Sermons on church government. In reply to a discourse on that subject, delivered a few days before, from the same desk, by the Rev. Mr. Ross. Preached at Newtown, December 19. A.D. 1773. : To which is added, a brief view of the Scripture texts, subjoined to some of the most exceptionable articles in the Say-Brook Platform, shewing them to be very impertinent to the purpose of consociated connection and authority. : And also an appendix, in which an account is given of the essential facts, relative to the conduct of the consociated council, towards the pastor, and First Church of Christ in Newtown. / By David Judson, A.M. Pastor of the Congregational Church of Christ in Newtown. ; [Two lines from Paul]

Sermons on church government. In reply to a discourse on that subject, delivered a few days before, from the same desk, by the Rev. Mr. Ross. Preached at Newtown, December 19. A.D. 1773. : To which is added, a brief view of the Scripture texts, subjoined to some of the most exceptionable articles in the Say-Brook Platform, shewing them to be very impertinent to the purpose of consociated connection and authority. : And also an appendix, in which an account is given of the essential facts, relative to the conduct of the consociated council, towards the pastor, and First Church of Christ in Newtown. / By David Judson, A.M. Pastor of the Congregational Church of Christ in Newtown. ; [Two lines from Paul]

Sermons on church government. In reply to a discourse on that subject, delivered a few days before, from the same desk, by the Rev. Mr. Ross. Preached at Newtown, December 19. A.D. 1773. : To which is added, a brief view of the Scripture texts, subjoined to some of the most exceptionable articles in the Say-Brook Platform, shewing them to be very impertinent to the purpose of consociated connection and authority. : And also an appendix, in which an account is given of the essential facts, relative to the conduct of the consociated council, towards the pastor, and First Church of Christ in Newtown. / By David Judson, A.M. Pastor of the Congregational Church of Christ in Newtown. ; [Two lines from Paul]

Table of contents

Title page

PREFACE.

SERMONS On CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

SERMON Second.

A BRIEF VIEW Of the scripture texts subjoined to some of the most exceptionable articles in the Say-Brook platform; shewing them to be very impertinent to the purpose of consociated connection and authority.

APPENDIX. In which an account is given of the essential facts, relative to the conduct of the consociated council, towards the pastor and first church of Christ in Newtown.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

SERMONS ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. In REPLY to a DISCOURSE on that Subject, Delivered a few Days before, from the same Desk, by the Rev. Mr. ROSS. Preached at NEWTOWN, December 19. A. D. 1773. TO WHICH IS ADDED, A brief View of the Scripture Texts, subjoined to some of the most exceptionable Articles in the SAY-BROOK PLATFORM, shewing them to be very impertinent to the Purpose of consociated Connection and Authority.

And also an APPENDIX, In which an ACCOUNT is given of the essential FACTS, relative to the CONDUCT of the CONSOCIATED COUNCIL, towards the PASTOR, and FIRST CHURCH of CHRIST in NEWTOWN.

By DAVID JUDSON, A. M. Pastor of the Congregational Church of CHRIST in Newtown.

That ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the gospel.

St. PAUL.

NEW-HAVEN; Printed and sold by T. & S. Green, near the College.

PREFACE.

[Page]

AS this reply was made from the mere hearing of that discourse, which was the occasion of it. It cannot therefore be expected, that the very words should be exactly remembered, to be made use of in the reply. But so far as the author's memory served him, he has candidly endeavoured, fairly to express the sentiments held forth in said discourse, as he received and understood at the hearing. And so far as he has been able to learn, was generally understood by the auditory. And is as well assured, as one well can be in such a case, that there is no essential mistake made in any particular. Which should there happen to be; may be easily set to rights before the publick, by the publishing of said discourse. Which upon divers accounts, would be very agreeable to many of the hearers. And a sufficient justification of the stile of this reply.

The view of the scriptures subjoined to the articles, is set forth for the assistance of such, as have been too negligent, carefully to compare and examine for themselves.

And the appendix is added, merely to gratify the curiosity of the inquisitive.

NEWTOWN, Jan. 31, A. D. 1774.

SERMONS On CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

[Page]

Matt. 28.20.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

TRULY my hearers, I am really disposed to look upon it, an instance of the wonderful wisdom of divine providence, in permitting such a discourse on church government▪ to be delivered from this desk, as you have lately heard. As not doubting, but it will prove an occasion, of the more clear and satisfying manifestation of the truth on that subject; to the minds of many of you: From the reply, which I have now, by this providence, a loud call of God to make. With a view, neither to gratify nor reflect upon any person or party; but to approve myself in my office, as becomes a minister of Jesus Christ, by a faithful manifestation of the truth; and that in opposition to all the dangerous errors cast in your way.

In regard to which, I earnestly crave, my hearers, your serious and candid attention, to the scripture proofs and plain reasonings, fairly grounded thereupon; which I have to offer on the subject.

You will suffer me to use great plainness of speech, that if possible, such as are dull of hearing may discern and understand. Gladly would I shun all personal reflections: [Page]But plain and pungent representations, must be admitted. I desire to be heard patiently through to the end: And then every one, will be under advantage, fairly to judge for themselves, whether what may be offered, be agreeable to the law and to the testimony or not.

For the foundation of what is intended, I have chosen the words now read. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. To come at the full and proper force and meaning of which, it is requisite to look into the context a few verses back: In which an account is given, of the appearance of Jesus to the eleven disciples, on a mountain of Gallilee. ‘And when they saw him, they worshipped him: But some doubted.’ Ver. 16.17. ‘And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.’ Ver. 18. In which, Jesus made known to his disciples the fulness of power that he was invested with by the father. As God indeed, the Son has in himself all power, equal with the Father. But as God man, mediator, his power was given to him of the Father. Even all power in heaven and in earth: Over all principalities and powers, both in this world and also in that which is to come. And of consequence, all power both in the kingdom of providence and of grace. And as invested with, and in virtue of, this plenitude of power, Jesus gave out a special commission to his apostles, saying as in the 19th ver. ‘Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ As tho' he had said, having all power in heaven and in earth given unto me; I do therefore now commission, order, and send forth you my apostles; to go teach and disciple all nations; baptizing all that believe my gospel; in the name of the sacred Three. Teaching them, as it follows in the words of our text, to observe all things [Page]whatsoever I have commanded you. In these words then, we have the special orders given by the Lord Jesus Christ, to the eleven disciples, his apostles, when he commissioned and sent them forth to teach and disciple the nations. Authorising and directing them, to teach those that should be discipled; to observe all things whatsoever he commanded. Which strict injunction, to teach the observance of all his commandments, plainly implies a restriction, not to teach the observance of any other commands. Jesus had indeed farther commands, yet to give unto his apostles. And yet this injunction, ever continued in force binding upon them; to teach all and no other observances, but such as he commanded. And now, tho' the apostles left no successors in their proper apostolic office, yet this is the commission, by virtue of which, all gospel ministers are authorised to teach and baptize. And according to which, they are all restricted to teach, even to the end of the world. For that in this sense, it has respect to all succeeding ministers of the gosepl, is manifest from the following sentence: "And lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the world." In Mr. Henry's exposition, it is observed upon the words of our text, ‘That Christians are hereby obliged to confine themselves to the commands of Christ, and as not to diminish from them, so not to add to them.’ And more generally, all dissenting divines, have taken the words in this restricted sense. According to which, gospel ministers have no commission or authority from Christ, to teach his disciples, the observance of any laws whatever; but of those only which he had commanded. So far as any gospel minister therefore, teaches the necessity of observing in the church of Christ, any canon laws and rules of human devising; he teaches for doctrine the commandments of men: In direct violation of this his commission by Christ.

[Page] But what we have now specially in view is, the commands of Christ respecting the government of his church. And here you are sensible the labouring enquiry is, whether Christ hath given laws sufficient for the government of his church? The affirmative of which, I shall endeavour to prove. In opposition to that negative, which you have been lately taught. By this proposition; that Christ hath given laws sufficient for the government of his church, is not meant, you must observe, that Christ hath given rules in his word, in all respects so explicit, as not to leave room for the use of a discretionary prudence in the church: Respecting circumstances of time, place, &c. Many things of this sort, are left discretionary, in the breasts of the judges, in all, even the most perfect civil states. But the meaning of the proposition is: That Christ has given laws, so compleatly sufficient for the government of his church, as not to need for that purpose, the addition of any canon laws or rules of human devising. In this sense, I assume the affirmative; in direct opposition to that discourse in which it was plainly denied. And therefore pleaded, that there was a necessity of the addition of human rules and canons, for the purposes of church government.

