A
S E R MN,
REV. J. W. WELLMAN,
PASTOR OF THE ELIOT CHUSIECIH, NEWTON, MASSACHUSETTS.
WITH AN APPENDIX.
" Ask for the old paths, where is the good way,'and walk therein,
and ye shall find rest to your souls." - Jer. 6: 16.
BOSTO N:
CONGREGATIONAL BOARD  OF PUBLICATION.
CHAUNCEY STREET.




CAMBRIDGE:
ALLEN AND FARNHAM, PRINTERS.




THE following Discourse was preached on the 21st of December, 1856, to the author's own congregation, and, at their
request, was subsequently published. At the solicitation of the
Congregational Board of Publication, it is now committed to
their hands.  The sermon has been revised, and the notes
which have been annexed will, it is hoped, add somewhat to
its value. They will, at least, serve to show how numerous
and vital are the relations of the subject discussed, and how
inadequate any treatment of it must be that is confined to the
limits of a single discourse.
J. W. W.
NEWTON, MASS., Dec. 14, 1857.








S E RM X ON
Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him
his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast
gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee
one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word
may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto
the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee
as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever
ye shall bind on earth. shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye
shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. -Matthew 18: 15-18.
ON the twenty-first of December, 1620, two hundred  and  thirty-six  years ago, our Pilgrim   Fathers
landed at Plymouth. The sun was lingering, as
he is to-day, about his winter solstice, when they
stepped  shivering  upon  the  cold  and  bleak  shore.
Before  them  was the illimitable wilderness, full of
real and fabulous perils; behind them the vast, uncharted ocean, from whose dangers they had just
escaped; and all around, nature, in her midwinter
I3




6             THE CHURCH. POLITY
garb, stern and dreary, was frowning upon their approach. But the very feet of those men hallowed
the rock which they pressed as they stepped upon
the shore, and left it immortal; and to-day it concentrates the veneration and grateful affections of a
large and prominent portion of the human race.
That rock now is, and ever will be, one of the most
conspicuous objects on the broad bosom of the
world's history.
That little band of Pilgrims was a fragment of a
Congregational church. They had left their pastor
and a part of their brethren in Holland, but expected
them soon to follow and rejoin them in their exile.
They came hither for freedom, - not freedom to do,every thing, but to worship God. They came hither
t-o escape ecclesiastical despotism. In breaking away
from the formalities and corruptions of the English
ecclesiastical establishment, they had gone to the
New Testament to learn the primitive mode of or-ganizing and conducting a Christian church. Under
that guidance, their church polity had assumed the
form of Congregationalism. And it was this external and democratic aspect of their religion, more
than all things else, that drew down upon them the
wrath of the English hierarchy. Had they been contented to remain quietly in the Established Church,
and conform outwardly to all its forms, it would




OF TEII PILGRIMS.                  7
have made little difference what they believed.' But
it was just this that they could not do. They had
conscientiously adopted  another, and, as they believed, the  only primitive  and  scriptural form  of
Christian worship and church polity; and it was to
set up this divine form of a church in the world, and
to enjoy it unmolested, that they came to this- cold
and inhospitable shore.  It was for freedom to conduct their worship, and all their ecclesiastical
affairs, according to what they believed to be the
teachings of the New Testament, - it was for their
Congrega tionalism  as the most completely  divine
system of church government, that they braved the
perils of the deep, and the greater perils of the wilderness.
Since the year 1769, it has been  customary at
Plymouth, and at various other places in New Eng* "The martyrs of the primitive churches of old lost more of'
their blood and lives for their meetings and assemblies than for
personal profession of the faith; and so also have others done
under the Roman apostasy. It is a usual plea among those who
engage in the persecution or punishment of such as differ from
them, that if they please they may keep their opinions, their consciences; and faith unto themselves, without meetings fbr communion or public worship; and herein they suppose they deal
friendly and gently with them. And this is our present case."Inquiry concerning Evangelical Churches, by John Owen, p. 256,
recent edition.




8              THE CHURCH POLITY
land and beyond New England, to celebrate the
landing of the Pilgrims, on the day of its anniversary, with appropriate ceremonies. But this year it
is proposed to inaugurate a new and far more general commemoration of that grand event, namely, a
commemoration by all the Congregational churches
of our country. This Sabbath is Forefathers' day;
and it is proposed that all the churches of our denomination in the land shall have their attention
especially directed to the incomparable worth of the
church polity of the Pilgrim Fathers. The design is
to increase the already greatly revived interest of
our churches in Congregationalism as the church
polity, not only of the Pilgrims, but also of the Apostles and primitive Christians, and particularly to confirm the justness of its claims to the warm Christian
love, and the ample Christian benevolence, of all its
adherents. And this is only one of many indications, patent to all, at the present time, that Congregationalism is now asserting itself in our country,
particularly in the Western States, as never before.
This present movement, therefore, we hail as an
omen of great good to living evangelical religion,
and to the best interests of our country. It will
serve permanently to connect Congregationalism in
the minds of men with the exalted character and
faith of the Pilgrims. It will greatly extend this




OF THE PILGRIMS.              9
primitive church order in this land, and will give it a
position and a power such as it has never yet enjoyed. A noble monument this to the memory of
that little band of Congregational Pilgrims  - more
noble than any ponderous column, though it were
of costliest marble, and though it towered to the
heavens! For the monument we propose is not material and perishable; it is not the bricks and stones
of the temples that may be reared; it is not the
robes and the ritual and the sensuous ceremonies
of an imposing church establishment; it is not a
long and rising grade of church judicatories, as unwieldy and discordant in their working as they are
human in their origin and authority; but it is the
truth,- the towering, radiant truth of the gospel, -
which shall thus be made to light up the hills and
valleys, the forests and prairies, of a continent; it is
the living Christian churches, modelled after the
simple, primitive form which shall thus be planted
among the foundations of a rising empire, working,
their spirit ineradicably into its historic life, moulding
all its popular institutions, and so determining its
destiny. It is a monument that will stand long after
the bricks and marble of our earthly temples shall
have crumbled to dust; long after all gorgeous rituals
and imposing church judicatories shall have passed
into eternal oblivion; yea, as long as that living




10            THE CHURCH POLITY
church shall stand, which, thus enlarged, shall worship God in the simplicity and purity of heaven's
worship, and in a temple not made with hands.
I cannot conceive of any manner of commemorating the landing of the Pilgrims more congenial with
their spirit and aims. It is certainly in harmony
with the godly zeal of that noble man and pastor,
John Robinson, who himself labored most assiduously, first, to indoctrinate all his people in the principles of the primitive church polity, and then to
establish them in the practice and love of it; and
with so much success, too, that one of our early historical writers, speaking of the manner in which the
church at Plymouth conducted their worship and
ecclesiastical business before they settled a pastor,
says, " The Plymouth people well understood their
own principles;.... knew the way of their worship,
and were resolved upon it."  Would that all their
pious descendants who have embraced their system
of church government had known as much, and had
been as fully resolved to abide by their principles!
Then would the church polity of the Pilgrims have
inherited the land. This manner of observing this
anniversary certainly accords likewise with the spirit
of Brewster and Bradford, and the other leading men
of the Plymouth Church, who did so much by mild
yet enlightening counsels, that could not be resisted,




OF THE PILGRIMS.           11
to induce the first churches in Boston, Salem, and
Charlestown to adopt the same church polity with
themselves, and who thus actually secured the general and permanent prevalence of Congregationalism
in New England. Nothing can be more truly in
sympathy with the spirit and aims of those Pilgrim
Fathers, than that we to-day put our own hearts and
hands vigorously to the work of exalting and perpetuating in our country that same religious faith
and order for which they toiled and suffered in the
Old World, for which they were exiles in midwinter
on a frozen and rocky shore, and which, with such
promptness and efficiency, they labored to establish
in the subsequent settlements.
Moreover, whenever the attention of our churches
is called to the claims of Congregationalism upon
their Christian benevolence, the question to be met
at the very outset is, What is there in this church
polity of the Pilgrims worth preserving and diffusing
in the world? Would not their creed be just as
good if we left out of it their doctrine of the church?
Why not accept their faith in every particular except this? Why not give our money to build Presbyterian or Episcopalian or Methodist churches as
soon as Congregational? Why not be satisfied with
a church if it can only be called evangelical? Why
not sustain the various missionary operations and




12            TIHE CHURCH POLITY
church-extension enterprises of these several denominations as readily as those of our own? Would
not this exhibit a more Christian, or at least a more
uansectarian, spirit? Is it, indeed, the Christian duty,of anybody to disseminate and perpetuate Congre-'gationalism? What is there, in other words, peculiiarly excellent in our church polity, which gives it a'claim, superior to that of any other, to our affection'and our benevolence? These questions should be
met. The members of our churches should " know'their own principles," that they may judge for themselves whether they are worth maintaining. It is a
common complaint among those who have gone
from our churches to our Western States, that, while
they were in New England, they never heard a sin-'gle sermon upon their own form of church government.* Consequently, they are entirely unprepared
-to confront the intense sectarianism which they find
so much more vigorously nurtured in other denominations. They do not know enough about their own
church polity to understand that one of its greatest
excellences is, that it is singularly unsectarian, and
that, for this very reason, they should maintain it.
They are not aware why they have not heard about
it. One of its greatest merits has blinded them to
its value. As soon as they leave New England they
* See Appendix, Note A.




OF THE PILGRIMS.             13
are met at once with the bold declaration, that
"Congregationalism is a very good system of church
government for New England; it works well there;:
but it is a very bad system everywhere else, and it
will not do even to try it." And having never been
taught that there is any thing of particular value in
it, they are not prepared to gainsay such an unadvised statement; and so have quietly fallen in, as if
it were a matter of necessity, with some other church
organization. And thus it has happened, that, while
Congregational New England has done more than
all the rest of the country to give the gospel and its
institutions to the West, her own church order, until
very recently, has made less progress there than that
of almost every other evangelical denomination..
Now the question is, is this right? Is there, or is
there not, any thing worth conserving in the church
order of the Pilgrims?  If there is, upon whom does
the duty devolve? Bear with me, then, to-day, while
I defend, as well as I may, the faith of the Pilgrims,,
so far as it respects the doctrine of the church.
The church polity of the Pilgrims, or Congrega-,
tionalism, may be commended to our acceptance by,
a twofold argument: first, by its accordance withi
the teachings of Scripture; and, secondly, by its pre —
eminent fitness to all the ends of a church.
I. In the first place, Congregationalism is scrip2




14             THE CHURCH POLITY
tural. It was the church polity of the primitive
Christians; Christ is its author. He and the inspired
apostles taught it, and taught no other church system, either by word or practice. Congregationalism,
as a system of church government, may be summarily defined under three heads: first, the nature of
the church; secondly, the officers of the church; and,
thirdly, the relation of the churches to each other;
and each of these parts, and therefore the whole of
the system, may be shown to be scriptural.
1. In the first place, a Christian church, as defined
by Christ and the apostles, was a Congregational
church. The term Congregational was, of course,
not then in use; nor would it be now, bad it not become necessary to distinguish, by some appropriate
term, the primitive form of a Christian church from
other forms which have since been invented. What
we assert is, that a church, according to the teachings of Christ and the apostles, is no other than what
we now denominate a Congregational church. The
term church is used in the New Testament chiefly
in two senses.
It sometimes means the invisible church; that is,:all the real followers of Christ, the whole body of
true believers. This is the great redeemed company;'" the body [of Christ,] the fulness of him that filleth
all in all;" his "bride;" the church which he loved




OF THE PILGRIMS.            15
and gave himself for, "that he might sanctify and
cleanse it with the washing of water by the word;
that he might present it to himself a glorious church,
not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but
that it should be holy and without blemish." In
this comprehensive sense of the term, we seem to be
warranted in using it to designate either the whole
company of the redeemed on earth and in heaven,
or the whole company of true Christians on earth.
Hence it is very common to make a subdivision, and
speak of the church militant and the church triumphant. But it is all, in reality, one body. This is
the church, and is known only to Him who knoweth
the hearts of all men. No human vision can span its
breadth and take in its limits. The invisible line of
its boundary on earth, running through every Christian community and nearly every Christian family,
and everywhere separating the redeemed of the Lord
from the world, no human eye can trace; and therefore it is called the invisible church.
The second use of the term church, in the New
Testament, is when it is used to designate visible,
local, organized bodies of professed Christians; as,
"the church which was at Jerusalem," " the church
at Antioch," " the churches of Galatia."  This is the
only visible church; unless by a generalization, not
according to the practice of the New Testament




16            THE CHURCH POLITY
writers, but to which, nevertheless, there may be no,great objection, we call all the true churches of
Christ in the world the visible church. Nothing is
~plainer than that the term is never used in the New
Testament to designate an organized body of local
churches. It never means a collection of churches,
any more than the word man in the New Testament
ever means a collection of men, or the word tree a
collection of trees. The New Testament writers
were not guilty of the absurdity of calling several
churches a church. They never so confounded ideas
and abused language as to put together several of
the churches, and still call the resultant body the
church. They knew of only the invisible church,
sand distinct, local, visible churches. They had nothing to correspond to such organizations as the Presbyterian church, the Episcopalian church, the Methodist Episcopal church, the Roman Catholic church,
and other centralized systems of ecclesiastical government. When they spoke of a church, they spoke.of a distinct, independent, local organization. When
they spoke of more than one, they said churches.'" The churches of Asia salute you;" not the church,of Asia. " So ordain I in all the churches;" not in'all the church. " The care of all the churches;" not
of all the church. When, therefore, we say the Congregational C/hurch, meaning the whole body of




OF THE PILGRIMS.             17
Congregational churches, we adopt a mode of expression not warranted in Scripture. For the same
reason, the very name, " The Presbyterian Church of
the United States of America," shows at once that
there is something about that organization that is
unscriptural. So of the name of the Episcopalian
Church, and of every other organized provincial or
national church. We are simply in search after the
truth, with respect to the scriptural form of ecclesiastical government; and we deny that Christ and the
apostles left to Christians any other form of a church
than that of distinct, independent, local churches.
If they did, doubtless it can be shown.
What, then, is a Christian church, according to the
teachings of the New Testament?  It is a company
of persons, who are apparently Christians, organized
by a covenant with each other and with God, into a
society distinct and complete in itself, acknowledging
Christ as their only head, and who are thus associated
for the purpose of maintaining mutual, brotherly watch
and care, and of meeting statedly in one place to maintain public worship and Christian ordinances. This
is the definition of a church as it is described by
the writers of the New Testament. It is also the
same definition, in substance, which has always been
given by the most approved authorities of a Congre2*




18            THE CHURCH POLITY
gational church. A company of such persons thus
organized for such a purpose, wherever it is, and
whatever its name, is a true church of Christ. Observe the particulars of this definition. The members of a church must be apparently true Christians.
We do not know that every member of a visible
church is what he professes to be; but he must be of
such an apparent character, that, in the judgment of
charity, we can believe him to be a true Christian,
one who receives by faith an infinite and atoning
Saviour, and follows him as his supreme Master.
In this particular, a visible church differs from the
invisible, all the members of the latter being true believers in Christ. This company of true Christians
must also be -organized by a mutual covenant into,a distinct and independent society, complete in itself,
and acknowledging Christ as its only head. The
only way in which such a voluntary society can be
formed is by means of a mutual covenant, not necessarily formally written out, but at least acknowledged
by the members. It must be so organized also as to
be distinct and complete in itself, for we are giving
the definition of a church, not of a part of a church.
Consequently, there can be over it no judicatories,
no king, priest, or bishop, to whom belongs either
the whole or any part of the church authority;
otherwise, without these, we should have only a




OF THE PILGRIMS.                   19
fragment, and not the whole, of a church.1 This
definition likewise requires that the members of the
church shall be so situated that they can conveniently meet statedly in one place. A church is a
local organization, having for its object mutual and
personal watch and care, and the regular congregating of its members for worship, and Christian observances. Such an organized collection of believers
is a complete church. It needs nothing more in its
structure to enable it to secure all its designed ends.
1 "'These [local] churches, as they are churches, are meet and
able to attain the ends of churches. To say they are churches,
and yet have not in themselves power to attain the ends of
churches, is to speak contradictions, or to grant and deny the
same thing in the same breath; for a church is nothing but such
a society as hath power, ability, and fitness to attain those ends
for which Christ hath ordained churches; that which hath so is
a church, and that which hath not so is none. Men may, if they
please, deny them to be churches, but then I know not where
they will find any that are so..... It is utterly foreign to the
Scripture, and a monster unto antiquity that there should be
churches with a part, half, more or less, of church power, and not
the whole, neither in right nor exercise; or that there should be
church officers, elders, presbyteries, or bishops, that should have
a partiary power, half or a third part, or less, of that which
entirely belongeth unto the office they hold. Let one testimony
be given out of the Scripture, or that antiquity which we appeal
unto, unto this purpose, and we shall cease our plea." — John
Owen's Works, Vol. 15, p. 314, recent Edinburgh edition.




20             THE CHURCH POLITY
It is competent to transact all ecclesiastical business.
It has authority to choose and place over itself its
own officers, to discipline its own members, and to
do all things necessary to secure the great ends of a
church, subject only in these particulars to Christ, its
head.
That this was the form of a church which Christ
taught, is evident from his law of church discipline
as laid down in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew.
The Saviour in this passage incidentally gives a
very clear description of a church. It is a representation of a church in complete and working order. According to this account of it, a church is,
first, an organized society, organized by a mutual
obligation on the part of its members, of brotherly
watch and care. Therefore, secondly, it is a local
society, a society of easy access and address: "4 Go tell
the church."  Thirdly, among all the members, as
members, there is perfect equality; no one has more
authority than another; they are all brethren, and
Christ is their only head and lawgiver. Fourthly, the
government of the church is in the hands of the
brotherhood. After two private trials of an erring
brother, if he is not gained, " tell it to the church;"
that is, to the organized society of which each
brother is a member, to the whole brotherhood; let
them  adjudicate upon the case.  " Tell it to the




DP THE PILGRIMS.             21
church" cannot mean, tell it to the priest, bishop, or
pope; it cannot mean, tell it to a session, or a presbytery, or any judiciary above the church. It means
what it says: " Tell it to the church," the company
of brethren with whom  you are associated.  No
unprejudiced reader would think of any other meaning. This is the only common sense interpretation.
Fifthly, the Saviour here teaches, with great emphasis, that the authority of the brotherhood is supreme
and final. His language upon this point is the language of command: "If he neglect to hear the
church, LET him be unto thee as a heathen man and
a publican."  This prohibits an appeal from the decision of the local church to any other earthly tribunal.
It is a command to terminate the case there. He
is to be a heathen man and a publican by the decision of the church, whatever other authority may come
in and claim to rejudge the case. And if a local
church, after rendering its verdict, shall recognize any
higher judicial authority than its, own, whether it
be that of an officer or a judicatory, a bishop or a
presbytery, it violates this command of Christ. It
refuses to terminate the trial at the point where
he comm'ands it to be terminated. It says to the
Saviour, we will not let him be a heathen may and
a publican if he neglects to hear us. Moreover,
the Saviour, to prevent all mistake, particularly re.




22             THE CHURCH POLITY
minds the brethren of this local organization, that
there is no church tribunal above their own save
that of heaven. " Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever
ye [you company of brethren], shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  Nothing, I apprehend, can be plainer than that the Saviour here teaches that the government of the church
lies exclusively with the members, acting as a democratic body. If so, we have no right to say that
the government of the church is not exclusively with
the members, but is entirely or in part in the hands,
either of certain officers or of certain judicatories
above them. If the Saviour says that the authority
of the members of a local church in an ecclesiastical
matter is supreme and final, we have no right to
say that it is not supreme and final. If the Saviour
teaches that the local church is complete in itself, for
all the purposes of a church, we have no right to
say that it is not, and then go on to institute offices
of a higher authority, or a cumbrous system of higher
judicatories, to make it complete. There is great
presumption in such a course. To say nothing of
the commands of Christ, it is challenging his wisdom.
For the Saviour does teach that a church is a local
organization; that it is complete in itself; that the
government of the church is in the hands of the




OF THE PILGRIMS.             23
mass of the members, acting as a purely democratic
body; and that their authority in church government
is supreme. And nowhere does he give the least
intimation of any other kind or form of a visibly
organized church.
The apostles, likewise, sanctioned and taught this
form of a church, and no other. The radical principles of Congregationalism, and also its general
spirit, are finely illustrated in the first instance of
ecclesiastical action after the ascension of the Savyiour. An apostle was to be chosen in the place
of Judas; and we should of course expect that if
the apostles were endowed with any superior ecclesiastical authority it would certainly now be made
manifest. When could such authority be exercised,
if not in filling a vacancy in their own number?
But they expressly disclaim for themselves any such
ecclesiastical supremacy, by submitting this most
important election to the arbitration of a popular
assembly of the disciples. There were " about one
hundred and twenty " present at the meeting. Peter
presided, distinctly announced the business, and
called upon them to make an election. The meeting nominated two, Justus and Matthias. And,
after prayer for divine guidance, "they," that is, the
whole assembly of the disciples, acting as a purely
democratic body, "gave forth their lots," or, as




24             THlE CHURCH POLITY
Mosheim  says this expression means, cast their
votes, "and the lot," or the vote, " fell upon Matthias." There can be no doubt about the character
of this ecclesiastical action; it was strictly popular,
or democratic. The whole company of the disciples were called upon to make the election.
"Without doubt," says Neander, "those expositors
adopt the right view who suppose that not merely
the apostles, but all the believers, were at that time
assembled." 1  Now the argument is this: If even
the apostles assumed no ecclesiastical supremacy
over the mass of the brethren, what man, or body
of men, is there, who can rightfully assume such
supremacy?  And if the apostles did not of themselves even fill a vacancy in their own number, but
submitted the election to the vote of the assembled
body of believers, what ecclesiastical business can
there possibly be which may not be properly and
rightfully done by such a popular assembly of the
disciples? This certainly indicates that it is a most
daring assumption for any man, or for any body of
men, to pretend to exercise a higher ecclesiastical
authority than that of the mass of the disciples
acting as a democratic body, and it also plainly
indicates that there is no necessity for any such
1 Planting and Training of the Church, p. 19, note.




