THE Case of the first Church and Parish in Springfield, with Respect to the Set­tlement of the Rev. Mr. Robert Breck in the pastoral Office among them, has in­deed made a great Noise through the Coun­try; and the Conduct of those who have been immediately concern'd, approv'd or blam'd, accor­ding to the Information Persons have received, or as they have stood affected to one or other of the acting Parties. But the extraordinary Noise has been occasioned by the extraordinary Methods taken to hin­der the said Settlement, in direct Opposition to those Liberties of the Churches, which are confirm'd to them by Law, and they have been in the constant Use and Exercise of. If the Reverend Gentlemen in the County of Hampshire, who disapprov'd of Mr. Breck s Settlement at Springfield, could but have thought they kept themselves pure, by forbearing to act in it themselves, and sending their formal [Page 2]Protest against it, and then left those call'd by the Church to judge in the Affair, (of which Number were the Eldest Ministers in their own County) to have acted according to their Light & Consciences, with­out employing the secular Arm upon the Occasion, much of the Noise had, to be sure, been prevented. Or if after the strange Interposition of some in civil Authority, to which we have very good Grounds to think the disapproving Gentlemen of the sacred Order were accessary, they could have been conten­ted to have let the Matter remaind the Subject of Conversation only, without runing it into the pub­lic Prints, the Noise had been still much less, and the Censures bestow'd on either Party fewer and milder. But not thinking enough was done to blacken Mr. Breck, and bring an odious Imputation on the Council, by the two Letters publish'd in the Boston Journal, ^* by these Gentlemen themselves, or some Body that undertook their Vindication, before any Thing had been publish'd on the other Side of the Question, they have now thrust into the World a remarkable Piece, containing about seven Sheets; intitled, A Narrative and Defence of the Proceedings of the Ministers of Hampshire, who disapprov'd of Mr. Breck's Settlement at Springfield. And because Vis unita fortior, it is said in the Title Page to be Written by themselves. The Text of sacred Scripture with which this Page is grac'd, is certainly very pertinent and well cho­sen, viz. that Passage of the wise Solomon, "He that [Page 3]unswereth a Matter before be heareth it, it is Folly and Shame unto him". It may therefore well be suppos'd those into whose Hands their Narrative has been put, have suspended their Judgment, till they hear the other Side, and will not think themselves Masters of the Merits of the Cause, by hearing it only ex Parte. Especially since the same royal Author tells us presently after, He that is first in his own Cause, seemeth just; but his Neighbour cometh and searcheth him. i. e. ‘He that speaks first will be sure to tell a straight Story, and relate that only which makes for him, and put the best Colour he can upon it, so that his Cause shall appear good, whether it be really so or no. But the Plaintiff having done his Evidence, 'tis fit the Defendant should be heard, and have Leave to shew the Falsehood & Fallacy of what has been alledg'd, which perhaps may make the Matter appear quite otherwise than it did.’

In the Introduction to their Performance, lest the World should think they had medled with what did not belong to them, they let us know that the Mini­sters of the County of Hampshire were obliged both by their Situation and Office to act in this Affair. As to their Situation, it is indeed in the same County; but the Churches in this same County are at a large Distance from one another. And some of these very Gentle­men live twenty, thirty, or near forty Miles from Springfield: So that some Ministers in another Coun­ty, and indeed in another Province, were as conve­niently situated to have acted in the Affair as them­selves. Boston is in the County of Suffolk; yet the Ministers there have not tho't themselves oblig'd by their Situation to act in the Affairs of every Church in the County. These Gentlemen seem to lay a [Page 4]great Stress in the present Controversy upon their Limits as a County; tho' we are perfectly at a Loss by what Law or Rule they make the Churches to follow the Civil Districts. The Towns in the Pro­vince we know are by the Legislative Power laid out into Countys; but we did not know the Churches were. If they are, should there not be a Shire-Church too in every County, for the holding eccle­siastical Courts in? These would be a new Kind of Churches indeed, such as we have not yet heard of. We have heard of National Churches, and of Provin­cial and Classical, but we do not know a Name for these, unless that of Comitatic may be allowed. — But it may be their Obligation is stronger from their Office. As to this, we suppose them by their Office to be Pastors of particular Churches, which were committed to their Care at their Ordination; and that they are obliged to act in the Affairs of other Churches only as their Assistance, by Advice, or o­therwise, may be desir'd & sought, by those Churches in Communion with them that think they need it. Or if they consider themselves as Ministers in the Catholic Church, and therefore obliged to take Care of all the Churches; so are other Pastors: and we can't see but the Obligation which arises from hence lies upon others equally with themselves.—But if their Situation and Office an't quite enough to give them Authority to act in the Affairs of Spring­field Church, will not their being an Association do it? It seems the Ministers in this County are asso­ciated; and will any countenance the first Church in Springfield in a Rebellion against the Association? And because we find such frequent mention in their Narrative of their Association, its Meeting, Breaking up, Committee, Votes and Doings, we would here, (think­ing it may be as proper a Place as any) speak our [Page 5]Thoughts about those Assemblies of Ministers which are now call'd Associations. And in a Word, We don't look upon them to be any Part of the Consti­tution [...] Churches; for we can't find so much as the [...] our Platform of Discipline, or the Result [...] [...]ynods, nor in the Laws of the Pro­vince. [...] therefore account them to be voluntary Meetings of Ministers by mutual Agreement amongst themselves; and whether any Person or Society will refer themselves to them for Advice or not, and how far they will be directed thereby, is perfectly free and voluntary. We make no Question but Ministers have as good a Right to meet together at one ano­thers Houses, as other People; and if when they are so met, any ask their Advice upon any particular Case, they have without Doubt a Right to give it. And such Interviews at stated Times, duely manag'd, may be many Ways serviceable, as they may help to promote brotherly Love, and their mutual Assistance in the Work of the Gospel. But if such associated Pastors, whose Original as an Association is only from themselves, come at length to look upon them­selves as a sort of Body Corporate, and assume the Exercise of Government; if they claim a Right to take the sole or the first Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Cases within those Bounds which they have drawn for themselves, or to direct and limit Churches in the Election of Officers, and the Calling of Coun­cils; if they declare it irregular and unwarrantable in a particular Church to chuse and ordain a Pastor, without first consulting them, and having their Con­sent thereto; such an Association of Pastors, where­ever it is found, is an Usurpation upon the Liberties of Congregational Churches, and those Churches are servile indeed that tamely submit to them therein. And when they come ex Officio to administer Oaths, [Page 6]it seems also to intrench upon the Authority of the Civil Magistrate. ^*

Well; but these Gentlemen being thus oblig'd to act in the Affair of the first Church in S—, have heard that their Conduct has been greatly blam'd; and therefore they think nothing can be more just, than that a true and faithful Account should be given of those things: Their Reputation, the Cause of Truth, and the Interest of Religion calling for it. If any Account were given, it ought, to be sure, to be a true and faithful one; and we heartily wish we could say theirs was such: But whether it is or not, and whether their Reputation, the Cause of Truth, and the Interest of Religion, are like to be serv'd by it, must now be left to their and our Readers to determine.

After the Introduction, the Performance it self is divided into two general Parts, a Narrative or histo­rical Account, and a Defence or Reasonings upon the Case; tho' they are not very careful to keep these Parts entire; for in the Historical Account they frequent­ly intermix some Scraps of Argument, and in their Reasonings upon the Case, they again give an Ac­count of Facts. And indeed they don't appear to keep to any Order or Method thro'out their whole Book; but Things are very oddly mix'd and scat­ter'd, and bro't in here and there, one would think just as their Heat and Passion at that Time prompted and hurried them. So that to track their Foot-steps by following them Page after Page, would be little better than a Goose-Chase, and carry the Reader [Page 7]hither and thither, and back to the same Place very often; and indeed make the Answer as large a Bun­dle of Confusion, as their Narrative & Defence. But we hope the consideration of nothing which they offer, of any Weight or Force, thro'out their long and labour'd Piece, will be omitted, if we pursue the following Method. viz. To

I. Make some General Remarks upon the Historical Part of their Performance, or the Account they give of Facts.

II. Examine those Arguments they make Use of in their Defence, which concern the Merits of the Cause in Dispute.

III. Give an Answer to the Charges which they make upon the Council in general, and some Mem­bers of it in particular, to bring an odious Imputa­tion upon them.

IV. Gratifie the Opposing Gentlemen of Hampshire themselves, in their earnest and repeated Request, That we would let them know wherein they are to be charg'd with Usurpation, Injuriousness, &c. And,

V. Let the World know the Grounds upon which we proceeded to the Ordination of Mr. Breck to the Pastoral Office in the First Church in Springfield, and upon what Principles we think it is to be justified.

I. In the First Place we would make a few just Remarks upon what may be called the Historical Part of their Book, or the Account they give of Facts. And they are these which follow,

[Page 8] (I.) Things are multiplied and repeated in a Manner that is very unnecessary, and to a Degree that is perfectly troublesom and nauseous. The Charges against Mr. B— come over and over in different Parts of their Narrative. Testimonies to the same Things, are not only multiplied, but the Testimonies of the very same Persons, to the same Things, at the same Times, are repeated. After they have publish'd the Evidences sent to them as an Asso­ciation, they must needs bring in those that were given to the Council; tho' they relate to the same Matters, and did not at all belong to their Proceed­ings, which they call their Book a Defence of. Six or seven Times are scarcely enough to bring in Mr. B—'s saying, one Man lied, and he would not take another's Word for a Groat. Several Times the Reader is reminded, that one Gentleman of the Council was related to him by Marriage. And we have some of the same Stories in that Part which they call the De­fence, that we had before in the Narrative. But why must the same Things be repeated so often, and bro't in at every other Leaf almost, till the Book is swell'd to so large a Size, and mounted to four Shillings and fix Pence Price? It is evident the Gentlemen affected Shew and Bulk, and had a good Will, and strong Inclination, to magnifie Things, and lay on all the Load that ever they could. They surely tho't some Things could not come over too often; for in this Way they would be likely to make the deeper Im­pression on some of their Readers; and thus they are not vain Repetitions, but serve mighty well to answer the very christian Design of their Perfor­mance.

2. Their Account contains several Things very low and trifling. Amongst others of this Nature we might take Notice of what they tell us, (P. 32) of [Page 9]Mr. B—'s singing on a certain Sabbath the three first Stanzas in the 35th Psalm.—Well; and what if he did? We suppose the Psalm is of divine Inspiration, and given for the Use of the Church, as well as others. But if they would suggest that Mr. B— design'd to have those Passages of Imprecation applied in the singing of them to his Opponents, and so to them­selves, they herein seem to make themselves Judges of evil Thoughts: And that which spoils all too is, That the Psalm was not of his chusing, if it was of his naming: For another Gentleman preach'd [...] him that Day, who desir'd Mr. B— to ease him by praying before Sermon in the Afternoon; and Mr. B— asking him what Psalm he shou'd appoint to be sung after Prayer, he mention'd this, because it was agreable to the Subject he was upon. So that had the Thing been of Importance enough to have told the World of it, yet it was not so much Mr. B—'s Act as these Gentlemen imagined.—We do not think it worth while to inform the World, (tho' we could do it) what Psalm was appointed to be sung at a certain Lecture, upon the Receipt of that Let­ter they mention in this Page, which they made so much Use of then and since, and thought would have effectually answer'd their Design. Some of the Mi­nisters that were then present, and observ'd the Spi­rit that was discover'd at the communicating that Letter, could not but think the Psalm of Triumph that was sung, was chosen to suit the joyful Occa­sion.

Another such pretty Tale we are entertain'd with in P. 63. There they tell us, That Mr. B— preach­ing from those Words, Many are the Afflictions of the righ­teous, compar'd himself to David, Mordecai, and other good Men, and those who oppos'd him to Haman, &c. But those who have perus'd the Notes of this Sermon, [Page 10]know very well no such Comparison was made by Mr. B—, and that the Parallel was run only by some of the Hearers, who did not come to hear with that meek and teachable Frame of Spirit which the Gospel requires. Nor did he make such a Declara­tion as they speak of, and call God to Witness that be was innocent of the Things laid to his Charge. His Words are grossy misrepresented; for he said no more than this, That God and his own Conscience know his Charac­ter had been too unchristianly treated: And herein many others think with him —The telling such little Sto­ries is a plain Proof these Gentlemen were for letting nothing slip, tho' of never so trivial a Nature.

We shall mention but one Thing more under this Head, and this because they seem to think it worthy of special Notice by the Manner in which they tell it. In the 65th Page, the Reader is entertain'd with what they call a remarkable Scene that open'd upon the 5th of October; which was this, That a young Gen­tleman, now of the Ecclesiastical Order, read Mr. B—'s Confession of Faith on Horseback Which Story serves to introduce this memorable Piece of Wit in the next Page, namely, That a Young Gentlemen who was pre­sent at that Transaction, made this Remark upon it, viz. The Old Horse stood astonish'd at what was doing; and if be had had the Tongue of Balaam's Ass, he would have reproved the Madness of the Prophet. As to the Matter of Fact refer'd to, The reading the Confession of Faith on Horse-back, we shall have occasion to con­sider that, and set it in its true Light in another Place. What we intend here is only to admire the Piece of Wit it was the Occasion of; which if we should forbear to do, they that tell it might perhaps be angry with us for our Dullness. But at the same Time we can't but lament it, that they have not [Page 13]gratified our Curiosity with the Name of this witty young Gentleman, and let the World know who this sprightly Genius is, lately risen up in the County of Hampshire, who could with so quick a Turn of Thought convert the poor Old Horse into Balaam's Ass. Yet we would not have them think they have all the Wits in their own County neither. If the Reader will forgive our trifling, we will see whether we can't match them with a Wit. There was a young Gentleman amongst us, who after he had read the Hampshire Narrative, told the Story of a certain Roman Catholic, who thinking it high Time to get Absolution from the Priest, writ down all his Sins in a great Volumn, and carried them to his Confessor: The Father, frightned at the Bulk of the Book, sa­tisfied himself with asking a few Questions, and told him, he absolv'd him from all his Sins. But says the poor Offender, What Penance do you impose? The Confessor, after a Pause,—answers, You must read your own Book several Times a Day for a whole Month.