But what can be requisite, to the laws of Christ being sufficient for the government of his church; more than these three things? That the nature of the crimes cognizable, be sufficiently specified: The judges, pointed out with sufficient plainness: And the nature of the proof required, sufficiently expressed? In all these respects, it was strenuously argued and insisted upon, That the laws of Christ are not sufficient. Nor was there, that I remember, any deficiency argued; but what is fully comprehended under one or the other of these propositions. If therefore, it can be made to appear, [Page]that the matters contained under these three particulars, are pointed out in the gospel, with precision sufficient, for all the purposes of church government; it must follow by the consent of all, that the laws of Christ are fully sufficient for the government of his church, without the addition of any human canons for that purpose. Wherefore let the scriptures be carefully attended to respecting these matters. And as to the crimes then, that are properly cognizable before the church. See 1 Cor. 5.11. ‘But now I have written unto you, not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no not to eat.’ Here is given an express enumeration of several kinds of crimes; under the one or the other of which, are included most of the scandalous crimes, that mankind are incident unto. But see also, 2 Thes. 3.6. ‘Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.’ By walking is here plainly meant an open course of life. For that course of life, in which any man openly liveth, in that he is said to walk. And to walk disorderly, is explained by the apostles own words to mean, walking not after, i. e. not agreeable to, the tradition received of us, the apostles of Jesus Christ. All which apostolic traditions, are now set forth in writing in the new testament. If any brother therefore, persists in living openly contrary to scripture rule; he is to be withdrawn from, or seperated by the brotherhood from their communion. And so again, it is added in the 14. v. ‘And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him that he may be ashamed.’ But this epistle holds forth the validity of every divine rule. Every man therefore that lives in the open violation of any divine [Page]precept; is to be noted and his company avoided; in all matters of special christian fellowship. But farther heresy also, is particularly mentioned. Tit. 3.10. ‘A man that is an heretick, after the first and second admonition reject.’ Under which, all scandalous damnable error is included. Besides many other scriptures that might be mentioned directly to the purpose. But according to these already cited; all the commands of Christ, are to be considered as his laws specifying matters cognizable before his church. And what rational man can now say, but that the crimes cognizable by a church, are pointed out in the gospel with a precision abundantly sufficient?

In the next place then, we are to consider, to whom it belongs to act and concur in judgment. And whether this matter be pointed out in scripture with sufficient plainness?

It has been much insisted upon, that it cannot be learnt from scripture, who the church are, or of what members it doth consist. Because the word church, is sometimes used in the gospel in different senses. But tho' the word church, is sometimes used in the gospel to different senses; yet by the church, when meaning the church of Christ, in its present visible state here in this world: is always in the new testament plainly meant, a body or community of the same kind. And what sort of a body that is, may plainly be discerned, from the model of the first church of Christ at Jerusalem. As set forth Acts. 2.41; and on, ‘Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized: And the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.—And all that believed were together. —And they continued daily with one accord in [Page]the temple.—And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.’ Thus such as being baptized, were added to that number, which continued stedfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, were thereby added to the church: Which number therefore was the church. And every such kind of number then, consorting together for the like purposes, is a church. Wherefore there can be no doubt, what is meant in the gospel by a church; when a church of Christ is intended. And in the next place we find, that the exercise of discipline is committed to a church. And are plainly directed how it is to be introduced; and what the judgment or penalty to be inflicted upon incorrigible offenders. As in Mat. 18.15, and so on. ‘Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: But if he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: And whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.’ Here it is carefully to be noted, that the very same church, unto which an offence is to be told; are to judge thereof; and that from their judgment, there lies no appeal to any other board under heaven. Because expressly declared, that according to the judgment of said church, it shall be bound or loosed in heaven. Whereby an absolute bar is laid in, against the judgment of any other board on earth. And neither therefore to be attempted, but in direct violation of this express law of Christ.

[Page] But it has been objected, that this could not be meant of a church of Christ: Because his church was not yet formed. And must have reference therefore to the Jewish church. ‘But the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he (Jesus) was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagague.’ Joh. 9.22. Nothing therefore can be more absurd, than to imagine, that Jesus here meant to direct his disciples, in case offence should fall out among themselves; to go and tell it to the Jewish church. The very supposition is an affront to common sense.

But altho' the church of Christ was not yet formed; yet, it is very clear from the context, that Christ is therein speaking in special reference to his church, when it should take place. For he is there expressly speaking of the kingdom of heaven; and matters thereunto pertaining. And by the kingdom of heaven, in the gospel is commonly meant, the new kingdom of Christ began here in grace, to be perfected in glory. Thus John the baptist, came preaching; ‘saying repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Matt. 3.2. And again, ‘from that time Jesus began to preach and say repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Matt. 4.17. That is, the gospel dispensation, is just about to be introduced. So here in the 18th of Matt. the disciples said to Jesus; "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" V. 1st. Altho' as yet, they knew not what the form of Christ's church might be: Yet they were looking forward, in expectation of his setting up a new kingdom upon earth. And therefore, having yet ambitious views cleaving to them; they inquired who should be greatest in said kingdom. And Jesus therefore, to convince them of the inconsistency of their ambitious views, with the nature of his new kingdom, ‘called a little child unto him, and set him [Page]in the midst of them, and said, verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.’ V. 2, 3, 4. Which has a plain reference to Christ's new kingdom of grace, teaching the absolute necessity of humility in all the subjects of that kingdom. And so also it is very observable, that Christ took occasion from the little child which he called and set in the midst of them; to speak of his little ones, believing on him; who were to be the subjects of his new kingdom of grace. And that in regard to the offences, that might arise towards them either from the world, or even one among another. In regard to offences arising from the world, Jesus said, ‘but whoso shall offend one of those little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea. Wo unto the world because of offences,’ &c. v. 6, 7. ‘Take heed said Jesus, that you despise not one of these little ones.’ V. 10. And again, ‘even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.’ V. 14. And so in continuation of the same subject, it is added in the 15 v. ‘Moreover if thy brother shall tresspass against thee, go and tell him his fault,’ &c. Jesus had spoken before, in reference to offences arising from the men of the world. That in regard to such, it were better for them that a millstone were hanged about their necks, &c. Importing, that God himself, would be severely avenged for his children upon them. But here Jesus proceeds to point out to his little ones, believing on him; how to deal with one another, in case of offences falling out among themselves; in his new kingdom of grace: In [Page]plain reference to which he is still speaking. Whence it is clearly manifest, that by the church is here meant Christ's church in his new kingdom of grace. Such as was that first church of Christ set up at Jerusalem. And accordingly it is found in fact, that when the churches came to exercise discipline; all those who consorted together to eat the Lord's supper; did concur together, in putting away offenders. As in the instance of the incestuous Corinthian. St. Paul declared to that church, the mind and will of Christ about that matter. ‘To deliver such an one unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Purge out therefore, said he, the old leaven that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our possover is sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.’ 1 Cor. 5.5. &c. Plainly importing, that the whole body of communicants, which eat the feast of the Lord's supper together, were to concur, in purging out that old leaven of wickedness from among them; that they might be as a new and unleavened lump. Thus plainly is the church, to which the exercise of discipline is committed, pointed out: Even so plainly, that there can be no room for any but mere futile cavils about it.

In the next place then, we are to consider; whether the nature of the proof to be required, be sufficiently pointed out. And to this purpose see Matt. 18.16. ‘That in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ Which to common sense, plainly imports, that the evidence of facts to a church; must be such, as equals that credibility of a fact, which arises from the evidence of two or three credible witnesses. [Page]And what that is, must in the nature of things, be left in the breasts of the judges; in all trials whether civil or ecclesiastical. As to witnesses being sworn; it may be observed; That in every ecclesiastical trial, the process is carried on in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The solemnity of which, is equal to the solemnity of an oath in any civil court.

Thus I have briefly considered, what is expressly taught in the gospel; of crimes, judges and evidence respecting church government. And judge ye now, my hearers, your own selves; whether the laws of Christ are not abundantly sufficient, for all the purposes of church government; without the addition of any canon laws of human devising? Cavilling disputers indeed, may cavil still. But most certainly the Lord Jesus Christ himself, does look upon the laws which he hath given for the government of his church, perfectly sufficient for that purpose. Because he expressly declares in his word; ‘that the scriptures, which are given by inspiration of God;’ are such, ‘that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.’ 2. Tim. 3.16, 17. Plainly importing, that by the inspired writings, the man of God may, as to laws and rules, be throughly furnished to every good work, and of consequence, to all the duties of church government; without any superadded canons about the matter. And indeed if it be not so, there is such a deficiency left in Christ's kingdom; infinitely the most perfect of all kingdoms; as can never be made up; without a new revelation from heaven. Because Jesus as King and head of the church, is the only lawgiver therein. Of whom it is written, ‘the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our King, he will save us.’ Isai. 33.22. In which high and noble capacity, all power in heaven and in earth, [Page]is given unto him. Who never commissionated any of his servants; to set forth any laws or rules in his kingdom; but only by his inspiration or direction. Yea, but hath laid in a prohibition in bar, to prevent any of his servants from attempting, to set forth or teach the observance of any laws or rules in his church; but such as he himself hath commanded: As implied in the words of our text. So that if the laws of Christ be deficient; they must, as to all human power and authority remain deficient to the end. And Christ's church, which he purchased with his own blood, be left without laws sufficient for its well being, order and government; exposed to the rage of a wicked world; and to inevitable disorder and confusion among themselves. The very supposition of which, is a vile impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of the glorious Lawgiver, on the holy hill of Zion: Of his wisdom, as tho' incapable of giving laws sufficient; or of his goodness, as tho' when capable, he had not kindness enough for his church and people, to give them laws every way sufficient for their well being. But as the Jewish church was sufficiently furnished with laws to all needful purposes by Moses: Even much more is the gospel church, by the laws of Christ. As plainly implied in that. Heb. 3.5.6. ‘And Moses was verily faithful in all his house as a servant.—But Christ as a son over his own house, whose house are we.’

