«r«cr « «r 
 
 «.*«: «... « 
 «aac 
 
 taUR -r r 
 
 
 c«r« 
 
 
 < <. ««L< < * 
 «c ^Cx (C« 
 . < « «k>« *•< * 
 
 s <r< «rfe ( «?<r« 
 
 . < «. «r«< * < 
 XCC «L c<€iC«C 
 
 . ' c «« «. « c< 
 
 « < 
 
 4N 
 
 
 
 
 t «■ 
 
 O 
 
 
 «c< 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 [ <c 
 
 i 4 
 
 «cr«c 
 
 ^M 
 
 c 
 
 
 t< 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 C 4 
 
 < « 
 
 
 
 
 ^ c 4 
 
 
 < <■ 
 
 r< 
 
 ^T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >. ' 
 
 <c 
 
 iT"^ 
 
 
 
 << 
 
 r c 
 
 L 
 
 
 . «■«. 
 
 -4R, 
 
 
 1 «. « 
 
 «hhhJ 
 
 < 
 
 vX 
 
 Lj^- 
 
 
 < 4 
 
 ^c< 
 
 <*W-_ 
 
 
 «< 
 
 r_ . * 
 
 
 V.<i«U 
 
 
 v C 
 
 < < 
 i < 
 
 if c <8L 
 
 •we *■ «c«c 
 
 «■£.> < «k: 
 ^:< < «c 
 
 •bc. «c 
 
 «? <*: 
 
 < ••PC <v« 
 
 4t t 
 
 
 <5!t< 1 4i«^ < « e 
 
 
 <LC- 
 
 .C.^4C<"^ 
 
 SL./c<.<< 
 
 HIBRARY OF CONGRESS. J 
 
 ^r <c 
 
 
 
 { -«*rX ?2 . 
 
 # i| 
 
 ! UNITED STATES OP AMERICA, i 
 
 '&> < %. < 5fe. < %' Ife'%r<%.<^^<%,'«.'^ 
 
 ,4tL ^ 
 
 4lV < 
 
 *L L .*4^ <-< 
 
 <c 
 
 C. t 4 
 
 ^ri «. ^. •'V 
 
 <c 
 
 4 
 
 - ^<.«fc-v^* 
 
 _ ■ <<: 
 
 C < * 
 
 *^4JP Vm \ *^ 
 
 < V 
 
 V < « 
 
 C4 ^S V 
 
 CL <- i 
 
 ' 
 
 ■^' c^gfc|^^ 
 
 K-L-*:* 
 
 • V 
 
 
 ' """U 
 
 « V 
 
 «* • 
 
 ^^— ^r"« ^_4| 
 
 HC ' 
 
 " ^ 
 
 9Va4T 4X^1 
 
 1C_ ■ ■ 
 
 (( ( <■ 
 
 I. *^. , 4K 
 
 *«■*" 
 
 _< *v 
 
 
 <- " 
 
 *c* 
 
 
 < « 
 
 
 
 
 Ml 
 4C4 
 
 an 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 «*u < 
 
 «^ 
 
 ■1 
 
 fe 
 
 ^■l. * 
 
 ««:. 
 
 <f3c: 
 
 4CA. 
 
 ,4*|'«C 
 
 ** 
 
 <- ^»^ 
 
 
 4« « 
 
 \ 
 
 ^« 
 
 «JC 
 
 .. i<K 
 
 c 4d 
 
 
 • ■..<■ 
 
*C <Z <L 
 
 <ml. <:< 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 r 
 
 ^_ <CS1 Cc 
 ^:esc cc 
 ^<1^ cc 
 
 ■ 
 
 CL <:<! cc 
 
 mkucct cc 
 
 Sgeroc: <* 
 •SCCdCC 
 <*zed c<, 
 
 ««r«c< * 
 
 : << 
 : <r 
 
 _«c « 
 
 cc cc 
 
 ~jC <r 
 
 or « 
 
 c«r d> 
 
 c cz< ccc 
 
 d det- 
 er dd «C57 
 
 d oc ec 
 
 - «sfd 
 
 cc<c 
 d cc 
 
 c<. ce; 
 ec or 
 
 << C«C 
 
 '< «d 
 
 c 
 
 5t C-'d 
 
 pcd-c 
 
 Co C 
 
 cc 
 
 CcC 
 
 c o 
 < d 
 c d 
 
 C C C <i 
 
 CC C Cc 
 
 cc cc 
 cc co. 
 O CCC 
 
 C<L CO 
 
 O cc< 
 
 :< c.d 
 
 dree 
 
 v.. 
 
 . < 
 
 4& CC 
 
 < 
 
 . c 
 
 '• o 
 
 <-" 
 c 
 
 < «ct »-*c 
 
 c <<lc«c 
 
 rca- 
 
 sfcCMcr 
 
 ■c c < 
 C C< 
 
 ^^cc«c 
 re cc«c: 
 
 . >S c <"< «£ . 
 
 << • , . ^ 
 
 ^C'cxcc; 
 
 «3<r«C: 
 
 ~ "d. 
 
 •<«D:e«^BC 
 
 ■«t"Lo.«T 
 
 c d 
 
 <r c 
 
 «Ci<.v#L 
 
 C d 
 
 •«£c«n 
 
 c d_ . 
 
 *LL"-1» 
 
 «? «r 
 
 «^« 
 
 « <i: ■ 
 
 ■ «r<s<« 
 
 <c <r 
 
 «53« 
 
 CL <1 
 
 ■•ejc«i 
 
 •CrC<@_ 
 
 «^x«C 
 
 cccc 
 
 «r o C 
 
 C C * 
 
 «d:- d 
 
 <r<e: 
 
 <L'<L 
 
 4fi«2«C 
 
 eteT -"^'> 
 <rcc <«c -i-ej 1 
 
 CCC <^ 
 
 L 
 «d: 
 
 Jc S • O 
 
 dT d 
 
 Cc Cf« 
 
 dec 
 
 »J^ < c 
 Cc • 
 ejc<_< 
 
 c c 
 < C 
 
 c o • 
 
 c ■- <r ■ 
 c C • 
 c C 
 
 c c « 
 
 t c 
 < C 
 
 «C <- 
 
 c C 
 
 ccc<«i 
 
 «: i-.v<i,. 
 
 4KTvd<T 
 
 «C cCi^Z;_ 
 
 <cz< 
 
 <r <<i 
 
 
 <Stc c 
 
 arc c 
 
 «KX C 
 »s<c t <r 
 
 <serc 
 
 «Cc d 
 
 ■C" . <: 
 
 d cz 
 
 4&cm: 
 
 c C 
 
 C C 
 
 O Cc 
 
 
 «:^ d 
 <n o 
 
 c C 
 o < 
 
 cc <: 
 
 «tCC< 
 4KS&C 
 
WHAT 
 
 CONGREGATIONALISM 
 
 HAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE PAST CENTURY. 
 
 By CHRISTOPHER CUSHING. 
 
 Reprint from the "Congregational Quarterly" for October, 1876= 
 
 / 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 ALFRED MUDGE & SON, PRINTERS* 
 
 34 School Street. 
 
 1876. 
 
 <7T 
 
J^ft 
 
 V 
 
WHAT CONGREGATIONALISM HAS ACCOMPLISHED 
 DURING THE PAST CENTURY. 1 
 
 The relations of Congregationalism to our colonial history 
 and to the shaping of our national institutions have frequently 
 been made the theme of discourse, and with them we may all 
 be presumed to be familiar. Our national historian tells us 
 that " John Calvin, by birth a Frenchman, was to France the 
 apostle of the Reformation ; but his faith had ever been feared 
 as the creed of republicanism." 2 Edward Randolph, who, as 
 agent of Charles II, endeavored to destroy the liberties of 
 the colonists, complained of the independence exercised in 
 the government of Massachusetts as " one chief occasion 
 of the many mutinies and distractions in other of his majesty's 
 foreign plantations " ; and seeing that this independence 
 resulted chiefly from the Congregational polity of the churches, 
 he undertook to secure a change in the ministry, sending 
 to England for men who would labor to establish here a differ- 
 ent form of church government. The first political text-books 
 used by the statesmen who founded the republic were written 
 by ministers as an exposition or defence of the Congregational 
 polity of the churches. From our earliest history to the pres- 
 ent time our New England churches have been the warmest 
 supporters of our government. 
 