OF THE PILGRIMS.             25
higher ecclesiastical authority. Thus in the very
dawn of Christianity, and in the very first attempt
made under the direction of the apostles to give it
any visible organization, we find germinating those
radical principles of Congregationalism, namely, the
perfect equality of all the members of the Christian:
brotherhood as members, and the absolute supremacy, under Christ, of the authority of that brotherhood as an ecclesiastical body.
The next instance of ecclesiastical action under
the direction of the apostles, of which we have any
record, was the choice of seven deacons. It may
possibly be objected to the argument just presented,;
that the election of an apostle was an extraordinary
event, and that, therefore, it furnishes no precedent
for ordinary ecclesiastical business. But we reply,
first, that the fact that the business of electing an.
apostle was so extraordinary makes the argument alli
the stronger for Congregationalism, showing that by
no possibility can there ever be any ecclesiastical
business which may not be transacted by the brethren of a local church. And, secondly, we reply that
the very next ecclesiastical action of the disciples
was not extraordinary, and yet was conducted ins
precisely the same manner. The election was madei
as before, by the whole body of believers. "The
multitude of the disciples" were called together by
3




26            THE CHURCH POLITY
the apostles. The business was distinctly laid before them, and they were requested to choose from
among themselves seven men for the new office.
"And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and
they chose Stephen " and six others, and set them
before the apostles, not to complete or to ratify the
election, but simply that the apostles, as the servants
of the church, might induct them into their office.
Without question this was a strictly popular election;
the apostles thus again teaching that the power of
appointing men to office in the church was not in
their hands, nor in the hands of any man, or body of
men, above the church, but exclusively in the hands
of the brotherhood of the disciples. "It were well,'
says John Owen, in commenting upon the manner
of this election, " if some would consider how the
apostles at that time treated that multitude of the
people, which is so much now despised and utterly
excluded from all concern in church affairs but
what consists in servile subjection.... It is marvellous to me, that any who would be thought to
succeed them in any part of their trust and office
should dare to depart from the example set before
them by the Holy Ghost in them, preferring their
own ways and inventions above it. I shall ever
judge that there is more safety in a strict adherence
unto this apostolical practice and example, than in




OF THE PILGRIMS.            27
a compliance with all the canons of councils or
churches afterward." 1
Again, even in the presence of the apostles, the
elders or ministers of the churches were chosen either
by the vote, or with the sanction, of the brotherhood.
We read in the fourteenth chapter of the Acts: "And
when they [the apostles] had ordained them elders
in every church," etc. The manner of the appointment of these elders is to be determined by the
meaning of the original word, rendered in this passage'?' ordained."  This word never means to ordain, in the modern signification of the term; it
never means to set apart, or to consecrate, by the
imposition of hands. It means, primarily, to appoint, or to elect, by an uplifting of the hands, or by
a popular vote; and, then, it means simply to choose,
to appoint. The apostles, then, chose or appointed
elders in every church. And this may mean, either
that they presided at the meeting and made the
election by receiving the suffrages of the brethren
and announcing the result, or that they alone made
the election. And even if we adopt the latter meaning, there is no probability that the election was
made without the sanction of the brethren. An
apostle even was chosen by popular vote.  The
seven deacons were elected in the same manner;
I Owen's Works, Vol. XVI. pp. 59, 60.




28             THE CHURCH POLITY
and these facts of themselves render it altogether improbable that ministers would be placed over the
echurches without even the approval of the brethren.
The same word, rendered in this passage to ordain,,is used, in the eighth chapter of Second Corinthians,
ito express the fact of a popular election of a delegate.
~This delegate was - not ordained - but " chosen of,the churches." And such would have been the renZdering of the word in the fourteenth of Acts, but
for the Episcopal correction, substituting  ordain
for choose. The translations, previous to that of
King James's bishops, affirm that the appointment
was made " by election." The meaning, therefore,:obviously is, that the elders were appointed either
by a popular election or by the expressed sanction
of the people; and either of these methods implies
ithe sovereignty of the local church.1
Again, the apostles taught the independency of
the local church, and the supremacy of its authority
under Christ, by the manner in which they directed
that the discipline of the church should be administered. The case of the incestuous person, of whom
Paul wrote in the fifth chapter of his first epistle to
the Corinthians, is a notable example: " When ye
are gathered together," the apostle says to the Corinthian church, this wicked member is to be delivered
See Appendix, note B.




OF THE PILGRIMS.           29
over to Satan. It was to be done by the whole
body of the church.  Paul censures them for not
having done this before, which he could not do unless the authority to administer discipline, even in
its severest form, was fully in their hands. "Do not
ye," he says, "judge them that are within?.....
Therefore put away from among yourselves that
wicked person." The apostle afterwards speaks of
this excommunication as having been an act of the
church. The punishmenft, he says, " was inflicted of
many;" that is, by the majority, showing that the
sentence was passed by a popular vote. According
to Paul, then, the power of administering discipline
is in the hands of the brethren of the local church,
and in the exercise of it they are to act as a strictly
independent and democratic body. And we have
no reason to believe that the views of Paul upon
this point were peculiar. All the rest of the apostles, undoubtedly, adopted and taught the same mode
of procedure.
Thus the apostles, by the manner in which they
filled a vacancy in their own number; by the manner in which, under their direction, the election of
deacons and pastors was made; and also by the way
in which they ordered the discipline of the church to
be conducted, teach the same form of a church as
that which is so clearly indicated in the Saviour's
3*




30             THE CHURCH POLITY
rule of discipline. It was the practice, even of the
apostles, to assume no ecclesiastical authority over
the churches, no veto power over their action; but
always to demean themselves as their servants.'They consulted with them, counselled and persuaded
-them, as if the supreme authority, or the whole responsibility of final action, was with them. They
thus plainly declare, that the sovereign power is
-vested in the brethren of the local church; that these'brethren are not only to have part in all church action, but also are amply competent for the performance of every kind of ecclesiastical business; that
with them are even "the keys of the kingdom," the
sole, and therefore supreme authority under Christ,
to open and to shut, to bind and to loose.
The following facts likewise, in this connection,
have an irresistible force. The apostles addressed
their epistles to particular local churches, as if these
were the only kind of which they had any knowledge. They enjoined duties upon no other ecclesiastical organization.  Much of their writings consist of directions respecting the care and management of local churches; but nowhere do they give
one direction in respect to the care or management
of an organized collection of them. They gave
directions for the appointment of no church officers
except those of distinct, independent churches. They




OF THE PILGRIMS.            31
invariably denominated a bishop's charge a church;
never churches. There is not the least intimation
that they ever thought of such a thing as a modern
diocese. Even in John's vision of the church triumphant no bishops appear, but only elders or
presbyters. Such a thing as a diocesan bishop,
either in heaven or on earth, seems never to have
entered the minds of the apostles. Neither did they
give any instructions respecting any ecclesiastical
tribunal higher than that of a local church. The
inspired founders of Christianity had no knowledge
of any thing corresponding to modern presbyteries,
synods, and general assemblies.  All these statements commend themselves at once as true to every
mind familiar with the New Testament. And these,
and many other similar facts that might be mentioned, establish the truth, that the apostles, as well
as Christ, sanctioned and taught that form of a
church which we now denominate Congregational,
and that they sanctioned and taught no other.
2. In the second place, the officers of a church,
such as were authorized by the writers of the New
Testament, were the officers of a Congregational
church, and were of two orders only - ministers and
deacons. It is true, that, in the origin of Christianity,
there was a distinct class of men in the churches;
that is, the apostles. But these did not constitute a




32                THE CHURCH POLITY
distinct order of church  officers.   Obviously they
were appointed to their extraordinary station for the
specific purpose of being witnesses to the resurrection of Christ, and of aiding, by their inspiration and
other miraculous powers, the introduction of Christianity into the world.' That purpose having been
I1 " They [the apostles]," says Neander, " stand as the medium
of communication between Christ and the whole Christian church,
to transmit his word and his spirit through all ages. In this respect the church must ever continue to acknowledge her dependence upon them, and to own their rightful authority. Their
authority and power can be delegated to none other. But the
service which the apostles themselves sought to confer was to
transmit to men the word and the spirit of the Lord, and by this
means to establish independent Christian communities. These
communities, when once established, they refused to hold in a
state of slavish dependence upon themselves. Their object was,
in the spirit of the Lord, to make the churches free and independent of their guidance. To the churches their language was:'Ye beloved, ye are made free; be ye the servants of' no man.'
The churches were taught to govern themselves. All the members were made to cooperate together as organs of one spirit..... Thus they, whose prerogative it was to rule among the
brethren, demeaned themselves as the servants of Christ and his
church." - Primitive Church, by Dr. L. Coleman, Introduction,
pp. 18, 19.
With regard to the arguments that are used to prove that
Timothy and Titus and the angels of the seven churches in Asia
were church officers of the same rank as the apostles, or at least




OF THE PILGRIMS.                  33
fully  accomplished, the  class, of course, ceased.
Thus we now have authority for only two orders of
officers.
belonged to an order far above that of presbyters or ministers,
we deem them too obviously specious to require any formal refutation. Half of the "charges" now given to Congregational
ministers at the time of their ordination, two centuries hence will
prove as conclusively that half of the ministers of our denomination in 1857 belonged to an order of officers higher than that of
the other ministers, as the instructions of Paul to Timothy and
Titus now prove that they belonged to an order of officers higher
in authority than that of presbyters. If they were evangelists,
that gave them no more church authority than belongs to the office
of elder or minister. The apostles gave ecclesiastical authority to
no church officers, but expressly affirmed that they were to be
considered as servants of the church. They taught that the sovereignty was exclusively in the hands of the brotherhood of the
local church. The Episcopalians themselves, generally, have
now abandoned the claims of episcopacy, on the ground that
there was a distinction in the primitive church between bishop
and presbyter, but defend their claims on the ground that there
was a grade of officers, not designated in the Scriptures, composed of the apostles and Timothy and Titus and the angels of
the seven churches, from which the modern bishop can trace his
descent. The whole fabric of episcopacy is thus made to rest
upon the supposition of a grade of officers that has no name in
the New Testament, and that is not even described. " Yet the
modern bishop," says Dr. Coleman, " with astonishing credulity,
traces back his spiritual lineage, we had almost said, through a
thousand generations, in strange uncertainty all the while to




34                THE CHURCH POLITY
First, we have ministers, or pastors. Those who
held this office in the time of the apostles were
whom he shall at last attach himself, or with whom claim kindred.
If Peter fails him, he flies to Paul, to James, to Timothy, to
Titus, to the angel of the church, to -he knows not whom. He
is, however, a legitimate descendant and successor of some apostolical bishop; he is sure of that. But that bishop - nobody
knows who he is, or what precisely his office may have been."
With regard to all attempts to demonstrate such a thing as an
apostolical succession in an unbroken line of bishops down to the
present time, we agree with the remark of Rev. Albert Barnes,
that " nothing that assumes to be a grave matter is more ridiculous or contemptible than the attempt, with a grave face, to exhibit such a demonstration."  No man on earth can prove such a
succession. Neander affirms that, " beyond a doubt, presbyters
were accustomed to ordain in the ages immediately succeeding
the apostles."  Another scholar, not an "irreverent dissenter,"
but a " devotect son " of the Episcopal church and " a distinguished
layman" of England, asserts that'" Episcopacy, in the modern
acceptation of the term, did not exist in the time of the apostles;
and that, however expedient and desirable such an institution
might be, it cannot plead the sanction of apostolic appointment
or example. It may be difficult to fix the period exactly when
the episcopate was first recognized as a distinct order in the
church, and when the consecration of bishops, as such, came to
be ii general use; clearly not, I think, when St. Jerome wrote,
[Jerome died A. D. 426.] 1" Thus much at least is certain, namely,
that the government of each church, including the ordination of
ministers, was at first in the hands of the presbytery." This
Episcopalian author, with Neander and other learned historians,




OF THE PILGRIMS.                   35
called elders, bishops, overseers, presbyters, teachers,
guides; all these terms being used to designate one
office; just as we now use the terms minister and
pastor to designate, not two distinct orders in office,
bht the same order. It will be seen at once, that it
is of primary importance, in establishing the divine
authority of our system of church government, to
prove that all these terms are names applied to persons holding, not so many different offices, but one
and the same office. But, if we begin to make any
distinction, it will be very difficult for any one to
show why we should not make as many distinct
offices as there are distinct terms. If we make a
distinction between elders and ministers, why not
believes that a presbytery in the primitive churches was simply a
board, composed of the officers of a single local church. After
showing that the first bishop must have received his ordination
from  presbyters, and therefore "could of necessity receive no
more than it was in their power to bestow," he proceeds as
follows: "At whatever period, therefore, it [Episcopacy] was
adopted, and with whatever uniformity it might be continued,
and whatever of value or even authority it might hence acquire, still, as an apostolical institution, it has none. There is a
gap which never can be filled; or, rather, the link by which
the whole must be suspended is wanting, and can never be supplied. There can be no apostolical succession of that which had
no apostolical existence." —Bowdler's Letters, as cited by Dr.
Coleman in his Primitive Church, pp. 196, 197.




36             THE CHURCH POLITY
between ministers and bishops? Or, if we make a
distinction between bishops and ministers, why not
between ministers and elders? Accordingly we find,
that, in one of our denominations, an elder is merely
a layman, who is a member of a Church Session;
while in other denominations an elder is a minister
or presbyter; while in other denominations still, the
office of minister, or presbyter, is distinct from that of
bishop, the latter being invested with a superior authority.
Now the simple historical fact is, it was the practice of the primitive Christians to have, if they
pleased, several ministers, elders, presbyters, bishops,
or whatever they were called, to each church. They
might have one or more; there was no limit given
to the number by the apostles. According to this
custom, many of the first churches of New England,
though small and feeble, supported two able ministers. Many Congregational churches now have
more than one. One Congregational church in New
England, at the present time, has five. In the time
of the primitive Christians, these several ministers
of a church would form a board of ministers, elders,
presbyters, or bishops, differing from each other, not
in official rank or authority, but only in personal attainments and character, one having perhaps peculiar gifts for ruling, another for teaching, another for




OF THE PILGRIMS.             37
exhortation; and so this board, or presbytery, as they
were then called, would naturally divide the labor of
their common office between them, according to
their several gifts, that each might exercise his own.
Hence they would have ruling elders, and teaching
elders, and exhorting elders; all these having the
same rank in office, or the same authority; all being
alike elders, or, in other words, differing from each
other, not in the offices which they held, but only as
they divided among themselves the work of one and
the same office. Nowhere is there the least intimation given that any one elder had any preeminence
over another. Indeed, it is absurd to suppose that a
ruling elder would be inferior in authority to a
teaching elder. The qualifications of all elders, and
the manner of their call and ordination, were the
same. Consequently, every person, officially designated by this term, filled the highest office in the
church under Christ. And so we find that the elders.
are spoken of, in the New Testament, as if theywere the ministers or pastors of the churches.  The
apostles more usually called the ministers of a
church its elders. They appointed " elders in every
church," ahd the duties enjoined upon these were the'
duties of ministers. If these elders were not theministers of those churches, those churches had no,
ministers. An elder was also a bishop. The quali4




38              THE CHURCH POLITY
fications of both are declared to be the same. No
duty was enjoined upon a bishop that was not enjoined upon an elder.  We are distinctly informed
that it was usual to have several bishops over one
church, as in Philippians 1: 1; Acts 20: 28; but
nowhere in the New Testament is there any intimation that one bishop was placed over several
churches. The bishops spoken of in Philippians 1: 1
had only deacons.associated with them, consequently they were the elders of that church. The
elders of the church at Ephesus are called overseers,
that is, bishops.l In Titus 1: 5-7 we are again
informed that elders are bishops, the terms being
used interchangeably to designate the same office.
In 1 Timothy iii. the offices of bishops and deacons
are spoken of as if they were the only offices in a
church. In 1 Peter 5: 2, 3, the apostle, as an elder,
exhorts the elders to feed the flock of God, "taking
the oversight thereof," or as the word in the original
means, acting as bishops.  A  bishop, then, is an
elder, and only an elder, and an elder is a minister;
and a board of elders or ministers, officiating inll a
single local church, is a board of bishops.* There is
no authority in the New Testament for making any
distinction between a board of elders and a board
1 Acts 20: 17 and 28. The word here translated overseers
is the same word which is elsewhere translated bishops.




OF THE PILGRIMS.             39
of presbyters, or between a board of presbyters and
a board of bishops; nor for making any distinction
between a board of elders and a board of elders and
presbyters. All such distinctions are of human origin. Nor is there any authority in the New Testament for judicial and legislative bodies, made up of
presbyters, and delegates falsely called elders, from
several churches. If there is, why has it not been
shown? Where is the page in the New Testament
that gives any authority for a modern Church Session; composed of the ministers of the church, and
certain of the brethren chosen to officiate for life and
called elders; and transacting all the business of the
church except that of their own election, and also
that which is transacted by higher judicatories?
Where is the scriptural authority for a modern Presbytery, composed of ministers and delegates from
several Church Sessions, and exercising a judicial authority superior to that of the local church? The
only Presbytery, known to the apostles and primitive
Christians, was that composed of the presbyters or
pastors of a single church. And so where is the
scriptural warrant for the Synod and the General
Assembly? Would any candid reader of the New
Testament ever receive the remotest hint of such a
ponderous system of connected judicatories, all the
repositories of a judicial, legislative, and executive
power higher than that of the local church?




40             THE CHURCH POLITY
The second order of officers in the church is that
of deacons. This is a distinct office, having its own
distinct duties, and is the only other office of divine
appointment in the church. It is the duty of the
deacons to attend to the collection of the alms of
the church, and to the distribution of them to the
poor, and in other things so to assist the elders or
ministers that they shall not be obliged to "leave
the word of God, and serve tables."
Now it should be particularly noticed, that both
ministers and deacons are officers of single, local
churches. There is no provision of officers made for
any other kind of a church. Nothing whatever is
said about the construction, or the official appointments, or the tribunals, or the management of a
church, made up of a collection of churches; and,
therefore, every such ecclesiastical organization is
merely human. Moreover, both of these classes of
officers which we have mentioned grew out of the
local church. They were appointed to their office by
-the members. Thus the officers were not placed over
the church, but were chosen by the church. They
had not the government or the authority of the
church in their hands. They were simply the servants of the church, for the Lord's sake. They had
no right to regard themselves as "lords over God's
heritage," and were expressly forbidden to claim any




OF THE PILGRIMS.            41
such church authority.'  Thus the offices in the
church were of such a nature as to be in perfect
conformity with the judicial and legislative supremacy of the brotherhood.
3. In the third place, the relation of the primitive
churches to each other was that of distinct,, complete churches, united only by a common faith, and
by mutual Christian love and fellowship; and this
is the mutual relation of Congregational churches.
The first Christian churches were independent. No
one of them was under the control or authority of
all, or any, of the rest; nor was any one of them
under the control or authority of any officer or judicatory placed over a part, or all, of the churches.
They all stood upon the same level, each a distinct,
complete, independent church, and had no control
over each other, except through the persuasive influences of Christian character and love. They were
not independent, in the sense that they paid no
regard to each other. They were united by the
strongest of all ties, Christian love, and were ever
ready to perform, voluntarily, all those acts of mutual kindness and sympathy which would naturally
be prompted by such love. It is on this account
that the word Congregational is more appropriate
1 Peter 5: 3.
4*




42            THE CHURCH POLITY
than the word Independent, as descriptive of the
primitive form of church government.  There is
nothing in the nature of this divine form of a
church to prevent one church asking advice or
assistance of another. On the contrary, there is
every thing in the nature of the union of the
churches to encourage this. Hence the propriety of
ecclesiastical councils composed of messengers, sent
by the several churches whose advice or assistance
has been asked. But these councils can have no
permanent organization; neither can they have any
ecclesiastical authority over a church. They cannot
ordain a minister, nor dismiss one; they cannot excornmunlcCate a brother, nor restore one already
excommunicated; they cannot perform any ecclesiastical business for the church which has called
them, unless requested or permitted to do it by the
members of that church. They can simply consult,
advise, assist. They have no judicial or legislative
authority whatever.1 One church may also ask for
the advice or the opinion of the whole brotherhood
of another church in settling some difficult point in
doctrine or discipline. We have an account of such
a conference as this between two churches, in the
fifteenth chapter of Acts; the brethren of the church
at Antioch sending a disputed question by chosen
1 See Appendix, note C.




