in many cases, churches of all denominations have but too much cause to complain of; but with respect to the matters I am pointing at, this departure is a consequence of their having made improvements upon that scheme of church government, as those that were assembled at the Savoy, and their predecessors, had improved upon the first rough and harsh sketch of the Brownists. The real plan on which these churches appear now to proceed, are the Heads of Agreement drawn up and assented to in 1691, by the London ministers, who had been distinguished by the different denominations of Presbyterian and Congregational, and who were thenceforward, it should seem, to be called the United Brethren.' An entire coalition did not, however, take place; other matters were soon the occasion of differences among them, [the London ministers,] and 'Presbyterian and Congregational' are now, among many, used to express some doctrinal differences, which divide dissenting ministers, to which differences those terms were not originally applied; nor do they, in anywise, properly express them. If names of distinction are to be made use of, they [there] are other terms which should be employed; not these, which only signify difference of sentiment with respect to church government....

"There is the utmost reason to suppose these Heads of Agreement were equally adopted in Suffolk and Norfolk, [as in other counties,] since the management of the Congregational churches among us has been conformable to them, as far back as the memory of man reaches. Whoever, therefore, would acquire a thorough acquaintance with the most perfect scheme of Congregational church government and discipline, or with that, at least, which has prevailed among us for some generations past, should consult those Heads of Agreement. And for this reason I have placed them as an appendix at the end of these papers, that private Christians may consult them, when they want to gain the most complete satisfaction concerning any point about which they may hesitate."-pp. 131-133.

Mr. H. adds, "I do not know but that the Congregational churches do, everywhere, very generally concur in the observation of the Heads of Agreement of 1691."*-p. 134.

"The great outlines of the draught that was given to the world by these churches, assembled at the Savoy, towards the close of the year 1658, of their church government and order, and annexed by them to their Confession of Faith, are,-The proper magnitude of sacred societies, sec. 24, from whence they are called Congregational.-Their being to consist only of those that are visibly, or in a judgment of charity, sanctified persons, sec. 8.-Their being independent on each other as to church power, properly so called, though not as to counsel and advice, sec. 26.-The right of the people to be consulted in all

* The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. Thomas Harmer, 8vo, 1823, pp. 131–134. N. S. VOL. VII.

points of consequence relating to the society; and not only to be consulted, but the necessity of the concurrence of the greater part of the brethren with the elders in all church acts, sec. 17, 19.-The commencement of their church relation by their own free choice, not by an accidental dwelling in such a particular civil district for convenience as to this world, sec. 23.-The requisiteness, however, of the associating of believers together in one church, who live in the same city, town, or neighbourhood, sec. 24.-A professed readiness to receive into their communion those that were of different sentiments from themselves, so far as might consist with their own principles, sec. 29, 30.-To which is to be added, though it doth not appear in this declaration of their order, a not binding themselves unalterably to present arrangements, but a professing themselves willing to receive any farther light God should be pleased to communicate to them from his word."-pp. 150, 151.

These principles, the reader will observe, are substantially the same as those laid down in the Heads of Agreement, but Mr. Harmer proceeds to remark, that "different sentiments as to some matters of order" were publicly avowed in that document by the Congregational ministers in the reign of King William. He then adds, "I persuade myself, this Agreement is not to be considered as like the civil compromises of the world, where people give up for the sake of peace what they think right in itself; for this would have been wrong in matters of conscience; was by no means necessary, since each party might have gone on practising what they thought right, acknowledging and treating each other as brethren, according to the precepts in the 14th and 15th [chapters] of the Romans; and was what their New England brethren, who, it is well known, were in general of the Congregational persuasion, had long practised, .... the management of affairs then agreed upon, to be observed in future by the two denominations, having been many years exemplified in their churches." This last circumstance Mr. H. considers decisive proof "that they were convinced of the propriety of these alterations then made, and that it was not mere condescension in either party that produced this Agreement, but a conviction and candid acknowledgment in consequence, upon a fair explanation of the sentiments of each denomination."-pp. 157, 158.