 Mindful of the specific theme assigned me, I shall confine 
 my observations to the present century. In fact, within these 
 limitations the theme is so vast as to be embarrassing. To 
 give the details is impossible ; to indulge only in general state- 
 ments is unsatisfactory. On such a theme generalities would 
 not be instructive, nor could they be characterized as "glitter- 
 ing." A hundred years, which the memory of no living man 
 can compass, — a hundred years in this fast age is more than 
 a thousand years when the pyramids were built. 
 
 1 Read before the Alumni of Andover Seminary, June 28, 1876. 
 
 2 Bancroft, Vol. II, p. 174. 
 
Emerson tells us that " the poet never plants his foot except 
 on a mountain peak." It is only the prominent points in the 
 century which we can touch to-day : the deep, the beautiful 
 valleys must be left all unexplored ; and as we pass on from 
 peak to peak, I fear the whole scene will be made unattractive 
 by the want in your guide of a poet's vision or a poet's fancy. 
 
 I. The first point on which we will alight is the numerical 
 strength of the Congregationalists. 
 
 At the commencement of the century there were, so far as 
 can be ascertained, about 700 Congregational churches in our 
 land : now there are nearly 3,500. The number of members 
 in the Congregational churches then it is impossible to state 
 with any degree of accuracy : the present number is about 
 350,000. This gives an average at the present time of about 
 100 members to each church. 
 
 The entire population of this country, a hundred years ago, is 
 variously estimated to have been from 2,750,000 to 3,500,000 : 1 
 now we have about 40,000,000. Then we bad one Congrega- 
 tional church to every 4,000 or 5,000 inhabitants : now we have 
 only one such church to something over 11,000 inhabitants. 
 Hence, although the numerical increase of our churches is 
 encouraging in itself, it is not so in its ratio to the increase 
 of our population. The further fact cannot escape our atten- 
 tion, that our growth is slight compared with that of other 
 denominations. A century ago the Congregationalists stood 
 first, and now they rank as the seventh among the different 
 denominations. Then, viewed as respects the number of their 
 churches, the eight leading denominations ranked as follows : 
 Congregational, Baptist, Church of England, Presbyterian, 
 Lutheran, German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, Roman Cath- 
 olic. Now the order is, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Ro- 
 man Catholic, Christian, Lutheran, Congregational, Protestant 
 Episcopal. 
 
 The German Reformed and the Dutch Reformed have fallen 
 out of sight, and the Methodist and Christian denominations 
 have not only entered the list but become conspicuous. 
 
 At the commencement of the century there were, in all, 
 something over 1,900 church organizations in this country : 
 now there are about 75,000. Then there was one church to 
 
 1 The first census was taken in 1790. 
 
every 1,700 or 1,800 souls : now there is a church to every 
 500 or 600 souls. 
 
 The complaint is sometimes made that there are too many 
 churches in our land. The foregoing figures furnish the 
 presumption that the fault, if there be one, does not lie at our 
 door. We have not increased our churches as the population 
 has increased ; in the swift competition we have yielded the 
 track to others. So true is this that the only question for us 
 to consider respecting our own course is, whether we have 
 been faithful to our trust ? 
 
 We have met with great losses. 
 
 In the Unitarian defection 96 churches in Massachusetts 
 were separated from our fellowship, and 30 additional parishes 
 excluded evangelical preaching from their pulpits. 1 Thus there 
 was a loss to our denomination of 126 houses of worship, 
 which, with the parish and church funds, involved a loss to us 
 of not less than $750,000. At that period this was a heavier 
 blow to our denomination than these figures indicate to us, who 
 are now familiar with larger numbers and an inflated currency. 
 Moreover, these parishes were chiefly among the largest, 
 wealthiest, and most intellectual in the State. 
 
 Another heavy reduction of our forces resulted from the 
 " Plan of Union " between us and the Presbyterians, adopted 
 in 1 801, which, in the language of the late Dr. Joseph S. Clark, 
 made provision that "Presbyterians and Congregationalists, 
 emigrating to the new settlements of the West, be encouraged 
 to foster a spirit of 'mutual forbearance and accommodation' ; 
 that a Congregational church settling a Presbyterian minister, 
 or vice versa, may still ' conduct their discipline ' according to 
 their own ecclesiastical principles ; and that, in case the church 
 be of a mixed character, partly Presbyterian and partly Con- 
 gregational, they may ' choose a standing committee from the 
 communicants of said church ' to issue all cases of discipline 
 without consulting anybody else, but allowing the condemned 
 member to appeal, if he were a Presbyterian, to the Presbytery, 
 if a Congregation alist, to the church." 2 
 
 In the practical working of this " Plan of Union," the ad- 
 vantage generally accrued to the party having the stronger 
 
 1 Dr. Clark's Congregational Churches in Massachusetts, p. 270. 
 
 2 Ibid. pp. 241-2. 
 
form of government. A Presbyterian minister presbyterian- 
 ized his flock. The churches formed on the " Plan of Union " 
 were put "under care of Presbytery/' and the Presbytery cared 
 for them ! Thus hundreds of churches, composed chiefly of 
 Congregational elements, have been turned away from our 
 communion. 
 
 If we would estimate what Congregationalism has accom- 
 plished the last hundred years, we must include more than 
 appears inside our denominational lines. The material which 
 we have furnished the Presbyterians is not to be viewed simply 
 as a loss to us. By means of that material we have moulded, 
 in no small measure, the Presbyterian Church ; we have sup- 
 plied them not only with church-members but also with minis- 
 ters. When Dr. Lyman Beecher found that he was to be tried 
 for heresy, he encouraged Congregational ministers to connect 
 themselves with Presbytery, that by the introduction of New 
 England elements his own position and that of men who were 
 in sympathy with him might be strengthened. 
 
 The first regularly ordained Presbyterian minister in North 
 America ] was taken from Congregational stock. 
 
 A large proportion of the ministers of the Presbyterian 
 Church at the present time are of New England birth. Not 
 less than two hundred and fifty of them have been educated 
 in a single New England college. Congregationalism has 
 furnished for the theological seminaries of the Presbyterian 
 Church more than a score of professors. Of the seven pro- 
 fessors now in the Union Theological Seminar}', of New York, 
 five, and among them the most prominent, were formerly pas- 
 tors of Congregational churches. Of the two hundred and fifty- 
 five Presbyterian ministers of whom Dr. Sprague gives a sketch 
 in his annals, fifty-three were born in New England. Many 
 of the leading men of the Assembly, such as Sprague and 
 Spring, among the honored dead ; Humphrey, the moderator 
 of the recent reunited body ; Hatfield, Stearns, and March, 
 and others too numerous to mention, are men of Congrega- 
 tional antecedents. We have, to a great extent, congrega- 
 tionalized the denomination. Practically, the Presbyterian 
 churches now settle and dismiss their own ministers without 
 being subject, as of old, to the authority of the session. The 
 
 1 Rev. Jedediah Andrews, Philadelphia, 1 698-1 747. Born in Hingham, Mass. 
 
denomination may boast, if they will, of their peculiarities ; 
 but should their Scotch ancestry return to earth and enter 
 their assembly, the old heroes would hardly recognize them as 
 kith or kin. We can scarcely imagine their surprise when 
 they should learn that their old standards are now received 
 only "for substance." What would be their dismay when 
 attending a church meeting to see women voting ! Congrega- 
 tionalists generally do not favor women's voting, even in eccle- 
 siastical affairs, or addressing promiscuous assemblies. It is 
 claimed by some that in certain lines the Presbyterians are 
 more radical and revolutionary than the Congregationalists. 
 We do not care to be responsible for all their faults, but we do 
 think we can claim no small measure of credit for their true 
 progress and enlightenment. 
 