OF THE PILGRIMS.            43
messengers to the apostles and elders and church at
Jerusalem; and "the apostles and elders, with the
whole church " at Jerusalem, sending back their judgment in the case. There was nothing in this that
had the remotest resemblance to a permanent and
superior judicatory over the churches. It was simply a conference of two churches, and it never met
but once. No such voluntary and friendly intercourse between the churches can interfere, in the
least degree, with their individual completeness and
independence. Neither is there any thing in the
nature of this scriptural form of a church to prevent
the ministers of several churches uniting, if they
please, to form an association for mutual improvement, and for consultation respecting the interests of
the churches, but not to exercise over them any governmental authority. There is nothing, either, in
this primitive constitution of the church, to prevent
the members of several churches uniting their
prayers and labors in carrying forward some enterprise of Christian benevolence.  They may even
form a society to accomplish such an object, but not
to exercise any authority over the local churches.
No organization that takes any thing away from the
completeness of a local church, or in any degree
forms a complement to it, or to its authority, has
any warrant in Scripture. Where, in the New Tes



44                THE CHURCH POLITY
tament, is there any authority for any church judicatory higher than that of the brethren of a local
church, whether you call that judicatory a convention, a presbytery, a synod, or assembly? No such
thing was known in the time of the apostles. There
was no such connection of the churches, no such
subordination of them to superior tribunals. There
were no such material ligaments binding them all
together, and, at the sacrifice of their individual
completeness and independence, building up a great
centralized system of church government. There is
not the least intimation in the Bible of any such
general government extending its supervision and
control over all or any of the churches. And these
facts, we affirm, are decisive of the question before
us. The primitive churches were distinct, complete,
independent, local, or, as we now denominate them,
Congregational churches.'
1 Looking upon the primitive churches as thus all independent,
each complete in itself, what relation would a centralized church,
springing up among them, have sustained to all the rest? If, for
instance, the churches of Asia, or those of Judea, immediately
after the death of the apostles, had banded together and adopted
another form of church government, and organized themselves
into a Presbyterian, or a Methodist, or an Episcopal church,
what would have been their position among the churches of
Christendom? Most certainly it would have been sectarian and
schismatic. And why is not any subsequent rise of a centralized




OF THE PILGRIMS.                45
Indeed, so far as any argument from the Bible for
a system of church government is concerned, there
is no tenable stopping-place between Congregationalism  and  Popery.   If one degree  of authority
should be exercised over a local church, then it is
easy to prove that two degrees should be; and if
two degrees should be exercised, then should three;
and if three, then four; and so on to absolute despotism.  And it makes no difference whether this
superior authority to that of a local church is embodied in an officer or in a judicatory. If there should
be a diocesan officer over the bishops or ministers of
local churches, then there should be a national
officer over the diocesan, and, finally, a pope over all
the world.  And so, if there should be a permanent
church judicatory invested with superior authority
over the members, then, for the same reason, there
should be another judicatory over that.  That is, if
there should be a session over the church, there
should be a presbytery over the session, and then a
synod over the presbytery, and then an assembly
church equally sectarian and schismatic? Why is not every
consolidated church, of whatever kind, organizing itself, as every
such church does, on a new and more or less unscriptural plan,
and fencing itself off from all other churches, a schism in the
body of Christ? And why is not Popery the greatest schism in
the history of Christianity?




46                THE CHURCH POLITY
over the synod; and no one can give any reason
whatever from the Bible, why the line of judicatories should stop with the assembly.  By the same
reasoning, if a church should be governed by an
oligarchy of elders, it should be governed by the
monarchy  of a  pope.   Nowhere along  the line
between Congregationalism and Absolutism is
there any one position that can be taken and defended from the Bible any better than any other.
There is no logical stopping-place between the local
church and Rome; hence the drift from the less
centralized systems of church government is always
towards ecclesiastical despotism.l Even the mildest
1 "Associationism," says Dr. Emmons, "leads to Consociationism; Consociationism leads to Presbyterianism; Presbyterianism leads to Episcopacy; Episcopacy leads to Roman Catholicism; and Roman Catholicism is an ultimate fact." - Emmons's
Works, Vol. I. Memoirs, p. 135.
"There are but two steps," says John Wise, " from an aristocracy to a monarchy, and from thence but one to a tyranny;
an able and standing force, and an ill nature, ipso facto, turn an
absolute monarch into a tyrant; this is obvious among the
Roman Coesars, and through the world. And all these direful
transmutations are easier in church affairs (from the different
qualities of the things) than in civil states." - Vindication of
N. E. Churches, p. 41.
"Far distant be the day when the Consociations of Connecticut shall appear in the mother country among our Congre



OF THE PILGRIMS.                  47
of these systems can form no permanent union of
any kind with Congregationalism. A breach will
soon begin, and inevitably continue to widen, as, by
an inherent and uncontrollable tendency, they recoil
from the contact. There must forever be a palpable
and fixed line of demarcation between the people's
governing and being governed.  Inside of this line
is the primitive, scriptural church; but outside all
is adrift. If the brethren of a local church govern,
they stand fast in the position of the primitive
churches; but the moment they suffer themselves
in any degree to be governed, they leave that position and begin to travel towards Rome.l In those
churches that are drifting towards absolute despotism, reformers will arise now and then, as they have
already frequently arisen, who will seek to stem the
increasing power and tyranny of the few, and regational churches! Unlike the stated associations formed among
us in most countries, they lead to Presbyterianism." - Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament, by Samuel Davidson, D. D.
p. 271.
"If you were to take the great mass of the people of England,
you would find a burst of righteous indignation against them (the
Tractarians). They would say,' If we are to have Popery, let
us have honest old Popery, at once. If you are right, you do
not go far enough; and if you are wrong, you go too far.' "- Rev.
Mr. Stowell, cited by Dr. Coleman in his Primitive Church, p. 85.
1 See Appendix, Note D.




48            THE CHURCH POLITY
store to the people their divine but lost rights. In
all great religious reformations in consolidated
churches, the tendency is always back towards the
primitive mode of church government. Under the
influences of the Reformation of Geneva and Scotland, converted men passed at once from Popery to
Presbyterianism, a long step towards the simple,
scriptural form of a church. Under the same kind
of influence, Luther passed, at one stride, from
Popery to Congregationalism. And no man, who
conscientiously takes the Bible for his infallible rule
of practice, as did the Pilgrims, can logically or
morally avoid coming over to their system, though it
be through fire and blood, and a second exile for
freedom to worship God. For it must for ever stand
an immovable fact, that the brotherhood of a local
church is the highest judicial and executive tribunal
known in the New Testament. If we have a right
to have any tribunal higher than this, we have a
right to have any tribunal we please, and any form
of church government whatever, according to our
own taste or fancy, or ideas of expediency, entirely
regardless of the Scriptures.
Here we might rest the case. The argument,
which we have briefly sketched, proves, beyond all
reasonable controversy, that the church polity of the
Pilgrims was that instituted by Christ and the apos



OF THE PILGRIMS.             49
tiles. The chief recommendation of Congregationalism is its scripturalness. In the language of a
learned English divine: " It rests on the immovable
basis of the Divine Word.  It challenges inquiry
because of its sacred foundation.  Whoever undertakes to overthrow it, must assail it chiefly with
weapons drawn from the Bible."
But if we would make what is certain doubly certain, there is still an historical argument of great
force, that brings us to the same conclusion. All
the accredited evidence that can be gathered from
other sources than the New Testament goes to
prove that the churches of the primitive Christians
were Congregational churches. Dr. John Owen lays
down, and, with the most elaborate research, establishes the proposition, " that in no approved writers,
for the space of two hundred years after C/hrist, is
there any mention made of any other organical, visibly professing church, but that only which is parochial
or congregational."'  The most accredited church
historians render similar testimony. " We are disposed to believe," says Neander, " that the church.
was at first composed entirely of members standing
on an equality with one another, and that the
apostles alone held a higher rank, and exercised a,
Owen's Works, Vol. XV. p. 277.
5S




50              THE CHURCH POLITY
directing influence over the whole."'  Again he
says:'" As regards the relation in which the presbyters stood to the communities [churches], they were
not designed to exercise absolute authority, but to
act as presiding officers, and guides of an ecclesiastical republic; to conduct all things, with the cooperation of the communities, as their ministers, and
not their masters."2
" The principal voice," says Mosheim, "' was that
of the people, or of the whole body of Christians;
for even the apostles themselves inculcated, by their
example, that nothing of any moment was to be
done or determined on but with the knowledge and
consent of the brotherhood." " The assembled people elected their own rulers and teachers, or by their
free consent received such as were nominated to
them... In a word, the people did every thing
that is proper for those in whom  the supreme power
of the community is vested....  Among all members of the church, of whatever class or condition,
there was the most perfect equality."3 Again, he
says of the churches of the first century: "All the
churches, in those primitive times, were independent
bodies; or none of them subject to the jurisdicNeander's Planting and Training of the Church, p. 33.
2 Neander's Church History, Vol. I. p. 189.
8 Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Murdock's Translation,
Vol. I. p. 68.




OF THE PILGRIMS.             51
tion of any other. For, though the -churches which
were founded by the apostles themselves frequently
had the honor shown therim to be consulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they had no judicial
authority, no control, no power of giving laws. Ont
the contrary, it is clear as the noonday, that all
Christian churches had equal rights, and were in all
respects on a footing of equality.  Nor does there
appear, in this first century, any vestige of that consociation of the churches of the same province
which gave rise to ecclesiastical councils and to metropolitans." 1 Of the second century he says: " During a great part of this century, all the churches
continued to be, as at first, independent of each other,
or were connected by no consociations or confederations. Each church was a kind of small, independent republic, governing itself by its own laws,
enacted, or at least sanctioned, by the people." 2
Still again we find this reliable historian saying:
"' Although all the churches were, in the first age of
Christianity, united together in one common bond
of faith and love, and were, in every respect, ready
to promote the interests and welfare of each other by
a reciprocal interchange of good offices, yet, with regard to government and internal economy, every
Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I. p. 72.
2 Ibid. p. 116.




52             THlE CHURCH POLITY
individual church considered itself as an independent
community, none of them ever looking, in these respects, beyond the circle of its own members for
assistance, or recognizing any sort of external influence or authority. Neither in the New Testament
nor in any ancient document whatever do we find
any thing recorded, from whence it might be inferred
that any of the minor churches were at all dependent
on, or looked up for direction to, those of greater
magnitude or consequence; on the contrary, several
things occur therein, which put it out of all doubt
that every one of them enjoyed the same rights, and
was considered as being on a footing of the most
perfect equality with the rest. Indeed it cannot, - I
will not say be proved, but even be made to appear
probable, from any testimony, divine or human, that
in this age it was the practice for several churches to
enter into and maintain amongst themselves, that
sort of association which afterwards came to subsist
amongst the churches of almost every province."i
" They [the apostles]," says Dr. Coleman, "instituted no external form of union or confederation
between [the churches] of different towns or provinces; nor within the first century of the Christian
era can any trace of such a confederacy, whether
1 Mosheim's Historical Commentaries on Christianity in the
First Three Centuries, Vol. I. p. 196.




OF THE PILGRIMS.            53
diocesan or conventional, be detected on the page of
history. The diocesan, metropolitan, and patriarchal
forms of organization belong to a later age. The
idea of a holy catholic church, one and indivisible,
had not yet arisen in the church, nor had it assumed
any outward form of union. WVherever converts to
Christianity were multiplied, they formed themselves
into a church, under the guidance of their religious
teachers, for the enjoyment of Christian ordinances.
But each individual church constituted an independent and separate community. The society was
purely voluntary, and every church so constituted
was strictly independent of all others in the conduct
of its worship, the admission of its members, the exercise of its discipline, the choice of its officers, and
the entire management of its affairs. They were,
in a word, independent republics." 1
Now this was the church polity of the Pilgrim
Fathers. They took for their model the churches of
the New Testament. They went back to the primitive Christians, and copied, as closely as possible,
their form of church government. It is sometimes
said that the Rev. John Robinson, the godly pastor
of the Leyden-Plymouth Church, was the author of
Congregationalism. But no. " It was instituted,"
1 The Primitive Church, by Coleman, p. 47. - See Appendix,
Note E.
5"




51             THE CHURCH POLITY
says John Cotton, " and practised in the first ages of
Christianity, and our Saviour himself is the true author of this first ecclesiastical state of the church."
" The primitive churches of the apostolic age," says
Gov. Winslow, "were the pattern which Mr. Robinson had in his eye."  It may seem strange that
this primitive and scriptural form of the Christian
church should have been disregarded for so many
centuries, and have been revived again only two centuries and a half ago. But ecclesiastical corruption
and despotism crushed it out. The world was not
worthy of it; and, therefore, for more than thirteen
centuries in the world, it was like its Great Author,
who had not where to lay his head. The Pilgrims
searched for the account of it in the New Testament, and found it; and, believing that the form of a
church which they thus found and adopted was
divine, the only form which Christ designed to leave,
the only form which the apostles taught by word or
practice; and, therefore, believing that it differed
from all human societies or organizations in this,
that it was divine, and that no man or body of men
on earth, not even the members of a local church
themselves, had any authority to alter its constitution, its ordinances, or its offices, Christ being its
only lawgiver, they labored and suffered and prayed
for it amidst persecutions and in exile, until they en



OF THE PILGRIMS.             55
tered into their rest. They bequeathed their hardearned liberty to revive and enjoy this first and
divine form of a Christian church to their descendants. The Congregationalism  of New England is
the church polity of the Pilgrims. And it is this,
my hearers, your own church order, so precious in
itself and in its history; the church order of the
Pilgrim Fathers; the church order of Christ and the
apostles; that you are called upon to-day to give to
your country.
II. But, in the second place, the divine origin of
the church polity of the Pilgrims is not the only argument with which I would commend it to your
most favorable regard. If it is divine, it doubtless
has an inherent fitness for its ends worthy of its
divinity. If it is the church order of Christ and the
apostles, we might reasonably expect that it would
have intrinsic excellences and aptitudes, as a system of church government, peculiar to itself, and
consequently be endowed with a power for good in
the world, preeminent, and worthy of its Author. I
have time to mention only a few of these excellences, and shall select those which seem to me best
fitted to impress our minds with the great wisdom,
and the duty, of more earnest and systematic effort,
on the part of our churches, to extend this apostolic
and primitive system of church government throughout our country.




56            THE CHURCH POLITY
1. In the first place, this divine church polity is
peculiarly fitted to reach and elevate the masses of
the people. Congregationalism is founded upon the
principle, that the church is made for the many, and
not merely for the few. As the Saviour said of the
Sabbath, so we may say of the church; the church
was made for man, and not man for the church.
But when the great mass of the members are made
the mere slaves of a great and imposing church system, or of a church oligarchy installed over them,
the church is no longer made for the masses, but
they are made for the church. The primary design
of this divine Institution is thus defeated. That
which was wisely fitted to promote the highest good
of the many is so perverted as to become a ponderous machine for making the many subserve the ambitious and selfish interests of the few. The church
polity of the Pilgrims prevents any approach to such
a perversion of this divine Institution, by placing
the entire government of each local church in the
hands of its members. And it is just this feature of
this church polity that makes it so admirably fitted
to develop the natural powers, as well as the Christian character, of every member, and so to elevate
the whole mass of the brethren intellectually and
spiritually. The church is thus made to subserve the
real interests of its members. It calls them all up,




OF THE PILGRIMS.            57
even the very humblest of them, to an arena of
high and responsible personal action. The government of a church of Christ is in their hands. The
acts of a church are often more momentous than the
acts of a nation; and no church action can be taken
except by the suffrages of the members; and thus
the very lowliest as well as the most gifted brother
is called upon to deliberate upon every question
coming before them, to decide independently and
definitely upon the expediency or inexpediency, the
rightness or wrongness, of the action proposed, and
to render his judgment accordingly. No person can
be received into the church until all the members
have had an opportunity to ascertain and weigh well
the evidence of his fitness for the communion of the
saints, and to make objections, if they shall deem it
best. If any weighty matter of discipline is brought
before the church, the very weakest as well as the
strongest brother is called upon to prepare his mind
and his heart for the high duty before him, and then
to adjudicate upon the case to the best of his ability,
faithfully and righteously pronouncing his judgment,
responsible to Christ alone. In all this a silent but
mighty influence is brought to bear upon each individual member, developing independence of thought,
independence of action, manliness and force of character. This wise system of church government is




58            THE CHURCH POLITY
wonderfully fitted to work upon mind. It was ordained by him who made the soul, and who knows
its worth. It does not treat men as if they were fit
only to be parts of a machine, and could move only
as they are moved by some all-controlling mechanical power above them. It treats men as if they
were men,- as if they were endowed with free-will
and immortal being, and must stand before God,
each one for himself alone, and give an account of
his own deeds done in the body; and therefore it
rigorously and reverently conforms to the established
laws of free and immortal mind. It was the profound remark of John Owen, that "churches may
inform the minds of men, but they cannot enforce
them." And then he adds, that, if the members of
any church do not act freely, as they judge is their
duty, and best for them, to act, " they therein differ
not much from a herd of creatures that are called by
another name." This divine church order proves its
divinity by treating men as our Saviour treated
them when he laid down his life to save them. It
magnifies their worth. It especially exalts the redeemed of the Lord, and orders all its conduct
towards them as if they were those little ones, whom
if any one offend, "it were better for him that a
mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he
were drowned in the depth of the sea." It raises




OF THE PILGRIMS.             59
them, one and all, in official position. It makes
every brother alike responsible for the most momentous trusts. It places every member in a royal office,
and calls upon him to administer his office, responsible only to the Great Head of the church. It intrusts every brother alike with the watch and care of
the body of Christ. The poorest, lowliest brother
holds this office equally with the most wealthy or
gifted. And it is a regal office that he fills, for there
is no one above him on earth. The officers of the
church even are only his servants. The very highest
of them is only his minister. He, that humble churchmember, is in the regal office; yea, more than a
regal office, for no earthly potentate has the care of
a world; and a single soul is of more worth than a
world. And thus, in this divine form of the church,
every man is made his own king and his own priest,
and therefore all the members are kings and priests
unto God; which led the great historian Neander,
as he pondered upon this primitive form of the
church, to pronounce it " a divine kingdom of priests."
A church polity which thus elevates the mass of
the members, inclines them to fit themselves, by
every means in their power, to meet the responsibilities of their elevated position. The committee
room, the conference room, the church and prayermeeting, the watch and care for which they are




60             THE CHURCH POLITY
responsible, make them feel the need of developing
their powers, both of mind and of heart, to the utmost degree, that they may discharge properly the
high duties that have been devolved upon them.
And then, from this increased mental culture and
elevation of character in the church, goes out a
mighty influence, reaching through all the community around, and promoting generally intelligence
and virtue. Such a church polity goes right down
among the masses of the people, and, by a thousand
silent and winding influences, tends to make them,
one and all, feel that they are called upon to take,
and may take, a high position in life; and thus they
are stimulated to prepare themselves to occupy it.
The very presence of such a church polity shows the
necessity of the general education of the people;
and therefore it has happened that wherever the
church order of the Pilgrims has gone, the schoolhouse has gone, and well endowed academies and
colleges have sprung up on every hand, as by enchantment. It is a significant historical fact, that
New England, the great seat of this church order,
has been foremost of all the world in efforts to prom6te popular education, and in the success which
has attended them.1 It was here, under the influ1 " In New England, so admirable is the school system, and so
deserving of all imitation, that only one person over twenty




OF THE PILGRIMS.                    61
ence of Congregationalism, that the experiment was
made, for the first time in the world, of establishing
years of age is incapable of reading and writing in every four
hundred of the number of native whites. In the South and
South-west, the number is one in about twelve; and in the territories, one in about six; in the slave-holding States, one in twelve;
in the non-slaveholding, one in forty; in the whole Union, one in
about twenty-two." — United States Census, 1850.  From  the
same source, we learn that the proportion of scholars at school
to the whole population, is, in Maine, one scholar to every 3.1
persons; in Prussia, one scholar to 6.2 persons; in Great Britain,
one to 8.5; in France, one to 10.5; in Austria, one to 13.7; in
Russia, one to 50. Or, to give a still more definite illustration,
taken from another source, the proportion of white adults over
twenty years of age who cannot read and write is, "in Connecticut, 1 to every 568; in North Carolina, 1 to every 7. In
Vermont, 1 to every 473; in South Carolina, 1 to every 17."New Englander for 1857, p. 641. " Boston,"- said Dr. Horner,,
President of the Geological Society in London, in conversation~
with the late Prof. B. B. Edwards,'" Boston is doing more
than the whole of England for popular education."  This inherent tendency of Congregationalism, as a powerful stimulative to,
popular education, developed itself very early in New England..
" It was ever the custom," says Mr. Bancroft, in his History of the,
United States, " and it soon became the law, in Puritan NewEngland, that' none of the brethren shall suffer so much barbarism in their families as not to teach their children and apprentices so much learning as may enable them perfectly to read the
English tongue."' And again he says: " In these measures [of
education], especially in the laws establishing common schools,.
6




62               THE CHURCH POLITY
free schools.   General thrift and enterprise have
followed in the wake of this universal intellectual
culture, and, therefore, the praise of New England
is in all the world.
Nor is this system less adapted to the higher than
the lower classes in society. It would be strange
indeed if a church polity, which is divinely fitted to
the intellectual and moral constitution of man,
should not be able to carry him on from any degree
of elevation in the scale of being which he will be
likely to reach in his earthly life. It has shown
itself to be peculiarly congenial to great minds and
generous natures.  " Two centuries ago," says an
English  writer, "Congregationalism  could  make
mention of knights and nobles, of some of the greatest
names in literature and in arms, and of not a few
among the most intelligent and wealthy in the
middle class, as giving to it their honest preference
before all the systems of that age. The most interesting space, beyond all comparison, in the history of British intellect, was the space between
1640 and 1660; but the true manhood of those
lies the secret of the success and character of New England.
Every child, as it was born into the world, was lifted from the
earth by the genius of the country, and, in the statutes of the
land, received as its birthright a pledge of the public care for its
morals and its mind."




