conveniently provide, that all their children and apprentices, as they are capable, may, through God's blessing, obtain, at least, so much as to be able to read the Scriptures and other good and profitable books in the English tongue, being their native language, etc.”

"In 1663, it was proposed by the court of Plymouth colony, to the several towns within that jurisdiction, as a thing that they ought to take into their serious consideration, that some course may be taken, that in every town there may be a school-master set up, to train up children to reading and writing.

"These laws laid the foundation of the system of free schools in New England." Vol. I. pp. 151, 152.

In estimating the influence of Congregationalism in promoting general intelligence, let it be borne in mind that these laws were emphatically Congregational-that nearly every man concerned in the formation and execution of them, was a decided Congregationalist. No man can consider these facts without perceiving that the influence of this system of church government is to promote intelligence and piety.

No. 7.

Note to page 137.

It may be proper to apprize the reader, who is not already familiar with the fact,-that those churches and ministers who adopt the consociational system, generally deny the right of a church to discipline its pastor. By "the consociational system," I mean that which is developed in the "Saybrook Articles."

A

The Rev. Mr. Mitchell (an advocate of that system) in his "Guide to the Principles and Practices of the Congregational churches of New England" (p. 236), says: church would, in most cases, find it a most embarrassing and unsafe business to undertake the discipline of its minister. It is wisely relieved from such a duty." And again (p. 235, note): "I do not see how a church in such circumstances (that is, in case its pastor becomes hereti

cal or scandalous,') or at least in certain supposable circumstances, can act in its collective capacity at all. Who is to convene the church? and who is to preside? The pastor may refuse to convene it; and if it do convene, may claim to act as its moderator by virtue of his office, [Cam. Plat. Chap. X. § 8,] and in that capacity, if he be a bad man, may effectually embarrass its proceedings." It may be replied to these objections; that there is scarcely any end to the difficulties which a bad man,' whether he be a minister or layman, may throw in the way of church discipline. It is in vain to think of guarding against all" supposable" difficulties. A minister bad enough, or mad enough, to insist upon embarrassing and interrupting the orderly proceedings of a church, under such circumstances, would expose himself to legal process, for disturbing a religious meeting; and a church would be justified in having him arrested, and put under bonds for his good behavior, while they proceeded, under the moderatorship of the senior deacon, to examine the charges against their pastor. And this would be no invasion of the pastor's rights; for, so soon as a regular charge against a pastor is laid before a church, and the church vote to examine that charge, their pastor, is, virtually, suspended from the exercise of his pastoral office; and his right to moderate the church for the time being, is transferred to one of the deacons.

Connected with this question, respecting the right and power of a Congregational church to discipline its pastor, is another, namely: Ought a minister to be a member of the church of which he is pastor? Those who deny the disciplinary authority of a church over a pastor, take of course, in order to be consistent, the negative of the question. Mr. Mitchell says (p. 237): "It is insisted on by some, that a minister shall be a member of the church of which he is the pastor; and subject, 'like any other member,' to its watch and discipline. But neither the reasons, nor the passages from Scripture, which are adduced in support of the position, are satisfactory; and by the great majority of the denomination it is not, I believe, admitted." Again (p. 238): "It seems inconsistent with the relations the pastor sustains to the church, as one whom the Holy Ghost

hath made its overseer, and with the respect which is required to be paid to him for his office sake, that he should be subject to its watch and oversight in the same manner as any other member." And again (p. 241): “Leave a minister to the watch and discipline of his peers. This is the common privilege of the brotherhood, and ought to be his."

The unsettled state of everything connected with the pastoral office, for a few years past, has, undoubtedly, introduced irregularities into the practice of our denomination upon this point, as well as upon many others. In most cases, the pastoral connection is now formed with the understanding that it will be short-lived. A stipulation is often made, that the connection may be dissolved, by either party—the church or the pastor-giving the other, three months' notice. In other cases, a settlement is made for a stipulated number of years-five, being a favorite number. The system of rotation, has been pretty thoroughly introduced into the pastoral office. Our pastors have become travelling preachers, circuit-riders. In the county where the writer of this is located, there are thirty-one Congregational churches. A settlement of ten years, has given him the painful opportunity of witnessing overturns in twenty-nine, of these thirty-one churches. There is but one church in the county besides his own, which has not changed pastors during the time, and many of them repeatedly. Now, if this is a specimen of the state of things in our churches generally, can we wonder that the practice of our denomination should be opposed to the admission of ministers as members of the churches of which they are pastors? In this unsettled state of things, it is natural that our churches should be inattentive to the churchmembership of their pastors; and as natural for our pastors to wish to retain their connection with the churches with which they originally united by profession.