 We have furnished elements for other denominations as well. 
 Mr. Bancroft, in his history, first published in 1837, testified that 
 at that recent date the Puritans of New England were " the 
 parents of one third of the whole white population of the United 
 States." 1 Who believes that there would have been a lay 
 delegation at the present time in the Methodist Episcopal Con- 
 ference had it not been for Congregational blood in that church, 
 and the influence of Congregational principles ? 
 
 Even an Episcopal rector on the Pacific coast, referring to 
 the spirit of liberty pervading his church, recently declared, 
 " My church is not Episcopalian : it is Congregational; for even 
 the women will do as they please in spite of me." 
 
 We have not kept all our flock within our own fold, but those 
 who have gone out from us still bear our mark. It is no slight 
 honor to have moulded the institutions of our land and the 
 character of the people. Why we have not retained our hold as 
 a denomination upon a larger portion of our population, — why 
 we have not grown as rapidly as other denominations, is an 
 interesting subject of investigation. The explanation is not 
 found, as it seems to me, in the suggestion of a scholarly writer, 
 of broad-church sympathies, who ascribes it to a " wide-spread 
 reaction against the whole dogmatic apprehension of Chris- 
 tianity." 2 The Baptists have retained their Calvinism, and 
 
 1 Vol. I, p. 468. 
 
 2 Prof. J. L. Diman, North American Review, January, 1876, p. 24. 
 
8 
 
 yet, as a denomination, have made rapid strides. The Presby- 
 terians boast of their "precise dogmatic system," and yet have 
 vastly increased their numbers and their power. If we have 
 made comparatively slow progress the explanation is to be found 
 rather in such considerations as the following : — 
 
 (i.) Because, with a high-church assumption, we have theo- 
 retically taken the ground that our churches are churches of 
 Christ, and do not belong to a denomination. 
 
 (2.) Because we have practically failed to appreciate and 
 commend our church polity. 
 
 (3.) Because, in our extreme catholicity and excessive gen- 
 erosity, we have spent our strength in building up other denom- 
 inations. 
 
 The work which we have done outside of our own lines is 
 a noble one ; yet we cannot but feel that a still nobler work 
 would have been wrought had we imitated the priests of ancient 
 Israel, and built over against our own house. 
 
 We would not speak disparagingly of what has been accom- 
 plished within our own lines. Of the 700 churches in our 
 fellowship a century ago, 516 still remain on our list. To a 
 just apprehension of our work we must include in our view 
 the 325 churches and 76,000 church members which we have 
 gathered on the foreign field, while even at home we have 
 multiplied our churches five-fold. 
 
 II. The second point on which we will rest our foot is the 
 benevolent operations of the Congregationalists . 
 
 In the latter part of the eighteenth century a few local soci- 
 eties were formed with particular reference to the Christianizing 
 of the Indians. A "society for propagating the gospel in North 
 America " originated on the other side of the water, and had 
 commissioners in this country. As early as June, 1762, these 
 commissioners sent Rev. Eli Forbes, of Brookfield, and Rev. Mr. 
 Rice, afterward of Westminster, with Mr. Elisha Gunn, of Mon- 
 tague, as interpreter, to the Indians of the Susquehanna Valley, 
 where, among the Tuscaroras, they " opened two schools, one for 
 adults and another for children, gathered a church, and admin- 
 istered special ordinances to them." l Mr. Forbes, on his return 
 
 1 Sermon of Rev. Joseph I. Foot, Note w, p. 91, preached Nov. 27, 1S2S; re- 
 print, 1843. 
 
brought four Indian youths with him, whom he educated and 
 sent back to instruct their nation. 1 " The Congregational Mis- 
 sionary Society in the counties of Berkshire, Mass., and Colum- 
 bia, N. Y.," was founded in 1798 ; the Connecticut Missionary 
 Society was organized the same year, and the Massachusetts 
 Missionary Society in 1799. These societies had for their 
 object the diffusion of " the knowledge of the gospel among 
 the heathen, as well as other people in the remote parts of 
 our country, where Christ is seldom or never preached." 
 
 The Hampshire Missionary Society was organized in 1802, and 
 " The Massachusetts Society for promoting Christian Knowl- 
 edge" in 1803. The latter was for "the benevolent purpose 
 of promoting evangelical truth and piety : in the first place, by 
 a charitable distribution of religious books among poor and 
 pious Christians, and also among the inhabitants of new towns 
 and plantations ; and secondly, by supporting charity schools 
 and pious missionaries in places where the means of religious 
 instruction are sparingly enjoyed." 
 
 As early as January, 1803, the Brookfield Association con- 
 templated the formation of a missionary society in Worcester 
 County. In 1806 it was voted to attempt such an organization, 
 and this action resulted in the formation of a Society at Lan- 
 caster, in the fall of 1807, called "The Missionary Society in 
 the counties of Worcester and Middlesex." The control of 
 this Society soon fell into the hands of unevangelical men, and 
 this led the association which initiated it to withdraw from it 
 their sympathy and support. 
 
 The Connecticut Bible Society was formed in May, and the 
 Massachusetts Bible Society in July in the year 1809 ; the 
 American Board was formed in 18 10 ; and while all these move- 
 ments in behalf of the heathen and the destitute in distant por- 
 tions of our land were inaugurated and carried forward for a 
 period of more than fifty years, it was not until 1818 that the 
 " Domestic Missionary Society of Massachusetts Proper " was 
 formed " to assist needy churches, parishes, and waste places " 
 in the State, a work now familiarly known as Home Missions. 
 
 The decade from 18 10 to 1820 was remarkable for the origin 
 of great benevolent movements. The Howard Benevolent 
 
 1 Peter Whitney's History of the County of Worcester, 1793, p. 75. 
 
IO 
 
 Society of Boston was formed in 1812 ; the American Tract 
 Society, Boston, in 1814; the American Education Society 
 and the Massachusetts Peace Society, in 181 5 ; the American 
 Bible Society, the Boston Female Jews Society, and the Bos- 
 ton Society for the Religious and Moral Instruction of the 
 Poor, now known as the Boston City Missionary Society, in 
 1816; the American Colonization Society in 1817. The 
 American Home Missionary Society was formed in 1826, and 
 the two Missionary Societies in Massachusetts, viz. " The Mas- 
 sachusetts Missionary Society," formed in 1799, an d "The 
 Domestic Missionary Society of Massachusetts Proper," 
 formed in 1818, were combined in 1827 as "The Massa- 
 chusetts Missionary Society," which was changed to the Mas- 
 sachusetts Home Missionary Society in 1844. 
 
 The American Tract Society, New York, was organized in 
 1825, and the American Peace Society and the American Sea- 
 men's Friend Society in 1828. 
 
 From the Foreign Evangelical Association of 1837, changec 
 to the Foreign Evangelical Society in 1839, ^ ne American Pro- 
 testant Society of 1843 and the Christian Alliance formed in 
 1843, a new organization, under the name of the American 
 and Foreign Christian Union, was formed in 1849. 
 
 The Society for the promotion of Collegiate and Theologi- 
 cal Education at the West was formed in 1843 ; the American 
 Congregational Union in 1853, and the Congregational Library 
 Association, now known as The American Congregational 
 Association, the same year. 
 
 It would be impossible to name in such an address as 
 this all the minor organizations for benevolent work, or to 
 give a detailed account of such societies as have been named. 
 I shall restrict myself to a few general statements respecting 
 what are now known as the six co-operative societies engaged 
 in our denominational work. 
 