OF THE PILGRIMS.              63
memorable times was clearly the manhood of English Independency. Many noble spirits then sighed
to be free, - free in law, free in thought, free in utterance, - and it was in the nature of Independency to
give them what they sought."1  And what province,
we may ask, without any boasting, has produced a
larger number of the imperial minds of the present
age, of those most distinguished for all that constitutes a complete and efficient manhood, than New
England, where Congregationalism, more than anywhere else in the world, exerts its elevating influences alike upon all classes in society?
Carry, then, the church polity of the Pilgrims to
the great West; carry it into all the borders of our
country; carry it over the world. It is a fair argument for the great wisdom of this course, that the
system itself is so divinely fitted to all classes in
society, reaching the masses of the people, and
elevating everywhere the popular mind and the
popular character.
2. In the second place, the polity of the,Pilgrims
in the church is preeminently congenial with, and
tends to promote, republicanism in the state. This
form of church government is purely democratic. It
intimates to the people their right to govern them-' See Congregationalism and Modern Society, by Robert
Vaughan, D. D., pp. 79, 80.




64             THE CHURCH POLITY
selves, and at the same time convinces them that
self-government in the state, as well as in the church,
is possible. It also tends to prepare them to use the
rights and privileges secured in civil freedom, intelligently and properly; and so its whole influence and
tendency, in this regard, is towards a democratic or
republican form of civil government.'
This powerful tendency of Congregationalism has
been frequently recognized as an historical fact.
Even David Hume, speaking of the Puritans, whose
ecclesiastical tendency was so obviously towards the
freest church polity, was candid enough to affirm,
that, "to this sect the English owe the whole freedom of their constitution." Lord Brougham affirms of the Independents, that they are " a body of
men to be held in lasting veneration for the unshaken
fortitude with which, in all times, they have maintained their attachment to civil liberty; men to
whose ancestors England will ever acknowledge a
boundless debt of gratitude, as long as freedom is
prized among us. For, I freely confess it, they, with
whatever ridicule. some may visit their excesses, or
with whatever blame others, they, with the zeal of
martyrs and with the purity of the early Christians,
the skill and courage of the most renowned warriors, achieved for England the free constitution
See Appendix, note F.




OF THE PILGRIMS.            65
which she now enjoys." Of the same character is
the testimony of Lord King. "As for toleration,"
he says, " or any true notion of religious liberty, or
any general freedom of conscience, we owe them not
in the least degree to what is called the Church of
England. On the contrary, we owe all these to the
Independents in the time of the Commonwealth, and
to Locke, their most enlightened and illustrious disciple."  " We are prepared to expect," says a learned
English author, " that those belonging to Independent churches, being accustomed to self-government,
will sympathize in a liberal and popular form of
civil administration where the people are fairly and
fully represented. If they perceive that the interests
of a spiritual society are best promoted by encouraging all the members to understand and feel their
personal responsibility in the transaction of ecclesiastical business, they will be led to infer that the
form of civil government which provides for a like
sense of responsibility by allowing the people generally to exercise the rights of freemen, cannot be
wrong. Habituated to self-government in the one
department, they will desire the same principles in
another. Such as live under the prelatic system,
where the clergy are sent to them without their
wishes being consulted or the nature of their wants
studied, and where they are exempted, to a large ex6*




66            THE CHURCH POLITY
tent, from the exercise of independent thought, will
more readily acquiesce in a constitution under which
they possess a like exemption. But men who are
intrusted with a weighty commission in things
spiritual will not be so easily satisfied with the passiveness of a condition where the few shut them out
from the exercise of rights belonging to every subject
of a free government. They will carry the same
principles of liberty into the one department which
they cherish in the other, believing them to be sanctioned of Heaven for the promotion, not less of the
temporal than of the spiritual well-being of mankind."  This natural and inevitable tendency of
Congregationalism to promote civil and religious
freedom is manifest throughout the entire history of
this church order in England. The Independents
never wavered in their demand for religious toleration, nor in their defence of it when obtained. It
was by this persistent adherence to those principles
of liberty taught them by their church polity that
they saved England, not only from the tyranny to
which prelacy always tends, but also from that with
which even the Presbyterians sought to destroy her
religious freedom the only time they were ever in
power with the civil government. " Twice in their
native land," history affirms, the Puritans "saved
the British constitution from being crushed by the




OF THE PILGRIMS.             67
usurpations of the Stuarts."  "Where," asks one of
New England's greatest orators,l speaking of the
Puritans, " where, in the long series of ages that furnish the matter of history, was there ever one [race],
— where one better fitted, by the possession of the
highest traits of man, to do the noblest work of
man; better fitted to consummate and establish the
Reformation, —to save the English constitution, at
its last gasp, from the fate of other European constitutions, and prepare, on the granite and iced
mountain summits of the New World, a still better
rest for a still better liberty?"
But, not to speak further of Independency as the
source and stay of English liberty, what is the relation of the free church polity of the Pilgrims to
our own republicanism?  We could not live under
an absolute despotism.  We love our civil freedom. It is our pride, and the hope of the world.
But how came our government to be republican?
The first settlers of this country did not come hither
to establish this particular form of a government,
or, indeed, any independent government whatever.
They came hither from various motives; but this was
not, to any general extent, one of them. And when,
at last, the time came for them to renounce all
kingly rule and to set up an independent civil organ1 Hon. Rufus Choate.




68            THE CHURCH POLITY
ization, many opposed it as one of the worst calamities that could befall the country, while very many
of those who approved of the Revolution, yet regretted that they should be driven to the measure.
Our fathers, it is true, came hither for religious and
civil freedom; but they had hoped to enjoy this without going to the full length of pure republicanism.
How happened it, then, when an independent government came to be instituted, that it assumed this
particular form? Doubtless many influences conspired to this result. But this question has not been
duly weighed. The really determinative cause of
our particular form of government has not been
made sufficiently prominent. There is a connection
between the church polity of the Pilgrim Fathers
and the civil polity which they adopted, and also between their civil polity and that which the nation
subsequently accepted, which has not been sufficiently traced and pondered. The purely democratic
form of government in the Church at Leyden, already entrenched in the warm affections of the Pilgrims, led to the adoption of a corresponding form
of civil government on board the Mayflower for the
colony at Plymouth. It has been said, and it is
true, that it was a Congregational church meeting
that first suggested the idea of a New England town
meeting; and a New England town meeting em



OF THE PILGRIMS.                    69
bodies all the germinal principles of our state and
national  governments.l   Unquestionably, through
1 "For more than eighteen years," says Mr. Bancroft, speaking of the Plymouth Colony, "'  the whole body of the male inhabitants' constituted the legislature; the state was governed,
like our towns, as a strict democracy; and the people were frequently convened to decide on executive, not less than on judicial, questions." Thus perfectly was the government of the state
modelled after that of their church.
" The New Testament is emphatically a republican book. It
sanctions no privileged orders; it gives no exclusive rights. All
who imbibe its spirit and obey its precepts are recognized as
equals, — children of the same Father, brethren and sisters in
Christ, and heirs to a common inheritance. In the spirit of these
kind and endearing relations, the first Christians formed themselves into little republican communities, acknowledging no head
but Jesus Christ, and regulating all their concerns by mutual
consultation, and a popular vote of the brotherhood. In these
distinct and independent societies was realized, for the first time
in this world, the perfect idea of civil and religious liberty. The
Puritans imbibed the same spirit and derived their principles
from the same pure source of light, of holiness and freedom.
They modelled their churches after the primitive form, and
founded them on the basis of entire independence and equality
of rights..... ~ These were the men who settled New England. They. came hither, bearing in their bosoms the sacred love
of liberty and religion; and ere they left the little bark that had
borne them across the ocean, they formed themselves'into a
civil body politic,' having for its basis this fundamental principle,
that they should be ruled by the majority. Here is brought out




70              THE CHURCH POLITY
this channel came the strongest of the influences
that conspired to make our form of civil government
republican. For the members of the church at
Plymouth influenced the churches at Salem, Boston,
and Charlestown to adopt the same church polity
with themselves; and thus was brought to bear upon
the men of those places the same influence that had
been so long moulding the political opinions of the
members of the Leyden-Plymouth Church.  And
then, by the further extension of this church polity,
with the gradual multiplication and growth of the
colonies, this same influence was brought to bear
upon all New England, and actually formed the
political opinions of those of her leading men who
were afterwards called to help construct our national
government. It is very significant of the powerful
working of this influence of Congregationalism upon
the public mind immediately before the founding of
the republic, that, in the single year 1772, the famous
book, written by the Rev. John Wise more than half
the grand idea of a free, elective government. Here is the germ
of that tree of liberty which now rears its lofty top to the heavens, spreading its branches over the length and breadth of our
land, and under whose shade seventeen millions of freemen are
reposing. The spirit of all our free civil and religious institutions
was in the breasts of our Pilgrim fathers." — Hawes' Tribute to
the Memory of the Pilgrims, as quoted by Dr. Coleman, in his
Primitive Church, pp. 240, 241.




OF THE PILGRIMS.            71
a century before, and entitled, "A Vindication of the
Government of the Churches of New England," was
reprinted twice, and the second reprint largely subscribed for by leading political men. In this book,
two editions of which were thus scattered broadcast
among the people only four years before the Declaration of Independence, and fifteen before the formation of the Constitution of the United States, thousands of the intelligent voters of New England read
many a profound political truth, which must have
stirred their souls with an unconquerable purpose to
maintain their civil rights against all usurpation and
tyranny. There is the true ring of our republican
freedom in the following sentences, taken at random,
from its pages: " By a natural rig/ht, all men are born
free; and, nature having set all men upon a level and
made them equals, no servitude or subjection can
be conceived without inequality; and this cannot be
made without usurpation or force in others, or voluntary compliance in those who resign their freedom,
and give away their degree of natural being."  " The
first human subject and original of civil power is the
people."  "The prince who strives to subvert the
fundamental laws of the society is the traitor and
the rebel, and not the people, who endeavor to preserve and defend their own." "A democracy was
the noble government which beat out in all the bad




72            TIHE CHURCH POLITY
weather of ten bloody persecutions under the management of antiquity." " The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the
happiness of all, and the good of every man in all
his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, etc., without
injury or abuse done to any." It was a book with
such sentiments as these that Congregationalism
gave to New England at that critical juncture in her
history when the people were preparing to decide
upon the form of their national government. And
this is only one of many similar indications of the
powerful influence which our church polity was then
exerting upon the people, and by which it was rapidly moulding their political opinions, and preparing
them to constitute and maintain a strictly republican
government. We are not at all surprised to find
one of the delegates from Massachusetts to the Federal Convention a few years afterwards telling that
body, with great emphasis, that "there was not a
one thousandth part of his fellow-citizens who were
not against every approach towards monarchy."
Nor was the influence of this church polity confined to New England. It reached some, at least,
of those men beyond her borders who afterwards
took a prominent part in laying the foundations of
the republic. " Several years before the American
Revolution, there was, near the house of Mr. Jeffer



OF THE PILGRIMS.              73
son, in Virginia, a church which was governed on
Congregational principles, and whose monthly meetings he often attended. Being asked how he was
pleased with their church government, he replied
that it had struck him with great force, and interested him very much; that he considered it the only
form  of pure democracy that then existed in the
world, and had concluded that it would be the best
plan of government for the American colonies."  It
is said to have been the opinion of Mr. Pitt, " that,
if the Church of England had been efficiently established in the North American colonies, they would
never have refused allegiance to the British crown."
English statesmen early discerned, what many in
our own country now fail to see, that Congregationalism, far more than any other church polity, cherishes republicanism in the state; and it indicates the
extent and the sincerity of their fears in this respect,
that they "sent agents hither for the purpose of securing the abolition of our ecclesiastical polity, and
introducing a more authoritative and ostentatious
government." 2  It is, moreover, already the verdict
of dispassionate history, that in the Mayflower came
hither the germ  of our republic.  Mr. Bancroft
See Jefferson's Notes on Virginia.
2 See Sermon on Duties of New England Clergy, by Prof.
E. A. Park, D. D., p. 15.
7




74            THE CHURCH POLITY
speaks of the civil compact formed by the Plymouth
colony as " the birth of popular constitutional liberty." And again, speaking of the Pilgrims, he says:
" The citizens of the United States should cherish
the memory of those who founded a state on the
basis of democratic liberty, - the fathers of the country, - the men who, as they first trod the soil of the
New  World, scattered the seminal principles of
republican freedom  and national independence."
"' To Congregationalism," says an eminent journalist,1 " we doubtless owe the free and happy structure
of our political institutions; for wherein they are
not directly imitated from that excellent model, they
were framed by those whose minds were deeply imbued with the spirit and liberality of its principles."
There is - there must be - a connection between
the government of the church and that of the state,
not necessarily formal and coerced, but none the less
mighty because it is simply a free, undesigned connection of silent and formative influence; and nowhere is that connection more obvious than between
the church polity of the Pilgrims and the form of
our civil government. Our fathers first learned that
there could be a church without a bishop, and then
they knew there could be a state without a king. In
i David Hale.




OF THE PILGRIMS.            75
the brotherhood of the local church, in that pure
democracy organized for the purpose of promoting
personal holiness and the worship and service of
God, was first caught the true idea of civil freedom,
as founded upon the intelligence and virtue of the
people. Our popular government lay in embryo on
board the Mayflower, all-environed with its only
possible preservatives, popular intelligence and popular virtue. The idea born there, and embodied
in a civil constitution for that little democracy,
grew with the growth of the colonies, gradually expelling from the thoughts and affections of the people all other theories of civil government, until
finally it enthroned itself in the national mind, and
then embodied itself in our national government.
Now it is a fair question, whether our form of
government can be wholly, or even for the most part,
dissevered from the church polity that begat it, and
yet survive. The problem of our republicanism is
yet to be solved; and who can say that that problem
is not indissolubly linked with this other, whether
that church polity of the Pilgrims which is related
to our civil polity as a mother to her child is to be
shut up in -one corner of our country, as if it were
some monster, that, if unloosed, would devour her
own offspring, or is to go unimpeded into all parts
of the land, and everywhere, by its silent but mighty




76                THE CHURCH POLITY
educating influences, elevate the masses of the people, and render them competent to be citizens of a
free government.   One thing, at least, we may
affirm: Let the church polity of the Pilgrims have
free sway in all the borders of our country, and the
perpetuity of those free institutions which it has
brought into existence and nurtured to maturity, and
with which its whole spirit is so singularly congenial, would be in far less danger than now.1  Here
"1 There is nothing that so arouses the activity of the intellect, - nothing reaches down so far into the very elements of our
being, as the conviction of our personal duty in conducting the
affairs of the kingdom of God on earth. The obligation to
select wise legislators in the state, to secure the passage of
wholesome laws, invigorates the mind less, expands the charities
of the heart less, than the obligation to watch over, to advise, and
to aid, the assembly of the brethren. If the pious men in the,provinces of France had been trained, during the last two centuries, under the discipline of New England churches, judging
for themselves with regard to doctrine and practice, feeling
themselves called of Heaven to give their individual advice or
-their own individual reasons, at the assembling of the local
church, and at the ecclesiastical council, there would have gone
forth from these men an influence quickening the mind of the
entire community, and the nation, which is now too ill trained for
preserving a republic, would have been too well trained to endure an usurpation. And it is partly for the maintaining of our
political institutions, for the educating of our people to give an
intelligent suffrage, that we desire to see the same ecclesiastical




OF THE PILGRIMS.                 77
lies one great argument for a more general and
rapid extension of the Congregational church polity.
It is to save our country. It is to infuse into our
national life its only preservative and vitalizing element. It is to carry into every part of the land that
one instrumentality which, above all others, is fitted
to prepare the people, by nurturing their intelligence
and virtue, to appreciate and maintain a free government. By all the fond hopes, therefore, which
you entertain for the future of your country under
its popular institutions, carry the ecclesiastical principles of the Pilgrims into every part of the land,
and let them work; let them inform the popular
mind; let them educate the people to give a wise
suffrage, and, by a thousand silent influences, render
them generally competent to appreciate and perpetuate the rich civil heritage they have received from
the Pilgrim Fathers.
3. In the third place, the church polity of the Pilgrims has peculiar fitnesses to the present imperfect
state of the members of a Christian church. There
doubtless are, and, in the present order of things,
principles moulding the character of our Western States as
helped to form the intellect and conscience of our New England
colonies." - See Address before the American Congregational
Union, by Prof. E. A. Park, D. D., p. 23.
7*




78             THE CHURCH POLITY
there doubtless must be, in every church, those who
are not true Christians; while the best are but partially sanctified. The most perfect system of church
government, in the hands of such men, will be
worked more or less imperfectly. Out of such a
state of the church, evils will arise, which no kind of
church polity can wholly prevent.  There will be
wicked men to vex the church; there will be ambitious men seeking to make it a means of personal
aggrandizement; there will be worldly men to kill
out its very life by their spiritual deadness; there
will be collisions of opinion and personal interest,
animosities and heart-burnings between imperfect
brethren, which will often embroil the whole church,
and sometimes leave it in dissevered fragments.
But we confidently affirm, that there is no system of
church government that can so effectually restrain
these evils, or, if they are not wholly restrained, can
manage them with so little commotion in the world,
and with so little injury to the church, as that of
Congregationalism. There is little about this systerm that can be made to subserve the interests of
wicked men. Its very simplicity is its protection
from their wiles. It has no places of preferment, no
ecclesiastical offices, towering high above all the
churches, to tempt the ambition and employ the
thoughts of ministers, when they should be caring




OF THE PILGRIMS.                 79
for the flocks over which alone God has made them
overseers. It has no ecclesiastical machinery raised
above and controlling all the churches, of which
wicked men, and even too aspiring good men, will
always love to get the management, merely for the
pleasure of working it, if not for more selfish purposes.' It has no rising grade of imposing judicatories, occasioning, in their management, endless
collisions and wranglings and heart-burnings, employing themselves often  year after year in hot
debate over some trivial case of difficulty that would
have been settled at one session of a local church,
when its authority is understood to be supreme, and
thus occupying a large portion of the invaluable
time and strength of ministers, to the neglect of the
great work of the gospel ministry. Still, difficulties
will arise, even in complete, local churches; but, as
these bodies are distinct, and independent of each
1 " Who does not know that the curse of a graceless ministry
has ever rested upon the church, to a greater or less extent,
wherever they have not enjoyed the right of electing their own
pastors? The rich and quiet livings of an establishment, especially if coupled with the authority, the distinction, and emoluments, of the Episcopal office, will ever be an object of ambition
to worldly men.' Make me a bishop,'- said an ancient idolator, -' make me a bishop, and I will surely be a Christian.' "See The Primitive Church, by Dr. Coleman, p. 84.




80            THE CHURCH POLITY
other, none can be injured except the one in which
the difficulty happens to occur. And even in this
the heat more generally soon effervesces, and leaves
the waters as peaceful as before. As the local
church is all open above, the steam that is generated
in these embroilments passes quietly away, and
does no harm; but where there is a great and compact system of machinery to gather and condense it,
the greatest commotion, and wide spread disasters,
often follow.  In these consolidated systems of
church government, the smallest difficulty in one
church may, and often does, rend asunder a whole
communion; while difficulties arising in the supreme
government itself are almost sure to produce disastrous and irremediable divisions. Thus the Presbyterian Church in Scotland has already been rent into
no less than five distinct fragments. The Presbyterian church of our own country is not an exception
to this inevitable working of its system.  These
complicated, centralized church organizations are not
the best fitted to secure the ends of a church in a
world like ours. By their very structure they are too
much exposed. In the great conflict with sin, they
work to the greatest disadvantage, and often are only
themselves shattered to pieces in their first encounter.
But when the churches are all distinct and independent, connected only by the mutual attraction of




OF THE PILGRIMS.            81
Christian love, there is no such exposure. Their
working is then like that of the planetary system,
where each world is united to all the rest by the
mutual attraction of gravitation, and where all collision is avoided by that simple centrifugal force that
keeps each world moving on in its own course, intent only upon its own business. And if by chance
any disaster should happen to one of these planets,
— as perhaps there once did, — and it should be
shattered into a thousand fragments, still all the rest
would move on in their wonted harmony. But suppose our planetary system was less divine, and more
human, -suppose the worlds, instead of rolling on
in their present easy and graceful independence,
were all connected by some vast system of machinery
reared above them and resting on them, having all
the weight and rigidity of bars of iron, and so stiffening the whole system into one great and imposing
body, —who cannot see, that then the slightest
shock upon one world would be equally a shock to
all, and that the ruin of one might be the ruin of the
whole? Who cannot see also, that all the grating
and jarring of the superincumbent machinery would
be felt in threatening vibrations alike by every
world? and that, if any great disaster should happen
to this machinery in the process of its working, it
would be equally a disaster to all the worlds which




82             THE CHURCH POLITY
it embraced and connected? The divine method in
the planetary system is better. And, for the same
reason, we say that the divine method of connecting
the churches of Christ is better than any consolidating system. Let them be, as the Saviour and the
apostles left them, free, local churches, each distinct
and complete in itself, moving on easily and gracefully in its own line of duty, and yet all united by
Christian love, and ever ready for the interchange of
kind offices.
But it is sometimes objected to this Congregational system, that it fosters too much life in the
individual churches; that it does not keep them all
quiet and tractable; that it makes the members feel
their independence too much; and so stimulates
them to intemperate zeal and action, making the
churches so many hotbeds of error and fanaticism.1
But the ground of this inconsiderate objection we
regard as one of the greatest excellences of the
system. The superabundant light and heat of the
sun are great blessings, though they may produce
some unnecessary and even noisome vegetation, and
now and then momentarily fill the air with troublesome exhalations. We glory in just this feature of
our church polity. We believe that life is better
1 See Appendix, Note G.




