Mr. Cotton, Matters of Weight, Difficulty and common Concernment, of which the Excommunication, and by Parity, of Reason, the Deposition of an Elder was one, were not to be transacted by a particular Church, till it had consulted other Churches; and that their Sentence of Excommunication, and consequently of Deposition, was not to be administered without the Consent of the Churches consulted.
The next Authority is that of the renowned Hooker, in his Survey of Church Discipline.(i) He observes, ‘That Consociation of Churches is not only lawful, but in some Cases necessary. When Causes are difficult, or particular Churches want Light and Help, they should crave the Assistance of such a Consociation. Churches so meeting, have a Right to counsel, rebuke, &c. as the Case doth require. In case any particular Church shall walk pertinaciously, either in the profession of Error, or sinful Practice, and will not hear their Counsel, they may and should renounce the Right Hand of Fellowship with them.’ According to Mr. Hooker it is the Duty of a particular Church, whenever it wants Light and Help to ask the Counsel of other Churches, [Page 12]which when given, is not to be disregarded and slighted. For refusing to hear Counsel so given, is, according to him, just Cause for other Churches renouncing Fellowship with the Church so offending.
The next Father of our Churches, whose Sentiments we shall consider upon this Occasion, is Mr. Davenport, Successor to the famous Cotton. In his Power of Congregational Churches, he maintains, "That a Congregational Church is the highest Ecclesiastical Tribunal, under Christ, in its own Matters."(k) He asserts. ‘That this chief Tribunal must have no Ecclesiastical Power above it. (l)’ And ‘That it may not be judicially censured by any Power of the same kind." That "Elders, as Officers, are above the Brethren, while they act according to Rule: But if they become Delinquents, they are under the Power of the Whole. The Church," he adds, "must submit to them as Rulers, whilst they rightly exercise the Authority of their Office, &c. But they must submit to the Church, questioning, or proceeding to censure them, with good Advice of Neighbour Churches and Elders, who as they concurred in giving them the Right Hand of Fellowship in their Ordination, so they should concur in approving this Censure, as justly inflicted by the Church, from Parity of Reason.(m)’ It is plainly the Opinion of Mr. Davenport, that no Censure ought to be passed on a delinquent Elder without the good Advice of neighbouring Churches: though a Congregational Church is the highest Ecclesiastical Tribunal under Christ, yet it ought not to exercise its Power in such a Case, till a Council of neighbouring Churches have advised them to do it.
Mr. Norton, who rendered himself famous by his Answer to Apollonius, maintains, ‘That a confederate Fraternity is the first, proper and immediate ordinary Subject, that, from [Page 13]Christ, has derived to it all Ecclesiastical Power, or the ministerial Power of the Keys.(n)’ He insists upon it. ‘That, in an organic State, no Ecclesiastical Act can be completed, either by the Elders excluding the Fraternity, or by the Fraternity setting aside the Presbytery. (o)’ He allows ‘Councils to be remarkably useful, and after a Sort necessary, so that the Church cannot do well without them.(p)’ He maintains, ‘That particular Churches ought to subject themselves to the lawful Determinations of a Synod from all the Churches,’ and further, ‘That the particular Churches ought to acquiesce in the lawful Decrees of a Synod, [or Council] for Fear of incurring the Guilt of disturbing public Order, and through the Fear of the Punishment of Non-Communion with other Churches.(q)’ According to Mr. Norton, not to acquiesce in the lawful Decrees of a Synod, or Council, would bring on a Church the Guilt of disturbing public Order, and expose it to the Punishment of Non-Communion with other Churches.