 (1.) The American Board, the oldest of the six, formed in 
 1 8 10, was originated by Congregationalists, although the Pres- 
 byterian and the Dutch Reformed churches soon shared in 
 its management. Upon the division of the Presbyterian 
 Church in 1837, the old-school branch formed a separate 
 organization for missionary work ; and the Dutch Reformed 
 
 
1 1 
 
 Churches withdrew from the American Board in 1857. When 
 the two branches of the Presbyterian Church reunited in 
 1870, the new-school churches withdrew, leaving the Ameri- 
 can Board to the Congregationalists. The receipts of the 
 Board have been $15,500,000. It has established 48 mis- 
 sions, sustained 1,600 missionaries, gathered 325 churches, 
 received 76,000 church members, given instruction to 400,000 
 pupils, and printed 1,420,000,000 pages for the promotion of its 
 gigantic work in seeking the conversion of the heathen world. 
 
 (2.) The American Education Society, organized in 181 5, 
 and the Society for the Promotion of Collegiate and Theological 
 Education at the West, organized in 1843, were united as the 
 American College and Education Society in 1874. This So- 
 I ciety, embracing both branches, has received about $3,000,000, 
 aided in preparing for the gospel ministry 6,300 young men, 
 and helped to endow 22 colleges or theological seminaries, — 
 a record of which any Society may well be proud. 
 
 (3.) The American Home Missionary Society was organ- 
 ized in 1826. The Presbyterians, the Associate Reformed, 
 and the Dutch Reformed were associated with us in the for- 
 mation and early management of this Society. The Associate 
 Reformed and Dutch Reformed soon retired without formal 
 action. The Presbyterians continued their co-operation until 
 a portion of their churches commenced taking up contributions 
 for planting Presbyterian churches " in advance of all others," 
 thus diminishing their contributions to our common treasury,, 
 while still using our common treasury for the support of their 
 poor churches. The exposure of this practice brought the 
 subject of co-operation definitely to the consideration of the 
 Presbyterians, and in 1861 they withdrew from the organiza- 
 tion. The entire receipts of this Society have been over 
 $7,500,000 ($7,621,071). Under its direction 31,486 years of 
 ministerial service have been performed ; the gospel has been 
 preached in 43 States and Territories ; its missionaries have 
 organized 1,889 churches; an< ^ there have been added to the 
 churches which have received its aid 265,297 souls. 
 
 (4.) The Congregational Publishing Society came into ex- 
 istence through a tortuous course. The Congregationalists, 
 the Baptists, the Episcopalians, and the Methodists co-oper- 
 
12 
 
 ated in the organization of the Massachusetts Sabbath School 
 Union, May 24, 1825, auxiliary to the American Sunday 
 School Union organized in Philadelphia the previous year. 
 The Episcopalians and the Methodists soon withdrew from 
 the Massachusetts Society, but the Baptists and the Con- 
 gregationalists continued to work together until 1832. On 
 the 30th of May of that year they made an amicable separation, 
 and the Society was dissolved. The next day the Congrega- 
 tionalists formed the Massachusetts Sabbath School Society, 
 which, for a time at least, co-operated with the American Sun- 
 day School Union. The American Doctrinal Tract Society 
 was organized in 1829. Its name was changed in 1850 to 
 The Doctrinal Tract and Book Society, and further changed 
 in 1854 to The Congregational Board of Publication. This 
 Society united with the Massachusetts Sabbath School Society 
 in 1868, under the name of the Congregational Sabbath School 
 and Publishing Society, and the present name, The Congrega- 
 tional Publishing Society, was assumed in 1870. The receipts 
 of this Society for benevolent purposes, beginning with the 
 Massachusetts Sabbath School Society in 1832, and not in- 
 cluding what was given to the Doctrinal Tract Society under 
 its various phases, previous to the union in 1868, have amounted 
 to about $150,000. 
 
 (5.) The American Missionary Association was formed 
 Sept. 3, 1846. It soon combined in itself four elements or 
 pre-existing organizations. (1.) The Amistad Committee, 
 which had in charge the interests of the Amistad captives. 
 (2.) The Union Missionary Society, organized in Hartford, 
 Conn., and having an anti-slavery aim. (3.) A committee for 
 West India Missions, formed in 1844, to sustain some mission- 
 aries from Oberlin, who had attempted a self-supporting mis- 
 sion ; and (4.) The Western Evangelical Missionary Society, 
 formed in 1843 by an association in Ohio to prosecute mis- 
 sionary operations among the Indians of the West. The asso- 
 ciation has devoted itself to both the foreign and the home 
 field. It has had 9 missions abroad. It had at one time 29 
 stations and 70 foreign missionaries, 18 churches, with 1,500 
 members. It had also at one time 1 12 home missionaries, and 
 145 churches, with 5,223 members. It now devotes itself 
 
13 
 
 chiefly to the three despised races in this land, — the Negroes, 
 the Indians, and the Chinese. It has 56 churches at the 
 South, with 3,601 members. It gives great prominence to the 
 educational work among the freedmen. It has 7 chartered 
 institutions of learning, and numerous schools. Its entire 
 receipts have exceeded four millions of dollars ($4,148,832.53). 
 
 (6.) The American Congregational Union, the last of the 
 six, was organized in 1853. It commenced at once gathering 
 and publishing the statistics of the denomination, and now 
 issues them annually in a form and with a completeness which 
 invite comparison with those of any other denomination. The 
 Union was the result of the Albany convention of 1852, and 
 including the fund raised by that convention for church build- 
 ing and the forefathers' fund gathered in 1856, the receipts of 
 the Union have been $791,185.21 ; 931 churches have been 
 aided in the erection of houses of worship ; 959 houses have 
 been built or restored. The amount paid to the churches 
 is $633,091.70 •; the amount paid for parsonages, $778.35 ; and 
 the amount paid for pastors' libraries, $3,201.83. 
 
 The entire receipts of these six denominational societies 
 have been over $31,000,000. It may be suggested that a por- 
 tion of this money has been contributed by members of other 
 denominations, and hence that these entire receipts cannot be 
 reckoned as the work of Congregationalists. This is true ; 
 but on the other hand it is to be considered that what has 
 been contributed outside of our denominational lines has come 
 principally from Presbyterians, a large part of whom were of 
 Congregational origin. Since we have given to Presbyterian- 
 ism the men, it is a slight thing for us to be allowed the credit 
 of what they have contributed through channels which are 
 now in our hands On the other hand we have contributed 
 large sums to aid the Presbyterians ; we gave thousands of 
 dollars to furnish a library for Lane Seminary, and contributed 
 $10,000 at one time to build houses of worship for the Presby- 
 terians in Missouri. 
 
 Again, I have made no note of the large sums which we 
 have contributed to organizations which continue to be of a 
 union character, such as the Bible Society, the Tract Society, 
 the Seaman's Friend Society, and others too numerous to 
 
name. So thoroughly have we entered into benevolent work 
 in all its ramifications, that it is impossible to separate what 
 we have done from what has been done by others, and estab- 
 lish a distinctive claim to it. 
 
 In a review of the benevolent work of the century in its 
 relations to Congregationalism, we find some very remarkable 
 things : — 
 
 First. The most of the great religious and benevolent move- 
 ments of the age originated with us. 
 
 Second. After we commenced the organization of benevo- 
 lent societies, for more than fifty years we never organized one 
 under a Congregational name, or on a distinctively denomina- 
 tional basis. The American Congregational Union, organized 
 in 1853, was the first denominational Society which we ever 
 formed. 
 
 Third. We never withdrew from a union Society, except in 
 the case of the American and Foreign Christian Union, and 
 then only on the ground of its mal-administration. 
 
 Fourth. Of the six co-operative Congregational Societies 
 which we now sustain, five were originally union societies, and 
 were made denominational only by the withdrawal of other 
 denominations from them. Four of them still retain an unde- 
 nominational name. We are not schismatics. If we work by 
 ourselves, it is because others have left us to work alone. 
 
 Fifth. We have a smaller number of denominational ob- 
 jects for which we make annual appeals to the churches than 
 any other of the great evangelical denominations of Christians. 
 While we have six, the Baptists have seven, the Methodists 
 eight, the Presbyterians eight, and the Episcopalians nine. 
 
 Sixth. We are the only denomination which embraces 
 union societies on the schedule on which we make our annual 
 returns of benevolent contributions. The Methodists report 
 what they contribute to the Bible Society. Other denomina- 
 tions have a column for miscellaneous charities ; but many of 
 our State bodies still give prominence, or at least specific 
 mention of contributions to union societies. 
 
