namely, in elections, admissions, and censures. Hence, in such things, we find the injunctions of the Scripture addressed to the whole church. Hence, again, all antiquity assures us that such matters were, in the primitive churches, always done, consentiente plebe. Otherwise, the brethren of the church might be obliged to do things wherein they could not act in faith, or be conscientiously satisfied that such things ought to be done.

"3. Nevertheless, the Pastor of a church may, by himself, authoritatively suspend from the Lord's table a brother accused or suspected of a scandal, till the matter may be regularly examined into. Our Lord forbids the coming of such an offender to his altar, even if one of less or of no authority in the church do signify a reasonable dissatisfaction. The Pastors of the church are the Porters of the Temple, empowered sufficiently to detain such as they see with moral uncleanness upon them. And it belongs unto the Porters of the church to direct the brethren in the application of the necessary discipline. It is not reasonable, therefore, that they should be bound, in the mean time, to contradict their directions by administering the Lord's Supper to those against whom the discipline is to be exercised by his direction.

“4. But the Elders of the church have a negative on the votes of the brethren, who indeed, in the exercise of their liberty and privilege, are under the conduct of the Elders. Take away the negative of the Elders, and the necessity of their consent unto such acts, and you take away from them all government whatsoever, and it would be to turn the whole regimen of the church into a pure democracy. And if the affirmative of the brethren can supersede the negative of the Elders, or the necessity of their consent, either the Elders may be driven to do things quite contrary to the light of their consciences, or else the brethren may presume to do things which belong not unto them."

A pretty full account has now been given of all the Platforms, or sys-l tems of government, adopted at different times by the Congregationalists of New England. The Assembly of Ministers, referred to by Mather, which adopted the modifications of the Cambridge Platform, last quoted, respecting Synods and Ruling Elders, was composed of Ministers who entertained different sentiments-of whom, some were more in favor of Presbyterian government than others; and it may be considered as a kind of compromise. This is referred to by Professor Hodge, at page 36, and, as nigh as I can gather, took place somewhere about the year 1660-about three decades, as Mather calls it, before the London plan of Union was entered into, in the year 1689 or 1690-of which Mather speaks in these terms-book 5, page 59:

"Such and so hath been our Platform of church discipline. If our brethren of the Presbyterian persuasion be still uneasy in any article of it, let these things be offered for a close :

"1. The Presbyterian Ministers of this country do find it no difficulty to practise the substance of it in and with their several congregations, and when it comes to the practice, they do not find so much difficulty as at first appeared in the notion.

"2. The reverend person of the Presbyterian way, who wrote the Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, as long since as the year 1654 declared, As we agree wholly in the same confession of faith, so we agree in many things of greatest concernment in matters of church discipline; and those things wherein we differ are not of such consequence as to cause a schism between us, either in worship or in love and affection. Our desires are (as it was said of the disputes of the Ancient Fathers, one with another, about lesser differences) not contentiones, but collationes. We can truly say, as our brethren do in their Preface, that it is far from us so to attest the discipline of Christ, as to detest the disciples of Christ; so to contest for the seamless coat of Christ, as to crucify the living members of Christ; so to divide ourselves about church communion, as, through breaches, to open a wide gap for a deluge of anti-christian and profane malignity, to swallow up both church and civil state.'

"3. The brethren of the Presbyterian persuasion in England are lately come unto such a happy union with those of the Congregational, that all former names of distinction are now swallowed up in that blessed one of United Brethren. And now partly because one of New England, namely, Increase Mather, now resident at London, was very singularly instrumental in effecting that Union, which hath been for many lustres, yea, many decades of years, exemplified in the churches of New England." I shall notice this London Union hereafter.

These copious extracts and documents have been made to guard against a practice, which has become too common, of quoting detached parts, and garbled sentences, and even single words, from an author, to caricature that author, build a system, and draw important conclusions.

From the authorities now produced, we are warranted in drawing the following conclusions:

1. There was not a uniformity of opinion among the early settlers in New England upon some minor points in church polity; each Church and Minister was left at liberty to entertain and practise upon his own system, without interrupting peace and fellowship among themselves.

2. They were almost universally in favor of the opinion that, according so the Scripture account of the permanent officers of the churches, there

ought to be an equality or entire parity among the clergy. Besides their understanding of the Scriptures upon this point, they had seen and felt so sensibly the corrupting and persecuting influence of Prelacy in England, as to give them a great dread and horror of ecclesiastical pre-eminence and domination. They, therefore, so far agreed with strict Presbyterians in sentiment, and could meet with them upon this common ground.

3. Some of the first churches organized went very much upon the Brownonian system of Independence. But, soon after, the prevailing sentiment was in favor of admitting the office of Ruling Elder into the churches, in addition to that of Pastor, and Teacher, and Deacon. These Ruling Elders were to serve as assistants to the Ministers* in taking the oversight and governing the members of the church, and in exercising discipline upon offending and disorderly individuals; but were to take no part in publicly preaching the Word, and administering the sacraments, further than occasionally, in the absence of the Minister, to give a word of exhortation or counsel to the members. Although this was the prevailing sentiment and practice, especially after the Cambridge Platform had been adopted, yet there were individual Ministers and Churches who preferred a different practice, and forbore the use of Ruling Elders altogether. This difference of sentiment and practice, however, did not interrupt their harmony and fellowship while each one was left to pursue his own course. In admitting the office of Ruling Elder, therefore, they so far agreed with Presbyterians of the Geneva school. But the duties and powers of this office were not so definitely drawn, or distinctly limited, as to form, in connexion with their Pastor and Teacher, a Church Session, separate from the brotherhood or private members of the church, but in many instances the counsel and concurrence of the brotherhood were to be sought and obtained before their acts could have a binding authority. Theirs was, therefore, a kind of mixed government, with mutual checks and balances.