Mr. Norton in one of his last Sermons has this remarkable Passage, ‘Let us acknowledge the Order of Eldership in our Churches in their Way, and the Order of Councils in their Way, duly backed and encouraged; without which. Experience will witness, that these Churches cannot long consist. (r)’
Before we proceed to the Synod of 1662, we shall cite a Passage from an Election Sermon of Mr. Samuel Danforth, formerly Minister of Roxbury, which throws great Light on the Practice of our Churches in early Times. This Sermon was preached A. D. 1670. "In our first and best Times," says he, ‘what pious Care was there for Sister Churches,—that [Page 14]in those that wanted Peace their Dissentions might be healed? What Readiness was there in those Days to call for the Help of Neighbouring Elders and Brethren, in case of any Difference or Division that could not be healed at home? What Reverence was there then of the Sentence of the Council, as being decisive, and issuing the Controversy? According to that ancient proverbial Saying, They shall surely ask Counsel at Abel, and so they ended the Matter. (s)’
We come now to the Synod of 1662. In that venerable Assembly, we have Authority from Dr. Increase Mather, who was one of the Elders in it, to assert, that in Answer to the Question about Consociation of Churches, there was a marvellous Unanimity; not one Elder, nor so much as two Brethren in all that Reverend Assembly dissenting. In this Synod it was directed, that Churches do seek and accept Help from, and give Help to, each other in Matters of more than ordinary Importance, as Ordination, Translation, and Deposition of Elders. ‘Agreably to which, (says the Doctor) the Laws of the Colony once required the Approbation of three, or four Churches, to every Ordination. (t)’ And those Divines who have seemed to be Pillars in the revived Congregational Discipline, espoused by our Churches, have generally expressed the same Concern, that the Usage and Honour of Ecclesiastical Councils might be maintained. The Synod at the Savoy, earnestly asserts, ‘That it is according to the Mind of Christ, that Churches holding Communion together, do by their Messengers meet in a Synod, or Council, to consider and give Advice—on such Occasions as the Churches in this Country have also thought proper to come under such a Cognizance.’ The Deposition of an Elder is one of those Matters of more than ordinary Importance, which this our New-England Synod has determined to require the Help of other Churches. In such a [Page 15]Case the Synod has also determined, that it is the Duty of a Church, not only to seek, but to accept the Help of other Churches. It does not appear that this Synod ever thought any Church would proceed to depose their Elder, when a Council of Churches had advised his Continuance in the Eldership. The Doctor goes on, ‘The famous Apologists, Dr. F. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Burroughs, and Mr. Bridge, assert an Obligation hereunto, in the common Law of Communion of Churches. Yea, they profess, they look upon it as the most to be abhorred Maxim, and the most contradictory and dishonorable to Christianity, that a single and particular Society of Men professing the Name of Christ, and pretending to be endowed with Power from Christ, should arrogate to themselves an Exemption from giving an Account, or being censurable by Neighbour Churches about them. So far (say these super-eminent Divines of the Congregational Way) were our Judgments from that Independent Liberty, which has been imputed to us.’
As we have now mentioned the Sentiments of these famous Apologists, who were not of this Country, it may not be amiss to add the Opinion of the great and good Doctor Owen, on this Occasion. We do it the rather, because he has ever been held in high Estimation among us, and also on Account of his having altered his Sentiments respecting Church Discipline, on his reading the celebrated Cotton on the Keys. In several of his Treatises he has advanced Positions of the same Aspect, on the Necessity and Authority of regular Councils, for the Welfare of particular Churches, with those already alledged by us. In one of his former, he says,(u) ‘Churches ought to preserve a mutual, holy Communion, and exercise it in making Use of the Advice of one another. And in Case any Churches give Offence to other Churches, other Churches may require an Account of them, admonish them for their Faults, and withhold [Page 16]Communion from them, in Case they persist in the Error of their Way; and that because in their Difficulties, and before their Miscarriages, they were bound to have desired the Advice of other Churches; which being neglected by them, the others are to recover the End of it to the utmost of their Ability.’ In another of his Treatises(w) the Doctor has these memorable Words, ‘No Church is so Independent, as that it can always, and in all Cases, observe the Duty it owes unto the Lord Christ, and the Church catholic by all those Powers, which it is able to act in itself distinctly, without a Conjunction with others. And the Church which confines its Duty unto the Acts of its own Assemblies, cuts itself off from the external Communion of the Church catholic: Nor will it be safe for any Man to commit the Conduct of his Soul to such a Church.—Every particular Church, which extends not its Duty beyond its own Assemblies and Members, is fallen off from the principal End of its Institution. And every Principle, Opinion, or Persuasion that inclines any Church to confine its Care and Duty unto its own Edification only—is Schismatical.’