Mr. H. then enters into "a distinct examination of the particulars in which the Congregational ministers of King William's time may seem to have differed from those that met at the Savoy,"-p. 158. Some of these relate to matters of detail and internal arrangement, not affecting the great principles of church government and discipline then laid down. The following remarks are of a more general character.

Article ii. sec. 7, "In the administration of church power, it belongeth to the pastor and other elders of every particular church, if such there be, to rule and govern, and to the brotherhood to consent,"

&c. Mr. H. quotes a passage from Dr. Owen's "True Nature of a Gospel Church," p. 176, in which "he represents it as the duty of the elders to meet and consult together about such things of importance as are to be proposed in and unto the church, for its consent and compliance,' that all things may be preserved in a due regard unto the gravity and authority of the rulers."" "Dr. Owen," he adds, "indisputably understood human nature well, and how to manage affairs in civil, in academical, and in ecclesiastical societies; and his authority must have had great weight with the churches, in general, of this denomination; he is, however, rather to be considered here as describing what was their settled, avowed way of proceeding, than as recommending to them something new,"-pp. 167, 168. We are prepared to show, that the principle here stated was held by the first race of Independents (in distinction from the Brownists) of whom Henry Jacob may be considered the leader.

Article iv. sec. 1, "That particular churches ought not to be so separate from each other, as not to have care and tenderness towards one another that their pastors ought to have frequent meetings together, to strengthen each others' hands." Art. vi. sec. 3, "That churches, and their respective elders and members, ought to have a reverential regard to their judgment,' &c. Here is nothing of authoritative power, in the usual sense of it; and as to reverential regard, all must allow the propriety of it; without it, such assemblies of ministers would be of no consequence at all, as to union and concord. Such occasional meetings the Congregational churches always acknowledged, always pleaded for.... They still continue among us, though not pursued with the zeal that could be wished. Several churches associating together to hold meetings of their elders and principal brethren, for the purpose of worshipping God together, form an assembly on earth that bears, perhaps, the nearest resemblance we can easily imagine of the general assembly above,"-pp. 197, 198.

Mr. H., after quoting a passage from Neal, describing "the present generation of those commonly called Presbyterians," as having "abandoned and renounced the servile doctrines" of their forefathers, adds, "They are then become Congregational with respect to liberty of conscience, as well as in some other points, which may be remarked in these Heads of Agreement, particularly in that DISTINGUISHING POINT from whence the Congregationalists receive their denomination ;that every congregation is to be governed by itself, without depending on assemblies of elders collected from a number of single congregations, any otherwise than for counsel and advice; nor do they know, here in England, of anything higher than the voluntary associating of a number of ministers together, of one or two counties, to whose advices they think themselves obliged to pay a reverential regard, without admitting their possessing a proper jurisdiction over them. . .

With respect to the great points heretofore litigated between the Presbyterians and Congregationalists-liberty of conscience, and that classes, provincial and national assemblies of ministers and ruling elders, with proper jurisdiction over congregations, are not of Divine appointment, or the form most proper to be adopted in their circumstances; it may be truly affirmed that three of the old denominations of Dissenters in England [including the Baptists] are ALL really Congregational. Our Dissenting ministers may, they certainly do, differ very much in their sentiments concerning some points of doctrine ; nor are their modes of applying general rules to particular cases exactly alike; but in the two great points above mentioned of ancient Independency, they are undoubtedly Congregationalists or Independents; and the Heads of Agreement in 1691 are perfectly consistent with true Congregationalism; though perhaps, in some points, there may be some refinement upon the notions of those that first were distinguished by this name,"-pp. 201-203.