 Other denominations have learned that they can work most 
 efficiently within denominational lines. Hence, to do so is not 
 necessarily schismatic, but only an adroit adaptation of means 
 
*5 
 
 to ends. We commend their efficiency, should we not emu- 
 late their skill ? 
 
 But, waiving the question of modes and methods, we have, 
 during the past century, accomplished a work in the planting 
 of Christian institutions, in the extension of Christian influ- 
 ences, which we may review with satisfaction, and with grati- 
 tude to Him who is the Giver of faith and the Author, in us, of 
 every benevolent purpose, and through whose gracious aid our 
 efforts are crowned with success. 
 
 III. The third point of observation is, the agency of Con- 
 gregationalists in moral reforms. 
 
 Of the various branches of reform I will notice but two, viz. 
 temperance and anti-slavery. The evils of intemperance have 
 not escaped notice from the days of Lot down to modern 
 times. The first efforts at reform in this century were not 
 very radical. A Society was organized at Moreau, New York, 
 in 1808, the members of which pledged themselves not to 
 drink " rum, gin, whiskey, wine, or any distilled spirits, or com- 
 positions of the same," except in cases of sickness, and " at 
 public dinners." This was as accommodating as the pledge of 
 a Society in Yale College, in 1840, which excluded the use of 
 all drinks which had more than six per cent of alcohol in them, 
 and was designed to allow the members to indulge in the fes- 
 tivities of the political campaign, in which " coon-skins and hard 
 cider" bore so conspicuous a part. The Rev. Thomas Snell, 
 of North Brookfield, Mass., preached a foreign missionary 
 sermon, in 18 12, in which he suggested that his people should 
 drink less liquor, and from what they thus saved make a con- 
 tribution to the missionary cause, and he accompanied the 
 suggestion with the agreement to save from his own liquor 
 bill the next year the sum of three dollars. He afterwards be- 
 came a stanch temperance man. The Massachusetts Society 
 for the suppression of intemperance was organized in Boston 
 in 181 3. It was a temperance, but not a total abstinence 
 society. Dr. Lyman Beecher preached his famous six ser- 
 mons on temperance in the winter of 1825-26. Rev. Dr. 
 Hewitt, of Bridgeport, Conn., early appeared as a temperance 
 advocate. Rev. Dr. Justin Edwards, of this seminary, will be 
 remembered for his prominence in the temperance cause. In 
 
i6 
 
 1825 he united with Rev. Dr. Woods, and fourteen others, in 
 forming in Boston "The American Society for the Promotion 
 of Temperance." In the following year " The American 
 Temperance Union " was organized in the same city, — where 
 else could a temperance movement be expected to originate ? 
 I cannot dwell longer on this theme, having said enough 
 already to indicate the relation of the Congregationalists to 
 the inauguration of this great moral enterprise. 
 
 On the subject of slavery a fuller treatment seems necessary. 
 It was in 1776, just a hundred years ago, that Rev. Samuel 
 Hopkins published his Dialog?ie sliowing it to be tJie Duty and 
 Interest of the American States to Emancipate all their African 
 Slaves. Societies were organized in several of the States from 
 1775 to the close of the eighteenth century, having for their 
 object the gradual abolition of slavery, which exerted a strong 
 influence in securing the extinction of slavery in several of 
 the Northern States. The friends of liberty made a stout 
 resistance to the admission of Missouri, as a slave State, in 
 1819 and 1820. In the article on "Slavery" in the American 
 Cyclopcedia, now in course of publication, it is stated that " the 
 Missouri conflict was followed by a period of profound repose 
 in regard to the whole subject. The publication, by Benjamin 
 Lundy, a Quaker, of a small journal at Baltimore, entitled 
 Genius of Universal Emancipation, was almost the only visible 
 sign of opposition to slavery until William Lloyd Garrison 
 established The Liberator, in Boston, Jan. 1, 1831." This 
 statement accords with what is now a somewhat general im- 
 pression, but it is not altogether truthful. When the Liberator 
 was started, the Colonization Society had been in existence four- 
 teen years, and an anti-slavery sentiment had been developed 
 quite extensively in the direction of its plans and purposes. 
 In the first volume of the Liberator (p. 121) we find the follow- 
 ing declaration : "In 1826 the synod of Ohio held animated 
 discussion on a question which had been referred to the Gen- 
 eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, viz. 'Is the holding 
 of slaves man-stealing?' — in the affirmative of which a large 
 majority concurred." Here, on the authority of Mr. Garrison's 
 own organ, a large majority of a quite numerous body of cler- 
 gymen took the most thorough anti-slavery ground more than 
 iour years before his Liberator had being. 
 
17 
 
 I have no disposition to deduct one iota from the credit due 
 Mr. Garrison as an anti-slavery agitator. He was among the 
 first to plant himself publicly on the theory of immediate 
 emancipation, and at once he became conspicuous. As a 
 debater he had remarkable powers, and his editorials were 
 arousing ; in the battle-cry of freedom, distinct and promi- 
 nent were his bugle-blasts. 
 
 The Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society was formed in 
 Boston, Jan. I, 1832, and the American Anti- Slavery Society 
 was formed in Philadelphia, Dec. 4, 1833. In less than five 
 years the American Anti-Slavery Society had 1,350 auxiliary 
 societies, embracing State societies in every free State in the 
 Union except Indiana and New Jersey, and its total receipts 
 reached $125,000. 
 
 Notwithstanding this rapid progress Mr. Garrison became 
 impatient, and struck for reforms more radical in their charac- 
 ter. As early as July 4, 1837, m an address delivered at Prov- 
 idence, he declared that he " stood forth in the spirit of 
 prophecy to proclaim in the ears of the people that our doom 
 as a nation is sealed." He added, " If history be not wholly 
 fabulous, if revelation be not a forgery, if God be not faithless 
 in the execution of His threatenings, the doom is certain and 
 the interpretation thereof sure. The overthrow of the Amer- 
 ican confederacy is in the womb of events." He continued, 
 " The corruptions of the Churchy so called, are obviously more 
 deep and incurable than those of the State ; and therefore the 
 Church, in spite of every precaution and safeguard, is first to be 
 dashed in pieces." 1 
 
 Soon it became evident that Mr. Garrison and a few of his 
 compeers were bent on new reforms, viz. " Woman's Rights," 
 " No Government," " Anti-Church," " Anti-Ministry," and 
 " Anti-Sabbath." As these " other reforms, standing alone 
 or on their own merits, could not get a hearing, or make any 
 general lodgment in the public mind," 2 Mr. Garrison and his 
 sympathizers devised the plan of " sifting them in " upon the 
 anti-slavery reform. 
 
 Rev. Amos A. Phelps, having a keener intellect, a more 
 
 1 The true History of the late Division in the Anti-Slavery Societies, 1841, p. 8. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 15. 
 
i8 
 
 invincible power in logic than any other man who ever 
 devoted himself to the cause of the slave, to whom, in my 
 view, the anti-slavery cause in our land is under greater obli- 
 gations than to any man living, or almost any other man 
 among the honored dead, was the most prominent in discov- 
 ering and exposing this plot. In this Mr. Phelps was sus- 
 tained by others. Mr. Elizur Wright, Jr., now so well known 
 in financial circles, wrote to Rev. Mr. Phelps, Oct. 26, 1837, 
 " I have just received a letter from Garrison which confirms 
 my fears that he has finished his course for the slave. At any 
 rate, his plan of rescuing the slave by the destruction of human 
 laws is fatally conflictive with ours. Only one of them can 
 lead to any good result." 1 
 
 The anti-slavery movement at the start favored the use of 
 the elective franchise in behalf of the slave; but in 1838 the 
 Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, under the lead of Mr. 
 Garrison, " was made to abandon its own original doctrines on 
 the subject of political action, and become subservient to the 
 promotion of the dogmas of non-governmentism." 2 
 
 This led to a division in the anti-slavery ranks. The Mas- 
 sachusetts Abolition Society, under the lead of Mr. Phelps and 
 his associates, was formed in 1839, and became auxiliary, not 
 to the old American, but to the new American and Foreign 
 Anti-Slavery Society. 
 