But it has been suggested, that it is no argument of imperfection in the scriptures; that there is not yet set forth therein, all the laws that are needful to the government of the church. Even as it is no argument of imperfection in the scriptures, that the art of surveying and navigation, are not taught therein. Just as though the art of surveying, was as essential to the welfare and glory of Christ's kingdom; as the government and good [Page]order of his church. How weak and absurd the comparison?

All such arts and sciences as relate to the affairs of the kingdoms of this world, are within the reach of human investigation. These therefore, are left to the invention of men; under the guidance of a common providence. But as to the kingdom of Christ, it is intirely of a different kind: not of his world, but of a spiritual, holy and heavenly nature. And therefore furnished and provided with all needful light and instruction, by divine revelation.

Such my hearers, is the nature of church government pointed out in the gospel; according to which, all the authority which is given for that purpose, is only of an executive nature, and that vested in every particular church. This is that order of church government, commonly called congregational. Which I have been aiming to teach, and practise. To which my conscience is bound by the word of God. And by which I mean, thro' the grace of God, firmly to abide; as not doubting the approbation thereof by the great Judge of all.

SERMON Second.

MATT. 28.20.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

HENCE it was proposed to consider the commands of Christ; more especially respecting the government of his church. Whether the Lord Jesus Christ, has indeed given laws to his church. sufficient for the government thereof? Not so, but that circumstances of time and place, &c. are left discretionary. But so sufficient, [Page]as not to need the addition of any canon laws or rules of human devising. The affirmative side of which I have assumed; in direct opposition to that negative part, which has of late been so strenuously urged. As a counter part to which, the laws of Christ, as set forth in the gospel, respecting this matter, have been particularly considered. Whence it hath been made clearly to appear, that the crimes cognizable, who the judges are, how causes are to be introduced, what penalties are to be inflicted, and the nature of proof to be required; are all pointed out in the scriptures, with so much plainness and precision, as to be fully sufficient for all the purposes of church government; without the addition of any human canons for that purpose.

And now in reply to the many things, that have been held forth in vindication of the opposite side of the question, I shall endeavour so far as my memory serves me, at a true representation. And if any essential mistake should be made, I promise to retract it; when ever it shall be clearly manifested. For we do not, however much hath been injuriously suggested to the contrary, arrogate all wisdom and grace to ourselves; never pretending to judge others of any sect, as to their spiritual state: but leaving every man in that respect, to stand or fall to his own Master. It is only with their errors, manifested forth in words and in deeds, that we are concerned.

It was urged, you may remember, as a matter manifest in fact, that the laws of Christ are not sufficient, for the purpose of church government; without the addition of human canons; in that the christian world have been so divided about this matter; and have adopted so many different forms of church government. Which, it is not supposable, they would ever have done, had Christ's laws been sufficient to that purpose. But [Page]by this way of arguing, it must also be concluded, that there is no certain scheme of doctrine, sufficiently set forth in the scriptures. Because the christian world are so divided about the great doctrines of religion. A way of arguing, which leads directly to that fundamental maxim of deism, That human reason is the best guide in matters of religion. Such are the pitiful shifts, which even men of sense betake themselves unto, when driven off the scripture ground.

It was also urged, that authority to exercise ecclesiastical discipline is not committed to, or invested in a particular church. Because it is obvious to common sense, that churches are made up of very unsuitable judges in such matters: as including women, children, superannuated and prejudiced members. And yet, it was allowed, that cases of scandal ought to be first tried in particular churches, where they fall out; and if possible, settled by them. But what gross inconsistency is this? To say that the churches are not, according to common sense, suitable judges. And yet, that according either to reason or scripture, it does belong to them to judge first in the case. Baptized children, it was said, belong to the church. True, they do so. But under the wing of their parents, who act for them, until they come of age capable of acting for themselves. And if then, they do not come as desciples of Jesus to eat the Lord's supper, they can have nothing to do, according to the scriptures in receiving or rejecting others.

But women also belong to the church, true. And according to the scriptures, females have as good a right as male-members, to be satisfied of the grounds of charity for those, with whom they commune in the supper; and as good a right to the redress of all their grievances. If therefore, they cannot silently concur, with what the male-members act, they have most certainly [Page]a right some way, to make known their grievance.

As to prejudiced members, that ought not to be suffered, they need to be first taken care of and reclaimed.

And as to ignorant and superannuated members; there are none, that are capable of examining themselves and discerning the Lord's body; as the scriptures require of all that eat the Lord's-supper; but that are able also, by the assistance of wiser members, to judge about matters of fact. So that when suitable care is taken, about the admission of members; churches under the guidance of their pastors, are much better judges respecting such matters as are cognizable before them, than the jury in civil courts often are, in respect to many intricate cases laid before them. But it has been urged, that if ecclesiastical authority be vested only in particular churches; then there can be no dealing with an elder: but he must be left without controul, an absolute pope. And it is indeed, no wonder, should this seem to some a very weighty objection. But that it should seem so to any, that read the gospel with attention, is quite strange. Because it is so plain in the gospel, that he that runs may read; that there was a plurality of elders, in every of the primitive churches. See Act. 14.23. ‘And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed.’ Before they had elders ordained; the apostles had the oversight and care of them: But now having ordained them elders; they commended them to the Lord, to be under his care and direction; and not under any other juridical authority under heaven. Accordingly we read of ‘Elders in the church at Jerusalem; of the elders of the church at Ephesus,’ &c. Which elders were to govern, not of themselves juridically; [Page]but with the concurrence of the church over which they presided. Hence it is written, ‘Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give account.’ Heb. 13.17. It was those that watched for their souls; that had the rule over them. When one elder therefore transgressed, the church with their remaining elders, or elder, might deal with the elder offending; as well as with any other member. Now though a plurality of elders, be not absolutely essential to the being of a true church; yet, where there is this deficiency of elders, if the one that is, offends, the deficiency in the nature of things, by fair deduction from the word, is to be supplied; by calling in the assistance of neighbouring elders; not to rule of themselves juridically; but even as their own elders, in concurrence with the church*.

But we have been referred to the 15th chap. of the Acts for something like a juridical judgment of council. Excepting which, there was nothing pleaded, from the form of that council; nor upon any other grounds thro' the whole discourse, to show the necessity of consociated, rather than congregational councils. But as to the council spoken of in that chapter. It is certain, it was nothing like the form of present consociated councils. As it consisted only of the apostles that were at Jerusalem, with the elders of, together with that whole church. For Paul and Barnabas that carried the question; do not appear to have acted in council. The business of which council, was not any cause of discipline: But a [Page]question of conscience, about the mind and will of Christ; respecting the rites to be observed in the Gentile churches. And unto the apostles, it did in a special manner appertain, as inspired men, to declare the mind and will of Christ in that matter, and accordingly their determination, is set forth in the scriptures; as a part of the law of Christ, given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost: Binding upon his churches through all generations.

But the preacher pleaded, in order to make out that their judgment, was a precedent justifying the juridical judgment of ordinary councils; that its being said, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, &c. does not imply, that said judgment was of divine inspiration, any more than all rational conclusions, that are obtained by a common concurrence of the spirit. And to make out, that it was really no more of divine inspiration; it was argued, that the council conferred and reasoned together upon the subject. So that the determination was merely of reason and not of divine inspiration. A very notable conclusion indeed, for a minister of the gospel!

The Lord Jesus Christ, declares in his word, ‘That all scripture is given by inspiration of God.’ 2 Tim. 3.16. But lo, here comes one in his name: declaring, that this part of scripture, the determination of the apostles in the 15th chap. of the Acts; was not, by inspiration of God. Shocking! to all that revere the bible as the book of God! For by this way of arguing, all those scriptures, wherein the sacred penmen used reasoning and argumentation; must be set aside, as not being by inspiration of God. Which lands us directly amongst the christian deists, as they are called. Thus according to this preacher, the scriptures are not only deficient to the necessary purposes of Christ's church and kingdom; but even the scriptures which we have, are [Page]in danger of being entirely invalidated. But what now would you say, my hearers, if this pretended patron for the Say-Brook platform; should be found by his scheme, removing the very foundation corner stone of that same platform? The very supposition, you will doubtless imagine, must surely be without the least foundation. But let the matter be fairly considered. And then, judge ye, your ownselves, if it be not most glaringly manifest?

