in but one instance, performed this duty, that whole nation must, on his principles, have been converted and saved. On his principles, Moses, and Samuel, and Daniel, and Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and all the prophets, and Peter, and John, and Paul, and all the apostles, and primitive Christians, must have totally negfected the great duty of praying in faith for the conversion of the Jewish nation. And Paul must have been under an awful delusion, when he said, "I take you to record this day that I am pure from the blood of all men, for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Though he thought that his faithfully preaching the whole truth to them, had cleared him from their blood, he must, never theless, have been chargeable with the blood of every one that perished; because, if he had done his duty, in a single instance, of praying in faith for their conversion, they would have been converted. [To be concluded.] From the Christian Mirror. MR. CUMMINGS-The following Diesertation on Ecclesiastical Councils was read a few years ago before an Asseciation of Ministers. At my request the author gave it to me for insertion in the Mirror. The subject is one which the welfare of the Congregational Churches demands should be discussed. THE AUTHORITY OF ECCLESIASTICAL COUNCILS.-NO. I. How are the results of Ecclesiastical Councils to be regarded? This is a question, upon which, the peace, prosperity and even existence of Congregational churches depend; for Ecclesiastical Councils constitute the only tribunal to which individual members, or par ticular churches may look, for advice; and to whom they may appeal for redress of grievances. It is a question, therefore, that demands a candid, prayerful, and strict investigation. More clearly to understand the subject, and to be able explicitly to answer the question proposed, it will be necessary, first, to state, when the results of bodies claiming the name of Ecclesiastical Councils, are not to be regarded at all, or to be regarded only as advice from a source not official. Nothing but the call of an ecclesiastical body, or of an individual or individuals, in connexion with some eeclesiastical body, can regularly convene a council of the churches. Wise, in his Vindication of the government of the NewEngland churches, says, "The right of convoking councils ecclesiastical, is in the Churches." The Cambridge Platform plainly points out the manner in which councils may be convoked. Any particular church may convene a council at any time, when in their own opinion, they need advice, or assistance. An individual, or individuals, be ing members of any church, may convene a council for the purpose of being organized into a distinct church with others who may desire to associate with them, provided they first obtain permission from their own church. Mather's Ratio Disciplinæ, page 2d. "Men, who by mutual conference, have come to the resolution for the gathering of a church, obtain an allowance from their churches for them to bear a part in this action--send letters unto the pastors and churches of the neighbouring towns, and request them to countenance their proceeding." If such permission be refused, it may be considered a grievance, and will come under the following provision, which the best writers have always considered as implied in the Platform, viz. When an individual or individuals think themselves aggrieved, if the church refuse to call a mutual council, they may regularly convene an exparte council. The Platform allows of such a council only as the last resort; no writer on the usages of the New-England churches, which I have seen, permits or acknowledges an ex-parte council in any other case. Ratio Disciplinæ. "The person aggrieved applies himself to the pastor, and by him to the church, with humble remonstrances of the bardships, which he apprehends upon him, desiring them to review his case. And if this don't obtain, then to accommodate him in calling a council of neigh bouring churches (chosen with mutual satisfaction) to judge of the proceedings. If they refuse to do it, he may do it without them.” 2. The results of councils, as such, are not binding, when, being regularly convened for consultation and advice merely, they as sume the power of enforcing or executing their decisions. When difficulties arise in church, es, the Platform makes provision for convening councils for two distinct purposes, which provision comes under the second and third way of the communion of churches one with another. The first are convened for advice, the second for admonition. So far as I have been able to obtain information, it does not appear that more than one council has ever been convened in the N. England churches in the third way of communion, that is, for admonition, and we are not informed when, nor where such council was con vened. All others have been convened, merely for advice and council, and therefore could have no power, in a judicial way, to enforce their decisions. Indeed, it is such an established principle in the organization of our churches, that the sole juridical power is vested in each individual church, and this right is so carefully guarded in our constitution, that even councils, convened in the third way of communion, to admonish offending churches, cannot wrest this power from them, without denying that they are gospel churches. If the offending church does not voluntarily acquiesce in the decisions of the