OF THE PILGRIMS.            83
than death; —that some unnecessary commotion or
visionary action is not so great an evil as utter stagnation. Existence, to a man who is always asleep,
is not preferable to death. " Aloof from practice,"
says Sir William  Hamilton, " a waking error is
better than the sleeping truth."  The church of
Christ should be a region of the intensest action. It
is placed in a world that is all glowing and surging
with life, and God never designed that his church
should be like an island of ice on a sea of fire. The
intensity of its burning zeal for God should even
surpass the intensest ardor with which the world
around it is pervaded. Too much life in a church
of Christ! Impossible. Indeed, we know not what
would become of some of our more staid evangelical denominations, were they not constantly receiving the overflow of this very life, and thus replenishing both their wasting ministry and membership with men converted to God amidst this same
intense action in our Congregational churches. It
is right to look at facts, and guide ourselves by
them; and we are convinced, that, could accurate
statistics be gathered, showing the extent to which
several other denominations are dependent, upon
Congregationalism for both ministers and laymen,
it would not only surprise the world, but would be
one of the strongest arguments for our system, and




84                THE CHURCH POLITY
one of the strongest, too, with which I could urge
you to-day to carry this elevating and energizing
church polity into every part of our country.l Give
1 " Proclamation has been made in high places, that within the
last thirty years,' about three hundred clergymen and licentiates
of other denominations have sought the ministerial commission
from the hands of' bishops [in the Episcopal church]; that two
thirds of'all' the present clergy of the church have come from
other folds,' and that of two hundred and eighty-five persons
ordained by a single bishop in New England, two hundred and
seven were converts from other denominations. If the triumph
were, that these hundreds of clergymen and thousands of laymen
had been transformed from sin to holiness, we would exult in the
glad news. We call heaven and earth to witness, that we rejoice in the advance of any sect whose pure aim is to gather the
wanderers from virtue into the congregation of the saints. But
no; the boast is, that converts have been made not from iniquity to godliness, but from sects and denominations to what is
called, in a peculiar style of catholicism, the church." — Sermon
on the Duties of the New England Clergy, by Prof. E. A.
Park, D. D., pp. 44, 45.
There can be no doubt of the fact, that the Episcopalian
church of New Enllgland is dependent, in the largest degree,
upon Congregationalism for nominally converted laymen and
clergymen. The fact is remarkably significant of the comparative' evangelical efficiency of the two systems. And yet the
unblushing manner in which Episcopalians often seek to proselyte members of Congregational churches, at the same time that
they condemn their church polity, is peculiarly instructive with
regard to the capabilities of human nature. When they seek to




OF THE PILGRIMS.                   85
this divine model of a living church to the West;
give it to the North and to the South; and let its
convert men to Christ, rather than to proselyte them to their
church, we do not complain; we will pray for their success.
But "already have some of our laymen been told that their
pastor was never really ordained." " Our candidates for the
ministry have been pointed to the bishops' robes, that float before the fancy of young men." " Our ordained clergymen have
been approached with assurances that rich preferments awaited
them if they would cast contempt on their ordination, and
kneel down in worship.' Come unto us,' has been the language
addressed to one;'for we have peace within the church, but all
is division out of it.''Come unto us,' has been the language
addressed to a second;'fbr we need your aid in quieting our
dissensions.'' Come unto us,' has been the language to a third;'for the church has a beautiful unity.'' Come unto us,' has been
the language to a fourth;' for the church is made the more
interesting by the varieties which are embraced in it.''Come
unto us,' has been said here;'for we have a creed which prevents all such discussions as will always prevail among dissenters.''Come unto us,' has been said there;'for we always
insure the greatest freedom of thought and debate.'' Come
unto us,' has been whispered in this place;'for the church is
truly and securely evangelical.''Come unto us,' has been intimated in that place;'for we stand in perishing need of evangelical men, who may save us from the reign of fashion and
vanity.'' Come unto us,' has been the invitation to a pastor who
had been ordained without a display of apostolical succession;'for although you have been often ejected from your pulpits
heretofore, we will give you a staff of office which no popular
8




86                THE CHURCH POLITY
life overflow. Let it give converted men to all other
denominations until they are full; yea, let it give
them to all the world with a lavish hand, in beautiful imitation of its great Author, who, in the overflow of his infinite love, rains his blessings on both
the just and the unjust.
4. In the fourth place, the church polity of the
Pilgrims is peculiarly fitted to prepare the church to
grapple successfully with the organic sins and general wickedness of the world. We have reason to
believe, both from the divinity of this system and
from facts in its history, that in no other form of a
church can Christianity be made so effective in its
great work of renovating the world.  From  its very
structure, its aggressive power is superior to that of
any other ecclesiastical system. As it calls all the
majority shall take away; we will save you from exhausting
labors; we will furnish you with prayers already made, and will
allow  your sermons to be few and short and inoffensive.''Come unto us,' has been the inviting offer to a missionary;' for
we need your services in awakening among our clergy the spirit
of missions, and we can write your name, and give you a title,
among the patriarchs of the East.' "- Prof. E. A. Park's Sermon
onf the Duties of the New England Clergy, pp. 43, 44.
It is also a well-known fact, that, besides the Episcopalian
church, the Methodist and New School Presbyterian churches
are largely indebted to Congregationalism for both churchmembers and ministers.




OF THE PILGRIMS.               87
members of the church into personal action, it increases the aggregate effective force. This church
polity is consistent with the scriptural teaching, that
every disciple of Jesus is a soldier under the Captain of his Salvation, for it marshals every churchmember to the conflict. Like its great Author, it
says to the timid and the faltering, " Whosoever will
save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose
his life for my sake and the gospel, the same shall
save it." As it places upon every member alike the
fearful responsibility of the watch and care of the
church, so it tends to make them all alike regard
themselves responsible for the general interests of the
kingdom of Christ in the world.
It is thus we account for the spontaneous and
large liberality of Congregational churches in founding academies, colleges, and schools of divinity, and
in starting and carrying forward so many magnificent schemes for the evangelization of the world.
It is a significant fact, that all, or nearly all, of the
great national benevolent societies of our land,
which are doing so much to give tracts and Bibles
and Sabbath schools and ministers and missionaries to the world, had their origin in Congregational churches, and, for the most part, have since
been sustained by them. The men who have been
most efficient in devising large things for the king



88            THE CHURCH POLITY
dom of Christ without reference to their own sect
or to any sect, during the last half century, have
been themselves Congregationalists, and have relied
mainly upon Congregational churches for aid to
carry out their generous plans. " The same divine,"1
it is said, " who was one of the most active in originating the oldest theological seminary in the land,
was also one of the most active in starting the
associated effort for our domestic missions, and was
one of the two men who projected the oldest board
for foreign missions; the cause of learning, and the
cause of an aggressive Christianity, being identified
in his esteem.  Two of the same divines2 who
originated that ancient seminary were the first to
propose our most ancient education society, and one
of the most honored pupils of that seminary,3 stated,
a few months before his demise: "I could never
have done what I did in the incipient movements of
the American Tract Society, nor in the forming of
the American Temperance Society, nor in the establishment of the American Sabbath Union, unless
I had enjoyed the aid of a popular and unfettered
church government, allowing me to combine the
Dr. Samuel Spring.
2 Drs. Pearson and Morse.
3 Dr. Justin Edwards.




OF THE PILGRIMS.                 89
agencies of enterprising individuals, whenever and
wherever I could find them, —men accustomed to
act for themselves, — minute-men, ready for every
good work, without waiting for the jarring and
warring of church courts."'    The first organized
Christian effort in the world in behalf of seamen was
made in Boston under the influence of Congregationalism.   Through  these numerous reformative
and missionary movements, in which the members of the churches have been brought to grapple
hand to hand with various forms of sin without
any intervening and cumberous ecclesiastical machinery, Christianity has been made to assert something of its primitive aggressive power. It is an
undeniable fact, that, since the revival of Congregationalism within the last century or two, a wonderful missionary spirit has been awakened among
the disciples of Christ,2 and the gospel has advanced
more rapidly and farther over the world than during
all the intervening centuries since the corruption of
1 Address before the American Congregational Union, May,
1854, by Prof. E. A. Park, D. D., p. 45.
2 "It wilL be acknowledged," says an Episcopalian writer,
"that the strength of our brethren, [referring to his brethren of
other denominations,] in their missionary operations, lies in New
England, and among the descendants of the Puritans." — Tract
upon the Position of the Protestant Episcopal Church, p. 14.
8*




90             THE CHURCH POLITY
the apostolic and primitive form of a church. In
the first age of Christianity, when this church polity
had full sway, the missionary spirit rose high, and
the gospel spread rapidly over the world; and now
when this church polity is again revived, this same
missionary spirit is again awakened, and once more
we see the' churches engaged in obeying the Redeemer's last great command.
But this is not the only proof of the singular
fitness of this system for powerful aggressive action. There are certain great evils and sins in the
world, with which the church is constantly coming
into conflict; and when brought to the encounter,
there are but two courses before her; she must
either take her stand before them and resist them
even unto death, if need be, or bend, compromise
with them, and so receive on her own fair forehead
the foul stain of their guilt. There are such sins;
prevalent sins; fashionable sins; systematized sins;
interwoven often into the very texture of society,
into the very fabric of civil government. Now if,
in the providence of God, a church of Christ is
placed in such a relation to these sins that she must
either give her consent and sanction to them, or
reprobate and resist them, nothing can be plainer
than her duty. She must wash her hands of those
sins, whatever they are, and at all costs. And it




OF THE PILGRIMS.           91
is in just such an emergency as this, that those
Christians who have adopted the church polity
of the Pilgrims are most likely and most prompt
to do their duty. Not only has the previous training of the men under the system prepared them
to act independently and manfully in such a case,
but they have comparatively little temptation to
swerve from the right. There is nothing about their
church organization that will be put in jeopardy by
the encounter. They are all free, and ready for duty.
Had they a vast and complicated ecclesiastical
machinery uniting the churches of their communion, with which the sin had become all intertwined,
they might say, " If we touch the sin, we shall rend
the church;" and so, to save their ecclesiastical
system, they would nourish the sin. But, as members of distinct, local churches, they have no ecclesiastical organization whose interests they must so
carefully consult, before they can obey God. They
have no such incumbrance weighing them down
when their heavenly Master is calling them  to
action. They can be influenced by no fear either
that their course will be reviewed by some high
church judicatory, which may already have become
compromised with the sin, and virtually pledged to
its support. They have nothing above them but conscience and God; and when these are calling them




92             THE CHURCH POLITY
to duty, their church polity leaves them perfectly
free to obey. The independent local church never
feels the influence of a mighty, overshadowing
church power breathing down upon it, and stiffening all its members so that they dare not stir for
very fear. You do not hear them constantly and
servilely appealing to the book, the book, and to the
authoritative decisions of high ecclesiastical judicatories; nor, in any great question of Christian duty,
inquiring, first of all, for the limits of their constitutional power! The Bible is the only book which
they honor with the distinctive appellation, The
Book. The Scriptures are their only and sufficient
rule of Christian faith and practice, and the authority of Christ is alone above that of their local
church. Consequently, they are never cowed down
into a cringing attitude by an imposing ecclesiastical
organism.  They are never cramped by formality
or fear, or any of the rigidities of a complicated
and centralizing church system. When called to
decide upon a course of action, they can consult conscience and the Bible without once thinking of their
church organization.  And in this is disclosed one
of the greatest excellences of our ecclesiastical
polity. It accomplishes its own work quietly and
efficiently, securing to us all the ends of a church,
and yet never interposes between us and our duty.




OF THE PILGRIMS.             93
It has no influences to foster that sectarian spirit
that leads one to think more of his church than of
duty or of Christ.
Nor is this all the proof of the great aggressive
power of this divine church polity. It is, from its
very nature, one of the greatest foes on earth to
all great systematized or legalized sins.  Tyrants
hate it. All forms of despotism and oppression
gnash their teeth upon it.  Take some of its primary principles, and apply them to any system of
wickedness, and contemplate the result.  Take,
for instance, its law  of discipline, —that simple
but imperative law that is virtually discarded by
other church polities. That law  of our Saviour,
without any sycophancy or apology, places all the
members of the church upon the same level, -
Greek and barbarian, bond and free, master and
slave, - and makes them all kings and priests unto
God. Look at the following application, which
has been aptly made of it to the sin of human
bondage. "It says to the slave, who has been refashioned in his Sovereign's image: If thy brother,
who claims the ownership of thee, shall trespass
against thee, go and tell him his fault, between
thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou
hast gained thy brother; but if he will not hear
thee, then take with thee one or two more of thy




94             THE CHURCH POLITY
fellow bondmen; and if he shall neglect to hear
them, tell his fault to the church, even if they be
all his legal property; and if he neglect to hear
that church, let him be unto thee as an heathen
man, and whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven.l Why has not this scriptural
church polity gone into every portion of our country? Why is it so much dreaded, and so repeatedly
and earnestly affirmed to be a good system for New
England, but not for any other part of the land?
Why is it so violently maligned the moment it is
seen crossing the boundary line of the Eastern
States and approaching the "peculiar institutions"
of some other States?  One reason is obvious. No
scheme of despotism, however strongly barricaded
by legal enactments, can stand before it. It cuts
right through our American system of human oppression, and levels it to the ground. At one fell
sweep it places master and slave side by side,
brothers in Christ, with the rights of brothers; and,
that done, slavery is no more. This systematized
sin is our country's great and growing peril. Developing itself by inherent laws in the stern march
of history slowly yet inevitably as it does, it some1 Address before the American Congregational Union, May,
1854, by E. A. Park, D. D.




OF THE PILGRIMS.             95
times seems as if our free institutions were already
doomed. Do we love our country?  Then confront
this gigantic evil with its true antagonism. Carry
out into the land, far beyond the borders of New
England, that divine church polity, which, above
all others, is fitted to grapple successfully with this
and every such monster evil."
5. In the fifth place, the church polity of the
Pilgrims is peculiarly fitted to promote the spirituality of Christians. It promotes it in all those
ways in which, as we have seen, it calls them into
personal and responsible action. It cherishes it, not
only by this vigorous exercise of it, but also by
habituating each church-member to stand face to
face before his God, without any intervening eccelesiasticism; by intrusting all the members alike with
the watch and care of souls, and holding them accountable only to Christ. The pressure of such
personal responsibilities is eminently fitted to lead
men to prayer, and a closer walk with God. The
fact that Christ is understood to be the only head
of even a local church tends to bring the members
at once into intimate communion with him. The
close affinity of this church polity with the deepest
and truest piety is likewise clearly indicated by the
fact, that in the great religious reformations that
have occurred in the history of the church, there




96             THE CHURCH POLITY
has usually been plainly discernible a strong tendency towards this system, if not an actual adoption of it. Luther himself was at first a Congregationalist, but afterwards gave up the system from
fear that all " the poor people" were not well
enough trained for it. He should have let the system itself have trained the people. This church
polity is like a plant, that always enriches its own
soil. Had the great reformer but persevered for a
short time in the experiment, he would have remained a Congregationalist. Even in Calvin and
Knox there can be discerned, at least, a tendency
towards this  form  of a  church.   They  both
advised measures to bring the members of the
church into responsible action as a means of their
spiritual improvement.  The close affinity of this
system with the spirit of missions has already
been noticed. It quickens the Christian's sympathy with his Redeemer.  It cherishes the love of
souls. One of the leading objects of the Pilgrims
in coming to this country was to convert the heathen
to Christ; and from the days of Eliot to our own,
Congregationalism has ever been foremost in the
sacred work of missions.  The tendency of this
form of a church-to promote the spirituality of its
members is also strikingly illustrated by its natural
alliance with revivals of religion. New England,




OF THE PILGRIMS.              97
the great seat of Congregationalism, has been emphatically the land of revivals. And wherever this
divine ecclesiastical polity has been adopted, it has
shown a strong tendency to put to rout all formality
and spiritual deadness, and bring men into spiritual
life.
Now it is this church polity, with all these its
undeniable excellences; its peculiar fitness to elevate the masses of the people, and thus prepare
them for the freest, highest form of civil government; its surpassing adaptedness to the present
state of the church and the world, working with
the least possible friction, and yet with the greatest
efficiency; simple, quiet, unostentatious in itself,
and yet terrible in its aggressive action; at the same
time having the closest affinity with the deepest,
truest piety;-it is this living,, divine church; the
single, local church of the Pilgrims; the church of
Christ and the apostles; with all its unquestionable
and preiminent excellences, that I ask you to-day
to give to your country. I confidently believe, that
ultimately, in the history of this world's redemption, this form of a church will become universally
prevalent.' By its origin, its nature, and facts in its
history already attesting its marvellous capabilities,
I am -fully persuaded that it is the only form of a
church in which Christianity can displace sectarian9




98         THE CHURCH POLITY, ETC.
ism, triumph over every sin, and so bring on the
world's complete evangelization. All hail to the
coming time in our own country, when the mighty
power of this simple but divine system shall be
working in all the borders of our land; in the east
and in the west, in the north and in the south;
sending out into the community a thousand quickening influences; grappling fearlessly with all the sins
of the land, and holding on in the struggle until
the people shout the paean of her victory! All
hail to that yet further future in the world, when
the disciples of one Lord shall no longer be divided
up into warring sects, fenced around with high,
frowning, denominational walls; when we shall no
more hear of the Congregational Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, but when all shall
be simple, local churches, each distinct and complete
in itself, all standing upon the same broad level of
belief and fellowship, —one Lord, one faith, one
baptism!  All hail to that glorious future, the
world's millennium!




APPENDIX.
NOTE A.
MANY Congregational ministers in New England, during
the last quarter of a century, have never for once advocated their own church polity in their public ministrations;
and some few there are, indeed, who, when they have made
any reference to the subject either in preaching or in
writing, have done so in a half apologetic strain, and have
been especially particular to deprecate all earnest advocacy
of Congregationalism  as of divine authority.  Take the
following as a fair illustration: "With regard to the appointment of any special form of church government, it
would seem that there is a wise silence in the New Testament. The genius of Christianity forbids an adherence to
any form of ecclesiastical order as essential to the existence
of a church of Christ. Our preference for the Congregational form of church government is not properly founded
on any prescriptions in the New Testament, but on our
conv4ctions-that this form is most accordant with the genius
of Christianity and of republican  institutions.  But so
surely as we insist on Congregationalism  as having any'divine right' or authority, and we seek to propagate Congregationalism with such convictions, we are as surely High



100                   APPENDIX.
Churchmen and Puseyites as can anywhere be found. At
the same time we may believe that the Congregational form
of government is nearer to the spirit of the New Testament
than any other." The position assumed here is, that Christ
and the apostles left to Christians no specific form of church
government, and that therefore no one form, properly speaking, is any more scriptural than any other. Popery, Episcopacy, Methodism, Presbyterianism, as systems of church
government, are as truly of divine authority as Congregationalism; that is, no system can be defended on this
ground. Congregationalism, then, if advocated at all, must
be advocated not on the ground of its being scriptural or of
divine authority, but on the ground of expediency.
This is the Erastian view. It is the position frequently
assumed by the advocates of centralized systems of church
government. They adopt this as an easy mode of getting
rid of the scriptural argument, of which they are aware they
can make nothing in their favor, and of clearing the way
for a most strenuous defence of their own systems on other
than scriptural grounds.  But when a Congregationalist
assumes this position, it will generally be found, as a matter
of fact, that he does it, not to prepare the way for the defence of his own ecclesiastical polity, but rather as an apology for holding to it loosely, and for being ready, at any
moment when circumstances may require it, to surrender it
for some other system.
It is instructive to compare this modern style of remarking
upon Congregationalism, an example of which is given
above, with the manner of discourse upon this subject
formerly in vogue among Congregational ministers.  It
shows what a change has taken place in this regard, and
how insipid such a belief, and such a strain of remark upon
our church polity, are, in comparison with the manly faith




APPENDIX.                   101
and practice of the New England fathers, and of the English advocates of our church polity. Let any one read the
above denial that Congregationalism has any divine right
or scriptural authority, and then turn to John Cotton and
hear him say of this same church polity, that " it was instituted and practised in the first ages of Christianity, and our
Saviour himself is the true author of this first ecclesiastical
state of the church;" or to Cotton Mather, and hear him
affirm that "we have a platform left us that is according
to the word of our gracious Lord;" or to the pages of
John Robinson, and see how he "vindicated, cleared, and
defended it, on scriptural grounds, and by victorious argument," and he will be convinced that a great change, in
this respect, has gradually come over the ministry of our denomination. John Owen, advocating the divine authority
of Congregationalism, says that " Christ alone is the author,
institutor, and appointer, in a way of authority and legislation, of the gospel church-state, its order, rule, and worship
with all things constantly and perpetually belonging thereunto, or necessary to be observed therein. What is not so
is of men, and not from heaven.":' This same divine has
one chapter with the caption, " Congregational churches
alone suited unto the ends of Christ in the institution of his
church;" and another with the caption, "No other churchstate of divine institution." The famous book of John Wise,
which is the legal accredited exposition of the Cambridge
platform, makes no apology for defending Congregationalism on the ground of its divine authority, as well as on
that of its conformity to " the light of nature." The Congregationalists of that day in New England did not hesitate
to advocate their own church polity boldly and earnestly
even in opposition to Presbyterianism. "An aristocracy,"
1 Owen's Works, Vol. XV. p. 244.