The Sentiment of Doctor Increase Mather, on the Subject under Consideration, fully appears from the Conclusion he draws from the immediately preceding Authorities, which he used on a special Occasion; as well as from some other Declarations, which we shall hereafter notice. His words are these,(x) ‘From whence it will follow, that if any Church presume to transact their more weighty Affairs, and such as are of common Concern to the Churches in their Neighbourhood, with a Contempt of such Councils of them as ought to be advised withal; or if they shall upon grievous Differences arisen among them, refuse the Advice of those who urge them to make Use of the Remedy, which [Page 17]the Want of Light and Peace among them calleth for; And much more, if they shall proceed in Matters after the neighbouring Churches have signified that they cannot countenance their Proceedings; these Churches will be far from expressing the Wisdom which is with the well-advised, and will sin against the second and third Commandments; and will practically go too far towards excluding themselves from Communion with the Churches of the Faithful. Indeed, the more Synods and Councils are disregarded and slighted, so much the more Disorder and Confusion will (we fear) grow and prevail in all the Churches in the Country; which GOD of his infinite Mercy prevent.’—The Doctor speaking of the Removal of a Pastor, in the same Treatise, has this memorable Passage, fully expressive of his own Sentiments.(y) ‘It is requisite, that the Reasons of the Removal be laid before authentick Judges; even such as may be most likely to pass an impartial Judgment upon them; and by these be pronounced such, that the Removal thereupon may be justly and wisely proceeded in. And, where it can be obtained, we think, that nothing less than a Council of Churches in the Neighbourhood, should have the Matter laid before them. For, if such a Council be, according to the Order and Practice of these Churches, always convened, for the Ordaining of a Pastor, it stands to Reason, that there should as much be requisite for his Removing; it being, as it was by a very considerable Number of eminent Divines on a great Occasion in these Churches once pronounced. A very considerable Act of the Kingly Government exercised by our Lord Jesus Christ, in his Churches.’ From this Citation it is evidently the Opinion of the Doctor, that the Removal of a Pastor, if it be only to the Charge of another Church, ought not, for the Reasons given, to be effected, without the Advice and Consent of Neighbouring Churches. His Reasons more [Page 18]strongly conclude for the Necessity of such Advice and Consent, in the Deposition of a Pastor.
Anno 1700 the Doctor published a Treatise, under the Title of The Order of the Gospel. In this Treatise several Questions, relating to Church Discipline, are accurately discussed. The tenth Question is in these Words, ‘Is it expedient that Churches should enter into a Consociation, or Agreement, that Matters of more than ordinary Importance, such as the Gathering of a new Church, the Ordination, DEPOSITION, or Translation of a Pastor be done with common Consent?’ The Dr. in answer, replies, This is both expedient and NECESSARY: And he assigns a Number of weighty Reasons in Support of his Opinion, which are not necessary to be rehearsed. We do not produce this Authority, in order to shew the Dr's Sentiments on the Subject under Consideration, that having been sufficiently done already: but we do it, on Account of the Attestation given to this Book by the Reverend Mr. Higginson of Salem, and the Reverend Mr. Hubbard of Ipswich, in a Testimony they published when they were just leaving the World; which Testimony is annexed by Mr. Wise to his Vindication, and spoken of by him with great Respect. The former of these Gentlemen had been 70, and the other 60 Years in the Country when they left this their dying Testimony. They must for this Reason have known the Practice of our Churches from the Beginning.—Their Words are these—
‘It was a Joy to us, to see and read a Book, which the Reverend President of our College [Dr. Mather] lately published, under the Title of, The Order of the Gospel, [...] and practised by the Churches of Christ in New-England: A Book most highly needful, and useful, and [...]; a most elaborate and well-composed Work, and well [...] into these two worthy Designs; 1st. the [...] Congregational Church Discipline; and [...], the maintaining the sweet Spirit of Charity and Communion towards reforming Presbyterians, who are our [Page 19]united Brethren. But we must here-withal testify, that in that worthy Book, there is nothing obtruded upon the Churches, but what they who were here capable of observing what was done sixty Years ago, do know to have been professed and practised in the Churches of New-England; (except in one or two) THEN AND EVER SINCE, until of late, some who were not then born, have suggested otherwise. Yea, it is well known, that the Churches then publickly maintained these Principles, in several judicious Discourses, which were never confuted by any Man whatever, unto this present Time.’
