new Pastor, are commonly joined sincere expressions of personal regard, hearty desires for his success in the ministerial work, and glowing anticipations of that unbounded bliss, which is reserved by Jesus Christ for all his faithful followers.

Then follows a prayer by some one of the Council; the concluding services alone, the reading a psalm or hymn, and the benediction, being reserved to the newly ordained minister.

§ 81. Installation of a minister.

INSTALLATION is the settling of a pastor over a particular church, who was previously settled, but has been dismissed. It slightly differs from Ordination, since it is not customary a second time to confer the offices and privileges, which have been previously conferred, unless the person has forfeited them by misconduct, and regained them by reformation.

The preparatory proceedings of the Council are much the same, as in ordination; but evidence of a regular dismission is required. The public religious exercises are the same in number and order, but without the laying on of hands. The expressions, which are made use of in the performances, naturally vary with the difference in the situation of the persons, to whom they relate. In consequence of this and of the omitting the ceremony of imposing hands, what is, on other occasions, termed the Ordaining or Consecrating, is, on this, termed the Installing prayer.

§ 82. Accountability of delegates and ministers to the Churches.

It would seem reasonable, if delegates and pastors on these occasions are the representatives of the churches, that they should be responsible in some measure to those, for whom they act. On this subject the following sentiments are expressed in Samuel Mather's learned Apolo

gy for the Liberties of the New England Churches. "Particular churches then, (he says, CH. III.,) are possessed of this right and privilege of appointing and sending forth elders [ministers] and other delegates on suitable occasions; and by the same reason they may call them to an account at their return. And if upon inquiry it shall be found, that they have done any thing prejudicial to the truth and peace of the Gospel, they may justly expostulate with them, and ask the reasons of their conduct, and refuse to regard what they have been doing.Nor indeed can any thing be more fit and suitable than this, that the Messengers of particular churches, who have done amiss, or lay under the suspicion of irregular conduct, and a faulty management of their affairs, should be questioned by the churches, whose messengers they are, and in whose service they are employed.

"And as this is fit and suitable in itself, that the brethren in particular churches should call their delegates to an account for their management in their service; there is also an instance to be given from the Scripture, which will sufficiently justify the brethren in the use of this lib. erty; it is Acts xi. 2d and 3d verses; where we read, that, when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they, that were of the circumcision, contended with him, or rather called him to an account, in order to pass their judgment, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised and didst eat with them. And it follows in the next verse, that Peter rehearsed from the beginning and expounded by Order unto them.

Now, if the brethren might demand of an Apostle the reasons of his behavior, and if the Apostle thought himself accountable to them, and, therefore, obliged to apologize for his conduct before them, the conclusion is strong and irresistible, that now the brethren have the liberty and much more to inquire concerning the man

agement of their elders and other delegates,".-See also on this subject, Platform, CH. xv. § 2; Cotton's Book of the Keys, CH. VI. p. 26, Lond. 4to Ed.

83. Of the members of Councils substituting others in their stead.

The same writer, and in connection with the subject of the preceding section, considers the power or right of a member, who has been chosen to act in Council, to substitute another in his room. "But supposing," he remarks, "as it is a supposable case, that any delegates from particular churches, upon emergent occasions should substitute others in their room, and so should not be able to give any account of their transactions? I answer, that, although the case may be supposed, the thing ought not to be; for none in such cases have the power of substituting others in their room and stead; any more than an ambassador from one prince or commonwealth hath the power of substituting whom he pleases to perform the embassy for him."

§ 84. Of inviting others to sit as members, who are not chosen by the churches.

says,

The writer, just cited from, may also be considered as expressing the sense of the churches concerning the right of Councils to invite, on their own authority, other persons to sit and act with them. Referring, as there is reason to suppose, to such cases in particular, to which at any rate his statement will apply, he "No persons have a right to consult, vote, or act in behalf of any particular church, but by virtue of a delegation from that church. It is this alone, that empowers them. And if, without such empowering, any shall pretend to act, as their delegates, they must be deemed busy-bodies in other men's matters."

Further; there does not appear to be any Congregational authority whatever for the particular church, that

assembles the Council, to invite individuals to sit and act in the same, in their own persons and right, and not as the representatives of sister churches. Admitting the existence of Congregationalism as a system, it can be clearly made out, that the church, which assembles the Council, is restricted, as well as the Council itself, in its mode of proceeding. Such a restriction is implied in the nature of Councils. It is laid down as an undoubted principle, that Councils are founded ultimately on the ground of church communion and fellowship. If, therefore, individuals, (not the representatives, and perhaps not the members of churches,) were permitted to act in Councils, whatever may be their standing and character, this fundaınental principle would be unsettled, and perhaps ultimately subverted.

§ 85. Of the Church-membership of a minister.

It is one part of the duty of a Council to ascertain the fact of the church-membership of the Pastor elect, before proceeding to his Ordination. But it makes no difference in the prosecution of the proceedings of his Ordination, whether he is found to be a member of the Church, over which he expects to be ordained, or of some other. But the general practice in the case seems to authorize us to consider it a settled principle, that, if he has not done it previously, he should establish a membership in the Church over which he is placed by Ordination or Installation, as soon as it can conveniently be done afterwards. In individual practice there have been some exceptions, but this is the general rule; and there seem to be sufficient reasons for it.

(1) It is an admitted Congregational doctrine, and is to be considered as practically very important, that private church members should, in all ordinary cases, and as soon as can well be done, transfer their church rela

tionship to the church of the place where they actually reside. The pastor must, of course, be a church member somewhere. And if the rule, which has just been mentioned, cannot be rejected or relaxed in the case of private members, it does not well appear, how it can be in the case of ministers. On the contrary, it would seem, that the prominent position of the pastor would render the influence of his example desirable in this respect, as well as in others.

(2) Furthermore, the Pastor meets, votes, and in other ways acts with the Church. He sustains the office of moderator, and sometimes of clerk; he is from time to time authorized by the church to sit on councils; and is often appointed as a member of Committees of the brethren on church business. And it does not clearly appear, how all this can be done consistently with Congregational principles, without his being at the same time a member of the church and a subject of the same rights and responsibilities as the other members.-It is true, the practice of the churches permits him to act as moderator of the church EX OFFICIO; and that too whether he has become a member or not. But it should be remembered, that he acts as moderator not merely because he is Pastor ; but because, holding the pastoral office, which is entitled to great consideration, he has the implied consent and approval of the brethren in the discharge of that duty. But until he has really removed his relationship to the church over which he is pastor, it is questionable, whether this implied consent authorizes him to assume other rights, and discharge other duties, additional to the moderatorship.

(3) The determination of a Pastor not to establish a membership in his own church would be likely after a time, to generate feelings of distrust and alienation on the part of its members. It would be natural for them to feel under the circumstances of the case, that their