102                  APPENDIX.
says John WVise, "is a dangerous constitution in the church
of Christ; as it possesses the presbytery of all church
power.  What has been observed sufficiently evinces it.
And not only so, but from the nature of the constitution,
for it has no more barrier to it against the ambition, insults, and arbitrary measures of men, than an absolute
monarchy." 1  President Oakes, the fourth president of
Harvard College, in an election sermon, as quoted by John
Wise, says: " I profess that I look upon the discovery and
settlement of the Congregational way, as the boon, the gratuity, the largeness, of divine bounty, which the Lord graciously bestowed on this people, that followed him into this
wilderness, and who were separated from their brethren.
Those good people who came over had more love, zeal, and
affectionate desire of communion with God, in pure worship
and ordinances, and did more in order to it, than others;
and the Lord did more for them than for any people in the
world, in showing them the pattern of his house, and the
truer scriptural way of church government and administrations.  God was certainly in a more than ordinary way
present with his servants, in laying of our foundations;
and in settling church order, according to the will and
appointment of Christ. Consider what will be the sad
issue of revolting from the way fixed on to one extreme or
to another, whether it be to Presbyterianism or to Brownsm." 2
Nor has such an outspoken and manly advocacy of the
~church polity of the apostles and primitive Christians
ceased to be heard in the pulpits of New England until
within a comparatively few years. As late as the time of
Dr. Emmons, we have an example of the defence of Con1 Vindication of the Government of New England Churches, p. 39.
2 Vindication of the Government of New England Churches, p. 19.




APPENDIX.                   103
gregationalism that would have sounded familiar to the
people of earlier New England history. "Every mode of
church government," says Dr. Emmons, "is destructive of
the rights and liberties of every Christian church except
strict Congregationalism.  Presbyterianism is destructive of
the independence of every Christian church, and robs it of
all the power and authority which Christ has given it. No
Presbyterian church has a right to invite a candidate to
preach among them, without the consent of the presbytery.
And after they have invited him and are willing to settle
him, they cannot get him ordained without the consent of
the presbytery. And if he should be corrupt in sentiment or
practice, they could not discipline him according to the steps
that Christ has pointed out. He would first appeal to the
presbytery, and if they should condemn him, he would
appeal to the synod; and if they should condemn him, he
could appeal to the general assembly, which might be hundreds of miles from his people; and if they should justify
him, his people could have no relief. It is easy to see that
this mode of church government is destructive to the rights
of any particular church.  So is Episcopalianism. An
Episcopalian church has no independence; the government
of it is in the hands of archbishops, bishops, and other
inferior clergy. You know that all the Protestant world
have loudly complained, and justly, of the ecclesiastical
tyranny of the church of Rome, which has destroyed the
independence of all the churches of the popish religion.
Every mode of church government except strict Congregationalism is hostile to that perfect platform of church government which Christ has given us in the eighteenth of
Matthew, and is more or less tyrannical. These human
hierarchies, which have been the source of immense evils in
the Christian world, ought to be destroyed; and they will
undoubtedly be destroyed in the time of the millennium.




104                   APPENDIX.
They are the bulwarks of error, delusion, and every species
of moral corruption, and must be purged out of the Christian
world before the church can become universally pure, and
flourish. We have long been praying for the downfall of
unchristian power and tyranny in the church of Rome; and
we ought to pray for the downfall of every degree of that
unchristian power in every other church in the world."... And now please to remember, that your peace,
purity, and edification unitedly bind you, to stand fast in
the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free; and maintain your original Congregational principles in opposition to
every other mode of church government; and especially
against Presbyterianism, which so many ministers throughout the United States are so zealously engaged to promote.
If they should tell you that Christ has not instituted any particular form of church government, refer them to the
eighteenth of Matthew, which ought to silence them. But
if they deny that any platform of government is there instituted, ask them to show you the passage or the passages in
the New Testament in which Christians are required to
exercise any kind of ecclesiastical authority or discipline
over one another. No man can tell. All who depart from
Christ's platform of church government make one of their
own, which must'be unscriptural, unreasonable, and tyrannical. This has been, for ages, confirmed by all the persecutions to which Christians have been subjected. All persecutions have originated from ecclesiastical tyranny.  But it
is impossible for persecution to arise in strictly Congregational churches.  They inflict no  civil penalties on
delinquents. Their discipline terminates in excommunication. Maintain Congregational discipline, and you are safe,
but not otherwise." l
1 Emmons's Works, Vol. V. pp. 455, 457.




APPENDIX.                   105
It is very obvious, that if this nation is ever to inherit to
any great degree the noble character and principles of the
Pilgrims, Congregationalists must cease apologizing for the
church polity of those godly men. If Christianity, disenthralled from human forms and inventions, is ever to exert
its primitive power upon this great people, developing and
perpetuating institutions more congenial with itself, and
more mighty in their ennobling influences than the world
has yet seen, Congregational ministers must cease begging
pardon of their hearers and the world for having adopted
the church polity of the apostles and the primitive Christians. At the present time there are unmistakable indications of a rapid return to the practice of the New England
fathers in a bold and uncompromising defence of Congregationalism, not in a sectarian spirit, we trust, but from true
love to Christ, and to the only form of a church which he
has left to his people. To every thoughtful mind this
change is one of the most marked features of the age, and
one of the most hopeful for the maintenance of a pure and
unfettered Christianity, and for the perpetuity of our civil
institutions. The following is an illustration of the style
of thought that is now becoming current in our denomination-:
" Are we to expect the perpetuity of centralization as an,
element of Protestantism?  Why should we expect it?
Protestantism has indeed made the Bible free, and left
every Christian free to interpret it. But on which page of
the Bible is there the remotest hint of a centralized church
government, whether of the Presbyterian or Episcopal
form? As we have already said, the Bible affords no evidence that such a conception had entered any man's mind
in the apostolic age. How then does a free Bible tend to
promote church centralization?  On the contrary, it presents us the church under apostolic guidance, with no trace
of centralization upon it.




106                   APPENDIX.
" Is it said the experience of the church has demonstrated
the necessity of such centralization beyond reasonable doubt
or controversy?  Where is that demonstration?  In what
ages of church history has it been wrought out? Was it in
the Ancient Church, when each step towards centralization
was a step towards the apostasy? Was it in the medieval
Church, when centralized church power wore out the
patience of the saints for a thousand years? Or has this
demonstration been wrought out since the Reformation, during which period, it is obvious, to any thoughtful reader of
history, that centralized church government exists not from
any past or present experience of its necessity, but as the
embodiment of an idea derived from the past, and tenaciously cherished as sacred? And if experience has furnished any proof of its necessity or utility, it is in the working of the very ecclesiastical systems which we now see
around us. And in order to succeed in the argument, the
advocates of centralization must address themselves to a
comparison of the results of their several systems with those
of the localism of the apostolic age, of English and Scotch
Independency, and of our own New England churches.
We shall not shrink from any conclusions to which such an
investigation will be likely to conduct."
"We may argue as we please for the beneficial influence
of sects, their obvious blighting and blasting effects are filling the hearts of thousands of the most devout and pious
Christians with unutterable sorrow. And it is a sorrow
which springs up from the deepest fountains of Christian
love, and which no argument, however ingenious, can comfort. We even deny that the amount of effort and individual self-sacrifice for objects nominally religious are at all
increased by the existence of sects. Where in this land
will you find a liberality to the cause of missions equalling




APPENDIX.                    107
that of the New England churches to the American Foreign
and Home Missionary Societies?  And yet it is certain, that
these contributions are not stimulated by denominational
zeal. They are the product of no spirit of mere denominational propagandism.
"The foundations and endowments of the New England
colleges have not come from denominational zeal; and he
sadly misunderstands New England who supposes that they
have. And yet, where else on our continent hath'an equal
liberality to the cause of learning been displayed? Indeed,
he seems to us beside himself who imagines, that had New
England presented throughout her history the same aspect
of denominationalism which our country as a whole now
presents, her efficiency in promoting religious interests would
not have been greatly less than it has been.
" We are ready, therefore, to declare our conviction,...
that this conflict of sects, each aiming to extend its jurisdiction
over the greatest possible numbers, and soliciting the allegiance of the same individuals, like all other conflicts, is a
state of transition, and not of rest; and, therefore, in the
nature of things, is transient, and while it lasts is fatally
contradictory to that unity of his disciples for which our
Lord prayed, and for which every Christian in every age
must pray. We are persuaded that the'sect system' is
not the ultimate destiny of Protestantism in a country where
it enjoys freedom of development.
"' We believe, therefore, that the independence of the local
church is the result towards which the principles of the
Reformation steadily tend, and in which the church, disenthralled from all the forms and modifications of centralized
church power, will at last find rest; in doctrine, purely and
simply evangelical; in government, local, and recognizing
the full equality of the Christian brotherhood; in ceremonies,
receiving none but those appointed in the Divine Word, and




108                   APPENDIX.
granting all that liberty of opinion in respect to these which
experience has shown to be necessary to accommodate the
diversities of judgment likely to arise among Christian men
honestly endeavoring to interpret the Sacred Oracles.
"For such a system we claim that it is but a reproduction
of the church order of the apostles, which was in a great
measure lost in the great antichristian apostasy; that while
it gives opportunity for the full development of individual
activity and efficiency, it more successfully provides than
any other system has ever done for the great social wants
of the church of Christ, so that its efficacy in perpetuating
the gospel at home by permanent institutions, and sending
it abroad by a world-wide spirit of missions, is greater than
that of any other ecclesiastical system which has existed
since the apostolic age." 1
It is a cheering fact, that such sentiments as these now
meet with a ready response from the hearts of increasing
multitudes in our country. They have been, and are destined to be, the sentiments of the most thoughtful, the holiest, and the most unsectarian, of men. There is getting to
be too much light abroad upon this subject for any recreant
son of the Pilgrims safely to denounce those holy, self-denying fathers of New  England as " High-Churchmen and
Puseyites," because they defended their church polity " with
victorious argument," on the ground of its scripturalness and
divine authority.
NOTE B.
The original word, translated to ordain, in Acts 14: 23,
Dr. Robinson, in his Greek Lexicon, says, means " to'stretch
1 The New Englander, November, 1857, pp. 547-549.




APPENDIX.                    109
out the hand, to hold up the hand, as in voting; hence to
vote, to give one's vote, by holding up the hand. In the New
Testament, to choose by vote, to appoint."  But in no case
does the word mean to ordain. The only question, then, at
issue with regard to the meaning of Acts 14: 23 is, whether
the apostles appointed the elders by a popular election, or
by electing them themselves. The great preponderance of
the best authorities is in favor of the opinion that the election was strictly popular. It is so understood by Calvin,
Beza, Erasmus, Owen, Doddridge, Coleman, and many
others. "This conclusion," says Dr. Lyman Coleman, "is
sustained by the most approved authorities. According to
Suicer, the primary and appropriate signification of the term
is to denote an election made by the uplifting of the hand,
and particularly denotes the election of a bishop by vote.' In this sense,' he adds,'it continued for a long time to be
used in the church, denoting, not an ordination or consecration, but an election.' Grotius, Meyer, and De Wette so
interpret the passage, to say nothing of Beza, Bdhmer,
Rothe, and others.
" To the same effect is also the following extract from Tindal.'We read only of the apostles, constituting elders by
the suffrages of the people, Acts*14: 23, which, as it is the
genuine signification of the Greek word, Xsleozouascv~s
so it is accordingly interpreted by Erasmus, Beza, Diodati,
and those who translated the Swiss, French, Italian, Belgic, and even English Bibles, till the Episcopal correction,
which leaves out the words by election, as well as the marginal notes, which affirm that the apostles did not thrust
pastors into the church through a lordly superiority, but
chose and placed them there by the voice of the congregation.'
Tyndale's translation is as follows:'And when they had
ordened them seniours by eleccion, in every congregacion,
10




110                  APPENDIX.
after they had preyde and fasted, they commennd them to
God, on whom they beleved.' "1
A few modern biblical scholars, however, as, for instance,
Professor H. B. Hackett and Dr. Samuel Davidson, maintain that nothing more can be positively learned from the
passage in Acts 14: 23 than that the apostles themselves
appointed the elders. Still, according to these authorities,
there was undoubtedly a concurrent appointment.  "One
thing is clear to the candid inquirer," says Dr. Davidson,
"that Paul and Barnabas appointed the elders in question." But in answer to the question, Did they make this
appointment without the concurrence of the churches themselves? he replies: "We think not. The spirit of similar
transactions, and the general tenor of the New Testament,
forbid the supposition. Even in appointing an apostle, the
company of the believers took a prominent part. The
apostles did not complete their own number of themselves.
The popular will was consulted.  So, too, in the case of
deacons. Hence it may be fairly inferred that the appointment of elders, here recorded, was not made contrary to the
wish of the disciples. It is impossible to discover whether
the people signified their wishes to Paul and Barnabas, by
pointing out to them individuals whom they judged to be
qualified for office; or whether the two did, in the first
instance, constitute and set over the disciples Christians
known to themselves, the people wisely concurring in the
measure adopted for their edification by men divinely authorized to collect and organize Christian communities. In
either case, the people's wishes were not contravened.
Whether the initiative act originated with the members or
the two apostles, we do not undertake to decide. One
thing alone must be maintained, that all was done with the
1 See Primitive Church, by Dr. Lyman Coleman, p. 63.




APPENDIX.                    111
full approval of the brethren."l  He afterwards affirms,
that " there is even a probability that the disciples had
chiefly to do with their election."  Neander likewise says:
"The brethren chose their own officers from among themselves; or if, in the first organization of the churches, their
officers were appointed by the apostles, it was with the approbation of the members of the same."2  This learned
historian also repeatedly affirms that the apostles distinctly
taught that the sovereignty under Christ was exclusively in
the hands of the brotherhood of the local church. Consequently, whoever, in the first instance, made the nomination
or appointment of a church officer, it must have been done
subject to the final action of the church. The veto power
was not with any church officer or judicatory, but with the
brethren of the church.
NOTE C.
Undoubtedly, the purer Congregationalism, or the nearer
it is kept to the primitive model of church government, the
more efficient it will be in the maintenance and dissemination of a living Christianity. It is possible that our Congregationalism  has lost something of its power by being
burdened with a few things, which do not necessarily belong
to it as a system. In this view it is not uninstructive to see
how a foreign divine, who has bestowed much study upon
the ecclesiastical polity of the New Testament, and is himself a Congregationalist, looks upon American Congregationalism. "In reference to councils and associations," says
Dr. Samuel Davidson, " our opinion is, that, if it be deemed
1 Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament, by Samuel Davidson,
D. D., pp. 161, 162.
2 Primitive Church, by Dr. Coleman, Introduction, p. 19.




112                   APPENDIX.
desirable to have them at all, they should be sparingly summoned, and only in cases of great difficulty; that duties
should not be assigned to them which can as well be managed otherwise; and that they should lay no restraint on the
internal and inalienable liberties of the individual churches.
We repeat our assertion, that they are too frequently called
by the Congregationalists of New England; and that by
practice, matters have come to be assigned them which need
not and ought not to be so transferred. Thus they license
men topreach the gospel; ordain those called to be pastors;
deliberate on the removal of a minister from one place to
another, and depose a pastor from his office. These and
other things should not be consigned to councils or associations, because they may be transacted equally well by the
churches themselves in their individual capacity, each of
which is competent to manage its own affairs. The cases
which justify the calling of a council should be doubtful and
difficult, deeply affecting the purity of a church in doctrine
and discipline, or the rights of parties belonging to it.
" As to standing councils or consociations, they are exposed
to so many objections that they ought to be discarded. For
their undoubted tendency is to invite or encourage cases of
appeal, to foster elements of strife, and to prepare the
way for abridgment of the liberties rightfully belonging to
every Christian church. We object to them as injurious to
the general interests of truth and freedom. We should not
wish to see them erected. Far distant be the day when the
consociations of Connecticut shall appear in the mother
country among our Congregational churches! Unlike the
stated associations formed among us in most counties, they
end to Presbyterianism." 1
1 Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament, by Dr. S. Davidson.
Second Edition, pp. 270, 271.




APPENDIX.                   113
Again this author remarks: "We know that in cases
of dispute between pastor and people, it is common among
American Congregationalists to summon mutual or ex
parte councils, to examine, hear evidence, and vote accordingly; but although their decision be obligatory on the
parties no farther than the parties themselves consent, the
propriety of the step is exceedingly questionable. To say
the least, it is wholly unnecessary. A church has power, according to the general principles on which it is organized, to
adjust and perform every act of discipline, whether it concerns pastors or members, as American Congregationalists
themselves freely admit. To erect, therefore, any other
tribunal for the occasion, is perfectly arbitrary and useless;
virtually implying, on the part of those who summon it, a
distrust in the sufficiency, or defect in the luminousness, of
the comprehensive code by which all the affairs of Christian
men must be ultimately determined. We disapprove of
such councils. It is better to keep the institutions of Christ
simple, as they appear in the New Testament. Better is it
to allow a church the exercise of its own rights fully, without sanctioning so much as the appearance of incompleteness. The utility of the proceeding in question is not clear,
while the superfluousness of it is apparent. Hence it should
not be resorted to." 1
It should be said in justification of our custom of licensing candidates for the ministry, that a license from an
association is simply a recommendation of the candidate
from  so many ministers to the churches.  They simply
advise the churches to hear him preach. The license has
no ecclesiastical authority whatever, and no force except
what it derives from the character and influence of the men
1 Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament, by Dr. Davidson.
Second Edition, p. 320.
10 




114                  APPENDIX.
who gave it. With regard to the action of ordaining and
dismissing, and mutual and ex parte councils, it is unquestionably true that they often assume authority which they
do not possess. The style of language which they use in
their results is often exceedingly objectionable.  When
called, for instance, to advise a church with regard to dismissing its minister, the council not unfrequently takes the
business entirely into its own hands, and, after hearing a
representation of the case, of its own authority pronounces
the minister dismissed. "And hereby," they say, "he is
dismissed."  Other assumptions of authority, equally glaring
and equally inconsistent with the fundamental principles of
Congregationalism, are frequently made by councils; and
there are reasons of the most imperative nature why every
practice of this kind should be at once corrected. The
brethren of every local church should understand that the
sovereignty under Christ, and all the responsibilities that
attach to that sovereignty, are entirely with themselves;
-and also that the sovereignty of the local church is indivisible and incommunicable; that it cannot even be shared,
without occasioning its destruction, with any officer or judicatory above the church.  And an ecclesiastical council
should always make the impression, both by their demeanor
and their language, that their work is simply advisory or
persuasive, or, as in the case of their actually ordaining a
minister, that they act simply as the servants of the church,
performing the work of its members for them, and only at
their request.  It should not only be understood, but it
should be more distinctly and formally acknowledged than
it usually is, both by the ordaining council and the members
of the church, that the ordaining power is vested in the
church, and not in the council. It would also frequently be
a great gain to the disciplinary power of a church, often
preventing cases of prolonged and troublesome discipline,




APPENDIX.                    115
if all the members, and especially the erring brother,
distinctly understood that the final action of the church
upon his case will be decisive; unless the church, in its own
sovereignty, shall see fit to take the advice of other churches.
This last course may sometimes show a spirit of candor, and
a commendable desire to do justly; still it is the right of a
church, after it has once passed a vote excommunicating an
erring member, from that time forth to " let him be a heathen
man and a publican," and that letting him be will often save
a church from the most prolonged and disastrous difficulties.
The sovereignty of the local church is as essential to
Congregationalism as to Independency, and any thing which
is destructive of that principle of church polity is destructive
of Congregationalism. The distinction between Independency and Congregationalism is not that Independency says
that ecclesiastical councils shall not be employed, while Congregationalism says that they shall be employed, in certain
cases; but it is rather this, that according to Independency
ecclesiastical councils ought not to be employed, while according to Congregationalism they may rightfully be employed sometimes to advise or to assist, because such a use of
them is not in the least degree destructive of the sovereignty
of the local church; and, if they may rightfully be employed,
it is expedient to employ them in certain cases, not only for
the sake of the assistance thus obtained, but also because
it is Christian courtesy, and tends to promote the good order
and the fellowship of the churches.  But to admit that
ecclesiastical councils have power or authority to do any thing
which a local church has no power or authority to do, is destructive of one of the essential principles of Congregationalism, the sovereignty of each church. To admit, for
instance, that a local church has no power or right, without
an ecclesiastical council, to ordain its own minister or to
dismiss him even though both the church and the minister
desire the separation and agree to it, is to admit that a coun