And here, you will be pleased carefully to bear in mind, that leading proposition, the grand hinge upon which the whole discourse turned: That the laws of Christ, are not sufficient for the government of his church. Not merely as to circumstances of time, place, &c. But not even as laws; without the addition of canon laws and rules of human devising. And with this full in view, be pleased to hear what the platform saith, in the confession of faith. Chap. 1st. art. 6th. are these words, ‘The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the spirit, or traditions of men.—There are some circumstances, concerning the worship of God and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.’ Now in what sense the compilers of the platform, understood this article, and how they meant to act in perfect consistency with it, even in regard to those very rules which they compiled; appears from their own words; as in the preface to the confession [Page]of faith. Where they express themselves thus: ‘That you be immoveably and unchangeably agreed in the only sufficient, and invariable rule of religion; which is the holy scripture the fixt canon, uncapable of addition or dimunition. You ought to account nothing antient, that will not stand by this rule, nor any thing new that will. Do not hold yourselves to unscriptural rites in religion, wherein custom it self doth many times misguide. Believe it to be the honour of religion to resign and captivate our wisdom and faith to divine revelation. That you be determined by this rule in the whole of religion.’ Thus spake the compilers of the platform. A language as diametrically opposite, to that of the late preacher, as the east is from the west. And so again, in the preface to the heads of agreement. They express themselves thus, ‘There is no constitution on earth hath ever been established on such sure foundations, nor so fully provided for its subsistance, as the church of God, it being built on the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. The wisdom of our Lawgiver, King, and Judge, who alone hath the original sovereignty of giving being to, and laying the foundations of the church, and whose only is the legislative power therein, hath given such ample rights and privileges to the church, and such excellent rules for its government, as are inviting to strangers like a city set on a hill.’ Most excellently expressed. As full to our purpose, in direct opposition to the late sermon, as words can be.

Those venerable fathers therefore, never meant to set forth any rules of church discipline; but such only, as were in the plain sense thereof, in their view, evidently contained in the scriptures. Even as they themselves expressly declare; in this same preface. Saying, ‘For [Page]the healing our wounds, a more explicit asserting the rules of government sufficiently provided in the holy word, hath been thought highly expedient.’ Thus they never meant to make any new rules; but only more explicitly to set forth such rules, as they supposed were sufficiently provided in God's word. Whence they annexed scripture texts to every article for the proof thereof, though very impertinent to the main point; as might easily be made to appear. The unhappy mistake, therefore, which attended them about the matter was really this: That they supposed some things about church government, to be contained in the scriptures, which really are not to be found there.

And so dubious it seems, did the matter appear even to themselves, as not to imagine, they had certainly hit upon the right scripture plan. Whence they recommended the rules which they set forth, in the following words: ‘Hoping till it please the Lord, to send forth further light and truth in these more controversial matters, this method may be a blessed means of our better unanimity,’ &c. Further light and truth they did not expect by any new revelation from heaven; but by a clearer understanding of that already given.

Whence it appears very manifest, that we who cannot find, the sense of the articles of discipline, to be contained in the scriptures; do act perfectly agreeable to the fundamental leading sentiments of the compilers themselves, even in rejecting those very articles which they compiled. And indeed upon their own principles, they must certainly have approved of us, as acting therein perfectly right.

But it is really very questionable, if they would have admitted any, holding such sentiments, as set forth in the late sermon; so much as to communion with them in any of their churches: much less to rank among them [Page]as a minister of the gospel: For the primitive fathers of New-England, were extremely averse to that doctrine, of the insufficiency of the scriptures, as a rule of church government; held forth in the leading proposition of said sermon. As well knowing that to be the gap, thro' which at first entered, and by which there was great danger of being again introduced, all the superstitions, rights and fooleries of the church of Rome. With a special view therefore, to adhere to the scriptures, as the only rule of faith and discipline, it was, that they left all the pleasant accommodations of their native country; for this then howling wilderness.

But how strange! How marvelous strange and astonishing! that a man of sense should come to us, as in the name of the Lord, publickly to reprove and rebuke this church; for rejecting a comparitively small part of the Say-Brook platform! While he himself, at the same time was endeavouring, by a set discourse, to remove the very foundation corner stone of that same platform! Yea, and to strike away the main pillar; which in the view of the compilers, was designed to support the whole! Be astonished ye heavens, and wonder O earth at this! Let the world say, was there ever such effrontery; such daring barefaced effrontery; transacted before towards any church in America? If this parson be not, for his heretical sentiments, publickly delivered in the presence of some of their own members; called to an account and chastised by the council that sent him; let all that hear of these matters judge, if they do not justly deserve to rank with those, of whom our Lord said, "ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel?"

But to pave the way for our rebuke, it was very shrewdly noted, that the apostles never denied the jurisdiction of the Jewish courts, before which they were [Page]called. Notably pertinent indeed! If it be considered, that they absolutely denied obedience, to their unrighteous commands. Saying, ‘we ought to obey God rather then men.’ On whom then, does the designed reproach rebound?

But the stress of the reproof was laid upon this, That we renounced the consociated connection without asking leave. As tho' we had no right to do it, without asking. And if no right without asking; surely none without leave given. But if unscriptural connections, ought not to be renounced, without asking, and obtaining leave; all the protestant churches on earth, must have been to this day, in subjection to the Pope. For surely his pretended holiness, would never have consented to be so forsaken. And that for this very important reason: Because it could not, upon his principles, be for the good of the churches.

But we were rebuked for not asking leave of them, the consociation. And who are they? Lords over us? Yea, let all that hear thereof judge, if in their conduct towards us, they are not lording it over God's heritage?

But to compleat the farce, we have been charged with breach of covenant, in renouncing connection.

But was there ever any express covenanting about the matter? Was not the connection practically fallen in with, merely as custom led the way? And certainly then, to be practically renounced, as soon as found to be unscriptural.

But you have been twitted of unkindness, in what you have done: After all he great and good things which consociated councils have done for you. But surely all those same purposes, so far as needful, might have been done for you full as well; by congregational councils; without ever having been obnoxious to their rebuke; for adhering to the scriptures, or for renouncing unscriptural connections, without asking their leave.

[Page] But it is worthy special remark, that there were no arguments offered, nor even attempted to be offered, directly to vindicate that very juridical authority; given to consociated councils in the articles of discipline; with a special view to which it was, that we renounced connection. So that after all, the very essence of the great labouring point, was not so much as once pertinently touched. Our great crime therefore, of which we have been admonished to repent: When we come to the bottom of the matter; consists only in this, that the church were not fully agreed. A sad calamity truly. But for which, no man had ever dared to give any rebuke in the case.*

[Page] If therefore any of you, my hearers, that were the designed subjects of that lordly rebuke, have been ready, as Issachars, to crouch down under the burden. You must needs doubtless begin to feel a secret consciousness in your own breasts; that you have been shamefully faint hearted in the cause of Christ. Far from that unshaken constancy, and noble magnanimity, which becomes good soldiers of Jesus Christ, the great Captain of our salvation. Wherefore seriously consider what the mind and will of Christ really is, about these matters. And knowing his will, take up your cross and follow him. And be ye stedfast and immoveable in your subjection and obedience to all his commands. Standing fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free. That overcoming all the temptations, that may be found in your way, thro' this evil world: you may finally attain, to sit down with Christ in his throne: Even as he also overcame, and is sit down with his father in his throne.

As to those of you, my hearers, who affect to be neuters in these matters, it stands you in hand, seriously to consider, whether it be at all probable, that the different schemes of church government contended for, can be equally agreeable to the mind and will of Christ. And if not, it must certainly concern you, as well as others, to see on which side the truth lies: And to embrace it with firmness, and to follow it with constancy and diligence. For lukewarmness and indifferency in matters pertaining to the kingdom of Christ, agree not to the character of his true and faithful disciples and followers. But as to those of you, my hearers, who are taken with a great liking to the late discourse; it is a very pitiful dilemma, that you are fallen into. For if you hold by the scriptures, as a sufficient rule of church government, you must give up the articles. And own the congregational [Page]order ro be the scripture plan. But if with your patron, you hold to the articles of discipline; even tho' the sense thereof be not contained in the scriptures. Then you must give up the confession of faith. And even that grand pillar, the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture, as a rule of church discipline, upon which the venerable compilers of the platform meant to erect the whole. And so while you pretend a very great regard for them, yet really renounce the very foundation on which they meant to build. You will not, I hope, count me your enemy because I tell you the truth. My heart's desire and prayer to God for you is, that you may be led into all truth; and that you may be perfect in all the will of God; built up in faith and holiness; blessed with a part in all the blessings of the kingdoms of grace here. And that you and I, and all that hear me this day, may, thro' the power and grace of God in Christ, finally attain to the world of perfect harmony, peace, and love, to the everlasting praise of his holy name.

Notes

*

Hence also it may be inferred, That it is agreeable to the gospel plan, that in judicial trials in a church, in which there is but one elder, neighbouring elders should be called in, to make a plurality or presbytery, unitedly to preside, and to assist and act in concurrence with the church, even as the plurality of elders did in the first gospel churches.