Mr. Harmer next animadverts on Mosheim, who in his Ecclesiastical History ascribes this Agreement to the low state and timid feeling of the Independents, who "were induced to unite with the Presbyterians, but without prejudice to their particular tenets;" yet in a note, states that, being "impelled by necessity, they adopted the opinions of the Presbyterians in many things, and departed from the tenets of their predecessors." This account, Mr. H. says, "must appear not a little surprising." He exclaims, "How amazing is this in so eminent a writer! The inaccuracy of the account can only be excused by his being a foreigner; and the visible contradiction between the text and the note will admit of no apology, but what arises from the copiousness of the work, and the distraction to which human nature is liable;" an apology honourable to the candour of Mr. Harmer, but most insufficient as a vindication of Mosheim.-pp. 203, 204.

Mr. H. continues-"Instead of timidity, the Union of 1691 ought to have been ascribed, without doubt, to an healing spirit; a conviction that they were not so far distant from each other as many had imagined; and that union and concord ought to take place, according to the Gospel, where they could be effected without prejudice to truth, or to the obedience we owe to the precepts of the Lord Jesus."―p. 206.

"Mosheim's note is as extraordinary, whether we consider the remarks he has made in it on the several Heads of Agreement in particular, or the general observation with which he closes it. After quoting the 6th and 7th sections of the first chapter, in short, namely, That each particular church has the power of choosing their own ministers, and governing themselves;' and 'that it belongs to pastors and elders, if such there be, to govern the church, and the brotherhood to consent or approve what is done by them;' he says, 'Here both Presbyterians and Independents depart from their original opinions.' Nothing indeed

can be more clear, than that the Presbyterians in the 6th section adopted the opinion of the other denomination; but the 7th is no departure from the sentiments of the Independents of the generation before that of 1691. He afterwards gives the general sense of the third chapter relating to censures, by which it was agreed 'that the impenitent should be excluded from the church by the pastors, but with the consent of the brethren,' on which he makes no remark; but it is evident that this arrangement was according to the Congregational plan of church-discipline; and by no means according to the practice or the sentiments of the old rigid Presbyterians. According to them, that power was wholly in the eldership; the brotherhood had nothing to do with it. He is silent too about the fourth chapter, and yet his own representation of it shows that it was truly CongregationalThe fourth chapter, concerning the communion of churches,' he says, 'supposes that all churches are entirely equal between themselves, and therefore INDEPENDENT;' but observes, 'that the pastors and teachers of the churches ought to have some common meetings, and often to consult together for the common good.""

Referring again to Mosheim's remark that "the Independents, impelled by necessity, had in many things come over to the Presbyterians, and departed from the tenets of their predecessors," Mr. H. says, "No such necessity existed; the Presbyterians made the greatest advances by far, in these Heads of Agreement; it doth not appear, by this note, I think, the Independents made any step beyond what some of their later predecessors considered right, before any thought of such an Union was entertained; and in the text of this very page, he [Mosheim] supposes the Congregationalists united with the Presbyterians, without any departure, in one of the parties, from their former principles, (salvis institutis suis.)" Mr. H. in conclusion, describing the "Congregational principles, as to the matters of church government and discipline," mentions their denying the power of government claimed for classes, provincial synods, and national assemblies; and quotes the words of Baxter, in reference to the Independents :-" I found some Episcopal men, of whom Archbishop Usher was one, agreed with them in this, that every bishop was independent, and that synods and councils were not so much for government as concord."-pp. 208, 209. Dr. Toulmin, in his History of the Protestant Dissenters, 8vo, 1814, represents the agreement as indicating increased liberality on the part of the Presbyterians. He says:-"In this scheme of union, the United Brethren studied, by mutual concessions, to compromise the differences

* Mr. H. considers this expression rather ambiguous, and represents it as doubtful "whether he means that this union was effected without any injury to Congregational principles or to those of the Presbyterians;" but adds, "In either sense the note contradicts the text, which affirms that in the first chapter both parties abandoned the principles of their predecessors. How inaccurate!"-p. 208.