116                  APPENDIX.
cil has an ecclesiastical authority higher than that of the
local church. Such an admission is a surrender of Congregationalism. It breaks down at once the most important
distinction between the church polity of the primitive Christians and the centralized and despotic forms of church government.  If councils are absolutely necessary, it would be
as well, nay better, to have standing councils or presbyteries;
and if we should have presbyteries we should have synods,
and so on. We must, at all hazards, maintain the sovereignty,
under Christ, of the local church,; and also its absolute completeness as an ecclesiastical body, or, in other words, its
competency to transact all;ecclesiastical business. A church
can, according to the principles of Congregationalism, ordain
its own minister; and this was the practice among the earlier
Congregational churches of:New England. A church can,
according to the principles of Congregationalism, dismiss its
minister upon mutual agreement between themselves and
him, or without such agreement, if he is morally unworthy
of his place. But while Congregationalism strenuously maintains this right of individual churches as absolutely necessary to their sovereignty, it is also Congregational and
advisable, always, when it can be done, to ask for the advice
of other churches, both in ordaining and in dismissing a
minister.
We cannot refrain here from venturing the suggestion,
that it would serve to keep more prominently in the minds
of both the ministers and the members of our churches the
great fact of the: sovereignty of each local church, if it was
the custom for the church asking advice always to take
forinal action upon the question submitted, after having
received the advice of the council. Let the action of the
church be consistent with the language of the letter missive.
If that asks for advice, let the church meet and receive the
advice, and take formal action upon it. And always, unless
by the letter missive, or in some other way the church par



APPENDIX.                   117
ticularly directs otherwise, let the final action be the action
of the church, and not of the council. The influence of
such a practice would in various ways be healthful. It
would forcibly remind both the council and the church of
their relative positions. It would prevent many unintentional, and perhaps some intentional, violations of the first
principles of Congregationalism.
NOTE D.
History furnishes numerous illustrations of the tendency
of centralized systems of church government to become
more and more centralized. Not only do these systems
often give to individuals who are educated under their influence a craving for a still more despotic government, and
so send them on in advance from one church to another,
until they reach the church of absolute despotism; but these
systems themselves we often see gradually changing and
moving on in the same direction. Does a church organize
itself partly after the Presbyterian and partly after the
Congregational model, the tendency is not towards Congregationalism, but towards Presbyterianism. Is a Presbyterian church of the United States of America organized, discarding, under the influence of certain Congregational elements in it, some of the features of Presbyterianism, as for
instance its denominational boards, the tendency is not towards a more perfect Independency, but towards a more intense Presbyterianism. One degree of centralization in
church government begets another degree, and that still
another, and so on; the change is seldom in the opposite
direction, except under the influence of religious reformation.
"It is well known," says Dr. Coleman, " that the introduction of Episcopacy into this country gave rise to a long




118                  APPENDIX.
and bitter controversy. The objection, made from within
the Episcopal churches as well as from without, was, that
its form of government is anti-republican, and opposed to
the spirit of our free institutions. The House of Burgesses
in Virginia, composed chiefly of Episcopalians, declared
their abhorrence of bishops, unless at the distance of three
thousand miles, and denounced'the plan of introducing
them, in the most unexceptionable form, on this side of the
Atlantic, as a pernicious project.'
" When, at last, Episcopacy was introduced, it was only
by a compromise, - the Episcopalian churches consenting to
submit to diocesan Episcopacy only in a form greatly
modified, and divested of its most obnoxious features. To
the exclusion of the laity from a free and full participation
in the affairs of the government, they would not for a moment submit. Such, according to Bishop White, was the
prejudice of Episcopalians,'against the name, and much
more against the office of a bishop, that, but for the introduction of the laity into the government of the church, no
general organization would probably have been formed.'
Accordingly, the people were allowed freely to choose their
own pastors, and to have a full representation in all their
courts. This American Episcopacy was so modified, and
the prelatical powers of the bishop so restricted by the
checks and balances of republican principles, that the
English prelates, on the other hand, were reluctant to
confer the Episcopate upon Bishop White, alleging that he'entertained a design to set up Episcopacy on the ground
of presbyterial and lay authority.'
"' Such was American Episcopacy at first, - qualified as
much as possible, by the infusion of popular principles, to
restrain the arbitrary powers of the bishop. But what now
has this same Episcopacy become? What now the powers
of the bishop, compared with what they then were? He




APPENDIX.                    119
possesses power almost as arbitrary as that of an Eastern
despot; and assumes to rule by an authority independent of
the will of his subjects. The bishops are permanent and
irresponsible monarchs, restrained by no judicial tribunal.
The house of bishops admit no order of the inferior clergy
to their general convention. They ordain, depose, and
restore to the ministry at pleasure whom they will;'so
that a Puseyite bishop may fill the church with impenitent
and unconverted men.' He can prevent any congregation
from settling the minister of their choice, or displace one
at his will, and may,'upon probable cause,' forbid any
clergyman from another diocese to officiate in his own.
Such is the fearful nature of those powers which are now
intrusted to this spiritual despot in our free republic.
"' And yet, as if all this ominous accumulation of Episcopal prerogatives were not enough, the claims of the bishops
are still pressed higher and higher. The house of bishops,
with all its powers, has been superinduced upon the general
convention since its establishment in America.  Now these
privileged hierarchs can only be tried by themselves; that is,
if a president be guilty of any crime or misdemeanor whatever, he must be impeached and tried by a jury of presidents alone; a governor by a jury of governors. In one
convention, the bishop lately claimed and exercised the prerogative of adjusting the roll of the members, denying to
them the right of all deliberative assemblies, - that of
deciding upon the qualifications of their own members; and
the same convention,'by a vote of nearly three to one,'
meekly acquiesced in this claim of their prelate. Another
convention provides that its proceedings'shall not be open
to the public.' It gives to the bishop an absolute veto upon
all their acts; and, to crown the whole, makes him'the
judge in all ecclesiastical trials.'




120                   APPENDIX.
" Consider, now, this enormous extension of the Episcopal
power in this enlightened age, in this free republic, - this
monstrous spiritual despotism imposed upon a people jealous above all men of their rights, and prompt to repel every
invasion of them; - contemplate such a people, under such
circumstances, with scarcely a feeble note of remonstrance
bowing themselves down to this hierarchal supremacy, and
shall we wonder at the early rise of a mild and comparatively unformed Episcopacy?  Shall we marvel at the
gradual extension of its influence over feeble churches,
dependent for their support and protection? Why should
this be thought a thing incredible, in view of what is transpiring in the midst of us?" 1
Such facts as these, of which the history of centralization
in church government is full, are a loud warning to Congregationalists to maintain, at all costs and in all their integrity,
the principles of their free and divine church polity; and
never, under any circumstances, to compromise them with
the first degree of centralization. It was by this process of
gradually yielding up these principles, beginning with the
slightest possible surrender of them, that the first churches,
those left by the apostles and primitive Christians, lost
their divine form and power, passing on from one degree
of centralization and corruption to another, until finally
they ended in all the abominations and the unparalleled
despotism  of Rome.  A  fearful responsibility is resting upon the Congregationalists of the present age, and
especially upon those of this country. A world's interests
are. in the issue. And it is due to the great Author of
their church polity, - it is due to all the coming ages of the
world, that they be found faithful to their trust.
1 Primitive Church, pp. 263-266.




APPENDIX.                   121
NOTE E.
The more candid and intelligent Episcopalians even
admit that the first Christian churches were, in government,
entirely independent of each other; and that there were
only two kinds of church officers, presbyters or ministers
and deacons, there being no distinction between a presbyter
and a bishop. Dr. Coleman cites the following Episcopalian
authorities: " At first," says the learned Dr. Barrow, " every
church was settled apart under its own bishop and presbyters, so as independently and separately to manage its own
concerns. Each was governed by its own head, and had its
own laws."' "The subordinate government," says Riddle,
"of each particular church, was vested in itself; that is to
say, the whole body elected its ministers and officers, and
were consulted concerning all matters of importance. All
churches were independent of each other, but were united
by the bonds of holy charity, sympathy, and friendship." 2
" Though there was one Lord, one faith, one baptism," says
Archbishop Whately, " yet they were each a distinct, independent community on earth, united by the common principles on which they were founded by their mutual agreement,
affection, and respect; but not having any one recognized
head on earth, or acknowledging any sovereignty of one of
those societies over others.  Each bishop originally presided over one entire church." 3 "Bingham, and Chancellor
King, and multitudes of the most respectable writers in the
communion- of the Episcopal church," says Dr. Coleman,
"fully sustain the foregoing representations of the right of
suffrage, as enjoyed by the primitive churches. They are
1 Coleman's Primitive Church, p. 50.   2 Ibid. p. 51.
8 Ibid. p. 51.
11




122                   APPENDIX.
clearly supported by the late Dr. Burton, and by Riddle,
both of Oxford University, and by the best authorities, both
ancient and modern.'The mode of appointing bishops and
presbyters,' says Riddle,'has been repeatedly changed.
Election by the people, for instance, has been discontinued.
This is, indeed, in the estimation of Episcopalians, a great
improvement; but still, as they must allow, it is a change." i
" A volume," says Dr. Coleman, "might be filled with authorities from the English Church alone, in which both her
most distinguished prelates and her most eminent scholars
concede to presbyters a virtual equality with bishops, and
the right to ordain."
" The Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, drawn up
with great care, approved by both houses of Parliament
in 1543, and prefaced by an epistle from the king himself,
declares that' priests [presbyters] and bishops are, by God's
law, one and the same; and that the powers of ordination
and excommunication belong equally to both.... Archbishop Usher, one of the brightest ornaments of the Episcopal church, on being asked by Charles I., in the Isle of
Wight, whether he found in antiquity that'presbyters alone
did ordain,' answered,' Yes,' and that he would show his
majesty more —' even where presbyters alone successively
ordained bishops.' " 2
And yet there is reason to believe, that many in the
Episcopal church, and not a few even of its clergy, tenaciously cherish the belief that theirs is the church of the
apostolic age, and that out of it there is no valid ordination,
and, of course, none who ought to be recognized as ministers of Christ. "Take any other church," they say, " and
trace back its history, and you will find its origin somewhere
this side of the age of the apostles; but not so with the Epis1 Coleman's Primitive Church, p. 69.    2 Ibid. p. 193.




APPENDIX.                   123
copal church, for that is of the same age with Christianity."
But we have only to deliver over such persons with their too
limited knowledge to the more intelligent members of their
own communion. Riddle acknowledges that there has been
a change, and claims that Episcopacy is a "great improvement" upon the church polity of the apostles! This is
frank and honest.: Presbyterianism  and Methodism  are
likewise professedly improvements upon Episcopacy. Methodism had its origin with John Wesley, in the first half of
the eighteenth century. Presbyterianism had its origin with
John Calvin, about the middle of the sixteenth century.
Modern Episcopacy had its origin only' a few years earlier
in the same century, with Henry VIII., who established it
solely as a means of justifying his crime of divorcing the
queen, and marrying one of the queen's maids of honor.' It
is " a fragment broken off from the Papal despotism." Or,
if Episcopacy be traced back through all the abominations of
the Roman Catholic Church, it had its origin, according to the
most accredited historians, sometime in the second century,
in a slight distinction, then for the first time introduced,
between a bishop and a presbyter. This new kind of
a bishop was at first simply the presbyter who presided at
the board of the presbyters of a single local church. He
was the president of the presbytery of a single church.
From this the rise of Episcopacy was very gradual, the
bishop in subsequent centuries claiming more and more
authority, and the people surrendering their rights one after
another, until finally the Pope took the place of the already
despotic bishop, and the government of the church, which at
first was a pure democracy, became an absolute despotism.
With regard to the Episcopal doctrine of apostolic succession, in addition to what was said on pages 33, 34, the
following remarks of Rev. Albert Barnes are exceedingly
pertinent: " Nothing in history can be more hopeless than




124                    APPENDIX.
the effort to make out the actual spiritual descent of Bishop
White or Hobart as prelatical bishops in a direct uncontaminated line, from the college of the apostles, or from any
one of the apostles; and nothing that assumes to be a grave
matter is more ridiculous or contemptible than the attempt,
with a grave face, to exhibit such a demonstration. There
is not a pecuniary claim of the smallest possible value, or a
claim of any other kind, that could be defended on that
ground before a court of quarter-sessions; — not a title to
an heir-loom, or to a right of common, or to an acre of land,
that could be maintained for a moment on such an argument,
and no sensible man would for a moment regard any pretended right as of the slightest value, that did not rest on a
better foundation. It is a most marvellous thing, that sensible men persist in asserting their belief in any such ascertainable pedigree, or in its worth, even if it could be ascertained.  Where, in all the New Testament, is there the
slightest hint, that the validity of the ministry depends on
the fact of such an ascertained descent, or that a ministry
is' invalid where such a pedigree cannot be made out?  If
the New Testament had asserted this, the assertion would
now strip all Episcopalians, as well as all others, of any
right to administer the ordinances of religion, and at once
degrade the whole of them to the condition of laymen." 
NOTE F.
Congregationalism  is not a monarchy, like  Popery;
nor prelacy, like Episcopalianism; nor an oligarchy, like
Presbyterianism; but is democratic or republican in government.
1 See an article on Exclusivism, by Rev. Albert Barnes, in the
Presbyterian Quarterly Review for March and June, 1857.




APPENDIX.                   125
The friends of centralization in church government in
this country are very fond of instituting comparisons between their several systems and the form of our civil government. They thus seek to commend their several church
organizations to the favorable regard of a liberty-loving
people. But, to say nothing of Papacy, when Episcopacy
institutes such a comparison in favor of itself, the most remarkable thing about it is the boldness with which it presumes upon the ignorance and the credulity of those whom
it hopes to influence. Episcopacy, even in this country, is
a spiritual despotism. The laity are only mocked with a
shadow of power.  In the election of a minister, if the
choice of the parish is agreeable to the bishop, very well;
but if not, there is no way for the parish to obtain the minister of its own choice. The election by the parish amounts
to a mere nomination to the bishop. The sole privilege of
the people is to give information.  They are entirely dependent upon the will of the bishop for both the valid election and ordination of their minister. And so of the lay
deputies in the Episcopal conventions; so long as they deliberate and vote agreeably to the will of the bishops and
the clergy, they may think themselves of some importance;
but in opposition to that will they can do nothing- absolutely nothing. Thus the clergy are really elected by the
bishop. And who elects the bishop? The clergy of a diocesan convention choose him, and then nominate him to the
lay deputies. And to whom is the bishop accountable?
To the power that elects him?  By no means. To the
people?  Not at all; but only to his fellow bishops. Thus
every thing'is in the hands of the bishops. In the general
convention they alone constitute the upper house, and possess " the exclusive right to propose acts for the concurrence
of the other house," which is composed of clerical and lay
delegates. Now what possible similarity has this govern11 *




126                   APPENDIX.
ment to that of our republic? When the chief magistrates
of the several states shall be chosen for life, and shall be
accountable only to a board of their own number; when no
town officers can be chosen except at the option of the official head of the state; when these chief magistrates are
themselves chosen by the town officers; when the people
have no power, of their own sovereign will, either to place
over themselves their own officers or to depose them; when,
in short, the sovereignty in these United States is no longer
with the people, but exclusively in the hands of their officers, then, and then only, may Episcopacy begin to claim
our favorable regard on the ground of its marked resemblance to our civil government.
The following remarks, with regard to Episcopacy in this
country, are too true. " Every thing is in the hands of the
bishops, who are farthest removed from the laity, and have
least sympathy with them. The bishops are absolute masters of the church. If they held their appointment from
the laity, and represented their opinions and feelings, and if
they held their appointment only for a term of years, the
case would be different. But the bishops are not, in theory
or in fact, the representatives of the laity, but their spiritual
lords and masters." 
Nor can Methodism, any more than Episcopacy, claim
the advantage of a resemblance to our civil government.
Methodism, like Episcopacy and Papacy, is a spiritual despotism. It takes the sovereign power from the many, and
gives it to the few. Its founder, John Wesley, himself declared, " Fe are no republicans."  "As long as I live, the
people shall have no share in choosing either stewards or
leaders among the Jethodists."  " Certainly that system," it
has been forcibly said, " which does not leave even their
Organic Christianity, by L. A. Sawyer, p. 217.




APPENDIX.                    127
houses of worship in the hands of the people who erected
them, - which gives the people no vote in the choice of
their religious teachers, - which leaves no question of discipline, - no important question, - to be finally decided by
the people, or even by those in whose appointment the people
have had any agency, - certainly such a system does not
recommend itself to us by its republicanism." 1
The Presbyterians, likewise, are especially fond of claiming
that their church polity is eminently republican. It is, they
say, like our republic, a strictly representative government.
They affirm that there is a striking resemblance between its
series of judicatories, on the one hand, and our state and national governments, and especially our judiciary system, on
the other. But this comparison is fallacious. The true
character of a government is determined not so much by
the nature of its series of judicatories, as by the relation of
that series to the people, -not so much by the internal
working of the superstructure as by the nature of the contactof that superstructure with those governed. Does the
government, whatever it is in its officers and its courts, have
its origin immediately from the people; and is it constantly,
or, at least, at regular and comparatively brief intervals,
held accountable to the people for its conduct? or does it
have its origin immediately from an oligarchy installed for
life over the people? or does it originate from neither?
These questions are decisive of the nature of a government.
A government is despotic in its nature just in proportion as
it is out of the hands of the people; and it is democratic or
republican just in proportion as it is in their hands.  We
must scrutinize Presbyterianism, then, in its relation to the
local churches, in order to understand its true nature as a
system of government; and it is at just that decisive point.
1 Congregational Tracts, No. 1, p. 14.




128                   APPENDIX.
that its similarity to republicanism entirely fails. In Presbyterianism, the session is the church. When our town officers shall be chosen for life, and shall hold in their hands
all the legislative and judicial and executive government of
the town, subject only to the supervision of certain higher
judicatories composed of representatives chosen not by the
towns, but by their several boards of officers; when, in short,
our town officers shall become themselves the town, and
from them  shall rise all the rest of the governmental machinery, then, and then only, may Presbyterianism begin to
claim the favorable regard of the people on the ground of
its striking resemblance to their civil government. " Presbyterianism," says David Hale, "is not republicanism, nor
is it-in any proper sense a representative government. If
the government of this nation had been organized by the
election of a president and senate for life, in whom were
vested all the powers of the constitution, what would it have
been called? Not a representative government, certainly,
nor a republic in any sense. It could have been called
nothing but an elective aristocracy." The constitution and
powers of the church session are such of themselves as to
make this form of church government a perfect oligarchy.
"Presbyterianism," says a recent writer, "is sometimes
described and advocated by its friends as a system of church
republicanism. The elders are considered as representatives of the churches, and the churches are considered as
administering their affairs, in all the church courts, on the
representative principle.  But this is an entire mistake.
There is no representation of the church in the church
courts. All those courts are established over the church,
and are independent of it....
"The session is not a representative court, in which the
elders represent the church. To make it such, the eldership ought to be appointed annually, or for a term of years.




APPENDIX.                    129
It is rather a court of monarchs, or aristarchs, who hold
their office for life; a limited monarchy, indeed, as so called
monarchies in the state usually are; but a real monarchy,
nevertheless; or, more strictly, an aristarchy of rulers
appointed for life, and ruling on the principle of elective
aristarchy...
"The half representation, which, in effect, is somewhat
less than half, often not a fourth, in presbyteries and
synods, is a representation of the eldership, the aristarchy of
the churches, not the churches themselves. This is very
far indeed from being republican representation of the
membership.
" General assemblies are representative courts based on
the presbyteries, in which the ministers and elders of the
presbyteries are represented equally. The representation,
therefore, is of essentially the same kind as that of the
presbyteries.
" The ministers and elders of the Presbyterian church are
accountable to presbyteries, subject to an appeal to the
higher courts, but are not accountable to the membership.
The government of the Presbyterian churches, therefore,
is as much a despotism as that of the Methodists, the Episcopalians, and the Roman Catholics.
" It was designed to be an improved system of Episcopacy,
restricting the bishop to a parish, and the presbyters to the
exercise of parish jurisdiction, and governing the larger
districts of the church by courts of bishops, assisted by
equal numbers of presbyters. The principles of the Presbyterial and Episcopal systems are the same. Neither
allows the powers of church government to be vested in
the membership; neither gives the membership any controlling influence in determining the form and organization
of the church, or directing its policy and discipline."'
1 Organic Christianity, by L. A. Sawyer, pp. 247-8-9.




130                   APPENDIX.
"The objections to it are the same as to all other modifications of Episcopacy, and all other despotisms. It is not
scriptural, it is not the original, divinely appointed plan of
church organization, which was purely democratic; and,
secondly, it is not expedient. The democratic plan is safer
and better. This appears from a critical examination of the
New Testament on the subject; and it is still further
illustrated by the history and fruits of Presbyterianism,
and its condition and tendencies at the present time." 1
With regard to the natural political affinities of different
denominations, history abundantly teaches that the more
centralized the system of church government which men
advocate, the more despotic the civil government which
they prefer.  It is a notorious historical fact, that in the
time of the American Revolution, where the Congregational church polity prevailed there was the greatest enthusiasm among the people in the Declaration of Independence, and in the formation of a republican government;
and where other systems of church polity prevailed, there
was the least enthusiasm. The Episcopalians, as a class,
were tories.  They were determined to continue their
allegiance to the British crown. The Presbyterians, as a
class, were far more indifferent to the result than the Congregationalists. The Congregationalists, as a class, were
fully resolved to be satisfied with nothing less than a strictly
independent and republican government.
The political affinities of these several denominations
have also been clearly developed in the history of England.
Epis.copacy has always been, in that country, the persistent
friend and supporter of monarchy, and the natural enemy
of religious toleration and civil liberty. Hence it came to
be a motto with the tyrannical James, "no bishop, no king."
"The friends of liberty," says Dr. Robert Vaughan, speak1 Organic Christianity, by L. A. Sawyer, pp. 251, 252.




