advisory power. fied terms.

Hooker lays this down in the following unquali

"The truth is, a particular congregation is the highest tribunal, unto which the party may appeal in the third place. If private counsell, or the witness of two have seemed to proceed too much sharpely, and with too much rigor against him, before the tribunal of the church the cause may easily be scanned, and sentence executed according to Christ. If difficulties arise in the proceeding, the counsell of other churches should be sought to clear the truth; but the power of censure rests still in the congregation, where Christ has placed it. Survey, Part iv. p. 19."

That is, in cases of discipline, whatever aid may be sought from other churches, the power of censure still remains in the particular church. And whatever the ecclesiastical council may determine, their acts have no force until adopted by the church. And-of course, the church may adopt them, or not, according to their own judgment. This is grounded on Matt. xvii. 17. "And if he

shall neglect to hear them; tell it unto the church but if he will not hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

Congregationalists think this a divine warrant for making the voice of the church decisive in all cases. They regard all rehearings before councils, as only aids to the church to come to a proper determination. And all appeals, properly so called, carrying the final act away from the church to some other body, are but human devices, to improve the institutions of Christ.

So far as the reason of the thing is concerned, they approve of the scripture plan. They think it more likely that cases will be decided right by a man's own neighbors, than by strangers; that the advice of other churches is the best safeguard against error; that if we carry a question ever so far by appeals, the farther we carry it, the less practicable it is to make the tribunal acquainted with the merits of the case; that in the end it must be decided by imperfect men; that the supreme tribunal, whatever it be, is liable to error, and its errors cannot be corrected this side the judgment seat, while the evil consequences of the error to au individual or a church, are more easily remedied, if the decision of the church is final. They think that, so far as experience and observation go to prove any thing, the character and privileges of a church member, are as safe here as under any other government, and as likely to receive the protecting care of his Master, if he lives as he ought And moreover, they cannot close their eyes to the grievous wrong, of compelling a whole church to walk in fellowship with a man, whom they conscientiously believe to have been convicted, on sufficient evidence, of crimes which render him unworthy of the communion of saints. But what sotties the ques tion in their view, is, that the power of the church itself, to choose its officers and exercise discipline, is a delegated power, derived from the authority of Christ, and consequently, they have no right

to delegate their powers, and transfer, their responsibilities to oth

ers.

5. That separate churches stand in such a relation to each other, as obligates them to a certain mutual recognition and care, which is called communion of churches. The greatest difficulty which is found, in conveying to those who are accustomed to other modes of church government, a clear understanding of congregational principles, respects the relation or connection of separate churches. Most of the objections which we have heard against the institutions of our fathers, have gone upon the idea that they held the churches to be independent of each other, as if each church were a world by itself. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The congregational churches never were independents. As proof, we give two extracts, one from Thon as Hooker, the father of congregationalism in Connecticut, the other from the Synod of Cambridge, which was held A. D. 1648, and composed of "the Elders and Messengers," or pastors and delegates, of all the New-England churches, including Mr. Cotton of Boston, and the greater part of the ministers that first came to America.

"She, (the church) is so far subject to the consociation of churches, that she is bound, in case of doubt and difficulty, to crave their counsel, and if it be according to God, to follow it and if she sball err from the rule, and continue obstinate therein, they have authority to renounce the right hand of fellowship with her.

"In the second sense, the church may be said to be independent, namely, sufficient to attain her end; and therefore, hath complete power, being rightly constituted, to exercise all the ordinances of God." Survey, part II. p. 80.

"Although churches be distinct, and therefore may not be confounded one with another, and equal, and therefore have no dominion one over another; yet all churches ought to preserve church communion one with another, because they are all united unto Christ, not only as a mystical, but as a political head, whence is derived a communion suitable thereto. Rev. i. 4; Cant. viii. 8; Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Acts xv. 23; Rev. ii. 1."-Cambridge Platform, chap xv. p. 54.

The obligation of churches to perform the various acts of fellowship, arises from their relation to each other and to their common Lord. It does not arise from any express agreement to be in fellowship; nor does it depend on their more or less complete coincidence in doctrine and practice, but on the simple fact that they are churches of Christ. As such, they have a common interest, are pursuing a common object, possess a common character, serve a common Lord, and live in a common hope; and their relations are such, that each is deeply interested in the welfare of the other. If one suffers by declension, error, iniquity, or persecution, all suffer, for the cause suffers. This communion of churches therefore, is not at all confined to churches that are congregational in form, or calvinistic in doctrine. It is due to all who afford evidence that Jesus Christ owns them as his churches. It is actually ex

ercised to all, whose ministers we allow to preach, whose members we admit to the Lord's table with us, or to whom we extend any act of christian recognition or intercourse.

6

.

The Cambridge Platform specifies the following, as the principal ways in which church communion is exercised. 1. By way of mutual care,' in taking thought for one another's welfare, praying for one another, etc. 2. By way of consultation;' as the chirch at Antioch consulted with the apostles and elders of the church at Jerusalem, when they were in difficulty about the question of circumcision. 3 By way of admonition, when a church lies under any public scandal, for heresy or immorality, and does not take measures for its removal. 4. By way of participation.' This is when members of other churches are admitted to the Lord's table, or their children are baptized, or the minister of one church preaches and administers ordinances to another 5. By way of recommendation.' If the member of one church has occasion to reside in another, he is furnished with letters recommending him to fellowship, or is dismissed and recommended to membership. 6. By way of relief;' as the churches of Galatia contributed for the relief of the church at Jerusalem.