↵

*

This preacher's attempt to establish the articles of discipline, not by the word of God, but upon the footing of human reason, brings to mind a saying of Luther's; who having wrote to Pope Leo the tenth thus, ‘I offer myself prostrate under the feet of your holiness, with all that I am and have, save me, kill me, call me, recall me, reprove me, condemn me, even as you please.—I will acknowledge your voice, the voice of Christ residing and speaking in you. Here see men, said he, in my case, how hard it is to rise cut of errors generally received, and by long custom become as it were natural: How true the proverb is, it is hard to leave customs, and custom is another nature: And how truly Austine saith, custom if it be not resisted will become necessity. I who had then seven years read and taught the scriptures most diligently, privately and publickly, and had some taste of the knowledge of Christ, viz. That we were justified and saved not by works but by faith in Christ. And now defended publickly that the Pope is not by divine right head of the church; yet I did not see what naturally followeth thence, viz. that the Pope is therefore of necessity of the devil; for what is not of God, is necessarily of the devil. I was so corrupted by example, and the title of holy church and custom, that I granted to the Pope an human right, which if it be not underpropt with divine authority is a lie and develish; For we must obey parents and magistrates, not because they command, but because it is the will of God.’ His. Mar, vol. 2. p. 3.

↵

A BRIEF VIEW Of the scripture texts subjoined to some of the most exceptionable articles in the Say-Brook platform; shewing them to be very impertinent to the purpose of consociated connection and authority.

[Page]

"ARTICLES for the administration of church discipline, &c. Say-Brook, Sept. 9, 1708." Most certainly it is highly reasonable to be expected, that these articles compiled by so learned a council, should be supported by the most pertinent proof to be found in the bible. But altho' this was a truly venerable council, yet as general councils have often erred, this council might very possibly err also. Whose decrees therefore, are not to be received with an implicit faith. But it becomes us freely to examine and impartially to judge every one for ourselves, whether they are well supported by the sacred scriptures, according to which they ought to stand or fall.

Article 1st. ‘That the elder or elders of a particular church, with the consent of the brethren of the same, have power and ought to exercise church discipline according to the rules of God's word, &c.’ [Page]This article is so entirely agreeable to the heads of agreement, and the scripture subjoined so pertinent, that there needs no special observations to be made upon it.

‘Article 2d. That the churches, which are neighbouring each to other, shall consociate for mutual affording to each other such assistance, as may be requisite, upon all occasions ecclesiastical. And that the particular pastors and churches, within the respective counties in this government shall be one consociation (or more if they shall judge meet) for the end aforesaid.’ Psal. 122, 3, 4, 5, and 133.8. Eccl. 4, 9, to 12. Acts 15, 2, 6, 22, 23. 1. Tim. 4, 14. 1 Cor. 16, 1. Let us see then the propriety of these texts: To prove that there ought to be such a consociation of the churches; Psal. 122, 3, 4, 5. ‘Jerusalem is built as a city, it is compact together; whether the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord, unto the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the Lord. For there are set thrones of judgment; the thrones of the house of David.’ Spoken in reference to the orders given under the Mosaic oeconomy, for all the tribes of Israel to repair to the house of the Lord, the temple in Jerusalem, both for worship and also for judgment in all difficult matters. Agreeable to Deut. 16.6. and 17.8. But what is that to the present purpose? Is it to be imagined that the thrones of judgment at Jerusalem, were typical of, or any how pointed at the consociation of gospel churches; to be as thrones for all parties to repair to for judgment? No surely. See also Psal. 133, 1. ‘Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity.’ And is this any reason for the consociation of churches? Does it not plead as pertinently for the unity of all churches, in the Bishop of Rome the pretended vicar of Christ? Or may it not be as forcibly pleaded by the [Page]church of England, for the unity of all the churches in the kingdom in their hierarchy? See also Eccl. 4.9, to 12. ‘Two are better than one, because they have a good reward of their labour: For if they fall the one will lift up his fellow: But wo unto him that is alone when he falleth, for he hath not another to help him up,’ &c. Thus the royal preacher sets forth (in opposition to the nigardly miser, of whom he had been speaking) the peculiar benefit and advantage of social life. But what is this to the consociation of churches? Or at least, what stronger plea does it afford for the combination of churches according to the articles, than according to the model of the church of England, or even the church of Rome? But let us attend to Acts 15.2, 6, 22, 23. ‘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.’ (Whether the gentile converts ought to be circumcised after the manner of Moses.) ‘And the apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter.—Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas.—And wrote letters by them,’ &c. Thus the church at Antioch, in a dissension that arose among them about circumcision, sent up a question about that matter, by the hands of Paul and Barnabas, to the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem, to be determined and settled by them. A question of great importance, respecting the church of Christ through all generations. God therefore saw fit, that it should be determined, not by any one, but by all the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem; whence the gospel was to go forth unto the [Page]nations. In the determination of which, they were favoured with the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. "For it seemed good," said they v. 28, ‘to the Holy Ghost and to us,’ &c. Thus the churches, while the apostles lived, looked to them to make known the mind and will of Christ. And now they are fallen asleep, it is equally fitting to appeal to their writings for the decision of every religious controversy. For unto the apostles were committed in a peculiar sense, the keys of the kingdom. Math. 16.19. ‘And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Whereby is to be understood a power of binding and loosing doctrinally, i. e. by declaring the mind and will of Christ, binding upon the conscience. And agreeable hereto, ‘Jesus breathed upon his apostles, and said unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained.’ John 20.22, 23. Hence all the apostolic writings are binding upon conscience: So as no uninspired writings can be. And in the proper exercise of this power it was, that the apostles, with the elders and church at Jerusalem, decided the question sent from Antioch about circumcision. Loosing the Gentiles therefrom, but binding them, as seemed good to the Holy Ghost, ‘to abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,’ &c. A power not to be claimed by any uninspired men, without daring presumption. The Pope indeed, who claims as the successor of St. Peter, the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost, challenges a right of determining all such matters. But far be it from protestants. See also 1 Tim. 4.14. ‘Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, [Page]with the laying on the hands of the presbytery.’ Thus there was it seems a presbytery concuring in the ordination of Timothy. But there may be congregational presbyteries for that purpose; such as officiated in all ordinations in New England previous to the Say-Brook platform. We come then to the last text, under this article, 1 Cor. 16.1. ‘Now concerning the collection for the saints as I gave order to the churches of Galatia even so do ye.’ Thus St. Paul gave directions to the Corinthian church, even as he had done before to the churches of Galatia, respecting a collection for the saints. But what is this to the purpose of churches being consociated? As there were churches of Galatia, so also there were churches of Connecticut without being consociated.

‘Article 3. That all cases of scandal, that fall out within the circuit of any of the aforesaid consociations, shall be brought to a council of the elders and also messengers of the churches within the said circuit, i. e. the churches of one consociation, if they see cause to send messengers, when there shall be need of a council for the determination of them.’ 3 John v. 9, 10. 1 Cor. 16.1. Gal. 6.1, 2. 2 Cor. 13.2. Acts 15.23. 2 Cor. 8.23.—Let these texts now be attended to. 3 John v. 9.10. ‘I wrote unto the church, but Diotrephes who loveth to have preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore if I come, I will remember his deeds, which he doth prating against us, with malicious words, and not content therewith neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbideth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.’ There was it seems great disorders in the church, to which the apostle had a special reference in this epistle; occasioned by one Diotrephes that conducted very tyrannically; whom therefore the apostle [Page]threatened to correct and chastise. But what is this to the purpose of consociated councils having the hearing of all cases of scandal that fall out within their circuit? Are they invested with apostolic authority? None surely will assume such a pretence. See also 1 Cor. 16.1. ‘Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.’ Thus St. Paul gave direction to the churches of Galatia, concerning a collection. And does it therefore follow, that consociated councils have a right to determine all matters of scandal, that fall out in the churches within their district? How altogether wide of the purpose? The next is Gal. 6.1, 2. ‘Brethren if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one anothers burdens and so fulfil the laws of Christ.’ Here christian brethren are expressly directed to restore one another. How directly contrary then, to the natural import of this text, to go about to infer from hence, agreeable to the article, that councils have a right to hear and judge in all cases of scandal? See also 2 Cor. 13.2. ‘I told you before and foretel you as if I were present the second time, and being absent, now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all others that if I come again I will not spare.’ And because the apostle determined not to spare suitable reproof, does it thence follow, that councils have a right to judge offenders? Surely nothing of that nature. See also Acts 15.23. ‘And wrote letters by them after this manner: The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch,’ &c. The apostles and elders sent letters greeting, to the brethren at Antioch; but what is that to the purpose of councils judging cases of [Page]scandal? Next we have 2 Cor. 8.23. ‘Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow helper concerning you, or our brethren be enquired of, they are the messengers of the churches and the glory of Christ.’ Here we have the name of messengers applied by St. Paul to some that were sent by the churches, either to collect or to carry a collection for the saints, of which the apostle was speaking. But what shadow of relation has that to messengers judging in cases of scandal? Tho' yet according to the following article, the elders may judge and determine as well without them.