APPENDIX.                   131
ing of the Anglican Church, "have always had to lay their
account with her opposition, when endeavoring to expand
the principles of freedom.  Her concessions in this way
have always come late, reluctantly, and with a bad grace."
Macaulay likewise says, that the Church of England, from
the time of its establishment, "continued to be, for more
than one hundred and fifty years, the servile handmaid of
monarchy and the steady enemy of public liberty."
The Presbyterians, while their church polity is a great
improvement upon Papacy and Episcopacy, and while they
have done much in weakening the power of despotism, yet
never have been such bold and uncompromising advocates of human freedom and republican government as have
the Congregationalists. It is a well-known fact, that at the
time of the Westminster Assembly, the Presbyterians were
generally royalists and bigotedly conservative, while the
Independents were thorough republicans, and wished for an
entire reconstruction of the government after the republican
model.  "The relations of Presbyterianism  and Independency in England, during the period of the civil war
and the ascendency of Cromwell, are remarkable. But for
Independency, Presbyterianism would have subverted the
religious liberties of England in favor of an exclusive
Presbyterian national church establishment. But for Presbyterianism, Independency would have succeeded in obtaining permanent toleration for herself, and for other
Protestant denominations." 1 It is a very significant historical fact, that Presbyterianism in England "fell in consequence of its own active exertions to cast down its
Congregationalist competitors, and to exalt itself at their
expense." Yet it is but the natural fruit of this church
polity, that its adherents were unwilling to tolerate Congre1 Organic Christianity, by L. A. Sawyer, pp. 379-380.




132                   APPENDIX.
gationalism, and that they united as they did with the
Episcopalians in a carefully laid plot to crush it. But they
were caught in their own snare, and overwhelmed. The
monarch whom they raised to the throne made them the
first victims of his despotism. We will be thankful for all
the good which holy men in the Presbyterian church have
done. But their system of church government is exposed
to all the objections of every despotic ecclesiastical organization. It is unscriptural; and is particularly unsuitable
to educate a republican people to appreciate and maintain
their civil freedom. An oligarchical government, in the
church cannot promote republicanism in the state.
NOTE G.
The advocates of centralized systems of church government, particularly Episcopalians and Presbyterians, are very
fond of claiming that theirs are the conservative churches.
Great stress is laid upon this claim, and it is very effective
in its influence with great numbers of well-meaning people.
But the good word conservative, in this case, is made to play
a very deceptive part, for such have come to be the associations of the term, that people forget, that what is evil
may be conserved as well as what is good, and therefore
are not careful to inquire for the particular things of which
these church organizations claim to be conservative. Should
this inquiry be made, it will generally be found that the
claimants prefer to stop with the word conservative, and
make no specifications. The hoops of a cask will hold the
most vile and fetid wine as securely as the most pure and
sparkling; but it would not be particularly sensible nor
honest for a seller of the wine to be continually ringing
changes upon the strength of the hoops, and at the same




APPENDIX.                   133
time decline to speak of what is within. These centralized
church organizations assume to be far more conservative
than Congregationalism. But more conservative of what,
we ask?  We have a right to the specifications. More conservative of civil and religious liberty? If so, it is something worth mentioning. But where is the man of ordinary
intelligence who ever thought of making a comparison, in
this particular, in favor of church centralization? More conservative, then, of popular education, and of the general intelligence of the people? Facts and statistics, now known and
read of all men, would at once unmask the presumption of
such a claim, if any one should be bold enough to make it.
More conservative, is it said, then, of the general thrift and
enterprise, of the material prosperity, of the masses of the
people?  Let New England, in this regard, be compared
with any or all of those portions of the world where other
systems of church government prevail, and would any advocate of church centralization wish to publish the result?
More conservative, then, of true piety, of that " mind which
was in Christ Jesus "? It would become us to reply to this
charge with great humility.  And yet it is proper to test
Congregationalism in this respect by the rule of the Saviour,
c" Ye shall know them by their fruits." Let, then, the religious character of the Pilgrims, and of those generally who
have adopted their church polity, answer; let the history of
revivals in New England, let the standard of piety in the
New England churches, their efficiency in the service of
Christ, the missionary spirit that pervades them, the amount
of their Christian benevolence, — let these fruits, and such
as these, answer. But in respect to all these particulars
now mentioned, vital and all important as they are, no advocate of a centralized church government ever dares to draw
any comparison between Congregationalism and his own
system. For it is too prominently written on the page of
12




134                   APPENDIX.
history ever to be denied, that it was Congregationalism
standing side by side with Presbyterianism and Episcopacy,
and in spite of their combined resistance, that saved English liberty at its last gasp, and also that it was this same.church polity that gave birth to American republicanism.;It is likewise too well known ever to be denied, that under
no other form of church government has so much been done,
and so successfully, for popular education and for the moral
elevation of the masses of the people. And in respect to
the last most important particular, a living and effective
piety, while we humble ourselves before God, we say, let the
world judge of the different church polities by their fruits.
An eminent Episcopal writer admits, that " the most ultra
churchman says nothing against the personal piety of [his]
Protestant brethren." And certainly the Presbyterians will
not be very forward to draw any comparison in this respect
in their favor, when, in large branches of their church, no
evidence of regeneration is necessary for admission to the
church; but, on the contrary, all except the "ignorant"
and the "scandalous" are cordially received.1
More conservative, then, we ask again, of what?  Of
evangelical truth; of "the faith once delivered to the
saints"?  This is frequently asserted; but we have looked
in vain for any thing that could be called even a proximate
proof of the truth of such an assertion. Both Episcopalians and Presbyterians often point ominously to AMassachusetts, and each affirm, that, had their church polity
prevailed here, the Unitarian apostasy never would have
occurred. This is a standing affirmation; it has been made
again and again in private conversation and in the public
prints. A distinguished American bishop made it a few
years since on a public occasion in London. But the Epis1 See The Great Awakening, by Joseph Tracy, p. 22-24.




APPENDIX.                   135
copalians forget that the first church that became Unitarian
in this country was an Episcopalian church; 1 and the Presbyterians forget that the church over which the celebrated
Dr. W. E. Channing was settled was once a Presbyterian
church,2 the oldest but one of their order in New England.
The advocates of Episcopacy especially are very injudicious
in thrusting their church into such a comparison. They
are too fearfully exposed not to be terribly riddled themselves in turn, if they first cast that stone. It is already
indelibly written of English Episcopacy on the page of history, that she has "a Popish ritual, a Calvinistic creed, and
an Arminian clergy."  Only "two thousand out of her
twelve thousand ministers," it is said, can be called evangelical. "By far the largest portion of Episcopal ministers
and members of the Episcopal Church everywhere," says
Rev. Albert Barnes, "are decided Aminians in doctrine;
and wherever Episcopacy propagates itself, it propagates, as
a matter of course, the doctrines of Arminius." Again he
says: " It would not be possible to make the whole Epis —
copal Church conform in doctrine to the obvious meaning of
the Thirty-nine Articles, and still retain the Episcopal form of'
government." 3 Is it not true that the Episcopalian churches
of Connecticut are to a great extent Arminian in doctrine?'
Is it not generally understood, that Episcopacy in that State
is a very good substitute for Unitarianism?  And yet we.
never hear of the Arminian apostasy in the Episcopalt
Church of Connecticut! This is accounted for, in part, by
the fact, that practically such a centralized church has no
power, without the aid of the State, to discipline its members to any great extent for doctrinal errors, without destroying itself. The Episcopalians of Connecticut could not, by
1 King's Chapel, Boston.
2 Federal Street Church, Boston.
3 See article on Exclusivism in Presbyterian Quarterly Review for
March and June, 1857.




136                   APPENDIX.
any course of discipline, purge themselves of Arminianism,
without causing the ruin of the entire fabric of their church.
When error has thus obtained a foothold in a consolidated
church, it is impossible for that church to conform to the
apostolic rule, ".first pure, then peaceable;" it can be peaceable only as it connives at and conceals its impurity. On
account of the gradual and unobstructed course of error
in such churches, but little commotion is made; and this, to
an alarming extent, is the real conservatism of church centralization. It is the conservation of peace at the expense
of purity. It is such conservatism as Luther had to contend with, and such as has always been one of the greatest
foes to all real reformation and spiritual advancement. It
is the conservatism of a church that needs above all things,
and at any expense of commotion or revolution, the most
radical reformation. It is the obvious teaching of ecclesiastical history, that centralization in church government is far
less strenuous in its opposition to the insidious advances of
sin and error than it is in its opposition to true reform.
"It seems to be admitted," says Dr. Coleman, "by members
of their own communion, that there is no discipline in the
Episcopal Church." One of the English Episcopalian
writers, whom he cites in proof of this statement, affirms,
" I believe such a thing as any single presentation for notoriously immoral conduct has scarcely been heard of for a
century."  "A well-known clergyman of our own country,
in assigning his'reasons for preferring Episcopacy,' speaks
of it as' universally felt and admitted' that' in no Christian
denomination of the country is there so great a diversity of
opinion [as in the Episcopal Church] about doctrine, church
polity, etc. But we hear,' he adds,'of no discipline on
account of this diversity. The probability is, that discipline
on these accounts would rend and break up the church.'
And again he says:' There is no church in the world that
has in fact so great a diversity of opinion in her own




APPENDIX.                   137
bosom, as the Church of England, and not a little of downright infidelity.' "1 And this, recollect, is the language of
one who is giving his " Reasons for preferring Episcopacy."
One reason is, that he will not be disciplined in that church
for any opinions he may chance to cherish; no, not even if
he becomes an infidel. Under this neglect of discipline for
opinion, the Church of England, he thinks, c "will recover
the primitive vitality of Christianity, so as to have it pervading and animating her whole communion." " Nor is it
less certain," he adds, "that by attempting discipline for
opinions, she would forever blight all these prospects."
And yet this is the church which boasts of being more conservative of "the faith once delivered to the saints" than is
Congregationalism, and which claims that it would have
saved New England from Unitarianism!
Is it not, moreover, a well-known fact, that the more
rigorous discipline of other denominations has sent multitudes, whose Christian characters were such that they felt
themselves in danger from that discipline, into the Episcopal
Church for safety? Is it not true, that in New England the
temperance reformation, and the strong protest of the Congregational churches against the sin of human oppression,
have sent numbers into the bosom of Episcopacy to find
quiet and peace! Well may Dr. Coleman significantly ask:
" Why do the malecontents of other denominations, men of
equivocal character if not of tarnished reputation, take
refuge in such numbers in that church? " And yet this is
the church polity whose advocates proclaim in high places
that it would have saved Massachusetts from the Unitarian
apostasy!
And then, again, how dare the Presbyterians continually
ring changes, as they do, upon this same Unitarian defec1 See Primitive Church, by Dr. L. Coleman, pp. 121, 122.
12*




138                   APPENDIX.
tion, to the disparagement of Congregationalism, and in favor
of their own church polity? Is their ecclesiastical system
so immaculate, as far as the sin of heresy is concerned, that
they can afford to exult in this regard over the church
polity of the Pilgrims?
There were in Massachusetts in 1854, fifteen hundred and
twenty-one churches.  Of these about one third were Trinitarian Congregational churches, while only one hundred and
seventy-two were Unitarian. Nearly all the Unitarianism of
New England, and indeed of this country, is confined to
the State of Massachusetts, so that a comparison of the
whole number of the churches of this order in the land,
some two hundred and fifty, with the whole number of
Trinitarian Congregational churches, probably nearly three
thousand, renders this Unitarian defection still more inconsiderable.
Now, first, we ask, Is there no parallel to this in the history of Presbyterianism? Has Presbyterianism saved the
Presbyterian Church of Switzerland from Arianism and
Unitarianism? Good authority affirms that the church of
the land of Calvin "' has greatly declined from its adherence
to the Calvinistic doctrines, and has not only gone over to
Arianism, but has gone far beyond, to Unitarianism and
humanitarianism." Has the Presbyterianism of England
saved the churches of this order there from a similar apostasy?  It is a well-known fact, that nearly all the English
Presbyterian churches are Unitarian. Has the Presbyterianism of this country been proof against all heresy? Is
there no Arminianism among the Old School Presbyterians?
A distinguished divine and scholar of New England, a
man not given to fault-finding, still less to heresy-hunting,
the late Professor B. B. Edwards, while on a tour at the
South, wrote, " I have heard more Arminianism  since I
have been here than I ever heard before in my life." And
then how is it with the Cumberland Presbyterians?  Did




APPENDIX.                   139
their church government save them from becoming professedly Arminian? In 1837, did Presbyterianism save the
Presbyterian Church of the United States from the so-called
heresies of New Schoolism? Did it prevent the so-called
apostasy of nearly one half of the churches of that communion?  It does not seem that Presbyterianism has any great
reason to exult so much over the fact, that out of the fifteen
hundred and twenty-one churches of the State of Massachusetts, one hundred and seventy-two are Unitarian.
But, secondly, we affirm that there is abundant reason to
warrant the belief, that, had all the churches of Massachusetts been bound together by some one of the consolidating
systems of church government, the whole body would have
sunk irrecoverably into Unitarianism. Not even a remnant
of the churches could have disentangled themselves from
the falling mass, and maintained in its integrity the faith of
the Pilgrims. For when a doctrinal error has once obtained a lodgement in a consolidated church, —and history
shows that this is as easily accomplished in such a church
as in any other, -one of two things more usually happens,
either the church is rent in twain, or the whole body lapses
into the error; and in either result the system of church
government proves worse than nothing as a protection
against heresy, for in both cases it serves greatly to extend
and perpetuate the evil of the error. Not even the Chui'ch
of Scotland has been able to maintain its integrity, and at
the same time protect itself against so-called erroneous opinions; but in the violent discussion of certain constitutional
questions, - questions of church and state, - questions, too,
involving' more or less the doctrine of the church, it has
been broken into fragments; and hence we have what Rev.
Albert Barnes so appropriately calls the "asteroidal fragments of the Scotch Church." On the other hand, in the
English Church, sunk as it is into Arminianism and irreligion, we have an example of an entire body of consolidated




140                   APPENDIX.
churches lapsing, in spite of their creed, quietly and irrecoverably into religious error. We also have an example
similar to this last in the case of the Old School Presbyterians in our own country, where the whole body of connected
churches, in spite of their recorded professions, and in the
face of the outraged moral sentiment* and the earnest protestations of the Christian world, have virtually and practically committed themselves to the defence of American
slavery. It would not be possible for the English Episcopal Church to bring the real doctrinal faith of the mass of
its members up to their written creed, without a revolution
that would prove the utter destruction of their church
establishment. Nor would it be possible to bring the real
faith of the Old School Presbyterian Church of this country
up to their written creed upon the subject of slavery, without bringing on the dismemberment and utter ruin of that
church. In no other way does a centralized system of
church government exhibit so much power as in preventing
reformation in the church, when once it has fallen into sin
or error. Could Luther, with all the power of the Reformation, reform the Catholic Church?  Could the Puritans reform the English Church?  No more can the older branch
of the Presbyterian Church in this country be reformed,
when once it shall have fully prostituted itself to the defence
of the divine right of American slavery. And thus, too, the
Evangelical Churches of Massachusetts would have been
irretrievably lost in the Unitarian apostasy had they all
been helplessly bound together by some consolidating system  of church government.  Instead of the elastic and
comparatively easy bound, with which evangelical religion,
under the Congregational system, regained its position, it
would have been held down by all the concentrated power
of a great provincial or national ecclesiastical organization,
and its return to its former position would have been rendered impossible except by a most violent and disastrous




APPENDIX.                    141
revolution, such probably.as could never have been successfully carried through. But as it was, at the commencement
of the Unitarian controversy in 1810, there were, in all,
three hundred and sixty-one Congregational churches, and
at the close of the controversy, or rather the more belligerent form of it, in 1840, there were four hundred and nine
orthodox Congregational churches.
Where, then, is the evidence that these centralized systems of church government are more conservative of evangelical truth than is Congregationalism? It cannot be found
either in the nature of these systems or in their history.
On the contrary, the great mass of evidence, drawn from all
sources upon this point, is most decidedly against them.
"It is notorious, that when false doctrine has inundated the
church, it has flowed in from the clergy, and not from the
people; and when the people have been trusted with power
commensurate with their spiritual culture, they have stimulated their pastors to a maintenance of the simple truth.
Our ecclesiastical system educates the people for their
responsibilities and by their responsibilities; it honors them
in training them, and in the purpose for which they are
trained. It thus gives them a conservative influence, and
prompts the clergy to respect that influence. Accordingly,
we find that an immense majority of the churches standing
on the republican platform have retained the evangelical
faith; while the larger part of those which have been ruled
by a hierarchy have lapsed into error. A small faction of
the Church of England, with its Calvinistic creed and its
skilful apparatus for enforcing it, is designated by the
epithet Evangelical; while the Congregationalists of England, with all their aversion to (cumenical symbols, are a
model of unity in the evangelical belief.  If the pastors
were to abandon their faith, the people would stand fast
upon it. It has been often objected, that among the fifteen
hundred and twenty-one churches in the State of Massa



142                  APPENDIX.
chusetts, one hundred and seventy-two are Unitarian. Still,
Unitarianism has not flourished so vigorously in this Puritan
Commonwealth as Deism has flourished under a more concentrated church government; not so extensively as, in the
opinion of wise observers, it would have prevailed under any
other than our free polity; for if the churches of Massachusetts had been amalgamated into one state confederation, it
is supposed that nearly all of them would have gone where
the few dominant spirits had led the way; and the Congregationalism of that venerable Commonwealth would probably have been —what the Presbyterianism of England
now is - penetrated with Socinianism. The gracefulness of
Buckminster, the amenity of Greenwood, the sober sense of
5Ware, the wit of Kirkland, the genius of Channing, the
strength of Theophilus Parsons, himself a host, the fame of
the University, the princely fortunes of the metropolis, would
have carried the churches headlong, unless every church
had been trained to stand on its own foothold, and feel its
responsibility to God, rather than to the dignitaries of the
state. The life of the churches in Massachusetts after the
eruption of Unitarianism, when contrasted with the deathlike torpor of the Prussian churches after the eruption of
rationalism, affords an indisputable argument for the policy
which trusts the conservation of the truth to a free people.
It is a noteworthy fact, that those churches of New England
whose Congregationalism was the most unshackled, remained
the firmest against the Unitarian onset. While ecclesiastics
who had a centralized government were oscillating or yielding, the Baptists, who stretched Congregationalism into Independency, stood erect in the faith. The late Professor
Edwards, a divine eminent alike for his candor and accuracy, remarked, at the close of an extensive tour:' Throughout all my travels in Europe, and in the Southern States
of our own country, I have never heard the doctrines of total
depravity, regeneration, atonement, sovereignty, decrees,




APPENDIX.                    143
and eternal punishment proclaimed in so pungent and uncompromising a style as I have ordinarily -heard them among
the Congregationalists of our North-Eastern States.'  
Of what, then, are these centralized systems of church
government more conservative than is Congregationalism?
It is certainly true, that they are less conservative of evangelical truth, a living piety, and the active benevolence and
general efficiency of Christians.  If, now, there are any
minor things worthy to be mentioned, of which they are
more conservative, it belongs to those who affirm it to make
the specifications and prove their assertion. We know of no
proper end or influence of a church which is not best attained
and conserved by the church polity of the Pilgrims and the
primitive Christians.  Let the people thoroughly inform
themselves upon this subject, and be no longer deceived by
an artful use of the popular term conservative. It is the
true conservatism of Congregationalists to maintain in all its
integrity the church polity of the apostles and first Christians.  "The true conservatism  of New  England is to
keep a fast hold of those principles which are inwrought
into the very warp and woof of our political system; and
where is radicalism, if not in attempting to eradicate the
ecclesiastical polity which, for more than two hundred years,
has been growing with our growth, and intertwining itself
with the character of our people? Where is the disorganizing spirit and the far-famed sin of schism, if not in attempting to extirpate the usages of our Pilgrim fathers,
men who were as well qualified by nature, as well fitted by
intellectual and moral discipline, to lay the foundations of
an apostolical church, as uninspired men ever were, or
perhaps can be expected ever to be? The citizens of some
States follow in the footsteps of their fathers from the mere
1 Address before the American Congregational Union, by Prof.
tE. A. Park, D. I., pp. 38-40.




144                    APPENDIX.
influence of veneration for the past. We should gather
around the religious institutions of our Puritan ancestry,
because they are in the spirit of the New Testament;
because they are the most venerable of all our institutions;
because they are homogeneous with our national character;
because, when they fall, one prop of our civil liberties will
fall with them." 1
We close this Appendix with the remark, that while we
have thus frankly expressed our convictions upon the
subject of church polity, we are not insensible to the distinction between the essence of Christianity and any external form in which it may be conserved and propagated.
True piety, in this world, is often cherished under the
greatest external disadvantages; and, therefore, not unfrequently, especially in isolated cases, it is found flourishing under a most unfavorable church polity. According to
the example and spirit of the Saviour, we are to love all our
fellow men as endowed with immortal being, and capable
of immortal happiness; but we cannot do this unless at the
same time, and with an equal intensity, we hate their sins.
It is the fine remark of Olshausen, that " the blaze of God's
wrath is only one side of the flame of his love."  We are
to hate sin even if we should find it in an angel, and all the
more because it is in an angel. So, on a similar principle,
we extend the hand of cordial Christian fellowship to all
who truly love our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and who
hope for salvation only by faith in him as their Almighty
Redeemer; and at the same time we most strenuously
protest against any unscriptural church polity which any of
these brethren in Christ may have adopted.
1 Sermon on the Duties of the New England Clergy, by Prof.
E. A. Park, D. D., pp. 16, 17.