4. They acknowledged and made use of Presbyteries, or judicatories under that name, and might so far be called Presbyterians. But their Presbyteries differed very materially from those of the Geneva or Scotch system. They were not separate, exclusive, or superior, as it related to sessions, with peculiar powers and authority, binding upon an inferior court; but they were in many respects blended together, both in their powers and mode of exercising them, and yet in some respects separate. Theirs was a complicated government, formed, as they said, by a mixture of all the other simple forms of government. As acknowledging Christ as the supreme Head and King of his church, and bound to act in all respects by the rules and direction laid

* This word Assistant of the Minister should be remembered, as it will be referred to hereafter as a matter of some consequence.

down in his Word, without which all their enactments would be null and void, their government partook of the nature of a monarchy. The powers given to the Eldership, composed of Teaching and Ruling Elders, whose authority and enactments the brethren were bound to respect and obey, as far as they were thought to be in accordance to the Word of God, made it resemble an aristocracy. The prerogatives and privileges reserved to the brotherhood, and the duties belonging to them, gave it the nature of a democracy. It may not be an easy matter (if at all possible) to understand what limits to set to these entirely distinct simple forms of government-in what proportions to mix them to make them so amalgamate as not to conflict with each other. There appears to some persons to be something of a confusion of ideas and an inconsistency or incohereney of principle in this Platform, which it would be impracticable to analyze. It seems, in the estimation of some, to partake of one grand defect-the want of energy or authority. But the safeguard and guaranty to liberty, which is hereby afforded, may be a sufficient offset to this apparent defect-the want of power. Whether it be safer to trust depraved man with too much liberty, or too much power, is a problem of difficult solution. And what checks and balances to apply, so as to preserve that degree of each most conducive to man's happiness, is a task which would be as difficult of performance. A defective system, administered by the meekness of wisdom, and the true spirit of benevolence, may produce the happiest results; and the most perfect form of polity, in unskilful or ambitious hands, may effect issues disastrous in the exact ratio of its excellences and efficiency.

If one may judge of the Platform of the Pilgrim Puritans, from the peace, harmony, and prosperity which their churches experienced for a length of time under its operation, we may probably come to the conclusion that it was not as defective as it appears to be to many, or that their churches have been administered with a prudence and discretion which certainly do them much credit.

If the liberty be taken of selecting certain words and sentences, in respect to the power and authority ascribed to the Presbytery, or Eldership, and the obligation to obedience and submission on the part of the brethren, it might be proved that they were in substance Presbyterians. On the other hand, if the prerogatives, and privileges, and liberties which are reserved for the brotherhood were collected together by themselves, some persons would calculate upon nothing but anarchy and confusion. Ex parte statements of either kind would manifest an equal departure from truth or justice.*

* It is worth notice that this is the very objection that Dr. Green, in his Christian Advocate, makes to the adopting act of the Synod in 1729; and this is the prevailing complaint of our reforming brethren to this day. They say it leaves nothing of Presbyterianism to the

But how came these Puritan Fathers to devise and adopt this mixed förm of government, partaking of the nature both of democratic independence and the energy of strict Presbyterianism, and yet differing from both? Was it the spontaneous and consentaneous expression of their own sentiments, formed from their own reflection, observation, and experience? Or was it a compromise arising from conflicting opinions among themselves, as the best that could be agreed upon for the peace? This latter is Professor Hodge's theory. The subject will be examined hereafter, after a few more remarks respecting the polity adopted by the New England settlers.

5. The only ecclesiastical judicatories of common and constant use were a Congregational Presbytery, which included, in substance, both the Ses> sion and Presbytery as in use among Presbyterians. Their Presbytery consisted only of the Minister or Ministers of a particular church, with their Ruling Elders, if they had any, and in connexion with the brother hood or church members.

The members, before admission, were first to be examined by the Eldership, and then proposed to the brethren for admission. The same was done in the choice of officers of the church before election; which choice was always to be confirmed by the brotherhood: the same course was pursued in exercising discipline and inflicting censures.

Ordination was performed by the Presbytery of the church, or Congre gational Presbytery, with the imposition of hands, by the Eldership. But if there were no Minister or Elder, it was permitted, and sometimes done, by some of the brotherhood selected for that service; or, if convenient and de sired, it might be done by the Elders of a neighboring church, invited to perform that ceremony.

The rite of ordination, and the constituent members of their Presbyteries, differ materially from strict Presbyterianism. When a Minister or Ruling Elder removed from one church to another, ordination was sometimes repeated, and sometimes not. Great liberality was exercised in tolerating different usages in things which were considered as merely circumstantial, in opposition to what was thought to be essential.

As the brethren had the right of electing their officers, whether ministe rial or ruling, so they, in case of delinquency, mal-administration, or cons tumacy, had the right of judging and deposing from office; which deposition reduced them to a private rank, and from the rank of private membership they could exclude or excommunicate them. This is anti-presbyterial.

church but the name, &c. And this is conclusive proof that the Mother Presbytery and Synod had a closer affinity with Congregationalism than the rigid Scotch system. But Professor Hodge has made other discoveries, and the party applaud him, and let all said to the contrary go for nothing.