We might point out several other such low & little Matters as help to swell their Book; but it an't worth while: for we know they don't tend to the main Point; and we ask the Readers Pardon for those we have stopt at. Only we can't help expres­sing our selves something surpriz d, to see a Combi­nation of so many able Heads and Pens, to convey such trivial Matters as these into the World! Who would have believed it, if they had not told us they were WRITTEN BY THEMSELVES. But what is still worse, Their Account contains

(3.) Several Things that discover an evil and bitter, an uncharitable and unchristian Tem­per and Spirit. Such a Spirit sufficiently dis­covers it self in many Passages of their Book, and [Page 14]in diverse of the Stories they tell of the Coun­cil, and of particular Persons belonging to it, which if they had more of Truth in them, yet don't enter into the Merits of the Cause, and the whole Design of them must be only to fix, as far as they could do it, a Mark of Dishonour & Disgrace, where they would have it worn. Passing here those which concern others, we will mention only what relates to Mr. B— himself. Sometimes indeed they pretend a Tenderness for his Character: And we are told of one Gentleman in particular, That caution'd the People of S— to be careful in this Respect, and endeavour'd to make them sensible how injurious it was to receive and spread Reports th it tended to blast his Reputation. And of another, Who when he let two or three of Mr. B—'s principal Friends know of the Objections that lay against him; desir'd them for the present not to speak of them. Yet it seems they so far forgot their own Cautions, that as soon as Mr. B— left Spring­field the first Time, they let the Papers from Connec­ticut go about the Parish, when he was not there to make any Answer for himself. And now, that his Reputation, and therein his Serviceableness, may be the more effectually destroy'd, they in their Narrative fall upon his Morals as well as Princi­ples; and frequently insinuate as if his Conversa­tion was as bad as they had represented his Opi­nions to be. He is spoken of in P. 43, as charge­able with several Immoralities. Yet the only one they fasten upon, (not out of Tenderness sure!) is one committed when he was a Boy of about 13 Years of Age, while he was at the College; that he then stole Books. And for Fear the Truth of the Story should be question'd, they take Care to direct all that desire to have it confirm'd, to inquire of such and such Persons: Tho', it may be, not one of their Readers has been at the Pains to make the Inquiry, [Page 15]and so they might have sav'd themselves the Trou­ble of this Advertisement. But what can be more cruel and barbarous, more contrary to Humanity as well as Christianity, than to publish such a Thing at this Time of Day, which the World knew no­thing of before; which was cover'd in the Time of it by the Persons injur'd by it, by the Governours of the College who never animadverted upon him for it, and by a good and laudable Conduct after­wards. To fetch such a Thing up out of Oblivion, and publish it in a Way that will perpetuate the Remembrance of it to Persons and Times that are yet to come; — What a Spirit does this discover?

But probably it will be said, The Reason of publish­ing this Story is, to shew that he is still defective in Point of Veracity; for he denied it to Mr. Clap: And this is One of the Immoralities referr'd to. — Mr. B—'s Answer to this, as he gave it to the Gen­tlemen of Hampshire, we have in the 25th and 26th Pages of their Narrative. He there says, That the Report, as Mr. Clap gave it, being partly false, he thought he might consistent with Truth deny it. For tho' he did take the Books, yet he was not expell'd the College for it, as the Report was: Nor was he so much as call'd to an Account for it by the Governours of the College. This was true in Fact; and was confirm'd to us by one of the Gentlemen of the Council, who was at that Time one of the Tutors of the College. Yet it might have been better, if Mr. B— had, with­out Reserve or Disguise, let Mr. Clap have known how the Thing was: but no Wonder if he was put into a Surprise and Confusion, upon such a sudden and unexpected Question; and had not the Command of his Tho'ts at that Time. Mr. B— himself after­ward thought this would have been more prudent: And therefore in his Letter to Mr. C— has these [Page 16]Words, (P. 20.) " You having had some Occasion to think I was wanting to the Truth, in the Answer I gave you to your Enquiry concerning the former Immorality you hcard I was guilty of, I do blame my self for it, and wish I had spoken more plainly: But what I meant then, as I have often declar'd, was only this, That the Report you gave me was not wholly true. And so far as I have in any of these Things, or in my Discourse with you upon the Account of them, been faulty, I ask christian Forgive­ness, &c." Yet neither this, nor the Answer he gave to him afterwards, when he put the Question to him, Whether there was no Foundation upon which People could build such a Story? viz. That he went to College very young, and that his Conduct was not as it ought to be: But that he hop'd God had given him a Sight and Sense of his Sins, and that be was truly hum­bled upon the Account of them: We say, neither the Blame he takes to himself in his Letter, nor such an Answer as this, tho' spoken with Tears, could prevail upon them to forbear the Publication of such a Story. If this is to be tender, some Mens tender Mercies are Cruelty.

Tho', as we have just said, it might have been more prudent in Mr. B—, to have answer'd Mr. C— in a plain and unreserv'd Manner; yet, 'tis certain, Mr. C— had no Right to such an An­swer; for it was a Question he had no Right to put: And in such a Case a Man may lawfully give an evasive Answer that is consistent with Truth. The Question was evidently unseasonable and im­pertinent, to say the least. To what Purpose could Mr. C— so sollicitously inquire into this Matter now? Allow it to be true, and it could not dis­qualifie him for the Ministry. Mr. C— knew, or might have known, he had long since been re­ceiv'd into the Communion of the Church in Cam­bridge: [Page 17]A public Testimony that his after Conversati­on was blameless.—But, perhaps it may be said, Mr. C—made the Inquiry with a charitable Hope the Story was not true, & a kind Design to contradict it when he heard it mention'd. Whether it was just so or not, there is some Reason to doubt, when he could write to a Minister in Boston, (not one of the Coun­cil) to desire him to make Inquiry into Mr. B—'s Conduct and Behaviour when he was at the Col­lege, and send him an Account of what he could furnish himself with: But the Gentleman in his Answer desir'd to be excus'd from so unchristian a Part, and told him, He tho't the Question was not how Mr. B— carried himself when he was a Boy at College, but what his Conversation had been since be became a Professor of Religion, and a Candidate for the Ministry. Now that this has been laudable in the Opinion of the Governours of the College, what follows is ano­ther Testimony. A pious & charitable Gentlewo­man deceas'd a few Years since, left 60 Pounds per Annum, to be given to two Candidates for the Mi­nistry, who were sober, diligent, and gave good Hopes of their future Serviceableness, to encourage them to continue at College and prosecute their Studies there; to be dispos'd of by the Overseers of the College: And the Overseers referring it to the Rev. President, with the rest of the Corpora­tion, to nominate two Candidates to them, thus qualified to receive the Donation, Mr. B— was one of the Candidates, so nominated and presen­ted to the Overseers by the Corporation: And this was just at the Time of his going to Springfield.

But tho' Mr. B— did deny this same Story in the Manner he did, it may, all Circumstances con­fider'd, be better for these Gentlemen not to insist too strongly on his being defective in Point of Ve­racity on this Account. For if to deny a Thing [Page 18]that is not wholly, or literally, true, be always in­consistent with Truth, perhaps some other People's Veracity may be tax'd, whose Reputation they may think more strongly establish'd than Mr. Breck's. The good Brother who carried up the Letter before-mention'd from Boston to Hatfield, and by whose Means the Contents of it were spread about Spring­field, before it reach'd where it was directed; when the Gentleman who sent that Letter, wrote to him about his doing so, he received from him the following Answer, viz. "I would inform you that the Account you have of your Letter being put into the Hands of a mean Person, who carried it from House to House, is a Mistake. For I did not give a Copy of it to any Body, or let any Body ever so much as read it, or take it out of my Hands. But we have many wrong Representations made, in order to make us odious abroad. I pray God not to lay to their Charge their injuring me." Here, tho' we give full Credit to him, and believe he says no­thing but the Truth about it; yet we don't believe he tells the whole Truth. While he says he did not give a Copy of it, nor let any Body so much as read it, or take it out of his hands, he takes a prudent Care not to say that he did not read it to any such Per­son, and so put it into his Head and Mouth, tho' not into his Hands; which was a much more disadvan­tageous Way of carrying it from House to House, than if the Letter it self had been so carried; for we may be sure it lost nothing by its thus running, if it did not grow: And yet, we believe, this Gentleman and his Friends, would think it hard, if, for this, his Veracity should be call'd in Question. We will add but one Remark more upon their Account of Facts; and this is

(4.) That it abounds with Misrepresentations and Untruths. This may seem a hard Reflection con­sidering [Page 19]whose Names it appears in; but is not more hard than just. As to some of these Things, their Hast and Warmth, very probably, carried them be­yond their Evidence. This seems to be the Case particularly, when to evidence that the Ministers that came from Boston were prejudiced in Favour of Mr. B—, they say (p. [...]3.) they had before join'd in giving him a Certificate of his Orthodoxy; when in Fact but one of them sign'd it. From whence we may conclude they ventur'd to say this, before ever they had seen the Testimonial. Indeed this is made an Erratum at the latter End of the Book, and stands corrected; but, if we mistake not, it was done by a Gentleman at Boston, that look'd over that Half-Sheet before it was work'd off: And 'tis Pity but some knowing and faithful Friend, had done them the Kindness to correct some other more important Errata for them; especially those in which 'tis dif­ficult to excuse them from a wilfull Misrepresenta­tion of Matters; as will appear when we come to set them in their true Light in their proper Places. Having made these General Remarks on their Ac­count of Facts, we proceed

II. To examine the Arguments they make use of in their Defence, which do enter into the Merits of the Cause in Dispute between us.

These disapproving Gentlemen have freely declar'd it to be their Minds, that those Elders and Messengers of Churches that met at Springfield, and took upon them to sit there as Judges in Mr. Breck's Case, were not regularly call'd thereto, and that they meddled with an Affair that did not belong to them, and that their Proceedings were very irregular and disorderly. P. 77. This is freely declar'd, tis true; but it becomes them to be some­thing modest as well as free in their Declaration, [Page 20]since the Representative Body of the Country have declar'd their Minds the other Way: For the Ho­nourable House of Representatives, after a long Hearing of the Case, came into a Vote, That the Ec­clesiastical Council conven'd at Springfield at the Call of the first Church there, to assist in the regular carrying on the Ordination of Mr. Robert Breck, was a regular Council. But these Gentlemen think they have very weighty Reasons to support them in the contrary Opinion and Declaration; and they are the following Ones, which we will e'en take in the Order in which they offer them.

(1.) Because the prevailing Part of the Council was not of neighbouring Churches, but fetch'd from very remote Parts of the Country; in Neglect of the Churches of the Neighbourhood, and in Opposition to the Body of neigh­bouring Ministers. But the prevailing Part of the Council, as it was call'd by the first Church in Springfield, did not consist of Churches that were so remote from them. Of the Eight Churches which the Church in Springfield applied to upon this Oc­casion, Four of them were in that County: If one of them would not come, and by this Means the major Part of the Churches that conven'd were not of the County, it is owing only to the Failure of that Church; and is not to be imputed to Springfield Church, nor to the Council. If the Rev. Mr. Wil­liams of Hatfield, could but have been prevailed up­on to have come with his Church, as he was ear­nestly desir'd & entreated, they would not have had it to say, That the prevailing Part of the Council came from remote Parts.

But if the major Part of the Council were not of what they call neighbouring Churches; was it not a regular, nor so much as a valid Council because of [Page 21]this? Are Churches in the calling of Councils li­mited to the Vicinity, so that it is an Irregularity and Offence in them, if they don't take the next neighbouring Churches, and no other? This is what these Gentlemen assert; and they deliver it not only as their own Opinion, but say it was evidently the Mind of the Composers of the Platform: For they when they direct to, or mention any Application to be made by a particular Church to other Churches, from Time to Time specifie neighbour Churches. In the 15th Chapter of the Platform, concerning the Communion of Churches, there is mention made several Times of Councils of neighbour Churches; and no mention of any other; yea, the Platform is wholly a Stranger to any Councils, but what are made up of neighbour Churches: Why don't the Platform say barely Councils of Churches? Why does it add such limi­ting Expressions from Time to Time, unless it be a Direc­tion to Churches where to go for Councils?

It is likely these Gentlemen have, upon this Oc­casion, been rous'd up to look into the Platform; yet 'tis plain they have not read it with a due Care and Attention: if they had they would never have as­serted, That as often as it directs a particular Church to apply to other Churches, it specifies neighbour Churches; nor have ask'd, Why don't the Platform barely say Coun­cils of Churches? Why does it add such limiting Expres­sions from Time to Time? The good Gentlemen have been in too great a Haft; if they would stop a lit­tle, and sedately consult the Platform a second Time, they would find it often and often mentions barely Councils of Churches, without adding such a Li­mitation as they speak of: If they would look a­gain into that 15th Chapter, concerning the Com­munion of Churches, which they quote, they will find it begins with declaring, That ALL the Churches ought to preserve Communion one with another, because they are ALL united unto Christ, not only as a Mystical, [Page 22]but as a Political Head, whence is derived a Communion suitable thereunto. It then goes on to mention the several Ways in which Communion of Churches is to be exercis'd, One of which is by way of Consulta­tion one with another, when they have Occasion for the Judgment and Counsel of OTHER CHURCHES, touch­ing any Person or Cause, &c. And it adds a little af­ter, If a particular Church in Case of Division or Scandal, refuse to consult with OTHER CHURCHES, it is matter of just Offence, &c. In these Places it barely mentions other Churches, without any the least Restriction. We might turn to many more such Passages, but one shall sufficè, which comes nearest to the present Case: In the 9th Chapter, concern­ing Ordination, and Imposition of Hands, having asser­ted the ordaining as well as electing Power with which every particular Church is vested, by saying, Sect. 4. In such Churches where there are no Elders, Im­position of Hands may be perform'd by some of the Bre­thren, orderly chosen by the Church thereunto; It adds in Sect. 5, Nevertheless, in Churches where there are no Elders, and the Church so desire, we see not why Im­position of Hands may not be perform'd by the Elders of OTHER CHURCHES. It is said here other Churches at large, and not neighbour Churches; such as the Church whose Officer is to be ordain'd shall chuse and desire to perform that Service; and without such a Desire, we presume the Elders of the very next Church can't claim any Right to act in the Affair.

It is true, mention is sometimes made of neigh­bour Churches; but, by comparing one Place with another, we can't suppose that the Compilers of the Platform always meant by neighbour Churches, those that were situated next to one another; but Churches in Communion with one another, by pro­fessing the same Faith and Order of the Gospel, so [Page 23]situated as that they could and would afford Assist­ance to one another, as the same should be needed and desir'd. To be sure they never meant to con­fine a particular Church in calling a Council, to such a Circle as a County or an Association; for this would be to destroy the Congregational Scheme, and to make the Government of our Churches not Congregational, but Classical; whereas the Plat­form declares, Chap. 2. Sect. 5. That the Government of the Church since the Coming of Christ, is not National, Provincial nor Classical, but Congregational only: If there­fore the Platform is consistent with it self, it must leave the Communion of Churches in the several Acts and Ways of it, more at large than these Gen­tlemen would have it to be. Agreably the Synod, in 1662, In Answer to this Question propounded to them by the General Court, viz. Whether according to the Word of God there ought to be a Consociation of Churches, and what should be the Manner of it? Having said, That one Act of Communion of Churches, is to seek and accept Help from, and give Help to each other, in Matters of more than ordinary Importance, such as Ordi­nation of Elders, and in doubtful and difficult Questions and Controversies, doctrinal or practical, that may arise, goes on to say, 'Tho' in this there should be special Re­ference to those Churches, which are planted in a conve­venient Vicinity; yet there should be LIBERTY WITH­OUT OFFENCE TO MAKE USE OF OTHERS, as the Nature of the Case, and the Advantage of Oppor­tunity, may lead thereto. And a particular Church is the sole Judge, when their Case leads them to make Use of others. The Mind of our Fathers upon this Point is certainly best known by their Practice: Now it has been the Custom of the Churches in the Country from the Beginning, to exercise this Liberty in calling of Councils, to apply to other Churches according to their own Discretion, with­out [Page 24]being confin'd to Churches of such a Circle or Division. This has been the Practice particularly in Ordinations; on which Occasions, as well as o­ther, Churches at a remote Distance, and even in other Provinces, do, to this Day, exercise Comu­nion with one another; and never was any Offence taken at it till now.