council, all they can do, is to withdraw communion from it, which is in effect to excommunicate it. While the church is acknowledged as such, the council has no coercive power. While any church is in existence, it must retain the full power of managing its own concerns. This power can cease only with its existence as a church, and its existence as a church does not cease when the council, to give effect to its advice, recommends to the churches to withhold fellowship from the offending church, till it submits to the result, and the churches, in accordance with this advice, do withdraw from communion with it. Ecclesiastical councils have no other way of enforc ing their decisions: and when their censures are disregarded, the churches composing the councils, and churches in fellowship with them, ought to withdraw from the offending church, till it has submitted to the censure passed. As proof that ecclesiastical councils have no power over individual churches, existing as such, ́ further than to advise and recommend, I quote the following author ities, Cam. Plat. Ch. 10. sec. 2: "A company of professed believers ecclesiastically confederate, as they are a church, subordinate church power under Christ, delegated to them by him, doth belong to them; as flowing from the very nature and essence of a church. It being natural to all bodies, and so to a church body, to be furnished with sufficient power for its own preservation and subsistence." Ch. 16, sec. 4. "It belongeth unto Synods and Councils to debate and determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to clear from the Word, holy directions for the holy worship of God and the good government of the churches; to bear witness against mal-administration, and corruptions in doctrine, in any particular church, and to give directions for the reformation thereof; but not to exercise church censure, in any way of discipline, nor any other act of church authority or jurisdiction." endeavor to convince the church of it, and advise them to restore him." After this, Mather sums up the sense of the New-England churches, with respect to the power of ecclesiastical councils, in the following words quoted from an eminent author: "The decrees of councils ought not to be propound. ed or obtruded upon the churches as Prætorian sayings, or as Persian decrees." Wise's vindication of the government of the New-England churches, pages 49 and 51. "A gospel church essentially considered as a body incorporated, is the subject This is eviof all church power. dent from Matt. 18: 15, 20.— This paragraph of Holy Writ lays open a scheme of juridical power, in the subject of it, that is the church. From the commencement of the process, to the final issue in the execution of the obstinate and criminal member, all is to be ascribed to the authority of the church. For what business has John Cotton's Book of the Keys: one man to interrupt another "A society of the faithful hath in his crimes and unlawful pleaswithin itself a complete power of ures, unless he has power to do it? "A council has only conself-reformation, or if you will, of p. 45. self-preservation, and may, within sultative, not juridical power. A juitself, manage its own choice of of- ridical power, committed to such a ficers, and censures of delinquents. representative body, is both needless Nevertheless, because particular and also dangerous to the distinct churches may abuse their powers, and perfect states they derive from. a communion of churches in Sy- Complete states settled upon a body nods or councils is necessary; who ofimmutable and imperial laws as have authority to determine, de- its basis, may want counsel; but clare and enjoin such things as to create a new subject of juridical may rectify the evils, which fill power is to endanger the being of The Rev. Thomas under their cognizance; but still, the creators." so as to leave unto the particular White, in his book entitled the churches themselves, the formal Lamentations of New-England, acts, which are to be done pursu- complains of a departure from this ant to the advice of the council." established principle as the cause Mather's Ratio Disciplinæ: "If of great evils. His language is, they (an ex-parte council regular- "These (the New-England churhly convened) find the person to es) have reduced their church have suffered palpable injury, they state to great darkness, by not ar which have been made, at different times, to provide, by obtaining the consent of the churches, for the extension of the powers of ecclesiastical councils. They who have advocated such a measure, and believed such power in councils expedient, never pretended it was vested in them by the Platform.