A letter to the author of the pamphlet called An answer [sic] to the…A letter to the author of the pamphlet called An answeer [sic] to the…

In Page 26, 27, you cry out against what we plead for, as intolerably arbitrary, and say, And a fine Scheme it is, to setter and enslave the Churches, and have Things carried according to the Will, Humour, Prejudice and arbitrary Disposition of a particular Set of Ministers. And you represent it as insufferably tyrannical, especially on that Account, that it admits of no Appeal. Here in the first Place, we observe, That we are injuriously represented in this Supposition of yours; we are far from thinking that there ought not to be Appeals from Churches of a particular Neighbourhood, to a bigger and superior Council; as a particular Member ought to be subject to the Body; and that because, though we think the ecclesiastical Concerns of a particular Neighbourhood, or Member of the Body, belongs to them, rather than to any other particular Neighbourhood, because they do much more nearly concern that Member, than any other co-ordinate Member; yet the whole Body must be looked upon as having a greater Concern in the Interest of all the Members, than any such particular Member: And when we speak of such Affairs, belonging to such a Neighbourhood, and not to others, we intended no other, and think, could fairly be understood no otherwise, than that they did not belong to other Neighbourhoods, and other Churches co-ordinate with them: When it is said that such an Office or Work belongs to such a Member and not to others, it must be understood of other particular Members and not the whole Body, of which both that and others are a Part. But, Sir, will you allow your own arguing to be good, in which you take Occasion reproachfully to represent us as a Set of Ministers of an arbitrary Disposition, that endeavour to setter and enslave the Churches, and carry all Things according to our own Will, Humour and Prejudice, and arbitrary Disposition? Will you allow this Argument of your's conclusive, that our Scheme is arbitrary because it don't admit of Appeals? Then, Sir, What ⟨p. 25⟩will follow concerning your own Scheme, by which a Person can demand no Appeal from the Judgment of a particular Congregation? What Appeal are the poor aggrieved Brethren at Springfield allowed, in that Cause that has been agitated between them and their Brethren, that so nearly concerned the eternal Welfare of their own Souls, and the Souls of their Children?

In Page 26, 27, you cry out against what we plead for, as intolerably arbitrary, and say, And a fine Scheme it is, to setter and enslave the Churches, and have Things carried according to the Will, Humour, Prejudice and arbitrary Disposition of a particular Set of Ministers. And you represent it as insufferably tyrannical, especially on that Account, that it admits of no Appeal. Here in the first Place, we observe, That we are injuriously represented in this Supposition of yours; we are far from thinking that there ought not to be Appeals from Churches of a particular Neighbourhood, to a bigger and superiour Council; as a particular Member ought to be subject to the Body; and that because, though we think the ecclesiastical Concerns of a particular Neighbourhood, or Member of the Body, belongs to them, rather than to any other particular Neighbourhood, because they do much more nearly concern that Member, than any other co-ordinate Member; yet the whole Body must be looked upon as having a greater Concern in the Interest of all the Members, than any such particular Member: And when we speak of such Affairs, belonging to such a Neighbourhood, and not to others, we intended no other, and think, could fairly be understood no otherwise, than that they did not belong to other Neighbourhoods, and other Churches co-ordinate with them: When it is said that such an Office or Work belongs to such a Member and not to others, it must be understood of other particular Members and not the whole Body, of which both that and others are a Part. But, Sir, will you allow your own arguing to be good, in which you take Occasion reproachfully to represent us as a Set of Ministers of an arbitrary Disposition, that endeavour to setter and enslave the Churches, and carry all Things according to our own Will, Humour and Prejudice, and arbitrary Disposition? Will you allow this Argument of your's conclusive, that our Scheme is arbitrary because it don't admit of Appeals? Then, Sir, What