And this has been pleaded for, as the Right of Congregational Churches, by such as have wrote in Defence of their Way of Government; and some who much better knew the Mind of the Composers of the Platform than these Gentlemen. The lear­ned & venerable Doctor Increase Mather, in his Dis­quisition concerning Ecclesiastical Councils, p. 31, 32. en­ters his vehement Dissent from a Proposal that carries in it such a Limitation as this; and says, "Churches whose Case calls for a Council, ought not to have their Li­berties infringed."—So that upon the whole we can't but think these Gentlemen have mistaken the Sense of the Platform, and the Mind of the Composers of it, as well as of the Legislators of the Province: For as our Platform of Discipline has been approv'd and recommended by the General Court, we can't but suppose when they mention neighbouring Churches in any of the Laws, it is to be understood of those who are such in the Sense of the Platform. The Legis­lative Authority has taken Care to establish the Li­berty of the Churches to them in the fullest & lar­gest Manner, and not in the least wise to curtail them. In the present Act for the Support and Set­tlement of Ministers, it is declar'd in these Words, "The respective Churches in the several Towns within this Province, shall at all Times hereafter, use, exercise and enjoy all their Privileges and Freedoms respecting di­vine Worship, Church Order, and Discipline; and shall be encourag'd in the regular and peaceable Profession and Practice thereof.

[Page 25] But if neither the Platform, nor the Province Law, has constituted them the Judges in this Case, they think they have a higher Claim that what is founded on either of these. PROVIDENCE, they say, has assign'd it to us, by placing the religious State of our Neighbourhood under our View, and by making us by our Situation most capable of understanding it, and of ad­vising and acting upon it. But we think other Things must concur with their Situation, before they can found their claim in Providence. The Affair must be put into their Hands, by those nextly concern'd, (i. e. by the Church of Springfield it self) or by some superiour lawful Authority, before they can say Providence has assign'd it to them; notwithstanding their Situation may be very convenient.

They go on to say, Besides, it is most reasonable, that wherein other Churches are concern'd, it should be neighbouring Churches; because next to the Church it self, the Interest of neighbour Churches is concern'd. If this is ordinarily proper and fitting, yet it is not ab­solutely necessary, nor always reasonable. It is very possible neighbouring Churches may have differing Apprehensions in Points of Order and Government from a particular Church in the Neighbourhood; and in such a Case shou'd not a particular Church be at their Liberty, to apply to such Churches as most agree with them in Principles? It is also very possible the nearest Churches, or the Pastors of them, may be prejudiced, or pre-ingaged, in a Controver­sy that calls for the Judgment of other Churches. And it is more than possible the Body of Pastors in an Association, or Neighbourhood, may be related to one another; and it may be observ'd of them, that they commonly hang together, and are all af­fected or disaffected, to a Person or Business, as some particular Ones among them are.

[Page 26] But where it is on some Accounts most fitting that neighbouring Churches should be employ'd, must all be apply'd to that call themselves neighbour Churches? And if any of them are not apply'd to, is there Occasion given them to cry out of their being injur'd, or denied their Rights? The Church in Spring­field did upon this Occasion apply to neighbouring Churches, and three of them came and concur'd in the Ordination; and the second Minister in Age in their own County presided in it, and gave the Charge, as another of them did the Right Hand of Fellowship. Yet these Gentlemen will say, It was done in Neglect of the Churches of the Neighbourbood, because their particular Churches were not applied to.

But they complain of something more than a bare Neglect, that it was done in Opposition to the Body of neighbouring Ministers. It is true their Association was divided upon Mr. Breck's Case. It consisted, (as one of these Gentlemen inform'd us,) of thirteen; and seven of them were against the Church's Pro­ceeding to his Settlement. So that at best Things lay among them at sixs and sevens. But had there been a greater Union amongst themselves, unless this Body of Ministers had the Right of Jurisdicti­on over the first Church in Springfield, their meer Opposition ought not to prevail to stop the Pro­ceedings of the Church, or of the Council: And this their Right of Jurisdiction is still to be made out, notwithstanding all they here say to sup­port their Claim of it.

Was the Claim of these Gentlemen to be allow'd, & their Scheme of Government once suffer'd to take Place in the Country, the Churches would have lit­tle but the Name of their Liberties left unto them. [Page 27]What they assert, & contend for, is plainly this, That the Judgment of Ecclesiastical Cases, which are bro't out of a particular Church to other Churches, belongs to neighbour­ing Ministers and Churches, and to THEM ONLY: Other Ministers and Churches that live out of the Vicinity must not be so much as join'd with them in any Case; this is to intermeddle in their Affairs. They by their Situation are best able to judge, and so Providence has assign'd it to them; to them therefore it must be bro't, and by them it must be issu'd; and there don't seem so much as an Appeal to be allow'd. This is evidently the Scheme by their whole Talk under this Head. And a fine Scheme it is to fetter and enslave the Churches; and have Things carried according to the Will, Hu­mour, Prejudice, or arbitrary Disposition of a par­ticular Set of Ministers. Where did they get this Scheme of Government? And by what Name shall it be call'd? It differs as much from the Presbyterian as it does from the Congregational. The Govern­ment in the Church of Scotland compar'd with this, is a Government of Liberty: For they are very far from thus confining Things within the Circle of a Neighbourhood. If a Difficulty arises among them about settling a vacant Congregation, tho' that Presbytery first judges upon the Case; yet if either Party does not like their Judgment, they may ap­peal to the Synod, made up of six or ten Presbyterys from several Countys; and if they like not their Determination, they may from them appeal to the General Assembly of that Church. But as our Con­stitution has not such Appeals belonging to it, it is the more unreasonable and dangerous to confine Church Affairs to such a narrow Circle.

[2.] Another Reason they give why those Elders and Messengers of Churches that sat in Judgment [Page 28]on this Case, were not orderly call'd thereto, is, That it was in a disorderly Manner taken out of the Hands of the Association of the Ministers of this County, after it had been referr'd to them by the first Church in Springfield themselves, and by Mr. Breck. But whoever will be at the Pains to look into their Narrative, and ob­serve the Account they give of the Case in the Rise and Process of it, will soon see they took it into their Hands before they were desir'd, and with­out its being at all refer'd to them either by the Church, or Mr. Breck. We will here give a Breviate of their Account, in order to set this Matter in its true Light.

This brings us from May to November, about six Months; and all this while there is not the least Intimation of a Desire from the Church and Parish, that they would concern themselves in the Affair: So that to be sure they took it into their Hands, before it was at all referr'd to them.

But

Mr. Breck upon Application made to him returns to Springfield, and some Time after the Parish sends to the Association which met there April 1735, ‘That they would please to let them know, Whe­ther there was any just Impediment to his being settled with them in the Work of the Ministry, and in Case there was, What Methods were pro­per for the removing of it.’

The Association gave this Advice, ‘That the Matters objected against Mr. Breck by Mr. Clap [Page 31]and others, should be fully heard and determin'd by a Committee of the Association, either here or in the County of Windham, (i.e. by Windham Association.) And voted, That the Rev. Mr. Wil­liams of Hatfield, Mr. Chauncey, Mr. Devotion, Mr. Williams of Springfield, Mr. Raynolds, and Mr. Bull, be a Committee to hear and determine the Mat­ter if desir'd. P. 28, 29.’

This is all that was done by the People; and yet the Gentlemen will have it that the People did of their own Accord put the Matter into their Hands; and so they go on to argue very notably, That if they put the Case into their Hands of their own Accord, then they could not regularly take it out of their Hands; and if they could not regularly take it out of their Hands, they could not regularly put it into other Hands; when no­thing can be plainer from their own Account, than this, That after they had of their own Accord ta­ken the Case into their Hands, and had it there a long Time, the People of Springfield only sent to them to be inform'd what the Impediment in the Way of Mr. B—'s Settlement was, and what Me­thods they would advise to for the Removal of them.

The Method which the Association advis'd to for the Removal of the Difficulties, viz. to have the Matter heard and determin'd by Windham As­sociation, or by that Committee of their own which they had chosen, the People of Springfield thought they had sufficient Reasons not to comply with: And their not complying with this Advice, is re­presented as a Thing very disorderly & irregular. Nay they carry the Matter further, and say, That as it was irregular not to comply with the Advice of the Association to have the Matter heard by [Page 32]their Committee, so, if the Matter had been heard by them, and they had given their Judgment upon it, it would not have been regular in them to have acted against it. The Argument here is so pleasant that we will give it the Reader in their own Words, by transcribing the whole Paragraph that contains it, in P. 82. If we suppose it to be in their Power to refer it to whom they would, yet certainly it was a disor­derly Thing for them to take it out of the Hands of the Association, after they themselves had of their own Ac­cord put it into them, before ever they had had any Oppor­tunity to give their Judgment in the Case, because it was before they had Opportunity to hear Mr. Breck and the Wit­nesses face to face; and that for no other Reason but be­cause they insisted on such a Hearing before they gave their Judgments. If the Association had given their Judg­ment, and their Judgment had not suited them, it would not have been regular in them, after they had referr'd it to their Judgment, to have acted without any kind of Regard to it, meerly because they did not judge that Way that they would have had them; because this would be nothing but Confusion; they would herein have been inconsistent with themselves; there is a gross Absurdity in their referring the Matter to our Judgment and Advice, unless it was to be directed; the very Notion of asking Advice is to ask others Judgment to be directed, but it is impossible and self-contradictory that any one should ask judgment to be directed, that is already fully determined, that let the Judgment be which Way it will, he will go no other Way than this; but it was yet more disorderly to take the Case out of the Hands of the Association, after they them­selves had put into their Hands, before ever they had Op­portunity to make any Judgment. And if it was irre­gularly taken out of their Hands, it could never be regu­larly in any other Hands. What can be finer! It must be put into their Hands, they told us be­fore, it properly belong'd to them, and none else; [Page 33]for by Reason of their Situation, and other Cir­cumstances, they were best able to judge in it: Be­ing put into their Hands, it must not be taken out till they have given their final Judgment; & when they have given it, it must not be disregarded or receded from: No! This would be irregular, and bring Confusion; and tis absurd to ask Advice, unless it be to be directed; for the very Notion of asking Advice, is to ask others Judgment to be di­rected. But, Dear Sirs! to be directed, how? Any otherwise than to be assisted in making a Judgment for themselves? We think there is a gross Absurdity in calling of it Advice, & yet making it to be bind­ing and obligatory; and that the very Notion of ask­ing Advice, supposes a Capacity and Right in them that ask it to judge at last for themselves. If it must be follow'd, however unsuitable in the Judg­ment of those to whom it is given, pray don't call it Advice, but by its proper Name, Law, or Com­mand. But if to ask Advice of an Association, does thus take away the Right of private Judgment, they that value their own Liberty, or (to use your own Words, when you assert your own Right to judge for your selves, p. 68.) think themselves Partakers with the Rest of their Species of the Nature of rational Creatures, will be very cautious how they ask any Advice of them.

But let us now see whether the Church in Spring­field, and Mr. Breck, had not sufficient Reason for not complying with the Advice of the Association, to have the Matter heard and determined by the Committee aforesaid. There were six Reverend Gentlemen put upon this Committee; Mr. Breck objected against one of them, namely. Mr. Williams of Long-Meadow, as a Person prejudic'd; and pray'd the Fayour of his being taken off, and then he [Page 34]should be free to leave the Matter to the Judg­ment of the other five: And, that his Request might be the more readily complied with, added, that the Committee at present consisted of an even Number, which was not look'd upon convenient in such Cases; and as the Committee was large, one might well enough be spar'd. But Mr. Williams, it seems, was not willing to exclude himself, and so the Association were not willing to exclude him; and it was said, It was not fit Mr. Breck should dic­tate to the Association: tho' to remedy the Incon­venience of an even Number, another Gentleman was added, but one tho't to be very far from being favourably dispos'd to Mr. Breck; and so the Com­mittee consisted of seven, which was the major Part of the whole Association; — and they had as good have resolv'd themselves into a Committee of the whole House. This was certainly an unrea­sonable Piece of Stiffness in the Association; and it does not excuse the Matter for them to say, Mr. Breck objected against Mr. Williams as a prejudiced Person, but without offering any Reason. That was Reason eno'; it was sufficient to say he look'd up­on him prejudic'd. Upon this Mr. Williams ought immediately to have excus'd himself, and all other Judicatures would have taken him off. This gave Mr. Breck little Reason to expect much Favour from these Gentlemen in their after Managements: Therefore he made another Request to the Mode­rator of the Association, the Rev. Mr. Williams of Hatfield, that he might have Liberty to join two or three Gentlemen from abroad with them: and tho' He might consent to it, as they say he did, p. 29. yet others did not; and their mentioning of it in such a way as looks as if it was con­ceeded to, because he consented to it, when o­thers did not consent, is a Kind of Fallacy, and [Page 35]tends to impose upon the World: For when the same Proposal was afterwards made by others, in Mr. Breck's Name, and at his Desire, we know several of these Gentlemen manifested their Dislike of it, and would not give their Consent. And now is it to be wonder'd at if Mr. Breck was not willing to leave his Case in which his Character, Useful­ness, and almost every Thing dear to him in this World was concern'd, in the Hands of those, who (tho' very good & worthy Men) had now evident­ly receiv'd Impressions to his Disadvantage? Or is it to be wonder'd at that the Church, instead of leaving it to this Committee of the Association, or to the Windham Association, should choose the Me­thod more agreable to our Constitution, to have the Affair heard & judg'd of by a Council of Churches? Upon the whole, we think these Gentlemen instead of complaining that the Affair was irregularly taken out of their Hands, should blame themselves that by their unreasonable Stiffness put it out of their Hands. — Their third Reason in Order stands thus,

[3.] As to those three Elders that belong to this County, that sat in Council as Judges of this Case, they each of them had once before openly in Association, given their Judgments, and upon a formal Consideration, and where the Matter was particularly discussed and debated; — therefore tis against common Sense that they should sit in Judgment on the same Case again. The Gentlemen seem to have short Memories: For but the Page before this, they complain very sadly that the Mat­ter was taken out of the Hands of the Association, before [...] they had had Opportunity to give their Judg­ment in the Case, because it was before they had Oppor­tunity to hear Mr. Breck and the Witnesses Face to Face; and the same Complaint is often renew'd in diffe­rent Patts of their Book; yet here they tells us the [Page 36]Matter was particularly discussed and debated in the As­sociation, and that upon a formal Consideration of the Case, these Gentlemen had openly given their Judgment. All the Remark we will make upon this, shall be in their own Words, p. 71. "A remarkable Instance of the strange Insensibility, and ridiculous Inconsistence that those are sometimes subject to, that are under the Power of strong Prejudice!" But lest any should think by this formal Consideration of the Case in the Association, they were all disqualified to be upon the Council, they take Care to tells us they had suspended their Judgment, and so it would have been no Objection against themselves, if they had been applied to.