-They have acknowledged it was not; and have thought this was a defect, which ought to be remedied. It was against such an amendment, that Wise wrote, from whom I have quoted. The churches have been so tenacious of this precious privilege, secured to them by their charter, that every attempt to deprive them of it has failed; and to this day, it remains an established principle, in the government of our churches, that ecclesiastical councils have no juridical power over any particular church. tending to the rule of our constitution in councils. It has been the practice of councils convened according to the second way of communion in our Platform, who are only to hold forth light, and give advice, to usurp the power of judgment in matters of fact, as also the power of admonition in ease of offence, which (last) is prop6r to do only in the third way of communion in our Platform, and supposes that a church wants correction for an offence,and not merely light and counsel. This thing, I am bold to say, has been the occasion of all our anti-councils, as well as of the contentions and confusion churches have been left in, after all endeavours used by regular churches by way of councils. Let councils move in their proper sphere. Let them act agreeably to their nature, and the rules laid down in the Platform. Let such as are called to give advice and hold forth light, do that, and proceed no further. Come also into the practice of the third way of Communion, as laid down in the Platform, and put ehurches obstinately offending out of communion. This would open the door for all really aggrieved to resettle in an orderly way in stated fellowship, in some neighbouring church, as though they had been dismissed. This rule doth effectually hinder anti-councils, or councils against councils; of which that self-examination is "not calcuthere have been too many instances, to the great reproach and confusion of these churches. For if aggrieved persons are allowed to call councils, the church also has power and liberty, and by this means anti-councils come upon the stage." Ifany thing further were necessary to prove, that, according to our Platform, councils have power only to recommend and advise; I might mention the exertions 3. The results of ecclesiastical councils are not binding when they recommend that which is contrary to express declaration of scripture. In all cases it is our duty to obey Gad rather than men. For the Hopkinsian Magazine. BENEFIT OF SELF-EXAMINATION. I do not perceive, how it can be justly affirmed, as it lately has been, lated to quiet the conscience, to banish slavish fear, or to remove doubts and apprehensions of our being unbelievers ;" and still less how it can be maintained that "peace of mind, founded on any thing in ourselves, will always puff us up with pride." If the state of our souls be bad, indeed, self-examination must disquiet the conscience, rather than quiet it: but are there no cases in which, through the accusations of others, or a propensity in ourselves to view the dark side of things rather than the bright one, or the afflicting hand of God, our souls may be disquieted within us, and in which self-examination may yield us peace? Did the review which Job took of his past life, yield no peace to him? And though he was not clear when examined by the impartial eye of God; yet were all his solemn ap peals respecting his integrity, the workings of self-righteous pride? Was David puffed up, when he said, "Lord, I have hoped in thy salvation, and have thy commandments?" Did John encourage a confidence in the flesh, when he said, "If our hearts condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God?" or Peter, when he appealed to Christ, Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee ?" Had it been only affirmed, that no peace of mind can arise from the recollection of what we have felt or done in time past, while at present we are unconscious of any thing of the kind; this had been true. Past experience can no otherwise be an evidence of grace to us, than as the remembrance of them rekindles the same sentiments and feelings anew. But to object to all peace of mind arising from a consciousness of having done the will of God, and to denominate it "confidence in the flesh," is repugnant to the whole tenor of scripANDREW FUller. ture. PROFANATION OF THE SABBATH. Notwithstanding so much has been already said on the profanation of the Sabbath, I believe one evil has been overlooked: at least, remarks upon it have not come within my observation: I mean the practice among certain classes, of standing around the doors and in the porches of our houses of public worship, before the com mencement of divine service, upon the Sabbath. Some, perhaps, not having taken the subject into consideration, may be inclined to think this not worthy of notice.I am well aware that the subject, at first sight, does not present any thing extraordinary; and I sus pect has not received that degree of attention which it justly demands. But, Sir, if there be any who are indifferent to the subject, I would ask them two simple questions What does the honour of God's house demand? What do you suppose that those, whom you see standing around the sanctuary, are there for? Persons who have no apportunity for intercourse with each other during the week, think the time and place abovementioned, suitable for talking over their worldly concerns, making remarks upon those entering into the house of God, or rehearsing the news of the past week, and things of like nature. But this is not all: among these are a younger class of individuals, treading in the same steps, and following the same pernicious example. Neither can it be said that their conversation is in its nature entirely negative, neither good nor bad; it is often, and, alas, too often, directly immoral. I would not be understood to mean, that no good conversation is carried on at such times; but I say, in general, and I believe almost wholly, the case is as I have represented. And is this no evil? Is it not a direct violation of the "Hallowed Day," and a pollution, as it were, of the sanctuary? Is it not prejudicial to the morals of the young? Does it not tend to make them more cal lous to the claims of the Sabbath! C |