 From this time on, the Garrison party diminished in num- 
 bers and in influence ; and the anti-slavery cause was carried 
 forward, not under Mr. Garrison's lead, — not prominently 
 through his aid, — for in large measure he was a hinderance 
 rather than a help. He was wonderful for his power of vitu- 
 peration, and his philippics continued to serve medicinally as 
 an irritant ; but he prejudiced the minds of religious men 
 against the anti-slavery cause, while the political movement, 
 which ultimately proved the successful one, ever after 1838 met 
 with his opposition. 
 
 It is a remarkable fact that Mr. Garrison has produced no 
 standard work on this subject. The American Cyclopaedia, 
 enumerating thirty-seven important volumes on slavery, in- 
 cludes in the catalogue nothing from his pen. 
 
 1 The true History of the late Division in the Anti-Slavery Societies, p. 12. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 26. 
 
19 
 
 If any one still claims that the Garrisonians were among 
 the most efficient anti-slavery workers, so far as Congrega- 
 tionalism is concerned, be it remembered that the leading 
 Garrisonians, Henry C. Wright, Parker Pillsbury, and Stephen 
 S. Foster, imbibed their anti-slavery sentiments, bat not their 
 fanaticism, from Congregational sources, for they were origi- 
 nally Congregational ministers, or candidates for that office. 
 
 The only two men who were reckoned as martyrs in the 
 anti-slavery cause, Lovejoy and Torrey, were Congregational 
 ministers. 
 
 The representation is sometimes made that ministers were 
 particularly backward in the anti-slavery reform. 
 
 Mr. Oliver Johnson, in 1837, declared "The anti-slavery 
 car has rolled forward thus far, not only without the aid, but 
 against the combined influence of the ministers and churches 
 of the country." 1 Now, what are the facts in the case ? I 
 freely acknowledge that the church did not do its whole duty. 
 In our own denomination, the prominent ministers, particularly, 
 seemed to be unduly subject to commercial influences. Still, 
 the true picture, although it has dark shades, is luminous and 
 attractive. 
 
 Mr. Phelps made an investigation on this subject, and found 
 that while, taking the country together, there was, on an aver- 
 age, one minister to five hundred people, — in the early anti- 
 slavery conventions of those who signed the call for the con- 
 ventions more than one third were ministers, and of the delegates 
 present, more than one fifth were ministers. Thus, in the 
 unpopular days of this reform, the ministers, while one to five 
 hundred in the ratio of population, were among prominent 
 anti-slavery men one to five. In 1837 there were, in Massa- 
 chusetts, 19,206 members of anti-slavery societies, or one in 
 thirty-six of the people. There were, at that time, seven hun- 
 dred and ninety-two ministers in the State, of all denomina- 
 tions, and nearly one half of them were members of anti-slavery 
 societies. Of the fifty-six agents employed by the American 
 Anti-Slavery Society prior to 1837, forty-three were ministers. 
 As a class, the ministers were not behind the people, but they 
 were leaders in this cause. 
 
 1 Liberator, Oct. 13, 1837. 
 
20 
 
 Calvin Colton, who, if I mistake not, sometimes used the 
 signature of " Junius," in a political tract, testified, " Nearly- 
 all the political abolitionists, and with scarcely an exception 
 all the abolition preachers, lecturers, and missionaries are reli- 
 gious men. Religion, everywhere, is the high and holy sanc- 
 tion relied upon to enforce the doctrine." 
 
 The representation is sometimes made that the evangelical 
 ministers were more backward in this reform, in its early days, 
 than the so-called unevangelical ; but this too is erroneous. 
 
 In 1837, of the Orthodox Congregational ministry in Mas- 
 sachusetts more than one third were members of anti-slavery 
 societies, while of the Unitarian ministers there was only one 
 in eight. The Anti-Slavery Society in Amherst College in 1834 
 had 76 members, of whom 70 were professors of religion ; 30 
 of them had consecrated themselves to the foreign missionary 
 work, and 20 to home missionary service at the West. 
 
 In 1834 the trustees of Lane Seminary prohibited the open 
 discussion of slavery by the students, and four-fifths of the 
 students withdrew from the institution. A number of them 
 became at once anti-slavery lecturers. Theodore D. Weld, 
 Henry B. Stanton, and Ichabod Codding went from State to 
 State, defending the rights of the slave. While Mr. Weld was 
 holding a series of meetings in Steubenville, Ohio, he noticed 
 a young lawyer in his audience, evening after evening, taking 
 notes. At the close of his last lecture the young man came for- 
 ward and introduced himself, remarking, " I came here resolved 
 to answer you, and have taken notes of every lecture, but you 
 have converted me." That young lawyer was Edwin M. Stan- 
 ton, and thus God raised up for Mr. Lincoln's administration a 
 fit Secretary of War. The breaking up of the classes in Lane 
 Seminary led to the organization of a theological department 
 at Oberlin, and in this great Christian reform Oberlin took an 
 early and prominent part. Mr. Finney refused to become pres- 
 ident of the college unless colored students were allowed to 
 enjoy its privileges. The Hon. Salmon P. Chase was wont to 
 ascribe his elevation to the United States Senate to the influ- 
 ence of Oberlin. 
 
 In the recent national conflict, which was, in fact, a conflict 
 between liberty and slavery, while the Episcopal Church, with 
 
21 
 
 honorable exceptions, gave but feeble support to the govern- 
 ment, as was true in the Revolutionary struggle, the Congre- 
 gational ministry and churches were almost without exception 
 patriotic. The late Gov. Washburn, of Vermont, whose official 
 duty during the war was to secure recruits for the army and 
 organize the military forces of the State, testified, a little before 
 his death, that he found the churches all over the State rallying- 
 points of patriotism, and the ministers his most efficient helpers. 
 
 Just after the close of the war a minister in Michigan testi- 
 fied that there was not a pastor, acting pastor, or supply of any 
 Congregational church in the State who was not during the 
 war a zealous patriot. One of the Iowa band, as the first mis- 
 sionaries to that State were called, after having been in Iowa 
 twenty-five years, and having become extensively acquainted 
 with the people, declared that he did not know of a member of 
 a Congregational church in the State who was not during the 
 war a supporter of the administration. In ten great States of 
 the interior one fourth of all the adult male members of the 
 Congregational churches enlisted as soldiers in the army. 1 
 
 In this centennial year, while we bless God that we have lived 
 to see our land an asylum for the oppressed and the home of 
 the free, we may rejoice that our churches and our ministry 
 have been among the most conspicuous in hastening the tri- 
 umph of the right, in ushering in the Jubilee. 
 
 IV. One point remains to be touched, — the Theological 
 Crises through zvhich the Congregationalists have passed. 
 
 There is no other denomination in our land which has given 
 such prominence to intellectual training and to doctrinal truth. 
 In the early history of Connecticut a law was passed providing 
 that no man should be entitled to recognition as a clergyman 
 " who was not a graduate of Yale or Harvard, or of some for- 
 eign university." 
 
 The Congregationalists founded a college fifty-five years 
 before any other denomination in our land, and they were the 
 first to establish a theological seminary. Of the Apostle Paul 
 it is said that he " spake boldly . . . disputing and per- 
 suading the things concerning the kingdom of God " : we have 
 shown ourselves his worthy successors by doing our full share 
 
 1 The Home Missionary, Vol. 39, p. 4. 
 
22 
 
 in " disputing and persuading." The doctrinal crises through 
 which we have passed have been attended with incidental evils, 
 but on the whole they have resulted in great good ; they have 
 given definiteness and distinctness to our views. 
 