The Ministers of their own County being thus disqualified, they go on to tell of some Thing that as much disqualified those that came from Boston; They had join'd in giving him a Certificate of his Or­thodoxy. That they were mistaken in this, because but one of them did so, we have had Occasion to say already. But if all of them had, How the signing a Testimonial, that a Man answer'd orthodoxly to such Questions as were put to him in an Exa­mination, disqualifies those Persons from giving their Judgment about Expressions deliver'd at ano­ther Time, upon a formal Hearing where the Wit­nesses and Party are Face to Face, we must confess our selves at a Loss to understand, and believe o­thers will be so too. Their next Objection is

[4.] They were of all them chosen by those that were a Party in the Case. As to those Elders that belong'd to this County, they were chosen by that Part of the Church that had made themselves a Party with Mr. Breck. This is the first Time that ever we heard a Church, ac­ting as a Body, with so great Unanimity as the first Church in Springfield did in this Affair, call'd a [Page 37] Party. It appears by their Narrative, P. 34. that but four of the Brethren dissented from the Proceedings of the Church when they met to chuse the Ordina­tion Council. If they had call'd these four, with whom they have taken Part, a Party, there would have been much more Propriety in it, than to call the Body of the Church by that Name. To speak of a Society, acting according to the Rules of Society, with so great Unanimity, as a Party, seems very odd, and to discover too much of a Party-Spirit.

But to whom did it belong to chuse what Chur­ches should be applied to, but the Church it self? If we consult the Platform upon this, we shall find it puts the calling of a Council when there is need of one upon any Occasion, into the Hands of the Church, and not of a Party dissatisfied with the Proceedings of a Church. And the Law of the Pro­vince does the fame: For if there happens a Diffe­rence at any Time between the Church & the Inhabi­tants about the Call & Settlement of a Minister, so as that the Inhabitants do not concur with the Choice of the Church, the Law says the Church may call a Council of Churches to hear the Reasons of their Dissatisfaction, and if the Council judge them not to be sufficient, the Minister the Church has chosen shall be accounted the Minister of the Parish. In­deed the Case of Springfield happily differs in this, That the Inhabitants concur with the Church in the Choice of Mr. Breck, by a very great Majority; and therefore we only mention the Law of the Pro­vince in this Case, to shew that the Right & Power to call a Council, when there are a Number dissen­ting from the Choice of a Minister, is lodg'd with [...] and not with a dissatisfied Party, tho' [...] very large. But, say these Gentlemen, [...] of a congregational Church, in such a [Page 38]Case to chuse all the Judges, then the Rights of congrega­tional Churches are built on the Ruins of the common Rights of Mankind; and if so they stand upon but a very poor Foundation. But we think this is to argue very weakly and falsly; for it is agreable to the common Rights of Mankind as united in So­cieties, that the Majority should rule. And as these dissatisfied Brethren had an equal Vote with every other Member of the Society, both in the Choice of a Minister, and in the Choice of the Ordination Council, there is no Foundation for the Complaint of their being denied the com­mon Rights of Mankind. They had indeed a Right to have their Objections and Complaints fairly beard by the Council which the Church had call'd; and therefore the Church seasonably pass'd a Vote, and sent it to them, wherein was signified that they might have Opportunity to offer their Objections against Mr. Breck's Settlement, the Day before that which was appointed for Ordination, to the Coun­cil they expected would then convene: And to do this they had all the Opportunity and Liberty that could be, given them by the Council. And it was further offer'd to them in an Interview which the Brethren of the Church had with their dissatisfied Brethren, about a Fortnight or three Weeks before the Council met the second Time, that they might have the Liberty to join a Number of other Churches to them; but they would not accept the Offer, without a Council intirely new was called, and the Churches which the Church had applied to were set aside. But if this be the Right of one or two dissenting Brethren in a Church, we think it is built on the Ruins of the common Rights of Societies.

[Page 39] [5.] Their fifth Reason is, Because the major Part of the Council was chosen by Mr. Breck himself, and 'tis contrary to the Light and Sense of all Mankind, that a Man should chuse his own Judges, because this is in Effect to give him Liberty to chuse his own Judgment. It is true that the Church gave Mr. Breck Liberty to nomi­nate some of the Churches they should apply to; but not the major Part; and this is no more than is given to all Candidates. Dr. Cotton Mather in his Ratio Discipline, &c. where he gives an Account of the Method of Ordinations in these Churches, men­tions it, P. 22. as the universal Custom for the Church to agree with the Candidate what Churches to apply to upon the Occasion. But tho' the Church, with Mr. Breck, did chuse the Churches that should be address'd to meet in Council upon this Occasion, yet to chuse the Churches can't be said to chuse the Judges, so as in Effect to chuse the Judgment; since the Churches chuse their own Delegates, and in Councils the Delegates that are not Pastors, are always equal to, and commonly more in Number than the Pastors, and are as much the Judges, and vote with them when the Council give their Judg­ment upon the Case on which they are conven'd.—But these Gentlemen seem to have reserv'd their greatest Strength till the last Effort; for in no Part of the Argument do they exercise their Talent more notably, than when they come to say,

6. The major Part of the Council were not regularly called, even according to their own Principles; and that because the Churches they belonged to were never applied to by Springfield Church; — therefore whatsover is acted by them as thus inter-meddling, without being so called, must be null and void: so that the Act of the Churches of Boston and Sudbury in choosing Delegates to assist in or­daining an Officer in Springfield Church, was null and [Page 40]void, because they had never been applied to by Springfield Church. If this was so, they might well say we in­termeddled with an Affair that did not belong to us, and pronounce all our Acts to be null and void; for we acknowledge our very Being as a Council, and con­sequently the Validity of all our Proceedings, de­pends upon the Call of the first Church in Spring­field If Associations may take Matters into their Hands before they are put there, we don't think Councils should. Therefore to let the World see we did not run before we were called, we shall here give a Copy of one of the Letters missive;

Letters of the same Import were sent to all the other Churches. But they say the Committee that sign'd the Letters to the Churches, not only sign'd that in the Church's Name that never had been any Act or Vote of the Church, but the Church never gave that Committee power to act for them in chusing Churches to assist: And the Church did not only not give this Committee Power to chuse Churches to assist, but they never so much as appoin­ted them to send for those that Mr. Breck should chuse; but made Mr. Breck their Committee, tho' not yet a Mem­ber of the Church, and appointed a certain Person to go and wait on those Elders that he should chuse. What they mean by saying the Church made Mr. Breck their Committee, tho' not one of the Church, is not easy to conceive; for he is not nam'd as one of the Com­mittee that sign'd the Letters, nor was he appoin­ted to carry them. The Votes of the Church re­specting the Affair of the Ordination they give us a Copy of in their Narrative, P. 33. and they run thus,

The Church had not at this Time a Pastor at their Head, but were left to manage for them­selves as well as they could, and so their Votes are not drawn up in so methodical and ex­pressive a Manner, as they might have been; ne­vertheless the true Intent and Meaning of them is very plain to any one that has a Mind to under­stand them, and no Design to pervert them. The Church regularly met to vote upon Affairs respec­ting the Ordination; they chose four of the El­ders, that with their Churches, they desir'd might assist; thinking the Churches were sufficiently dis­tinguished by naming their Elders; than which nothing is more common: And as for sending to Elders without their Churches, it never entred into their Hearts. The naming the other four was left with Mr. Breck. And they chose a Committee to [Page 43]manage the Affairs respecting the Ordination; and one necessary Affair for which they were chosen, was to sign Letters to the several Churches of which these Elders were the Pastors. And because some of these Elders liv'd at Boston, they chose another of their Number to be their Messenger to carry the Letters to them This is the plain State of the Case, and this was the true Intent and Meaning of the Church, as they afterwards declar'd in a Body. For when the Coun­cil met at Springfield, it was soon suggested to them, that truly they were never applied to by Spring­field Church: Therefore at a Meeting of the Church by Adjournment the next Day, we thought it pro­per to inquire of them, Whether the Letters we had receiv'd came from that Church, and the Committee that sign'd them in their Name were appointed and authoriz'd by them so to do? And they universally answer'd in the Affirmative. This the Gentlemen have represented in P. 89, as our being accepted as a Council after our coming up to Springfield by a Vote of the Church, to supply the Defect of their not sending to us. And in the 88th Page, having said, That the Act of the Churches of Boston and Sud­bury in chusing of Delegates to assist in or daining an Officer in Springfield Church, was null and void, because they had never been applied to by Springfield Church, they go on to argue, and if that Act was null and void when done, the Vote of Springfield Church that was passed after­wards, could not make it valid; when in Truth no Vote of this Nature was pass'd, or ask'd for, or so much as thought of: There was only a plain Ques­tion ask'd the Church, to which they returned an Answer. It is therefore a very false Representation which they make of this Matter, and they have herein impos'd upon the World, & abus'd both the Church and the Council; but it is not the first nor the last Time of their doing so.

[Page 44] They go on in their Argument against the Regu­larity of the Council, and seem to think it encreases in Strength as it does in Length: To cut us all up by the Roots at once, they say, Indeed not only that Part of the Council that came from Boston and Sudbury were not regularly call'd according to congregational Prin­ciples, but neither that Part that belong'd to this County, for the Church never voted to desire the Assistance of any Church at all, or any of their Lay-Delegates, and voted for none but certain Presbyters by Name; the Church did nothing that by congregational Principles they had any Business to do, which was to desire the Assistance of other Churches, and did not only that which they had no Business to do, (viz.) chuse particular Persons out of other Churches to assist, which by congregational Principles belonged not to them, but to those other Churches they belonged to. So that by congregational Principles all they did was null, and THERE WAS NOT ONE SOUL OF THAT COUNCIL HAD ANT BUSINESS THERE accor­ding to the Platform, but their being there was in Oppo­sition to it. The whole Weight of this swelling Argument rests upon this, that only Elders are men­tion'd in the Church's Votes; tho' there is not any Question to be made, but they intended the Chur­ches of which they were the Elders, and in their Letters those Churches were address'd to send their Elders and other Delegates. The Gentlemen are very welcome to any Advantage they can make from so mean a Cavil, which none but the lowest Sort of Disputants would make Use of—But sup­posing Springfield Church had only desir'd the As­sistance of certain Elders by Name, and those El­ders had, with the Consent of their Churches, come to them, and carried on the Ordination, being sa­tisfied as to the Man's Qualifications for the Mi­nistry, to say that this is contrary to congregatio­nal Principles, and according to those Principles [Page 45]is null and void, discovers they have no thorough Acquaintance with those Principles they pretend to judge upon. The Platform in the Chapter of Ordination, Sect. 5, says, The Imposition of Hands may be performed by the Elders of other Churches, if the Church whose Officer is to be ordained so desire. And the Synod of 1662, speaking of the Communion of Chur­ches, says it is exercis'd by making Use occasionally of Elders, or able Brethren of other Churches, or by the more solemn Meetings of both Elders and Messengers in lesser or greater Councils, as the Matter shall require. But it may be the Gentleman who thus lays about him to invalidate the Springfield Ordination, had best not strike too furiously, lest the Blows should reverbe­rate upon himself; For, if we have been rightly inform'd, only certain Elders by Name were invited to carry on his own Ordination, and these never so much as chosen by the Church he was ordain'd to; tho' we don't suspect he has any Design to in­validate his own Ordination, and we have such a Respect both for the Person and Ministry of this Brother, that we would not go about to invalidate it neither, tho' it were only upon congregational Principles.

There is another Argument these Gentlemen make much Use of, tho' it does not stand distinctly by it self, but seems rather to run thro' their whole Performance, and to be interwoven with almost e­very single Argument, viz. That the Method taken by Springfield Church, and their Council, makes void all Endeavours any Ministers can use to hinder the settling of heterodox Ministers, and to prevent the Growth of Error in the Country. — That we have opened a Door for the letting in of Error, &c. and this at a Time when they ap­prehend the State of the Land requires that the Care that is taken in such Cases be not slighty, but thorough and ef­fectual. [Page 46]We have, perhaps, as good Opportunity to know the State of the Land, (i. e. of the Churches in the Land,) as themselves; & we are as apprehen­sive as they are, that it requires that the Care that is taken in the Settlement of Ministers respecting their Orthodoxy, should be not slighty, but as tho­rough & effectual as may be. But from the Know­ledge that we have of the State of the Land, we are fully perswaded the Care of Councils respecting this Matter, is likely to be as thorough and effec­tual as that of Associations. In this Way Purity of Doctrine has been preserv'd in these Churches, for more than a hundred Years: And if future Coun­cils will take as much Care in this Respect, as the Springfield Council has done, we hope there will yet be Truth in our Day; tho' whether our Care has been slighty or thorough, the Reader will not be able to judge, till we come to shew the Grounds up­on which we proceeded, which will be done in its proper Place. But our proposed Method leads us in the next Place,

III. To reply to those Things with which they charge the Council in general, or some particular Mem­bers of it, to bring an Odium upon them.

In general they charge us with Prejudice and Vio­lence, and say this was many Ways evident by our Con­duct.

In one Place 'tis suggested as if we had given Mr. Breck our Promise to come and ordain him; and for this they bring in the Rev. Mr. Allis as a Voucher. They say, P. 33, 34. The Rev. Mr. Allis, coming di­rectly from Mr. Breck, told some of us, that Mr. Breck intended it should not be known, what Churches out of the County should be sent to, till the Letters to call them were actually gone. And Mr. Allis added, There was no [Page 47]Doubt but Mr. B— would be ordain'd, for he had got some Gentlemen's Promise, that they would come and or­dain him. This Mr. Allis is a Gentleman of their own Association, and has given us Authority to contradict them in what they here say he told them. In a Letter to one of us, dated April 5, 1736, he says, ‘These are to inform you that what is produc'd in the Narrative, as an Argument to prove that you Boston Ministers were prejudiced in the Affair of Mr. B—'s Ord nation, and were not fit to fit as Judges in the Case, because as they say, I told them that Mr. B— intended it should not be known what Churches out of the County should be sent to, till the Letters to call them were actually gone; and that there was no doubt but he would be ordain'd, for he had got some Gentlemen's Promise that they would come and ordain him, is not so; for up­on the strictest Recollection in the World, I can't remember any such Expression, and have told the Gentlemen since they must needs be mistaken, and then repeated to them what I did say, which was vastly different from what they represent.’ To be sure the Suggestion, let it come from whom it will, is groundless and false. We now solemnly declare Mr. B— had never any such Promise from us; but on the contrary, we, (some of us at least) took Occasion once and again to say to Mr. B— himself, and those that bro't the Letters to us, that if we should go up, they must not think we came resolv'd to carry on an Ordination, but to hear and judge of what might be objected, and if there was not full Satisfaction given as to Principles, we should never lay our Hands on him. That we spake to this Purpose to them, they them­selves openly declar'd, upon an Appeal which we made to them, before the dissatisfied Brethren.