Article 4. ‘That according to the common practice of our churches nothing shall be deemed an act or judgment of any council, which hath not the major part of the elders present concuring, and such a number of the messengers present, as makes the majority of the council: Provided, that if any such church shall not see cause to send any messengers to the council, or the persons chosen by them shall not attend, neither of these shall be any obstruction to the proceedings of the council, or invalidate any of their acts.’ Acts 15.23. 1 Cor. 14.32, 33. Let us now see what relation these texts have to such a manner of determining judgment. Acts 15.23. ‘And wrote letters by them after this manner: The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting, unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia.’ For as said in the preceding verse ‘Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch,’ &c. Thus the text referred to, speaks of the united concurrence of a whole body. But what is this to the purpose, of there being so many messengers in a vote, as to make a majority of the council? The [Page]only proper inference from hence would be, that there ought to be the united concurrence of the whole. See also 1 Cor. 14.32, 33. ‘And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace as in all the churches of the saints.’ Thus all things are to be conducted in the church, in an orderly manner. But what is this to the purpose of determining judgment according to the article? Can there be no order in the case, but by a major part of the elders, and so many messengers as to make a majority of the whole?

Article 5. ‘That when any case is orderly brought before any council of the churches, it shall there be heard and determined, which (unless orderly removed from thence) shall be a final issue, and all parties therein concerned shall sit down, and be determined thereby. And the council so hearing, and giving the result or final issue, in the said case as aforesaid, shall see their determination, or judgment duly executed and attended, in such way and manner, as shall in their judgment be most suitable and agreeable to the word of God.’ Acts 15. 1 Cor. 5.5. 2 Cor. 2.6, 11, and 13.2. Phil. 3.15. Rom. 14.2, 3.

In this we have the quintessence of the matter, respecting the juridical authority of councils: Here the grand canon is erected. Here therefore the clearest proof is to be expected. Let these texts therefore be carefully attended to. Acts 15. Refering to the whole chapter, which as to the essentials of it, has been considered already, under the 2d article. And there shown to have no manner of relation to ordinary councils judging in cases of scandal. See then 1 Cor. 5.5. ‘To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.’ Here the church at Corinth, were directed [Page]to cast out one of their own disorderly members; which is altogether beside, yea even directly counter to, the purpose of juridical judgment to be given by a council. See then 2 Cor. 2.6, 11. ‘Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many. Lest Satan should get an advantage of us, for we are not ignorant of his devices.’ Plainly intimating, that the punishment inflicted upon the incestuous Corinthian, was done by the mutual concurrence of the many brethren of that particular church. But who can imagine that to be in any wise to the purpose of councils passing a juridical judgment upon offenders? It would surely be much more pertinent hence to infer, that consociated councils have no concern in such matters. See also 2 Cor. 13.2. ‘I told you before, and foretel you as if I were present the 2d time, and being absent, now I write to them which heretofore have sinned and to all other, that if I come again I will not spare.’ i. e. The apostle would not spare suitable reproof and rebuke to them that had sinned. But what is that to the juridical judgment of councils? It is surely quite off the purpose. See also Phil. 3.15. ‘Let us therefore as many as be perfect, be thus minded: And if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.’ Thus St. Paul, professing for himself as in the preceeding verse, ‘to forget the things which are behind, to reach and press forward towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ.’ Here exhorts all that are perfect in the christian profession, to be thus practically minded, in the diligent pursuit of the glorious prize of the high calling of God in Christ. As far from the purpose of juridical judgment, as the east is from the west. Attend then to Rom. 14.2.3. ‘For one believeth that he may eat all things, another who is weak eateth herbs. Let [Page]him that eateth despise him that eateth not, and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth, for God hath received him.’ But what is this to the purpose? Except it be to intimate that after all, this claim of juridical power, is a matter of as real indifferance, as that of eating or not eating herbs? Which yet in truth it is not, unless more countenance can be found for it in the scriptures, than is contained in the texts here cited.

Article 6. ‘That, if any pastor and church doth obstinately refuse a due attendance and conformity to the determination of the council, that hath cognizance of the case, and determineth it as above, after due patience used, they shall be reputed guilty of scandalous contempt, and dealt with as the rule of God's word in such cases doth provide, and the sentence of noncommunion shall be declared against such pastor and church. And the churches are to approve of the said sentence, by withdrawing from the communion of the pastor and church, which so refused to be healed.’ Rom. 16.17. Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. by proportion Gal. 2.11. to 14. 2 Thes. 3.6, 14.

Let these texts now be attended to: Rom. 16.17. Now ‘I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.’ Here St. Paul beseeches the brethren, called to be saints in the church at Rome, to mark and avoid such among themselves, as walked contrary to the gospel; which has plainly no manner of relation to councils in any respect. Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. ‘Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses [Page]every word be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.’ Here we have a plain direction given by the Lord Jesus Christ, for every particular church, to cast out their own members refusing to hear them; which teaches nothing about consociated councils declaring sentence of noncommunion, against such pastor and church as refuse subjection to their decrees. The following texts, are said to be by proportion, i. e. like reason. Gal. 2.11. to 14. ‘But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they were come he withdrew, and seperated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compelest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?’ Here Paul reproved Peter a prevaricating kind of conduct, relative to the Jewish rites. But it does not appear, either that Paul insisted upon, or that Peter made any acknowledgment in the case. And yet neither is there the least intimation, that Paul denounced sentence of noncommunion against Peter. What shadow of proportion therefore there is in the case, is not to be imagined; except it be in Peter's withdrawing and separating himself from the Gentiles: The very thing for which he was to be blamed. But further by proportion, see 2 Thes. 3.6, 14. ‘Now we command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Page]that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.’ Here the brethren of the Thessalonian church, were expressly commanded to withdraw themselves, from every brother of theirs that walked disorderly, in disobedience to the apostolic word. Whence by plain proportion, it appears to be the duty of every particular church, to put away all such as walk disorderly; in disobedience to the word of truth. Which has no manner of relation to a council's declaring sentence of non communion with a pastor and church. And it is surely very unreasonable, that arguments by proportion, should be so far fetched in such weighty matters.

But now as these texts, subjoined to the several articles that have been considered, are in no wise applicable to the proof and support thereof, it may fairly be presumed, the bible affords none at all to that purpose. It is quite needless therefore, to proceed upon the remaining articles: Because if these that have been considered, are void of scripture support; these which are the main pillars, being left without any scripture foundation, must inevitably fall: And of consequence the whole building tumble to ruin; and great will be the fall of it. And when once the emoluments annexed, are as thoroughly removed as the scriptures are from its support, very sudden also will be the fall thereof.

It is obvious to any careful observer, that a consociated council convened according to platform, thereby becomes a body invested with such horns of power, as that whethersoever the body moves, thither the horns move also, inforcing their every act, judgment, counsel, opinion, or advice with binding authority. Which [Page]being an unscriptural body, ought not therefore to be joined with, in any case whatever.—The princes of this world indeed, have fought in almost all ages, to model the religion of the state to the civil polity. For a state religion has generally been deemed needful, even by heathen as well as by christian states. And indeed in some respects, much more reasonably by heathens than by christians. Because to the heathens, it seemed a very plausible maxim, that every state had a right to model religion as they pleased; and of consequence, that all the various members in particular, ought to be subject to the model which the state enjoyned. Whereas by divine revelation, religion is become a certain fixed and determinate matter: In no wise pliable to the devices of human policy, but absolutely binding upon every man's conscience, according to what God himself hath enjoined. And therefore every individual, hath an irrefragible right to see and judge for himself. And yet even christian states, have more generally been endeavouring, to accommodate the modes of religion to the model of civil polity. Mr. Bowers in his history of the Popes writes thus, ‘The new form of government introduced (by Constantine the first christian Emperor) into the state, served as a model for the government of the church. That during the three first centuries, each church was in a manner independant (for then paganism was the state religion) but in the fourth and following ages, great alterations were made in both, (church and state) the church adapting her government to that of the state.’ So also the hierarchy of the church of England, is adapted to the model of the civil monarchy. But whether there be not in such political forms of religion, designedly adapted to the model of the civil state, something more than a mere distant resemblance of the image of the beast, that goeth into [Page]perdition; deserves a very serious consideration. As also, whether the model of church government set forth in the Say-Brook articles, be not in some measure framed in coherence with the model of the civil government? And whether so far consequently, it must not partake of the same kind of obnoxiousness to the just vengeance of heaven; with all other political models of religion? For every mode introduced into religion, aside from the scripture rule, must needs be at best, such wood, hay, and stubble as shall surely be burnt up. ‘Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.’ Whosoever therefore submits to any model of church government, which Christ hath not appointed, had need see to it in earnest, how he will answer it to his great Judge, who will shortly be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels; in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

I take it for granted, (saith an elegant writer*) that the religion of a christian lies in the new testament; that is the great charter of our salvation, and it is fully and completely sufficient for that purpose.—The decisions of synods, councils, convocations, or assemblies of divines, are nothing to us, can be of no force or value, nor of the least importance to us as christians, otherwise than as they are found, upon a candid examination to agree with this rule.—Upon this foundation, namely, the sufficiency of the scriptures, and the right of private judgment, the protestant cause is built. [Page]The command of our Lord is not,—Search the writings of the rabbies and doctors of the law, or the traditions of the elders, but search the scriptures for they testify of me.—An attempt to establish religion by law, is a weak and vain attempt, and argues great ignorance of the nature of true religion; neither can it possibly have any other effect than to make men hypocrites. —In all the new testament, the magistrate has no power or authority in matters of religion delegated to him.—His business lies only with the civil concerns of mankind; and when he goes beyond this, or attempts to interfere with the faith of christians, he meddles with things out of his proper sphere, and most certainly infringes upon the prerogative and authority of the great Lawgiver and head of the church; it is, in fact, an attempt to wrest the sceptre out of his hand, and deprive him of his kingdom. The case is the very same, whether this power is usurped by the Pope of Rome, or the Primate of England; by the convocation of the clergy, or an assembly of divines.