But it was not always so in New England; and our principles, as well as the early practice of our churches, are diametrically opposed to this innovation.

And, it is believed, that. even now, the pastors of our best regulated and most stable Congregational churches, out of Connecticut, will be found to be members of their

own churches. And what is there in this relation inconsistent with the " respect which is required to be paid to a pastor for his office sake?" Nothing more than in the accountability of a presiding officer of a legislative assembly, to the rules of that body. As church members, ministers and laymen are on equal footing; they are alike accountable to the laws of Christ's kingdom. The adminis tration of these laws is intrusted to the church, as such; and not to any other association of men, however wise or good. A church has no more right to delegate the duty of disciplining any of its members to other hands, than it has, to delegate to others the duty of praying, or loving God.

Prof. Upham, in his "Ratio Disciplinae," (p. 167) says: "It is settled, both in principle and practice, that the minister is accountable to his church; and in the first place, in virtue of his church membership.

"According to Congregational usage, no person becomes and remains the minister [pastor?] of a church, without also transferring his relationship and becoming a member of the same. The reasons of this are various; but one undoubtedly is, that he may feel himself subject to the needful restraint of its watch and discipline.”

Mr. Mitchell intimates that Prof. Upham has been “misled by some of the early writers, whom he consulted." If so, the soundest and most learned writers on this subject are unsafe guides.

The Cambridge Platform, "Cotton's Way of the churches in New England," "Cotton's Book of the Keys," Mather's Apology," and "Mather's Ratio Disciplinae," all maintain this doctrine. Mather's words 66 are: When a pastor has fallen into scandal, the brethren that are acquainted with it proceed, as they would with another brother in such cases; only with more special terms of respect and repetition of addresses, as the relation of a father may call for."

The Cambridge Platform, Chap. 10. § 6, speaking of an incorrigibly offending elder, says: "as the church had power to call him to office so they have power according to order (the council of the churches, where it may be had, directing thereto) to remove him from his office and

:

being now but a member, in case he add contumacy to his sin, the church that had power to receive him into their fellowship, hath also the same power to cast him out, that they have concerning any other member."

It is an important principle of Congregationalism that the call of the church, and the acceptance of the same by the pastors elect, constitute the pastoral relation to any particular church. The ordination is only the induction into office of the individual, who, by virtue of his election, is entitled to that office.

In chap. 9. 2, of the Platform, we read: “This ordination we account nothing else but the solemn putting of a man into his place and office in the church, whereunto he had right before by election; being like the installing of a magistrate in the commonwealth,” etc.

Cotton Mather, in speaking of the doctrines of the fathers of New England, says: “They reckoned not ordination to be essential unto the vocation of a minister, any more than coronation to the being of a king; but that it is only a consequent and convenient adjunct of his vocation and a solemn acknowledgement of it with an useful and proper benediction of him in it." Magnalia, Vol. II. p. 208.

The principle here recognized puts the power of discipline into the hands of the church-and this is clearly the right of the church; no other body has been invested with power by Christ to open and shut the doors of the church -to discipline offenders against the laws of his kingdom. In chap. 8. § 7 of the Platform it is said: "If the church have power to choose their officers, and ministers, then, in case of manifest unworthiness and delinquency, they have power also to depose them for to open and shut, to choose and refuse, to constitute in office and remove from office, are acts belonging to the same power." Speaking of the power and right of a church to discipline, and even depose its pastor, the learned and excellent Samuel Mather, in his Apology, etc. says: "It is entirely just and reasonable, that particular churches should have this power: For they are ecclesiastical societies confederate, that is to say, they are churches, before they have officers, and even without them: And, although they may be in such a state as this, yet even then a subordinate ecclesiastical power is under