[Page 48] In the 90th Page some of us are charg'd with laying out our selves to be the Persons that must be the Judges in the Case, long before the Church bad any Meeting to chuse any Body; which, they say, is parti­cularly evident with respect to the Moderator, by a Letter be sent up hither directed to the Rev. Mr. Williams of Hatfield, to get us willing that he should come upon that Business, pretending to be unwilling to come without our Consent; but when he fail'd of obtaining that, be appear'd fully resolv'd to come nevertheless. This, like most of their other Matters, comes over twice; for they had told it before in their Narrative, P. 37. But they have hereby doubly abus'd Mr. Cooper, and basely misrepresented his Letter; the Design of which was not to ask the Consent of any of them, to his coming up upon a Council, if the Church of Springfield should apply to the Church of which he was a Pastor, and his Church should vote to send; No; Mr. Cooper never thought their Consent at all needful to that; But it was at Mr. Breck's Desire, and in his Name, to make the Motion which he him­self had made before, but did not think complied with, tho' they once & again speak as if it was, viz. that when the Objections against him from Connec­ticut were further heard in the Association, he might be allow'd to have two or three Ministers from a­broad present, to hear those Matters, and to use their good Offices as far as might be proper for them, to get the Difficulties remov'd, for the greater Sa­tisfaction, both of the People of Springfield, and of Mr. Breck. Their Consent to this Proposal was needful; and this is all that the Letter refers to. And if this Motion had been consented to at this Time, on the Part of those Gentlemen, it may be the greatest Difficulties had been remov'd, and the Things that follow'd prevented. Mr. Breck also desir'd Mr. Cooper to write upon another Account, [Page 49]viz. to represent to those Gentlemen the Affair of his Examination at Boston, according to the Light in which it stood with him; which Mr. Cooper did the more readily, because but a little before he had had considerable Discourse with Mr. Williams of Long-Meadow upon that Affair, and spake some­thing of writing to Mr. Williams of Hatfield about it.

The Letter now follows for the Reader to judge of.

We can't but think the bare reading this Letter, must convince the unprejudiced, that these Gen­tlemen in representing this Matter, have, on Pur­pose, set it in a wrong Light, and therein treated Mr. Cooper in a very disingenuous and injurious Manner.

To this Letter the Rev. Mr. Williams return'd an Answer, wherein, as they say, P. 37. he plainly manifested his Disapprobation. But how to reconcile this with their saying in P. 29. that the Proposal of joining some Ministers from abroad was con­ceeded to by him, is something of a Difficulty, un­less we suppose the good and venerable Gentle­man mistook the Proposal in the Letter, as by his Answer he really seems to do: Tho', perhaps, the Mistake might be more owing to his Amanuensis; for the Body of the Letter is wrote by another Hand, and only sign'd with his own; and super­scrib'd by Mr Williams of Long-Meadow, if we have not mistaken the Hand, which we think we have not. The Answer runs in the following Terms;

The Gentlemen carry on their Charge of Prejudice respecting those of the Council particularly that came from Boston, and say, P. 90, 91. It evidently appear'd in their acting when they came, contrary to what they gave Reason to expect; who assur'd the Rev. Doctor Colman, as he inform'd us in a Letter directed to the Rev. Mr. Williams of Hatfield, that when they came they would before they proceeded visit us, and not act without us, much less against us; but yet when they came never consulted with us, but acted intirely without us, yea, contrary to our Protestation —. Indeed they proposed that the Asso­ciation should be call'd together at Springfield when they came up, to give them their Reasons, &c. But this in [Page 53]our Judgment would have made an odd Appearance, for our Association to be call'd together from all Parts of the County, to appear before them, to give an Account of our selves to them, submitting our Conduct, as well as Mr. Breck's Case. to their Judgment. This Paragraph contains a complicated Charge, in which there is a Complication of vile Misrepresentations: We call them so, because they can be no other than willful ones.

The first Part of the Charge is, That when we came to Springfield we never consulted them, but acted intirely without them. This Charge, accor­ding to Custom, is made two or three Times over. We had it before, P. 79, where they say, We have the more Reason to complain that in an Affair wherein our Interest is so much concerned, and their's so little, they would resolutely proceed, without giving any Heed to our earnest Remonstrances, and stand aloof from us when they came into the County, and never so much as friendly in­quire of us, or give us any fair Opportunity to speak for our selves. When the Truth of the Case is, they stood aloof from us, and would not give us that Opportunity to confer and consult with them, which we earnestly desir'd and requested them to favour us with, in a Joint-Letter which we wrote to Mr. Williams of Hatfield. This Rev. Gentleman, after the Letters from Springfield Church had been read in our Churches, and they had voted to send, and appointed their Messengers, writes a Letter to Doctor Colman, the Contents of which he desir'd might be communicated to the other Pastors of the Churches sent to; in which he has such a Passage as this; "I can't but take it something hardly that upon Mr. Breck's bare Word, they should think so meanly of us, as to count it neces­sary to send their Ministers and Delegates to inter­pose [Page 54]in that Affair". And afterwards asks, "Are not our Churches got too deep into Contentions already?" This occasion'd our Writing to him the following (as we thought, respectful) Letter.

This Letter, before it was sent up, was shewn to some Ministers, who have never been suspected to be in the least prejudic'd in Favour of Mr. Breck or of us, who express'd themselves well pleas'd with our writing in so respectful Manner, and espe­cially with our desiring such an Interview with those Ministers; it was therefore the more surpri­sing to us to receive such an Answer from the good Gentleman himself as we did, wherein he speaks of himself as ill-treated, and refuses to call the Associa­tion together, unless it might be left to the Association, with our selves, to judge what might be objected against the Proceedings of Springfield Church. But this was not in our Power to do. We could not put the Proceedings of Springfield Church into the Hands of the Association to judge of & determine. None could do this but the Church of Springfield them­selves, and they had before refus'd to do it. Be­sides our Churches had now sent us forth with o­ther Delegates, in the Way of a Council of Chur­ches; and how could we set aside our Messengers, and join our selves with the Association, in judging the Case? All therefore that we propos'd, or could [Page 57]propose, was a brotherly Interview & Conference, between the Ministers of that Association, and the Ministers of the Council, to try if some of the Dif­ficulties could not be remov'd before the Council met, and way could not be made to have some o­ther of the neighbouring Churches yet sent to. If we had found Mr. Breck or the Church unreasona­bly refusing what was proper for them to do on their Part, we had some Reason to hope that by our Interest in them we might have prevail'd upon them to a suitable Compliance. With such Views and Hopes, and with Hearts full of Respect to our Fathers and Brethren in the Ministry there, (God is our Witness!) we went up to Springfield, a Week sooner than we should else have done; but found the Association would not condescend to give us the Meeting we so much desir'd, tho' they had not their Meeting at Deerfield neither. But instead of meeting us, a Number of them met for several Days successively with the Dissatisfied, and with the Justices that were fetch'd down from Northampton, and there is no Room to doubt were in the Scheme to stop the Councils proceeding in the Affair, by that extraordinary Interposition which every Body has heard of. And now, let any one judge, with what Reason and Justice they complain of us, that we stood aloof from them, and would not consult with them. Could they imagine we should go from one Part of the County to another, to meet with them singly, when they live so remote from one a­nother. Some of us, particularly Mr. Cooper and Mr. Welsteed, did go to visit Mr. Williams at Long-Meadow, where they found Mr. Raynolds with him, and had considerable Discourse upon the Affair. And we should with Pleasure have paid our Duty at Hatfield, if we had had more Reason to think the Visit would have been well receiv'd: but as the [Page 58]venerable Gentleman there, seem'd to think himself ill treated in a Letter, drawn up in as respectful Terms as we could do it, we despair'd of his think­ing himself well treated by us in a Visit: So that Reverence, and not Want of Respect, kept us from thence. But whether it was expected we should have proceeded, and humbly visited as far as Deer­field, we can't say.

We can also leave it to every Reader, of but com­mon Understanding, and the lowest Degree of Im­partiality, to say, Whether in the latter Part of this Charge, they don't treat us again in a most unjust and injurious Manner, when, for our thus request­ing them so far to favour us, as to have their Asso­ciation Meeting at Springfield instead of Deerfield, that so we might have an Opportunity for an In­terview and Conference with them, they represent us as writing in an assuming Way, to have their Asso­ciation call'd together, to appear before us, to give an Account of themselves to us, and to submit their own Conduct, as well as Mr. Breck's Case, to our Judgment Is there any Thing in our Letter that gives them Occasion to say this? Can this be any other than a wilful Misrepresentation of us, and our Proposal? And how should such Men be credited in their Re­presentation of other Matters?

They say farther concerning the Council, That their Prejudice evidently appear'd in the driving and vio­lence of their Proceedings, particularly when we earnestly desir'd them if they would come, at least to defer coming for some Time, and not to proceed so suddenly and hastily; that there might be further Opportunity for Consideration, or for things to get into a better Posture, but we were not regarded, they went violently on against all that could be said to them. How fast and violently we drove [Page 59]shall now be told. The Church at Springfield sent forth their Letters to the Churches, the Beginning of August. A Blank was left in the Letters to set the Time for the Council to meet, that might best suit those that liv'd at the greatest Distance. The People, as we understood by those that bro't the Letters, were desirous it might be early in Septem­ber. But the Ministers at Boston prevail'd to have October fix'd for the Time; so that there were two Months between sending out the Letters, and the Meeting of the Council: And one principal Rea­son why they desir'd the Time should be put off, was, that the Affair might not be bro't on too quick, and that there might be Opportunity for Consideration, and Things to get into a better Posture. Not only this, but we went to Springfield a Week before the Time for the Session of the Council; and let the Gentle­men there know that we should do so, that so we might have Opportunity to confer and consult with them. The Council (i. e seven of the eight Churches sent to) conven'd on the seventh of Octo­ber, in the Morning, and being form'd into a Coun­cil, let the Church, and the dissatisfied Brethren, know we were ready to hear what they had to of­fer to us. The dissatisfied Brethren let us know they were not yet prepar'd to bring in their Objec­tions, and desir'd further Time. The Council there­fore adjourn'd to 3 o'Clock in the Afternoon; at which Time they came & presented a Paper of Char­ges & Allegations against Mr. Breck, but declar'd they would not bring their Proofs, because they would not submit their Affairs to us as a Council. The next Day in the Morning the Council sent to them the following Vote, ‘That this Council expect the dissatisfied Brethren, not only to produce their Objections against the Ord nation of Mr. Breck, but also the Proofs and Evidences to sup­port [Page 60]them: And if the dissatisfied Brethren re­fuse to do so, we shall think it our Duty to in­quire into the Principles of Mr. Breck, and it we find him Orthodox, shall proceed to comply with the Desire of the Church in this Place.’ The Return was, that they should not submit their Affairs to us However, as the Council were appriz'd that the Rev. Messi. Kirtland and Clap, two Connec­ticut Ministers, who were then at Springfield were the principal Persons from whom the Objections against Mr. Breck came, they pass'd a Vote, and sent it to those Gentlemen, manifesting it to be ‘the earnest Desire of the Council, that if they knew any thing respecting the Doctrine, or Morals. or both, of Mr. Breck, which may disqualifie him for the Gospel Ministry, they would please to declare it freely to us.’ These Gentlemen, af­ter some Debate, both by Word and Writing, con­sented to give us an Account of what they knew. [We were now bro't to the Day, that had been nam'd by the Church for the Ordination; but the Council told them there could then be no such Thing as an Ordination; Time must be allow'd to hear and judge in the Case; and whether we should ordain at all we could not yet tell; and therefore forbad their making the usual Prepara­tions for Entertainment.] When the Rev. Gen­tlemen aforesaid were admitted into the Council, and the Council prepar'd to hear, Mr. Clap pro­duc'd and read sundry large Papers referring to the Principles of Mr. Breck, which Papers are publish'd in the Narrative. When Mr. Clap first began, Mr. Breck desir'd to know whether he might make An­swer to Things as Mr. Clap went along, or stay till he had done. The Council told him they would hear Mr. Clap out, and then he should have Op­portunity to make Answer. While Mr. Clap was [Page 61]reading his Papers, there came a Messenger on Horse-back to speak with him, who, having finish'd his private Message to Mr. Clap, rode away with convenient Speed, it is not unlikely to inform those that sent him, how to Time the next Messenger and Message. For just as Mr. Clap was finishing, & Mr. Breck was to have made Answer, there came an Of­ficer with a Warrant from three Northampton Justices who were fetch'd down to Springfield a Day or two before, to apprehend Robert Breck, Gentleman, and bring him before them, to answer to such Things as should be objected him. And Mr. Breck, being apprehended, was carried into the public Town-House, and Proclamation being made for any in the Assembly to testifie what they knew about the Principles &c. of Mr. Breck, the Rev. Messi Clap, Kirtland, and others, appear'd as Evidences to test­fie to those Things which they were before exhi­biting to the Ecclesiastical Council. Tho' the Council look'd upon this unprecedented Proceed­ing of the Justices, to be a direct Breach upon those Liberties of the Churches which the Law has con­firmed to them, and they had been in the unmo­lested Possession and Use of to that very Day, yet they made no Opposition to them, but on the con­trary endeavour'd to calm the Spirits of the Peo­ple, that were now put into Ferment eno'; and by their Influence kept them from any rash Ac­tion; and contented themselves with sending to them the following Vote by two of the Members of the Council, soil. ‘Voted by the Ecclesiastical Council in this Place, That they consider it as their Duty, not only to the first Church in Spring­field, but also to the Churches whom we repre­sent, and all the Churches of Christ thro' this Province, to acquaint your Honours, that when you sent your Officer to apprehend Mr. Robert [Page 62]Breck, and bring him before you, we were regu­larly and legally conven'd in Council, at the Desire of the first Church in Springfield, for the regular carrying on the Ordination of said Mr. Breck, according to the Order of the Gospel in the Churches of New-England, and were actually hearing the Charges against the said Mr. Breck, which your Honours have seen meet to take Cog­nizance of, and wrest out of our Hands.’