 (i.) Our controversy with the Unitarians served to fix the 
 limitations of our thought as to the Divine nature. We are 
 now careful to state that we do not use the word " Person " in 
 its relation to the Trinity in its ordinary sense, but rather in a 
 technical sense, — not as synonymous with being, but rather 
 to indicate a distinction which the Scriptures reveal but which 
 they do not analytically explain. We avoid the use of lan- 
 guage which would suggest a belief in three Gods, or expose 
 us to the charge of believing that one is three and three are 
 one. While rejecting the Sabellian idea of a modal Trinity, 
 a Trinity of mere manifestation, inadequate to explain the 
 representations of Scripture, we accept the triune nature of the 
 Godhead as a revealed fact, without attempting to decide 
 whether the Trinity pertains to the substance or only to the 
 attributes of the infinite Being whom we worship as the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Careful lest we seem to 
 know too much, we accept the scriptural teachings as a matter 
 of faith. 
 
 There has been one prolonged controversy, commencing 
 with Edwards in the middle of the last century, and ending a 
 century later with the accepted distinction between "The 
 Theology of the Intellect and the Theology of the Feelings." 
 At its varied phases we can give a glance only. 
 
 (2.) Edwards, in his Treatise 011 the Will, established us in 
 the faith that there is a Divine government which plans and 
 controls all events, securing in the realm of moral beings the 
 certai?ity of results without natural necessity, — a certainty 
 not inconsistent with freedom. He, as a theologian, discrimi- 
 nated between general justice and retributive justice, showing 
 how the former may be sustained while the latter is waived. 
 
 (3.) Samuel Hopkins, born about a score of years later, de- 
 veloped the idea of responsibility as pertaining to character, 
 rather than to our nature in the strict sense of the word. 
 Then followed two men of opposite extremes, — Burton and 
 Emmons, — each having his disciples. 
 
23 
 
 (4.) Asa Burton, as leader in the advocacy of the " Taste 
 
 Scheme," made his theology accord with the poetry of 
 
 Watts : — 
 
 " So, on a tree divinely fair, 
 Grew the forbidden food ; 
 Our mother took the poison there, 
 And tainted all her blood." 
 
 (5.) Nathaniel Emmons, denying not only the moral charac- 
 ter of passive states, but also the permanency of any individual 
 choice, sought to limit our responsibility to a succession of 
 exercises. 
 
 (6.) Dr. Taylor and Dr. Tyler assumed antagonistic po- 
 sitions, and the old-school and new-school war was waged 
 with vigor. 
 
 The result of these contests is that a man is now recognized 
 as Orthodox, — 
 
 (1.) Whether he believes that God so foreordains all events 
 that they cannot be otherwise, or simply that He so foreordains 
 them that they will not be otherwise. 
 
 (2.) Whether he believes that all virtue can be resolved into 
 benevolence, or that there are virtues which cannot be resolved 
 into this generic love of sentient being. 
 
 (3.) Whether he believes that we sinned in Adam's sin, or 
 only in consequence of it. 
 
 (4.) Whether he believes that we have by nature a sinful 
 tendency, or simply that we have a tendency to sin. 
 
 (5.) Whether he believes that we are responsible for affec- 
 tions lying back of the will, or simply for that complex moral 
 act known as a choice. 
 
 (6.) Whether he believes in a moral state which determines 
 our choices, or in a predominant choice which determines our 
 moral state, or even in a succession of choices, the essential 
 uniformity of which gives fixedness to our moral character. 
 
 (7.) Whether he believes that our moral character is con- 
 genital, or that it begins at some indefinite period as soon as 
 a moral choice is possible. 
 
 (8.) Whether he believes that regeneration, as wrought by 
 the Holy Spirit, is a change in the moral nature or only in 
 the moral character ; or, in supposable cases of infants, a change 
 
24 
 
 in the balance of susceptibilities, securing the development of 
 a right moral character. 
 
 (9.) Whether he believes that in the atonement, Christ 
 suffered the literal penalty of the violated law, or merely that 
 by His sufferings and death He so honored the law, as to open 
 the way for the forgiveness of sin. 
 
 (10.) Whether he believes that Christ's righteousness is 
 literally imputed to the redeemed, or that on the ground of His 
 atonement they are treated as righteous. 
 
 (n.) Whether he believes that without the Holy Spirit 
 man cannot come to Christ, or that he can but will not. 
 
 (12.) Whether he believes that sin is the necessary means 
 of the greatest good, or merely that it is incidental to that 
 moral system which is the necessary means of the greatest 
 good. 
 
 These are philosophical differences in respect to which, as 
 the result of our controversies, we have gained the largest 
 liberty. With these philosophical differences, the oneness of 
 our faith remains. We believe in a Divine Governor, revealed 
 as a Triune Being ; that He controls all events, and that He 
 sustains His law by infinite sanctions. 
 
 We believe that man, while possessed of amiable natural 
 virtues, is yet by nature entirely sinful, and as such is exposed 
 to the penalty of the Divine law. 
 
 We believe that through the vicarious sufferings and death 
 of Christ, man has the offer of pardon, and that the Holy 
 Spirit is sent into the world to renew and sanctify the soul ; 
 that, if man resists the Spirit and rejects the Saviour, he seals 
 his own doom, and if he yields and believes, he makes his 
 eternal salvation sure. 
 
 Call these doctrines Calvinistic, Edwardean, Scriptural, or 
 what you please, they are the doctrines of our denomination, 
 and they are in some respects distinctive. 
 
 The representation has been repeatedly made that the Na- 
 tional Council at Oberlin modified our doctrinal position as a 
 denomination, and put us on a simply evangelical basis. 
 
 The absurdity of this representation is seen in the fact that 
 the National Council has no authority whatsoever respecting 
 the doctrinal position of our churches. The doctrinal basis of 
 
25 
 
 the denomination is decided by the creeds of our local 
 churches. The churches never authorized their delegates to 
 the Council to modify in any way their doctrinal position, or 
 even to define it. The Council was organized for Christian 
 work, and not for the control of our dogmatic faith. We are 
 told that the Council received into its membership a Kentucky 
 church which was avowedly formed on an undenominational 
 basis. This is true, but what does it prove ? Simply that the 
 Council was willing to have such a church unite with it in 
 Christian work. It was an exceptional case. It is ridiculous 
 to suppose that, by the simple admission of a representation of 
 that church, the Council reduced the doctrinal standard of all 
 our churches to the level of that church. The apostle exhorts, 
 " Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye " ; but we are not 
 to suppose that he intended in this, that the church should 
 become weak in the faith, or that he imagined that by heeding 
 his exhortation the church would reduce its standard of faith 
 to that of the weak brother whom it received. 
 
 It is doubtless true that the feeble church in Kentucky, 
 which was represented by a brother who had heroically de- 
 fended the rights of the slave in the midst of persecution and 
 of peril, had nothing in its creed above the level of Armini- 
 anism, but it is preposterous to hold that by the simple recog- 
 nition of him as a Christian worker, and allowing him to unite 
 with the body, the Council, as " at one fell swoop," reduced 
 three thousand Congregational churches to the position of 
 Independent Methodists ; and yet there are churches being 
 organized at the West on this low standard, on the ground that 
 that Council fixed the denominational basis at that level ! It is 
 time that this matter were better understood. As a denomi- 
 nation, we believe in a God, the security of whose government 
 is not a merely incidental result of His foreknowledge, — a God 
 whose purposes are as far-reaching as the events in His realm. 
 
 From all the doctrinal contests through which we have passed 
 we have come out with a liberalized faith, but with the faith 
 of the fathers still, the faith once delivered to the saints. It 
 is not the minimum of truth which is essential to salvatior, but 
 that glorious system of truths, which, in its consistency and 
 coherence, is as resplendent as the great white throne. 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 As we survey our position at the close of the century, we 
 find some things which still need to be settled, or which, at 
 least, need a still further process of induration. I refer to two 
 points, the one having reference to doctrine and the other to 
 polity. 
 
 1. The doctrinal point involves two questions : — 
 
 First. Shall we continue to exclude from our communion 
 those who do not embrace the so-called evangelical doctrines ? 
 