What were the Practices in which these one or two Churches deviated from the rest of the Churches, these Gentlemen have not declared; neither have they informed us what those things were which they speak of, as having been of late suggested, contrary to the Principles and Practice of the Churches. But it is certain, they neither of them respect the Power of a particular Church to depose its Pastor, without the Advice and Consent of a Council of neighbouring Churches. For Doctor Mather, in his Disquisition concerning Ecclesiastical Councils, speaking of Congregational Discipline, has the following Passage, worthy the Attention of those who are desirous of preserving our ancient Church Discipline.(z) "It has ever," says the Doctor, "been their [our Churches] Judgment, that where there is Want of either Light or Peace in a particular Church, it is their Duty to ask for Council, with which Neighbour Churches ought to assist by sending their Elders, and other Messengers, to advise and help them in their Difficulties. And that in momentous Matters of common Concernment, particular Churches should proceed with the Concurrence of Neighbour Churches. So in the Ordination of a Pastor, MUCH MORE in the DEPOSING of one. THUS IT HAS EVER BEEN in the Churches of New-England."
[Page 20] It is evident from the preceding Quotations, that the venerable Fathers of these Churches, agree in Opinion, that Matters of more than ordinary Weight and Importance, and those of common Concernment ought not to be transacted without Advice of Council. And many of them are express in asserting, that the Deposition of an Elder, or Pastor, is a Matter of such Weight and Importance, as to require the Counsel and Advice of neighbouring Churches.— We do not find, on the most careful Enquiry, a single Instance of any Congregational Church from the first Settlement of the Country to the present Day, which has deposed or dismissed its Teaching Elder, or Pastor, without the Advice of a Council of neighbouring Churches; except when a Dismission has been effected by the mutual Consent of the Elder and Church. And, even in this Case, it appears from what has been before adduced, that such Dismission is irregular, and contrary to the Constitution of these Churches.
We cannot forbear, on this Occasion, in the Meekness and Gentleness of Christ, earnestly to advise these Churches, of our Lord Jesus Christ in this land, attentively to consider the Noble and truly Christian Plan, upon which our Fathers have placed us; and to preserve that Union, which they had so much at Heart, as our truest Strength and Glory; and which is so necessary to preserve the Purity of the Ministry, and the Privileges of the Fraternity, both of which we are equally solicitous to support; and as a special Means of this, to seek the Advice of neighbouring Churches in all Matters of common Concernment, more particularly those of peculiar Weight and Importance, and when it is afforded them to receive it with Meekness, seriously and impartially to consider it, and not lightly to depart from it, or pertinaciously to oppose it; reflecting how earnestly our Fathers recommended this as a Gospel Institution for conveying Light and Peace to the Church; and what fatal Consequences Inattention to, and much more a Contempt of such an Institution is likely to produce.
[Page 21] From the same Considerations, we trust, the Churches will be ever ready to afford their Assistance and Counsel to Sister Churches, in all Seasons of Darkness and Perplexity, and to act on such Occasions with Deliberation, Impartiality, and Solemnity, considering how much the Honour of Christ, and the Peace and Welfare of his Churches may depend on their Results.