The Justices kept Mr. Breck from the Council till it was Night, and order'd the Officer to take Care of him till they should send for him again the next Day; but upon some of the Councils giving their Word he should be forth coming when call'd for, he was admitted to go to his Lodging that Night. The Council were together early in the Morning, and endeavour'd to go on with the Hearing; but it was not long before Mr. Breck was again sent for by the Justices. But Mr. Clap declar'd to the Coun­cil, he had the Day before delivered to them al­most all that he had to offer in the Case; and Mr. Kirtland said what he had to offer was much to the same Purpose, & tended to confirm what Mr. Clap had offer'd; and that it was given to the Justices in Writing the Day before, from whom might be had a Copy of it. The Justices kept Mr. Breck till it was late in the Afternoon, when they sign'd a Warrant to carry him to Connecticut, there to an­swer for those Things; and thither he was forth­with carried; a Number of the Church being cho­sen to attend him in Token of Respect, and the People giving evident Marks of their Affection to him as he went thro' the Town. — The Council while he was gone, did all they could that the Tem­per & Behaviour of the People might be suitable to their Circumstances; &, it must be said of them, they [Page 63]generally carried it becoming their christian Cha­racter. As an Instance of it, A Number of the Church came, the next Morning, to the Ministers of the Council, with a Desire that some Time might be spent with them in extraordinary Supplications to Heaven, upon so extraordinary an Occasion; to which we readily and willingly consented. It was propos'd at first to have it with the Church in pri­vate; but finding the Inhabitants concurring with the Church in the Motion and Request, it was a­greed to have it in Publick: Accordingly the Af­ternoon was spent in Prayer in the Public Meeting House, with a large and weeping Assembly; and the Word accompanied Prayer, in a seasonable Dis­course made by one of the Ministers, from those Words, Eph. 2. 21. In whom all the Building fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord.

The Day after this Mr. Breck return'd to Spring­field; and tho' the Council, after mature Delibe­ration upon the Case, were unanimously of Opi­nion, that as he had given, and was still ready to give, full Satisfaction about his Principles, the Ob­jections that had been made against him from Con­necticut of so long standing, were no longer a Bar in the Way of his Ordination; and tho' many of the People were desirous, if we had Light in our own Minds for it, that we should then proceed to or­dain; yet we tho't it best, on many Accounts, to proceed no further in the Affair at that Time: We therefore only come to a Result, in which we gave our Opinion and Advice to the Church; and having agreed to stay and keep the following Sab­bath with them, our Result was then publickly read. The next Day we made an Adjournment; and, after several Sessions by Adjournment, and after [Page 64]the Affair was determined in Favour of the Church and of the Council, so far as it went in the Gene­ral Court upon the People's Complaint, the Coun­cil, after the Space of more than three Months, met again at Springfield, and finding the People did a­bide firm in their Choice of Mr. Breck, and con­tinue stedfast in their Desires to have him ordain'd their Pastor, we did, upon what we esteem'd suffi­cient Satisfaction, proceed to answer their Desires. — And now, Where does the driving and vio­lence, they speak of, appear? We think we proceed­ed in the Affair by very slow and leisurely Steps; and shew'd much Moderation in our Councils and Managements; and that there was no other dri­ving but this, that we did not stay at Home when they bid us, and stop as they would have had us.

Another Thing they complain of us for, is, that we had not a public Hearing of the Case. Thus they ask, P. 47. Can it be tho't a proper Act of an Ec­clesiastical Council, to bear Matters of public Scandal, in which many are greatly concern'd, in a private and hid­den Manner? As was the Case here. If Ecclesiastical Councils, (or indeed any Judicature) acting as such, should thus conduct themselves, we cannot but think that they would give the World too much Reason to think, that they had other Things in View, than Righteousness, Truth and Pence. When the Council, Witnesses, and Accused, were secure within the Walls of a private Chamber, the Door fast shut, and latch'd upon them, the Business proceeded, &c. That Ecclesiastical Councils always meet first in a private House, and there form themselves into a Council, chuse a Moderator, Clerk, &c. and pre­pare Matters for a public Hearing, before they go into Public, is known to all that have ever attended such Assemblies. And the only Reason why we did not go into a public Hearing of this Case, was because [Page 65]the dissatisfied declar'd they would not submit their Matters to us a Council; and tho' they bro't to the Council a long Paper of Charges, or Allegations, against Mr. Breck, yet they once and again refus'd to bring their Proofs to support them; as appears by the 46th Page of the Narrative. And when the Rev. Messi. Kirtland and Clap, were afterwards de­sir'd to give the Council an Account of what they knew relating to Mr. Breck's Principles, they de­clar'd they did not come to be Accusers; they had been sent for by the dissatisfied to be Witnesses, but now they were come they found those that had sent for them would not improve them in that Ca­pacity, because they were determin'd not to submit their Affairs to us as a Council; and they, for their own Parts should not put themselves into the Place of Accusers, and so be under Obligation themselves to get Proofs and Evidences. The Council then said to them to this Purpose, 'We will not consider you in the Case, either as Witnesses or Accusers, but as Friends to Truth, and Persons concern'd for the Purity of the Churches, and speaking only to give the Council what Light you can at their Re­quest to you; and we hope, and, as far as we can, engage, that neither Mr. Breck nor his Friends, shall take Advantage of what you shall say, to give you any Trouble.' Then these Gentlemen desir'd the Hearing might be in public. — But the Coun­cil told them, 'There could be no Foundation for a public Hearing, unless some Persons would appear as Accusers. They themselves refus'd to do that; and the dissatisfied Brethren, when they bro't in their Paper of Allegations, declar'd they would not bring their Proofs; and to arraign a Man in a pub­lic Judicature, when no one appear'd as his Accu­ser, & when those that pretended to exhibit Charges against him, declar'd, at the same Time, that they [Page 66]would not support their Charges by evidence, was contrary to the Rules of common Justice: But if the dissatisfied Brethren, would let us know they were ready to support their Charges, or they them­selves would be his Accusers, we were free & ready to go into a public Hearing.' And herein we can't but think our Conduct will be justified by all wise and just Men. And as to the Door's being shut, while these Reverend Gentlemen wore giving us their Account, the Weather was too cold to al­low it to stand open; but it was never shut to keep out any that they desir'd might be present. They did desire Messi. Stephen Williams, Hopkins, Raynolds, and Bull, and some others might be present, & they were readily admitted. — It look'd very odd, that when the dissatisfied refus'd to submit the Case to us, and these Gentlemen declin'd the Place of Accusers, a public Hearing should still be so press'd for on all Sides, as it was. There is some Reason to think, there was another Design in it, besides the the endeavouring to blacken Mr. Breck all that they could. We know, (for it was prov'd before the Honourable House of Representatives) that a War­rant was prepar'd to apprehend that Part of the Council which did not belong to the County; and the going into public would have given a fairer Opportunity to have [...] the Warrant, and some more Colour to prosecute us for a Riot. But we can assure them not the Jealousy of this, but the Unreasonableness and Injustice of the Thing, made us decline going into publick.

Another Thing they say, (P. 91.) that shew'd the Prejudice of the Council was, their appearing Mr. Breck's Advocates, even before they came to a Result, as one of the Delegates did openly in Court. One would think they might be asham'd to hint any thing of [Page 67]what was transacted in the Court-House! — But an Ecclesiastical Council, and a civil Court, are very different Things: And why one Man's speaking for another in a civil Process, must disqualifie him from acting in an Ecclesiastical Affair, when that same Person is concern'd, other People will not so readily apprehend as these Gentlemen do: Besides that Delegate appear'd there in Behalf of the Coun­cil, as well as Mr. Breck.

They proceed and say, (P. 91.) Another Thing that shews the Prejudice of the Council, was their causing to be read, (as we presume it was of their ordering, because done so publickly under their Window) on Horse-back, in the Street, in the midst of a Multitude of People, Decla­rations of certain Persons, to no other End, but to repre­sent Mr. Kirtland and Mr. Clap to be Liars, &c. The History of this also was given before, (P. 65.) some­thing more particularly, after this Manner, Upon the Ninth of October, there was a very great Concourse of People gather'd at the House where the Council was sit­ting; whether call'd together, or accidentally met, we don't pretend to determine: But can't but take Notice of a very remarkable Scene that then open'd, which was this; The People being assembled in great Numbers before the Door, a young Gentleman, now of the Ecclesiastical Order, distinguish'd himself, by mounting a Horse, and reading off Mr. Breck's Confession of Faith, (the first possibly, that ever was read on Horse-back) And that which is more surprising still is, that tho' the Day before, the Evidences in Opposition to Mr. Breck's gross Errors, must needs be beard in a most private Manner; yet now the Evidences to invalidate them, must be read on Horse-back, &c. We have before taken Notice of the prodigious Piece of Wit, about the Horse and the Ass, which this serves to introduce; that which we have now to speak to is the Matter of Fact related. And tho' [Page 68]the Gentlemen's Manner of Reasoning here is ad­mirably strong, scil. It was done under their Window, therefore by their Order; yet we can assure them, if they will give Credit to us, that let it be done where it would, it was not only without the Coun­cil's Order, but without their Knowledge. The Time they speak of in which it was done, was the Day after Mr. Breck was carried from the Council before the Justices, and while he was with them the second Time, and they were signing the War­rant to send him to Connecticut. The Business of the Council being now obstructed, they were adjourn'd, and the Members of it scatter'd, some in one Place and some in another. Two or three of them were sitting & discoursing by the Fire-side, in the Cham­ber where the Council had sat, and there came up one or two of the Church, & said to them, 'They had heard some Evidences had been bro't to the Council, tending to invalidate some of the Evi­dences against Mr. Breck, and that Mr. Breck had himself given in a Confession of his Faith; and de­fir'd they might see them.' They were answer'd, 'That if they would be patient for a Day or two, the Council would by that Time come to a Result, and the Church would be sent for in a Body, and the Council would then give them all the Light they had themselves.' They said, 'They suppos'd it would do no Hurt just to take them down and read them, and they should soon be return'd.' So the Person who had those Papers in his Pocket, let them take 'em, without any Tho't of their be­ing read in so publick a Manner. But, it seems, as they began to read them; one and another gather'd about, and because they that had them could not read them very readily, a young Gentleman, a Can­didate for the Ministry, who happen'd to be by, was desir'd to read them; and because more ga­ther'd [Page 69]about than could well hear, he was perswade'd by some of them to get upon a Horse that hung by the Door. The Gentlemen of the Council who were sitting together up Stairs, perceiv'd nothing of all this, till it was just over; probably, they would not have advis'd to the Thing in the Man­ner of it, had they known it before. However, it may be remark'd, This was nothing near so public as the Transactions in the Town House the Day before, where all the Charges against Mr. Breck were read to a much greater Multitude, and as if they were not drawn un full enough, were har­rangu'd upon, according to the best of some Men's Talent, on Purpose to blacken him the more. But if the Concern of this young Gentleman for his Friend, at such a Time as this, did carry him a Step beyond the Rules of Prudence, for these Gentlemen to publish it in such a Way as they have done, with a plain Design to bring, as far as this can do it, an Odium upon him, helps to shew with what Tender­ness they use those that do any Thing that is not pleasing to them. And that which makes it still look worse in them, is, that Mr. Kirtland and Clap, whom they speak of as injur'd by it, did not mani­fest themselves offended with him for it; but a Week or two after assisted in his Ordination. But it will not hurt the young Gentleman, with those that know his discreet, sober, and ingenious Conversa­tion, which some of us had Opportunity with Plea­sure to observe.

The worst Charge, it seems, is reserv'd for the last; They finish with saying, (P. 92.) A­nother Thing that shews the Prejudice and Violence of the Gentlemen of that Party (if those can be called Gen­tlemen that can be guilty of so sordid an Act) is their intercepting and breaking open, and publishing in the Ga­zette, a private Letter of a Person of Distinction to his [Page 70]Friend; the taking such Methods to promote their Design, will have a Tendency to render both the Design, and them that promote it, infamous in the Eyes of all wise and sober Persons: Herein they have done that in the Face of the World, as glorying in it, which common KNAVES and RUFFIANS when they do, do privately, and keep secret, as being ashamed of it. The Gentleman that writes this seems to have his Temper pretty much rais'd, and to desire to raise the Passions of his Rea­ders too. And we acknowledge such an Act de­serves to be had in Detestation and Abhorrence. But as they relate the Story, it wants, as many of their Stories unhappily do, the needful Circum­stance of Truth. We are, some of us at least, charg'd with intercepting this Letter. But we do, every Man of us, (if they'l allow us once more to borrow some of their own Words) solemnly declare, to all that will give us the Credit of Men of common Honesty & Truth, that if the Letter they refer to was intercepted, we were, no manner of Way in the World, knowing of, or concern'd therein. A Copy of a certain Let­ter was bro't to Boston, but not one of us knows, from whom, or by whom, it came. Nay, we had not the least Tho't of its being intercepted, or bro­ken open, till the Narrative told us of it. But our Tho't was, that the Person to whom it was sent, thinking it must have great Influence as it came from a Person of such Distinction, had shewn it at Springfield, till some Body had taken a Copy of it. For these Gentlemen therefore to charge it so roundly upon some of us, upon no better a Founda­tion, and with such Terms of Reproach, as they use, is very injurious Treatment, and we might justly return their hard Words upon them; but we will only say, They may do well to consider, if it be not a Breach of the ninth Commandment, which they are obliged to teach others to observe and keep.— [Page 71]And as it was never intercepted by us, so it never was published by us, nor by any Body else that we know of. It is true there was an Advertisement publish'd in the Gazette, by Way of Amusement, with some Passages of this Letter interspers'd, the whole Design of which seem'd to be to let the Gen­tleman that wrote the Letter, & him to whom it was written, know that it had fallen into other Hands. It may be, but few of our Readers ever saw the Ad­vertisement, and some of them, perhaps, may have a Curiosity to read it, we will therefore transcribe it.

Now, that the Reader may judge whether the Letter was publish'd in this Advertisement, there shall follow a Copy of it; and as they say it came from a Person of Distinction, so we judge it to be a Letter of Distinction; tho' we will not so much as guess at the Person it came from.

The Reader may now see upon what Founda­tion their Complaints of us, and Charges upon us, do stand. But barely to vindicate our selves will not do. The Gentlemen will not be contented unless

IV. We let them, and the World, know wherein their Conduct is to be blam'd, or they are to be charg'd with any Injuriousness, Usurpation, &c. They be­gin their Defence with a Complaint, that we have never signified to them, what Parts of their Conduct have been Matter of Difficulty with us, or wherein we have thought it blame-worthy. And in the 73 Page they say, We have heard there is a great Cry of insufferable Tyranny in the Hampshire Association: We desire that those that have made and promoted it, either in this Coun­ty, or elsewhere, making all the Improvement they can of their own Observation, and all the Information they can get from any People in the County, or those Ministers that [Page 74]belong to us, that have dissented from us in the late Af­fair, to show in any one Instance wherein the Association of the Ministers of Hampshire have, in this Case, or any other, done any Thing that has in the least savour'd of a Spirit of Usurpation or Tyranny, or whereby the Privilege of any Congregational Church have in the least Degree been invaded. And is it to the Honour of them that make this Clamour, that they are the Authors of so great a Noise and Uproar, against a Body of Ministers in the Country, whereof they can give no Account, of shew any Ground? To gratify these Gentlemen, we will freely let them know, wherein we think their Conduct, in some Parts of it, is to be blam'd, and has more than savour'd of Usurpation and Tyranny. But because they have heard that they have been blam'd, in Things that we never heard them blam'd for, we will, (to do them Justice) let them know wherein we do not lay any Blame to them.