The church of Christ stands upon a firmer basis than the authority of the civil magistrate, the determination of councils, or any human authority or power whatsoever, even upon the authority of Jesus Christ, whose kingdom is not of this world, neither subject to the law of it, but is purely of a spiritual nature.— And to speak of the church of Rome, the church of England, the church of Scotland, or any particular community of Christians, as a church, distinguished by any peculiar establishment, distinct from, and independent of, the sole authority of Jesus, is unscriptural and antichristian.—The church of Christ is not, cannot, be in danger from the severest attacks of its greatest enemies. Establishments of men may be, and often are in danger—in great drnger of being overturned; [Page]and those, who get their wealth by the craft of them, may cry out for fear lest they should be buried under the ruins, or else, like the shrine-makers at Ephesus lose their trade, and consequently their profit together. Such, no doubt, think they do well to be angry, because they have so much at stake, when men of more honest and liberal spirits point out to others, the shallow foundation upon which such establishments are built; and great art has been often used, and pains taken, to impose upon the reason and senses of mankind, by making them believe that such establishments are the true church of Christ, and they have in too many instances succeeded; but the members of Christ's true church know, or should know, that the foundation of God standeth sure, and never can be in danger from the rudest shocks.—To any person, who views it without prejudice, it will appear stronger and stronger, more beautiful and excellent, the more it is examined; it will appear to be a building of God, a house not made with hands, begun on earth by almighty power, supported by his never failing energy, and shall be complete and eternal in the heavens.—When the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with songs, and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall fly away for ever.

Notes

*

Gent. Mag. July 1772.

↵

APPENDIX.
In which an account is given of the essential facts, relative to the conduct of the consociated council, towards the pastor and first church of Christ in Newtown.

[Page]

IN July, A. D. 1770, the pastor of said church publickly declared, that he renounced that part of Say-Brook platform, intitled, Articles for the administration of church discipline: as not being in his view, in the main thing therein aimed at, agreeable to the gospel: And that if the church chose to take that for their rule of discipline, and in the case impending, call in a council, which is a suitable political expedient for such churches, as cannot be agreed among themselves, about the scripture plan of discipline; he would freely resign the work of the ministry among them; who joined consociated councils no more. For which he gave his reasons in public print.

With difficulty the church chose a messenger once afterwards to attend a consociated council. In the mean time the pastor had a friendly conference with two associations on that subject. And at a church meeting, [Page]Aug. 16, A. D. 1773, it was proposed, whether this church mean to stand in the consociated connection according to Say-Brook platform or not? Voted in the negative. But as some manifested a dissatisfaction with said vote; upon their desire another meeting was soon after warned to reconsider the matter; and the Rev. Mr. Bartlet desired to preach upon that occasion. At a church meeting, Sept. 25, A. D, 1773. The Rev. Mr. Bartlet being present, was at the motion of the dissatisfied, desired by a vote of the church to officiate as moderator.

Proposed, Whether it be the mind of this church to stand in the consociated connection according to Say-Brook platform or not? Voted in the negative.

At a society meeting also, soon after called for that purpose: Proposed, Whether the society would concur with the vote of the church renouncing consociated connection? Voted in the affirmative.

Proposed also, Whether the society would chuse a committee to call a council? Voted in the negative, very few it is said being on the affirmative side.

But a considerable number of individuals, according to common report, afterwards signed a petition to the association for their counsel & advice; which was presented to the association at Ripton, after the council was adjourned. At a church meeting, Oct. 20, A. D. 1773, was read a circular letter from the church of Christ at Ripton, desiring the assistance of this church by their pastor and messenger in ordaining a pastor over them; and Major John Chandler was chosen to attend on that occasion. And when the ordaining council at Ripton was about to form, said pastor and messenger being present, signified, that he, said pastor and their church had renounced the consociated connection according to Say-Brook platform: And desired therefore to know, if the council [Page]meant to act in the consociated form? For if so, they could not consistently join them. And as some of the leading members insisted, they were called to be a council of, and meant to act in that form; said pastor and messenger refused to join them; but continued present until the next evening. And no enquiries were made of the reasons of their conduct: But the next week, was delivered to said pastor, the following notification:

To the Rev. Mr. David Judson, and the church under his pastoral care.

YOU are hereby notified that the consociation of this district, have appointed the Rev. Mess. Elijah Sill, Nathaniel Bartlet, and Robert Ross, together with Col. John Read, and Col. Joseph Plat Cooke, a committee, to enquire into the reasons of your renouncing your consociated connection, and use their best endeavours to reclaim you, and remove all difficulties subsisting among you, that love and peace may be restored. To meet at the house of Dr. Thomas, at four o'clock in the afternoon, on the first Tuesday of Dec. next.

ROBERT ROSS, Moderator.

Ripton, Oct. 27, 1773.

And we were also told by common fame, and no other way till the council met, that the council was adjourned to Newtown, on the last Tuesday of December; but pursuant to said notification, a church meeting was warned and attended, and the matter laid before them for their consideration: And adjourned for a week: Met according to adjournment, when the following remonstrance was read and agreed to.

To the Consociation's Committee.

GENTLEMEN,

PERCEIVING by the notification sent by the council from Ripton, to me and to the church under my [Page]care, signed Robert Ross, moderator, that the council have taken in hand, authoritatively to call me and my church to an account, for renouncing the consociated connection. And to reclaim us, as having already judged that we have done amiss and ought to be reclaimed. These are therefore to inform you, though doubtless well knowing to it before, that years since I have publickly disclaimed and renounced the juridical authority of consociated councils; as set forth in the Say-Brook articles of church discipline. For which I have given my reasons in public print, to which no fair reply hath been made. And have, as desired in a christian manner, by the consociation, held a friendly conference once and again with the association on that subject; by whom I never yet could perceive any sufficient reasons offered, to convince me of an error in that matter; nor even to persuade me, as they themselves seemed inclined chiefly to plead, that there was no very great or essential difference, but am rather more & more firmly persuaded, the more I consider and weigh the subject, that the said consociated connection and authority is entirely void of any warrant, either by precept or example from the sacred oracles, by which my conscience is entirely bound in matters pertaining to Christ's church and kingdom: Whereby I am in duty holden to reject all such ecclesiastical claims, as Christ hath given no warrant for in his word, as being of an antichristian nature. And when one of the Rev. elders of your own body was present at one of our church meetings, and by the desire of the dissatisfied, chosen moderator thereof; at which meeting the consociated connection was a second time fairly voted out; said moderator, was by some of the leading members repeatedly and earnestly urged, to produce scripture warrant, if there was any, for the support of the consociated claims; that we might thereby, if we [Page]had done amiss, be reclaimed; but could be moved to no attempts to that purpose, nor had any thing to object, but that we had a right to pass such a vote as we did, under his guidance as moderator.

And that now after all this, the consociation should take upon them juridically to reclaim us, I shall freely submit to the publick to judge, whether it be not in fact a very strange and unaccountable attempt. Wherefore tho' I am ready to pay all due deference to you, as Gentlemen, and freely to render to you as Christians, if desired, merely as such, still further reasons respecting this matter; yet as I cannot but look upon the juridical measures now taken by the consociation, to be of such an antiscriptural nature, as justly to deserve an entire disregard. I am bold therefore to declare in the face of the world, that I cannot submit thereunto; however I may be necessitated to suffer undesirable consequences. But leaving all events to the righteous Governor of the world, and praying that we may all be led in ways of righteousness and truth. I remain, Gentlemen,

Your friend and servant, DAVID JUDSON.