It follows then, that all christian churches are bound to exercise mutual care and sympathy, and aid, doing one another good to the extent of their power; and that they have a right to advise and admonish each other. When a church, by its conduct, ceases to exhibit credible evidence that it is a christian church, it is proper that other churches should cease to hold communion with it, as such. From this fellowship of churches, there results as much mutual power, restraint, and influence, as is consistent with their freedom and distinctness and enough to answer all the purposes to be answered by church organization and discipline. Churches have a relation and influence and responsibility, like that which would be. created, if a number of christians should be thrown together in a heathen country, and should there be desirous of doing what they could to promote the gospel around them. We may take the case of christian missionaries, of different sects, at Malta, as an instance. Each would feel tenderly alive to the spiritual welfare and purity of all the rest, and would be under obligation to sacri fice every thing but the law of God, and a good conscience, for the sake of mutual fellowship and brotherhood. They would also exert a powerful in luence over each other. No one would feel war ranted to take any important step, affecting their common object, without consulting his brethren; nor would any one feel at liberty to act contrary to their deliberate judgment and advice, unless he had very weighty reasons for so doing In any case of embarrassinent or doubt, or difficulty, even about the management of his own private affairs, each would still feel that it was his privilege and duty to avail himself of their counsel and aid. Sometimes he might apply to an individual, and sometimes, in more weighty af. fairs, to a select council of several. If they found him pursuing a course which was likely to be injurious, they would kindly advise him. If he was doing wrong, so as to bring a reproach upon reli

gion, or weaken their hands, or embarrass their efforts in the good cause, they would admonish him of it; and if occasion required, they might go in a body, in order to give greater weight to their remonstrances. If they found him perverse, or blinded with passion, so that they could not act with him, nor recognize him as a christian brother, they would feel it necssary to withdraw from him, until he should come to himself again. All this while there could be no act of authority, no assumption of power by one over the rest, or by the community over the individuals, no means used, but those of advice and persuasion, no influence but light and love.'

For the Hopkinsian Magazine.

THE WILL OF GOD.

We can form no idea of God, but what we derive, originally, from reflection upon the powers, faculties, and operations of our own minds. God made the first human pair, in his own image, both natural and moral. The moral image of God, consisting 14 'righteousness and true holiness,' was lost by the fall his natural image, consisting in the intellectual and active powers of the mind, we still retain. While, therefore, it would be most dishonorable to the Supreme Being, to think him altogether like our selves, as to his moral character; still we may and must think him like ourselves, as to his natural attributes. God is a Spirit. And it is by a knowledge of our own spirits, that we form some just conception of the Divine Spirit. We are obliged to think, that thought in God, is like thought in man; that knowledge in God, is like knowledge in man; that reason in God, is like reason in man; and that volition in God, is like volition in man. The highest idea we can form of the natural attributes of God, is to suppose they are like the properties and powers of our own spirits, divested of all imperfection, and entarged to infinity.

As the will of man is not a faculty, but the exercise of his faculties; so the will of God consists in exercise: it is his choice, his pleasure it comprehends all that, in which he is active.

Though the will of God, strictly speaking, is but one, as it is uniformly the same, and always consistent with itself; yet it extends to a vast variety of objects, and consists of a great variety of exercises, according to the various properties and relations of the objects upon which it acts. God views no being or thing in the universe, with indifference; and he exercises proper and becoming affections and volitions, towards both himself and all the creatures and things which he has created and made. Hence the will of God is called by different appellations, according as it is conversant with things good or evil, with creatures holy or sinful, and with events past, present, or to come. Thus the will of God is called his pleasure, his purpose, his love, hatred, anger,

etc. But the most general distinction, made respecting the will of God, is that of his decretive and preceptive will. The decretive will of God, is his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his own will, whereby for his own glory he hath foreordained whatev er comes to pass.' From eternity, God knew all things possible : And before he began the work of creation, like every wise agent, he had a plan, comprehending all his works and operations. He knew what was best, and determined what creatures and things to make, and how to govern and dispose of them, so as to glorify himself in the highest degree, and produce the greatest possible sum of holiness and happiness. Hence we read in sacred scripture, Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world His work is perfect; nothing can be added to it, nor any thing taken from it-Of him, and through him, and to him, are all things-Who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.' This is God's decretive will: It is his counsel, purpose, or eternal predetermination of all things and events

The preceptive will of God, is his command, or law. This includes whatever he requires of his rational creatures. As he is the Sovereign Disposer of all things in the natural world; so he is the Supreme Governor of all free agents in the moral world. It belongs to him to give law to the whole rational creation. And the law which he gives them, whether it be written in their consciences, or on tabies of stone, or on the ages of revelation, is his preceptive will.

The decretive will of God, has been called his secret will; and his law, comprehending all his commands, has been called his revealed will. But this is not perfectly correct: for, though all the commands of God are revealed; yet all his decrees are not secret. He has revealed many of his decrees or purposes, in his holy word; and he is revealing them, every day, by the events of his providence. The proper distinction, between the secret and revealed will of God, is this: His secret will, is so much of his will, whether decretive or preceptive, as he has not yet revealed to men; and his revealed will is so much of his will, whether decretive or preceptive, as he has revealed to men, either in his word or providence. From whence it must be obvious, that there never can be any ground to allege, that there is the least inconsistency or opposition, between the secret and revealed will of God. His will, whether of command or decree, law or purpose, is uniformly and forever the same, whether revealed to his creatures by his word and works, or kept a secret in his own breast.

It is only between the decretive and the precentive parts of the Divine will, that it can ever be said, with the least plausibility, that there is inconsistency or opposition and here, the inconsistency is apparent only, and not real. It is true, that God has commanded many things, which he had decreed should not be done. Instances of this, are found throughout the sacred pages. It must suffice, at this time, to mention two striking instances of this kind, as specimens of the rest. By his servants, Moses and Aaron, God commanded Pharoah to let the children of Israel go, that