We do not blame them in the least, because they have in some Instances forborn to act as (they say) Mr. Breck, and the first Church in Springfield, would have bad them, because they would not act against their Judg­ments; No; so far from this that we think they are to be commended & honour'd for it, & not blam'd. And we intirely agree with them, that their not acting against their Judgments, was so far from in­vading the Rights of any Congregational Church, that whoever opposes them in it, invades their Right, not as Members or Ministers of either Congregational or Presby­terian Churches, but as Partakers with the rest of their Species of the Nature of rational Creatures. But then they should be willing to allow others, who are as rational and free Creatures as themselves, a Right to act according to their Judgments. We can't but think, Mr. Chauncey, Mr. Devotion, and Mr. Rand, had as good a Right to act according to their Judg­ments, [Page 75]in the Affair of Springfield, as Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Edwards, had to forbear act­ing against their Judgments; and that to oppose them therein is to invade their Rights as Partakers with the rest of their Species of the Nature of rational Creatures.

Neither do we at all blame them, that they have, either in private Conversation, or more openly, freely de­clar'd their Opinions, about the Springfield Affair; if they have but spoken the Words of Truth and So­berness. We are no more aware than themselves are, that either Congregational Churches or Councils, had ever a Right to oblige neighbouring Ministers to hold their Tongues, and not to dare to speak their Minds about the Regularity of their Proceedings. But neither are we aware that Presbyterian Ministers have a Right to tie the Legs and Hands of Congregational Ministers, that they shall not come & ordain a Minister in a Con­gregational Church, that has sent to them to ex­ercise such an Act of Communion with them.

And, that we may lay as little Blame as possible upon these Brethren, we say farther, We never blam'd them, nor so much as ever heard them blam'd, because the Rev. Mr. Williams, the Rector of the College in New-Haven, was at Springfield at the Time wherein the Ordination was intended. Tho' we think the Ex­cuse they make about his being there is something lame. They say, he came up a little before on a Visit to his Rev. Father at Hatfield, and was then on his Re­turn home, and came both to Hatfield, and to Springfield, without any of their Procurement; and they suppose bad as much Business there as the greater Part of Gentlemen have that attend Ordinations, and conclude he did not think he transgress'd any Rule, or invaded any Bodies Right in going there. If neither his being there, nor [Page 76]his Conduct there, needs an Excuse, why do these Gentlemen go about to make one for him? But if one is at all needed, it's Pity but they should make a better. He might, and no doubt did, make a Visit to his Rev. Father at Hatfield, but we know a great Part of his Time was spent at Northampton and Springfield, especially the latter Place, where he was more than once, and for diverse Days toge­ther, tho' it is twenty Miles from his Father's House at Hatfield. We can hardly think he came as other Gentlemen do to an Ordination, when the Week before, he could considently give out at Springfield, there would be no Ordination, or there should be none; and some others of Connecti­cut, that were with him there, could give out the same. It is much more likely he came to hinder the Ordination what he could, when he was with the Justices, and the dissatisfied for so many Days to­gether. And whether he did not urge the serving the Warrant upon that Part of the Council that did not belong to the County, let the Gentleman who refus'd to Consent to its being serv'd, be inquir'd of. When Mr. Breck was taken from the Council, into the public Town-House, & treated after the Manner he was, did not Mr. Rector Williams sit there, with a singular Air of Pleasure in his Countenance, to the Ob­servation of many that saw him? And did he not faithfully attend at Springfield, till the Business was so far over, that the Warrant was sign'd to send him to Connecticut? Then he rode a Way a little before, no doubt to prepare him a suitable Reception in that Colony; and to do as that Person of Distinction did, who wrote the Letter from N— H— to L—g-M—d—w. Yet we fully agree with these Gentlemen, that it would look hard, if they must be accountable for his being there, or for what he did there.

[Page 77] That we think they were to blame about the Choice of the Committee of Association, to hear Mr. Breck, and the Witnesses, we have said already. As likewise in their refusing to give us a friendly Meeting, and standing aloof from us, when we came into the Coun­ty. But especially do we think them Blame-worthy in that they have as an Association, or as County Mi­nisters, set up a Jurisdiction over the first Church in Springfield, and claim'd for themselves the sole Cog­nizance of the Affairs of that Church, and endea­vour'd to limit, controul, and over-rule them, in their free electing and ordaining Power. Herein, we say plainly, we think they have invaded the Rights of a Congregational Church, and are chargeable with no small Degree of Injuriousness, Usurpation, and Ty­rany. It will doubtless be expected that we shew the Ground of this Charge, and wherein it appears that the Hampshire Ministers have so done.

Now,

That these Gentlemen did, by virtue of their Si­tuation and Office, take the Affair of Springfield into their Hands, without its being referr'd to them by that Church, has been already made evident from their own Narrative; and that to judge of the Proceedings of that Church in the Call and Settle­ment of their Minister, did of Right belong to them, and them only, is what they argue and contend for, when they come to that Part which they call their Defence. See the 78th, 79th, 80th, & 81st Pages; out of which we have had Occasion to transcribe several Passages already, and therefore shall omit them here to avoid Repetitions.

That they endeavour'd to keep the Case in the Hands of the Association, and bring the Church at Springfield under a Necessity to submit to their Judg­ment [Page 78]and Decision, is evident from the great Pains they took to hinder the Churches sent to from coming up upon the Occasion. Many Letters were wrote to this End, in which were such Passages as these; "It is an odd Thing, that the Case of a Can­didate, bro't before an ASSOCIATION, should be wresied out of their Hands, (Nam sub judice lis erat) under a Notion of the Privilege that the Churches have to choose their own Officers, or of the Liberty to choose whom they will to ordain." — "If the Charges against Mr. Breck were heard by our whole ASSOCIATION, and be was clear'd by them, Things would be like to be easy.'— "For Gentlemen to come from distant Parts to concern themselves in this Affair, OR AND THE LIKE CASE, is irregular, and not to justified, Because the Ministers of this County are equal to the Business, and because they are more knowing in and better acquainted with the Case, and therefore more fit to be the Judges." —

This is still more evident from their Conduct after the Churches sent to did convene at Springfield: par­ticularly by that formal Protestation ^† sent in against the Councils proceeding at all to act in the Affair, sign'd by six of them, (to which another has since given his Concurrence) some of whom live about forty Miles from Springfield; in which Protestation they plainly claim the Church at Springfield as be­longing to their Diocess, by telling us our coming up there, was properly, allotrio episcopine, to play the Bishop in another Man's Charge.

But that the Powers of the Association might be in the most effectual Manner supported, and the Church of Springfield at last compell'd to submit themselves to their Jurisdiction, the Help of some [Page 79]Justices was call'd in; and after those Gentlemen, in an Interview with the Council, had let us know that they did not think it proper that other Mi­nisters and Churches should be concern'd in the Ecclesiastical Affairs of that County, there was a Warrant drawn and sign'd, to apprehend that Part of the Council, that did not belong to the County of Hampshire. And, if we are rightly inform'd, no­thing hindred the prepared Warrant's being actually serv'd, but the Prudence of one of the three Justices, who after it was sign'd, grew diffident in his own Mind a out the Step they were going to take, and so would not consent to have it serv'd. By this Means it was that the Measures were turn'd, from the Council, upon Mr. Breck and another Warrant was suddenly drawn and sign'd to apprehend him; which was accordingly executed. — And if we say, that the Ministers of the Hampshire Association, a considerable Number of them at least, were acces­sary to this Interposition of the Justices, it is no groundless Surmise. If they were not the Persons that complain'd to the Justices, or went to fetch them down to Springfield, yet, we know that Mr. Williams of Long-Meadow, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Raynolds, Mr. Bull, and Mr. Ashley, with a Person of Distinc­tion from Connecticut, came to Springfield when the Justices did, and were in Conversation, if not in Con­suit, with them, and the dissatisfied Party, from Day to Day, till the Business was over. — Indeed the four Ministers that were present at the Desire of Mr. Kirtland and Clap, when those Gentlemen gave their Account of Matters to the Council, did seem sur­priz'd to see Mr. Breck apprehended. And one of them particularly, said to a Minister of the Coun­cil, that he knew nothing of it, but was surpriz'd and griev'd at it. And we charitably believe him; for till then they imagin'd the Council was to be ap­prehended; [Page 80]for the sudden Change of their con­certed Measures from the Council to Mr. Breck, was made while they were present in the Council at the Hearing; and, we make no doubt, but it was a grievous Disappointment to them, that the Mem­bers of the Council were not seiz'd & committed, instead of Mr. Breck. — That it mayn't be said this is a bare Conjecture of ours, we will transcribe a Passage or two from a Letter, which one of those Ministers afterwards wrote to a Minister of the Council, — "I thought I had satisfied you when at Springfield, that I was not accessary to the Measures that the civil Magistrate took; for you told me you believ'd me, when I told you I was not. But I hear in Town, and from Boston, that I am mistaken if I think I have satis­fied you, that I was no way accessary, &c. I am sorry that my Veracity is bro't into such Suspicion with you; but yet I venture again to tell you, and that in Writing, that I am not sensible that I was accessary: For the Ap­plication to the civil Authority, by the grieved Party, was not only without my Advice, but even without my Know­ledge. For Capt. P— jun. went up with the Complaint to N— H— on Monday Morning, and I knew no­thing of it till the Afternoon.— Nay, that Day Mr. Breck was seiz'd, I was so ignorant of the Method the civil Authority intended to take, that it was a Surprise to me that Mr. B— was seiz'd; for I had concluded by what I had occasionally heard among them, that the Com­plaint was against the Council." It is very plain from this, that when the Gentleman speaks of his not being accessary to the Measures the civil Magistrate took, he means the apprehending Mr. Breck. He acknowledges that he (and no doubt the rest of his Brethren) knew of the Scheme as it was laid against the Council. We would then ask them, Whether they advis'd against it when they did know it, or manifested a Disapprobation of it? If they had [Page 81]so, and done it, not feignedly, but in such a Man­ner as shew'd them to be hearty in it, we believe their very civil Friends would have been loth to have griev'd them; and if they did not, we think they can't say, they were no ways accessary. But on the contrary we have Reason to think they disco­ver'd an Approbation of & Satisfaction in it. One of them said to a young Gentleman of Springfield, on the Evening before that on which the Warrant was to be serv'd on the Council, — To Morrow is Wednesday — and — Mark my Words! — The Town of Springfield will be in the greatest Convulsion it was ever in since it was a Town. — And the same Gentleman, (if we are not misinform'd) when the coming up of the Council the second Time was mention'd in Conversation, could say, If they do, the Jail is the fittest Place for them—. And we know another of them was not so much griev'd at the ta­king of Mr. B—, but he could go soon after, where a Number that had been engag'd in the Affair were together, and say to them, with an Air that did not discover much Grief, — Well, Gentlemen, We have had a fine Ordination to Day! — And since the Af­fair was over, the Action of the Justices has been not only vindicated, but applauded by them. One Reverend Gentleman in particular has these Words in a Letter, "I thank God we have Men in that Order, who know the Truth, and do honour it by their Practice, and are ready to appear in the Defence of it, when they see a just Occasion. — Now, when these Gentlemen have manag'd after this Manner; — not only ta­king the Case of Springfield Church into their Hands before it was put there, but claiming a Right to be the sole Judges of the Proceedings of that Church; using their utmost Endeavours that the Churches they applied to might not come to them; and when they did come, protesting in so formal a Manner [Page 82]against their Proceeding in the Affair they were call'd upon, because it belong'd to themselves, and would be playing the bishop in their Diocess; and then getting some in civil Authority to interpose as they did, to stop the Proceedings of the Church, and the Council they had call'd —; After all this, to hear them gravely ask, Where is the Foundation of all the Noise that has been about the Usurpation and In­juriousness of what we acted? And desiring us, that making use of our own Observation, and all the Informa­tion we can get, we would show wherein they have done any Thing, that has in the least savour'd of a Spirit of Usurpation and Tyranny, or whereby the Privileges of a congregational Church, have in the least Degree been invaded,

— Risum teneatis, Amici?

But we come in the next Place,

V. To declare the Grounds upon which we pro­ceeded to the Ordination of Mr. Breck to the pastoral Office in the First Church in Springfield.

And here we think it proper first to declare what we did not make the Ground of our Proceeding; tho' it is suggested as if we did. — Thus we did not make it the Ground of our Proceed ng that the Witnesses were not to be regarded. We think we gave all the Credit to the Testimonies of the Rev. Mr. Kirtland and Mr. Clap in particular, that was due to Ministers of the Gospel, of an establish'd Cha­racter and Reputation; and we should have done it, if they had bro't no Certificates from the Asso­ciation. It is true, there were some Evidences that tended to prove a Contradiction upon Mr. Clap; [Page 83]the Witnesses, (who were Messi. Lazell and Cook) being ready to testifie, That when the People of Scotland invited Mr. Breck to settle with them, they went to Mr. Clap to advise with him upon the Af­fair, who then told them without Hesitation, that he knew nothing but Mr. Breck's Principles were as good as any Man's in the World. But their E­vidences were not formally receiv'd by the Coun­cil, nor were they at all us'd by us to invalidate the Testimony of that Gentleman. Nay, tho' the Evidences that were given in to the Council, were suppos'd to be drawn up about a Year and half after the Conversation, and those Discourses, in which the Words and Expressions testified to, were deli­ver'd; and tho' there was Reason to think the Testi­monies of some of the other Witnesses were drawn by Mr. Clap himself; (for tho' the Gentlemen men­tion it in their Narrative, P. 15, as an ill Report, that Mr. Clap wrote Huntington's Evidence, yet they don't contradict it, & say he did not do it. And Mr. Lazell declares that when Mr. Clap came to him, as he did to others, to get his Testimony, he would have had it run in such Terms as he could not in Conscience subscribe to: And when he told him how his Evi­dence must run, if he gave one at all, then his Evi­dence was no longer desir'd) yet the Council did not put by their Evidences on this Account.

Neither did we make Mr. Breck's own Vindication of himself, the Ground of our Proceedings. As to his denying the Things alledg'd against him, as if there was no Foundation for them, but the Wit­nesses all lied in their Testimonies, he never preten­ded to do it. He did indeed in a Letter to a Friend, say of one Gentleman, that he lied; but it referr'd to a particular Thing which that Gentleman de­clar'd Mr. Breck said to him at such a particular [Page 84]Time, which the Gentleman has not yet prov'd, and we presume never can; because the Gentleman owns the Conversation was in private, and no Witnesses were present. With respect to some Part of what was alledg'd, he might say, he did not re­member his expressing himself so, and could not think be did: But yet his Word was in nothing receiv'd by the Council, against the Declaration of the Wit­nesses. As to some of the Points objected, He de­clar'd they never were his settled Belief, tho' he ack­nowledg'd he was at that Time in Doubt about them, and might in Discourse of them speak with too much seeming Assurance; which agrees with what the Rev. Mr. Kirtland says in his Evidence, that when he had sometimes ask'd him, Whether be really believed those Principles for which he disputed? He commonly reply'd, Some of them he did believe, and that sometimes he argued from the Opinion of others. And as to other Matters, tho', when he related the Occasion and Circumstances of his Discourse with the Persons that witness'd against him, & explain'd his own Sense, by adding some other Passages de­liver'd at the same Time, that tended to clear up his Meaning, it set Things in a different Light from what the Evidences plac'd them in, yet, the Coun­cil did not make this the Ground of their Proceed­ing, as if he had offer'd what fully came up to every particular, and stood sufficiently clear of the Things alledg'd against him, and his Representation of Things was right, and their's wrong.