At a church meeting in Newtown, Nov. 17, A. D. 1773, proposed, whether agreeable to this church to concur with their pastor in the above written, as a suitable return to be made by him, to the committee of the consociation, in reply to their notification to us, dated at Ripton, Oct. 27, 1773, signed Robert Ross, moderator? Voted in the affirmative. Having in the exercise of that liberty to which we have a just right as men and as christians, renounced the consociated connection, from a real conviction, that the authority annexed thereto, by the articles of church discipline in the Say-Brook platform, is without any grounds for its support, either precept or example in the gospel; and therefore [Page]in point of duty justly to be rejected. And as the consociation have, is the exercise of that same authority, which we in obedience to God have renounced, taken upon them to reclaim us, as being already prejudged guilty by them; as appears by their notification to us, dated Ripton, Oct. 27, A. D. 1773, signed Robert Ross, moderator. We therefore, cannot look upon ourselves under any obligations, either in point of duty or even of good manners, to pay any kind of obediential regard, to such unscriptural, usurped authority over us. Tho' yet we stand ready to render unto them and to all others asking merely as christians, the reasons of our proceed-dure; even as we have herein already briefly done.

At a church meeting in Newtown, Nov. 17, A. D. 1773, proposed, whether agreeable to the minds of this church, that the above written be presented to the committee of the consociation, as as suitable return to be made by this church, to their notification, dated Ripton, Oct. 27, 1773? Voted with the concurrence of their pastor, in the affirmative.

The committee met according to appointment, and sent to said pastor to desire his company or to appoint a time and place for a conference together. When the preceeding votes of the church were sent in to them, with a line signifying that he would be very willing to wait upon them at his own house when they pleased; which they did the next morning, and matters relative to their business freely conversed upon. In the afternoon was that sermon preached, which was the occasion of the preceeding reply. The council met according to adjournment, but gave out no result. The Rev. Mr. Baldwin preached, and gave a very seasonable word of exhortation, from Phi. 4.2. The association took into consideration, a memorial that had been presented, signed by a number of the church and society, signifying [Page]that the pastor and church had gone off from the foundation on which he was settled, praying their counsel and advice; which they gave out in the following form:

Dec. 28, 1773.

An association of the eastern district of Fairfield county, met according to adjournment, at the house of Dr. Thomas, in Newtown.

THE association having carefully attended to the memorial from the aggrieved members of the church of Newtown, and heard what they had further to urge relative to their grievances; and having likewise heard what the pastor and those of the majority of the church saw fit to reply.—Feel deeply affected with the melancholy situation of the church, and the great danger of a lasting division therein. Which they apprehend would be of fatal consequence to both sides. Are therefore of opinion, that all lawful measures should be tried, to keep the church if possible from a division, and think that under the present circumstances of this place, 'tis especially incumbent on both sides to be of a moderate yielding disposition; and to give up every thing they can consistent with a good conscience for the sake of peace. We would therefore earnestly recommend it to the church and society to reconsider their votes, by which they have renounced their consociated connection with the neighbouring churches; and thereby relieve the consociation from the disagreeable necessity of renouncing all further connection with, and watchful care over the church of Newtown. We desire they would consider, whether the adhering to that vote, will not lay them under many disagreeable inconveniencies? And whether it will not in all probability be productive of a division of the church? In the almost fatal consequences of which, they that adhere to the vote, as well as the others must [Page]deeply share. We would earnestly recommend it to the Rev. Mr. Judson, to consider how far he can go, without violating those principles in church government, which he thinks himself obliged in conscience to adopt and act agreeable to, in order to restore peace to this divided church. Would the Rev. Mr. Judson be willing to continue in connection with the neighbouring churches, attend their associations and consociations, his declining to act, when they find themselves under the necessity of acting decisively, (which is but seldom the case) we apprehend would make no breach between the consociation, and the pastor and church here. We heartily wish the Rev. Mr. Judson might continue his pastoral relation to this church, if it may be without making a schism in the body. But unless Mr. Judson and the church and society can be prevailed upon to comply with the above advice, we are very doubtful whether this can be the case. If Mr. Judson thinks he cannot comply thus, we would still urge it upon the church and society to rescind their votes respecting consociational connection. And would advise the Rev. Mr. Judson to resign his pastoral office (as he has manifested his willingness to do) in case the majority of the society and church should be willing to continue in consociated connection with the churches of this district. We would also observe to the church here, that we apprehend they imagine, the power of councils upon the Say-Brook platform to be greater than really it is: Besure greater than what is claimed by this consociation. As we do not suppose but that every church will judge, whether they will receive the decisions of a council. And that their obstinate refusal exposes them only to a sentence of noncommunion in consociational connection; unless there be scandalous immorality or damnable heresy embraced by the church; in which case congregational [Page]churches at large, or even independent churches, must renounce communion with such a church in all gospel ordinances, lest by such a communion they be partakers of their sin. We hope if these things are duly considered, the church and society will be willing still to continue their consociational connection. In case this advice be complied with, we advise those brethren that have been aggrieved with the conduct of the pastor and church, cheerfully to continue in the communion of the church, and to banish from their minds all hard thoughts and jealousies, they have entertained of their pastor and brethren. And we do exhort these brethren freely to meet with their pastor and brethren, to converse with them upon their unhappy difficulties, to labour to effect a reconciliation upon the plan here proposed. But in case the above advice should be wholly rejected by the church and society, we would yet advise the aggrieved brethren not to shun free conversation with the other, to see if they cannot come into some plan, in which they can with a good conscience continue in communion together. For as we look upon it that a division of the church and society, would be attended with the most fatal consequences, we can not advise to it, unless absolutely necessary. But if after all these measures have been taken, the aggrieved brethren think themselves bound in conscience to discontinue their communion with the other part of the church, we advise that they lay their grievances before a consociated council of this district, to consider what relief it may be proper to grant them under their unhappy circumstances. In the mean time we would advise them by all means steadily to attend to Mr. Judson's preaching, and by no means neglect attending public worship at the meeting-house, till such time as they have the direction of the consociation in this affair.

Test. Ebenezer Baldwin, scribe.

[Page] Extracted from the doings of the association at Newtown, and compared, per Nathaniel Bartlet, moderator.

Pursuant to the above advice, a society meeting was holden in Newtown, Jan. 12, A. D. 1774, proposed for vote, whether this meeting will agree, in matters of difficulty to call a council to advise and act with the society and church, and vote with them in all such difficult cases; and that this vote be preferred to the council for their approbation.§

Voted in the affirmative.

Thus far, and no farther have matters hitherto proceeded. Upon the proceedings of the council and association, it is to be observed, that we hear never a word of counsel, direction or advice, by them given to the minor party, to endeavour to fall in quietly and peaceably with the majority of the church and society in their votes; as a matter of right, that ought to govern in all communities, even as a thing essential to the orderly subsistance of every community; excepting where the rights of conscience are violated. But few or none even of the council themselves, it is presumed, would say, but that with a good conscience, they could join in membership with a congregational church, were their dwelling fixed with such. Whereas had the council, from the beginning of clamorous complaints thrown in before them, urged advice of such a nature, instead of giving directions and going into measures, which tended greatly to strengthen and encourage rising opposition, but to terrify the feeble minded of the major party; no unprejudiced person, that knows how these matters have been [Page]agitated from the beginning, can entertain a rational doubt, but that this church with their pastor would ere now, have been in peace and quietness; a few individuals excepted. But of the christian propriety of such proceedings, it is freely submitted to the public to judge for themselves.

Notes

§

This vote, as some Gentlemen very safely say, is what it is.—See note page 19.

↵

Information about this book

Title statement

Sermons on church government. In reply to a discourse on that subject, delivered a few days before, from the same desk, by the Rev. Mr. Ross. Preached at Newtown, December 19. A.D. 1773. : To which is added, a brief view of the Scripture texts, subjoined to some of the most exceptionable articles in the Say-Brook Platform, shewing them to be very impertinent to the purpose of consociated connection and authority. : And also an appendix, in which an account is given of the essential facts, relative to the conduct of the consociated council, towards the pastor, and First Church of Christ in Newtown. / By David Judson, A.M. Pastor of the Congregational Church of Christ in Newtown. ; [Two lines from Paul]

Judson, David, 1715-1776.

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI :

Date

2011-05.

ID [DLPS]

N10543

ID [TCP]

N10543

ID [STC]

Evans 13360

ID [NOTIS]

APV8101

ID [IMAGE-SET]

13360

ID [EVANS-CITATION]

99003633

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 13360.

Notes

(Evans-TCP ; no. N10543)

Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 13360)

Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 13360)

Source

— Sermons on church government. In reply to a discourse on that subject, delivered a few days before, from the same desk, by the Rev. Mr. Ross. Preached at Newtown, December 19. A.D. 1773. : To which is added, a brief view of the Scripture texts, subjoined to some of the most exceptionable articles in the Say-Brook Platform, shewing them to be very impertinent to the purpose of consociated connection and authority. : And also an appendix, in which an account is given of the essential facts, relative to the conduct of the consociated council, towards the pastor, and First Church of Christ in Newtown. / By David Judson, A.M. Pastor of the Congregational Church of Christ in Newtown. ; [Two lines from Paul], Judson, David, 1715-1776..

Extent

55, [1] p. ; 18 cm. (12mo)

Printed and sold by T. & S. Green, near the college.,. New-Haven; :: [1774]. (Preface dated: Newtown, Jan. 31, A.D. 1774.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.