 Second. Shall we receive only as exceptional cases those 
 who do not accept the characteristic creeds of our churches ? 
 
 2. The point as to polity respects the rights and responsi- 
 bilities of the churches as to persons to whom, under the laws 
 of fellowship, they have given ministerial standing. 
 
 If we do not continue to exclude from our communion those 
 who do not embrace the so-called evangelical doctrines ; if we 
 lower our standard and receive into our communion those who 
 do not accept the scriptural doctrine of the endless punishment 
 of the wicked, what will be the effect on the convictions of men 
 as to the evil of sin and the sanctions of law ? If we view 
 with favor a poetic and a mystical theory of the atonement, 
 reducing it to a moral influence upon man, we leave the throne 
 without support and the lost soul without a ransom. 
 
 If we take from our creeds what is characteristic of us as a 
 denomination, or receive into our churches as a rule, and not 
 exceptionally, those who do not believe what is characteristic 
 of us, what have we as a rallying-point ? Do you say " We 
 will rally around the Cross " ? Are we so bigoted as not to 
 think that others do the same ? Does any one say " Let us 
 rally around our Congregationalism " ? I fear that, if asked, 
 What is Congregationalism ? such men would leave us a very 
 small point to rally around ! If our Congregational churches 
 are to have vitality, permanency, and power, we must have a 
 characteristic doctrinal basis as well as a polity. Other denom- 
 inations have their rallying-points, distinct and conspicuous. 
 If we have none, these denominations will draw to themselves 
 those who can work together with harmony and enthusiasm, 
 and leave for us only such materials as David had in the cave 
 of Adullam. Does any one say " Let us take a broad plat- 
 form and stand forth as the Church of Christ, and ultimately 
 
27 
 
 the sects will all come to our standard " ? We can only say on 
 that theory, judging from present developments, the millennium 
 is not very near. 
 
 As to the remaining point : If we give the right hand to a 
 minister can we ever take it back ? It has been said that we 
 can, by withdrawing our hand from the church which sustains 
 him. That mode of operation was devised when there were 
 no ministers except pastors of churches, and a man's ministe- 
 rial standing depended upon his pastorate. Now more than half 
 of our ministers are not pastors, and the majority of our ordi- 
 nations are ordinations of evangelists ; now a minister's stand- 
 ing does not depend upon his pastorate. Has Congregation- 
 alism any power of adaptation to the new circumstances ? 
 Must we continue to use our fathers' ox-team while all the 
 rest of the world are whistling by ? Thank God, not so long 
 as Andover is in the ascendant ! 
 
 From " Zion's hill " we have looked back and looked around. 
 In the retrospect we see abundant cause for thanksgiving. 
 From our present position we can gather hope as to the 
 future. As a denomination, we are possessed of the mission- 
 ary spirit ; we are identified with liberty, morality, and progress ; 
 we cherish intellectual culture, doctrinal truth, and practi- 
 cal godliness ; and though our sky be not cloudless, we are 
 cheered by the remembrance of the words of Robert Hall, 
 " The vapors which gather round the rising sun and follow it in 
 its course seldom fail at the close of it to form a magnificent 
 theatre for its reception, and to invest with variegated tints 
 and with a softened effulgence the luminary which they can- 
 not hide." 
 
c a 
 
 «c 
 
 « « 
 , <■ i 
 . <« 
 
 c € 
 
 <• c 
 4 C 
 * c 
 <<r 
 «C 
 
 a. 
 
 - * K 
 
 «C< ■ > 
 
 
 cr «r 
 
 S *- 
 
 
 CI Cc CC 
 
 «t '« « 
 
 
 « < c «: 
 
 ( i 
 
 gtc c «c 
 
 C< 
 
 »Tcc«c: 
 
 c c 
 
 
 < I 
 
 irtcSE 
 
 iC 
 
 PCC(«B 
 
 < c 
 
 L«C(. j| 
 
 ' c 
 
 -jS5Ci__^B 
 
 <. ( 
 
 . Cfrr^ 
 
 CC 
 < c 
 
 g£<< 
 
 *^C 
 
 g^t 
 
 CC 
 
 t. c 
 
 S^ c 
 
 4Q^P 
 
 c c 
 
 
 i_.C 4fl 
 
 CC 
 
 «c*< 
 
 «rC 
 
 « < 
 
 
 r «c 
 
 «c<tar 
 
 cc< 
 
 *«Ccc« , 
 
 <: < 
 
 ««c<<«ir 
 
 < < 
 
 «C< i «C 
 
 < < 
 
 *«iraL 
 
 < c 
 
 ISc'** 
 
 <; c« 
 
 
 <: c 
 
 ^ML^'OflL 
 
 * <- 
 
 «<-tsr? 
 
 < c 
 
 «:<•«•:_ 
 
 C C* * 
 
 «£.' ' « 
 
 c c i 
 
 
 « <c c <; 
 
 l r 
 
 ( 
 
 ( ( ( 
 
 c 
 
 C 
 
 * 
 
 < 
 
 ( 
 
 4 
 
 C 
 
 < 
 
 a. 
 
 : >c; ■ 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 < c«^ 
 
 CC ' 
 
 «• «: 
 
 c ccc, 
 
 c . <.< 
 
 cc« 
 
 
 c d 
 
 ( ( S 
 
 < c ^ 
 
 < <- 
 c c c 
 
 ccc < 
 
 • « c c 
 I c < <- 
 C c C «. 
 
 CC c «C 
 
 c< c «c 
 ccc< ' 
 
 c<cA 
 
 < c *. 
 
 ' cue 
 
 r C.U C . 
 
 
 c < - 
 
 <:- S 
 
 ««r <c 
 
 *h ,.cc 
 4 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^3c ^ 
 
 - «Cv 
 
 «Sfc. 
 
 
 ir <c 
 
 Vi' 
 
 ii 
 
 €1 < 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: April 2006 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 

 t *l 
 
 B-. 
 
 - c c 
 
 *fc. 
 
 r- C< ^ 
 
 £«C ^ 
 
 EL-C: <r_ 
 
 c<«C- « 
 
 S^< c 
 
 < « 
 
 pec 
 
 < 
 
 m 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 EC— 
 
 ^=C*- 
 
 sc::«^ 
 
 ^CZc c 
 
 tc -c_ 
 
 ^C"c c 
 
 c-c «c 
 
 
 
 c =- * 
 
 *.-<- «* 
 
 C 
 
 ^CXc 
 
 CCV< 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 3fi5 
 
 _C«_ ' 
 
 « 
 
 __^!l < 
 
 c c i <; 
 
 ; * 
 
 
 < <c '• <i ■ 
 
 «r<-\ 
 
 JHQT.4E C<T< 
 
 - c<r <r. «*r ■ • 
 
 . <%:> <g 
 <C <£ 
 
 . <C CC 
 S <^ 
 
 <c cc 
 
 _ -- tc « 
 
 « <£ 
 
 ^ C i 
 
 MpC < 
 
 ;JSL<C 
 
 ^5; c 
 
 3; « <ti 
 
 ■EL <X <t«C7- 
 
 ice 
 
 «r<c 
 
 <<c< 
 
 ..CC c^; c<L<3C 
 ,,.cc c«r «c^t_ 
 
 ». c c c 
 
 .cc: r- 
 
 «;ec 
 
 fCC< 
 
 <: « « 
 
 
 5 < <r_ 
 
 
 ccc 
 
 dec 
 
 <fc£*C 
 30C 
 
 crcsc: 
 
 id <r ad ~' «C3~ 
 
 *S5& '<^ 
 
 c, C 
 
 <-« <r 
 
 <C 
 
 : «oc: ; 
 
 
 C< 
 
 c^C 
 
 c« 
 
 - « 
 
 _C 
 
 
 C4 
 
 <or: «cr 
 
 c c 
 
 c c 
 
 < — 
 
 ex 
 
 c c 
 
 C Cit 
 
 c> c< 
 
 jir 
 
 
 ccatiC 
 
 c c 
 c" c 
 
 ccc