Much less did the Council make it the Ground of their Proceeding, that the Matters objected against him were of a small or trifling Nature: No; we thought them of very great Importance, and suppose we do, in our Judgments lay as much Weight upon them, as the Gentlemen themselves [Page 85]disapprov'd of our Proceedings. — But we pro­ceeded upon what we esteem'd a full Satisfaction as to Mr. Breck's present Orthodoxy, or Soundness in the Faith; as appears by the Council's Result, of which a Copy here follows;

[Page 87] The Satisfaction given as to Principles is here said to be both by an Examination, and a Confession of his Faith. The Examination referr'd to was at Boston, more than half a Year before his Ordination; and he did not offer himself to be examin'd by Ministers there, because he declin'd being examin'd by the Hampshire Ministers; for they have told us in their Narrative, that he offer'd himself to Exa­mination before them, and they refus'd him. And we can assure the Reader his Examination was not a slighty one; if the Ability & Fidelity of the Eight Ministers that were concern'd in it may be relied on; who afterwards gave him a Testimonial of this Tenor.

[Page 88] Tho' such a Testimonal as this, in most Cases, would have been esteem'd a sufficient Satisfaction, yet the Council did not think it was in this. Mr. Breck was therefore directed to prepare and give in a Confession of his Faith, which if it was esteem'd or­thodox, should be publickly deliver'd at his Ordi­nation, if they proceeded to it. Such a one he gave in, which, when it was read and consider'd by the Council, was unanimously approv'd by them as an orthodox Confession of Faith; and, at the De­mand of the Moderator in the Name of the Coun­cil, it was publickly deliver'd by him, previous to his Ordination; and is as follows,

In this Confession of Faith, the principal Errors Mr. Breck was charg'd with are renounc'd, and the opposite Truths own'd and acknowledg'd by him in the fullest and strongest Terms, and the most solemn Manner, with an explicit Engagement to teach those Truths to others, in the Course of his Ministry. It is therefore very strange these disap­proving Gentlemen should say in their Defence, P. 92, That the Council declare in their Result, there was nothing in the Way of his Ordination, without his ever openly making any Recantation, or any Reflection on himself for the Errors be had [Page 91]vented: And that if be did make any Recan­tation before the Council, it was not made publick as the Case requir'd, but kept private. Why; they would not stay to see what the Council did do, but broke in upon us by the Help of the civil Magi­strate, before we had Opportunity to make any Thing public, or indeed to determine upon any Thing. But how could they say this when they had seen the Result, which says, the Confession of Faith was to have been publickly deliver'd at his Ordination, had it been then proceeded to? And as to Reflections up­on himself; Had he not made them in his Letter to Mr. Clap, which they have publish'd, P. 19, where­in he acknowledges his being too inconsiderate and incautious in his Discourses about the Points objected a­gainst him; and desires him, that if he knew any Persons that had conceiv'd ill of Religion or Revelation on his Ac­count, he would let them know he rejected all such Opi­nions, &c. These Gentlemen indeed make light of this Letter, and would have it pass for nothing at all. — Better they do so than we, considering who drew it up for Mr. Breck, and tho't it satisfac­tory then, namely, The Rev. Mr. Williams of Hatfield. We think still the Letter would have given more Satisfaction to those that were dispos'd to receive it, and that it might have been us'd towards re­pairing any Damage that had been done to Reli­gion; for Mr. Clap had it in his Power, and was expresly desir'd, to make it as public as he tho't was needful.—But what is more public than the Trans­actions of an Ordination, at which Persons from all Places round about do usually attend? And in the Confession of Faith which Mr. Breck then made, we think he did a public Honour to those holy Doctrines, which, they say, he had denied and treated with Contempt. They may call the Confession of Faith a Recanta­tion if they please; for it plainly contains a Re­nunciation [Page 92]of those Errors he had been charged with: And the Reason why it was insisted upon, and demanded of him, by the Council, when it is not of other Candidates, was, that he had given too much Occasion to suspect his holding such Errors. — If any now think all this is not Satisfaction enough, it seems to be a hard Matter to give them Satisfaction. If Mr. Breck is now really an ortho­dox Man, how can he satisfy any that he is so, but by an Examination, and a solemn Declaration of his Faith? Unless it will be said, There should be a Time of Probation; and this there was in his Case; for he had been preaching at Springfield, after he left Connecticut, more than a Year & half, and approv'd himself orthodox by the Tenor of his Conversation and Preaching there. If one that had been settled for some Years in the Ministry, had been charg'd with such Errors, and the Charges prov'd, and the Person, after a less Time of Probation than Mr. Breck had been preaching at Springfield, had re­nounc'd the Errors he was charg'd with, and own'd the contrary Truths, and solemnly engag'd to teach them for the Time to come, it would, doubtless, have been, in the Opinion of prudent & charitable Men, a sufficient Foundation for his being restor'd to the Exercise of his Ministry. How much rather then should this be esteem'd a Satisfaction, in the Case of a young Student, (just bolted out of Col­lege, at little more than 20 Years of Age,) before it can be suppos'd he had duly inform'd his Under­standing, and settled his Principles? Allow all the Objections against Mr. Breck in their full Strength, without any Abatement on any Account, and say that he was of such Principles, two or three Years ago; still he was not worse than a Heretic, make the worst of him. Now the Rule of the Gospel in such a Case is, Tit. 3.10. A Man that is a Heretic, [Page 93]after the first and second Admonition, reject. The End of the Admonition is doubtless to rectific the State of the Man's Mind, and reduce him from his Errors; if this is answer'd, and the Man makes a Profession of the Truth, that may be accounted sincere in a Judgment of Charity, he must not be rejected: The Rejection is to be only in Case he continues obstinate and irreclaimable. By what Rule then should this young Gentleman be rejected from the Ministry, who was free to say, that whatever Doubts had been in his Mind in Time past about some certain Points in Religion, they had been long since removed, by Study, Conversation and Prayer; who actually submitted to an Examination about those Points; who openly and solemnly, as in the Sight of God, own'd the contrary Truths; and farther declar'd, That if any still wanted Satis­faction, by Conference, or any other Way, he stood ready to give it to the ut most of his Power? As we know of no Rule by which his Rejection could be justified, so we think there are many would have been trans­gress'd by it.

As to Objections against Mr. Breck, that respected his Morals, besides what relates to the Books, (which we believe, every one of our Readers will think ought no more to be mention'd) we know of none, but what they call his aspersing some of the Wit­nesses; by saying, One of them lied, and he would not take another's Word for a Groat. We have been often told in the Narrative who these Gentlemen were, namely, the Rev. Mr. Clap and Mr. Kirtland Mr. Clap had declar'd, that when Mr. Breck came to visit him, after he was at Springfield, to discourse with him about the Objections he had sent thither against him, he still persisted in it, that the Heathen might be sav'd without Faith. When Mr. Breck heard the Re­port of this, he in his Haste did say, Mr. Clap lied. [Page 94]When his saying so of Mr. Clap was mention'd to him in the Association as Matter of Offence, he immediately said. "He was sorry he express'd him­self in so hasty and indecent a Manner, but he must insist upon it that in what Mr. Clap said of him he was wrong'd". Indeed it looks very strange that Mr. Breck should so express himself to Mr. Clap at this Time, when the whole Design of his Visit was to see if he could satisfie Mr. Clap, that so he might manifest himself satisfied to the Gentlemen of Hamp­shire; yet he might do it: But then the Burthen of Proof lies upon Mr. Clap; and as the Conversation was private, between Mr. Clap and Mr. Breck alone, Mr. Clap is not able to prove it, if Mr. Breck did really say so. In this Case, no other Acknowledg­ment can in Justice be insisted on from Mr. Breck, but only that he did not express himself in a suita­ble Manner; that considering Mr. Clap's Station and Character, instead of saying he lied, he should have said, he was mistaken, or mis-understood him — And, to this Purpose Mr. Breck did not only speak to the Association, but write to Mr. Clap him­self. The Words of his Letter are, " So far as I have been faulty, or have fail'd in shewing that Respect which was due to you, or of that Meekness which becomes a Christian, I ask Christian Forgiveness; and desire your Prayers, &c."

As to the Reason of Mr. Breck's expressing him­self as he did, respecting the Rev. Mr. Kirtland, we are not particularly acquainted with it; but the Council were much concern'd that both these Gen­tlemen might have a proper Satisfaction given them, if they had been hurt in their Reputation. And therefore when they were with the Council, after they had said all they chose to say about Mr. Breck relating to Principles, the Moderator in the Name of the Council, inquir'd of them, "Whether they [Page 95]had any Charges to make against Mr. Breck, upon the Account of any personal Injury he had done them? That if they had there might be a reaso­nable Satisfaction given them by Mr. Breck, which he at the same Time declar'd he was ready to give." But both these Gentlemen declin'd making any Charge upon him, or manifesting themselves offen­ded with him upon any such Account. And this is the Ground of what the Council say in their Result, That they are not sensible of any Thing respecting his Morals, to disqualifie him for the Gospel Ministry; inas­much as those Persons who have tho't themselves aspers'd by him, bad an Opportunity to bring in their Complaints, but did not do it; and to one of them particularly he had given what might be look'd upon to be christian Satisfaction.

And now that we may draw to a CONCLUSION.

We must, in our Turn, desire all that will allow them­selves to make Use of their Reason, and to think coolly on the Matter, to judge to whom it is that all the vast Confu­sion is owing, that has hapned with Relation to this Case. We know indeed all Men are apt to be partial to themselves in judging of their own Actions, yet we can't help thinking our Proceedings in this Affair are to be justified upon the Principles of Liberty and the Constitution. For we invaded no Men's Right. The Church at Springfield, which call'd us to act in their Affairs, was a free Church; and had never put themselves under the Jurisdiction of those Gen­tlemen that oppos'd us. They were inquir'd of, "Whether they had by any Vote, oblig'd them­selves to referr their Concerns only to the Ministers and Churches of that Association?" And they declar'd, No! It was also further declar'd, That tho' such a Vote had once been projected in the Association and offer'd to the Churches, and some of the Churches had been bro't into it, yet that this Church of Springfield, and some others in the Coun­ty, [Page 96]had refus'd it.— We think also our Proceed­ing to the Settlement of Mr. Breck in this Church, is to be justified upon the Principle of Justice, as well as Tenderness, to one who had been devoted to the Work of the Ministry, and spent a conside­rable Part of his Patrimony in his Education for it; who had now given such Satisfaction of his Sound­ness in the Faith, and of whose Abilities for the Work of the Ministry, and Sutableness to be their Pastor, the Church that call'd him were generally so well satisfied.—And that we have not espous'd the Cause of Liberty, or that of a particular Person or Society, to the Damage of the Cause of Truth, which should be most dear to us, we think appears from the Care we took to have the great Doctrines of the Gospel both secur'd & honour'd: We may say, Such Care as was never before taken at any Ordina­tion in the Country. And tho' these Gentlemen are pleas'd to represent us as Favourers of heterodox Prin­ciples, and having opened a Door for the letting in of Error upon the Churches, if Churches that are here­after call'd to Ordinations, whether they are at a Distance, or near at Hand, will take as much Care, and receive the like Satisfaction and Engagements from those whom they introduce into the Ministry, we believe there will be less Danger of the letting in of Error, than there has been for some Time past. For our Parts, we can't, after all, but hope our Con­duct in this Affair will be a real Service to the Cause of Truth, as well as Liberty, in our Churches.— And we can't but wish our Brethren of Hampshire, would, at this Time, put on a little more of that Charity, which rejoices in the Truth, and in Persons be­ing bro't to own and acknowledge it. Or if they still allow themselves to suspect Mr. Breck's Sinceri­ty, let them stay till he does something against the Truth, before they go to give him and his Church any more Trouble. Since there has been such Con­fusion [Page 97]already, let them but do their Endeavour there should be no more, & Things would, probably, very soon return to a State of Peace If it be the Cause of Truth and not their own apprehended Association Rights they have at Heart, (as they pretend) since Mr. Breck has been solemnly ordained to the Ministry upon those professed Principles which they account orthodox, why will they not own him as an ortho­dox Minister, till he discovers himself to be other­wise, and admit him to join with them in promo­ting the common Interests of Christ's Kingdom, and so prevent, or heal, the Breach in their As­sociation, which they seem so much concerned a­bout? This, we know, is what has been earnestly recommended to them by some whom they profess a great Honour for, and is what would rejoice their best Friends that are at a Distance from them. But if they continue to shew no Regard to Mr. Breck as a Minister, and will not so much as pray for a Blessing upon his Ministry, upon special Occasions that lead to it; and if they countenance the Mea­sures that are now taking, to get the Parish pre­sented to the civil Court, for not being supplied with an orthodox Minister as the Law requires, we fear those who have been ready to think there was nothing but the Wisdom and Meekness of Moses in them, will be ready to say, Ye know not what Man­ner of Spirits ye are of: And tho' they may call it Con­science, others will be apt to put another Name upon it.

The Gentlemen conclude their Defence, with a solemn Appeal to Heaven, in the following Words; Whoever condemns us, we rest in the Testimony of a good Conscience, appealing to our Lord and Master, who has sent us into his Vineyard and who is the righteous Judge of Heaven and Earth, that is omniscient, & never blinded with Prejudice, that he would judge us with respect to our Uprightness in this Affair.—Some serious, considerate [Page 98]Christians, have been a little surpriz'd at so strong an Appeal in such a Case. For our Part, We are sensible that Controversy always raises a Dust, that tends to blind even wise & good Men; and when such are fallen into a Contention, each Party are too apt to act from other Principles besides those of Religion and Conscience, and yet not always be sensible wherein, or how far, they have done so. They are but little acquainted with the Infirmities and Corruptions of Men in their present best State, that will not allow it is humane so to err. We would remember the Words of the great Apostle, I know nothing by my self, yet am I not hereby justified: and therefore instead of such a confident Appeal, we would take the Liberty to close this Vindication, as the Sermon at the Ordination concluded, with a humble Prayer, ‘That wherein any of us, on either Part, have failed or done amils, God would shew it to us, humble us for it, and spare us according to his great Mercy! And that wherein we have acted sincerely, from right Principles, & for right Ends, we may find Acceptance, for the sake of the per­fect Obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ, who al­wayes did the Things that pleas'd the Father! —That the God of Love, would unite his Ministers and Churches, in Love to Christ and one another, till we shall all come to that blessed World, where no Offence shall arise, where there shall be no Jar, no Contention, but perfect Love and Peace and Charity, shall reign for ever and ever! Where that Prayer of our Saviour for his Church and People, will have its full and everlasting Accom­plishment, THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE, AS THOU FATHER ART IN ME, AND I IN THEE; THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE IN US! AMEN.’