ship with them in such irregular and unscriptural measures.

Question II. "May not a minor part of the council, if they are satisfied with the candidate, proceed to ordain him, although the major part refuse to act in the solemnity."

Answer. The council is called to act in concert and jointly; not severally. The desire of the church that the minority should proceed alters not the case. The minority received power from the churches, who sent them, to act with the council, and not against them. To presume upon such a step,would be a violation of duty to Christ, and to the churches making the appointment. Before they act, they must first go home, state the affair to their brethren, and receive a new appointment and powers. Prudence has no concern in this question, but to reject a proposal replete with mischief and error.

Question III. "If a number of the church, thinking a pastor heretical, who had been rejected by one regular council, first called, and afterwards ordained by a second council, are dissatisfied with his ordination, ought they to withdraw from his ministry, and from the communion of the church, and attend ordinances elsewhere?

Answer. Those members of the church, who are satisfied with the result of the first council, de⚫claring the pastor elect to be heretical, cannot be brought under the ministry of the pastor elect by the church's calling a second council, and procuring his ordination, contrary to their consent. They have an authoritative ecclesiastical decision in their favor; and their duty is to hold and treat the minister thus irregularly in

troduced, not only as heretical, but as not their minister, since he has been forced upon them in a. way contrary to church order and the precept of Christ. They may not countenance the minister's errors, nor the irregularity and oppression of his introduction, by submitting to his ministrations. They should without delay refuse submission, and seek instruction and communion elsewhere. They have been denied their rights, and they may not expose their own souls and those of their children, by hearing instructions, which cause to err.*

Question IV. "What steps ought the dissatisfied brethren to take in the case now supposed?"

Answer. Having taken previous steps to convince their

On this question, we beg leave to refer our respected correspondents Titus and Cephas, and our readers in general, to "The Platform of Church GOD, and agreed upon by the elders discipline, gathered out of the word of and messengers of the churches in Synod, at Cambridge, New-England, 1648;" chap. xv. sect. 2. A recurrence and submission to this Platform, out difficulty, determine many points we think would correctly, and withof ecclesiastical government and discipline, which now create unhappy altercations and divisions in our churches. To a long continued disregard to this directory of ecclesiastical government, we apprehend, may be traced many of the errors and evils, which marr and afflict the congregational churches in this Commonwealth.

In this belief, we recommend to the consideration of the ministers and churches in Massachusetts of this de nomination, the question, Whether it would not be expedient in some forma! explicit manner, to re-adopt it, after some authorised body of men, in the a judicious and careful revisal of it by manner in which the same thing was done by the Synod of 167y! Ed'rs.

brethren of the importance of not settling a man, who has by an authoritative council been declared defective or heretical in his sentiments; having opposed their measures in procuring such settlement; having remonstrated against calling the council; haying endeavoured to render the council mutual between themselves and the majority; having, after the new council was convened, renewed their remonstrance against the ordination without success, they are thence forward to consider themselves, 'as denied their essential christian privileges, and necessarily excluded from christian ordinances in the church; and they must seek privileges, where they can enjoy them. To effect this purpose in the most peaceable manner, they must notify the majority of their intention to withdraw, and for the sake of certifying their good morals and regular standing, they may request a testimonial of that import. If the majority refuse these reasonable requests, they may request of them a mutual council, to decide upon the question of their standing and of their removal. When denied in this application for a mutual council, (in which it should be stipulated that no distant churches, of whose faith and order they are igno. rant; nor any other churches materially differing from the former confession of faith of their church, be admitted as component parts,) they must call a council of their own, composed of churches of like faith, of those acquainted with their condition, and interested particularly in their spiritual improvement and happiness. They ought to exclude such ministers, as have a personal preju

dice against the majority and their pastor; but to invite any others, who are informed as to their measures and sentiments. When they have called their council, they are to notify the majority, through their pastor, of the time and place of the council's sitting, and express their readiness to meet them and adjust their differences before the council.

When the council are convened, they must learn from official documents, not from oral testimony, that the steps above specified have been substantially taken by the aggrieved, and they must have a copy of the result of an authoritative council declaring, that the pastor could not be ordained, on account of his errors in religious doctrine. If the majority appear, their representations are to be candidly heard, considered, and acted upon by the council. If the majority do not appear, the council may proceed to commend the sufferers to the care and communion of such sister churches, as they can conveniently join, or make them a distinct church, as the case may require.

The aggrieved are under noparticular obligations to discipline the pastor, who never sustained the relation of a minister to them. Nor is it incumbent on them, specially, to discipline the church. The matter has been taken out of their hands by sister churches in council, and to them a formal process belongs, if such process be necessary. Since the aggrieved never belonged to the pastor, so ordained, they should not give up their christian liberty by any actual or virtual acknowledgement of him. Those steps, which would be proper and necessary in

ease of their own pastor's falling into error, are in this case precluded, and our Lord has laid no such yoke upon the necks of his disciples.

Question 5. "How are such pastor and church to be consider ed and treated by the aggrieved brethren ?"

Answer. They must forgive them, and pray for them, as should other christians. But the labor of disciplining them, if such discipline be necessary, is not their particular concern, but a common one. In the present state of the churches, such church is to be waited upon, in the hope of their acquiring more correct information, and of their returning to their duty; unless the departure be so gross, as to preclude all expecta tion of their return. It would be rash to say, that such a church is wholly lost, and ought to be viewed as excommunicated from the kingdom. God's children are of ten overtaken in grievous faults, and yet through patience, and forbearance, and prayer, the Holy Spirit recovers them to the knowledge and love of the truth. But, while they retain their error, they may not be supported and comforted in it by a communional in

has evidence, that these doctrines are openly denied. The question being thus stated, there can be but two correct answers given; either first, that sitting in council is no act of christian or ministerial communion; or secondly, that a minister, maintaining the doctrines of grace and their essential importance to salvation, cannot, with a good conscience, sit in council with those who openly deny the doctrines of grace. Sitting in council is so obviously an act of high and intimate ministerial communion, that I shall take it for an incontestable truth. It will therefore follow, that sitting in council with ministers, who openly deny the doctrines of grace, must be an illicit and criminal act in one, who believes the truth and essential importance of those doc. trines.

One who believes no doctrines essential to man's salvation, can have no idea of christian or ministerial communion. He can unite in council with those of opposite sentiments. He alike communes with every body. But the man, who feels the importance of christian doctrine, and the consequences of uniting and communing with men of corrupt sentiments, will be careful how he sets his seal to soul-destroying errors, by giving his countenance to them in exercising high acts of ministerial communion.

Much candor and caution undoubtedly are required in settling the question, What is essential christian doctrine? We may not without good reason condemn a man, as holding fundamental heresies. But because it is not easy to determine what are fundamental heresies, must ministers support and approve, by their com K