PRESBYTERIAN  RINCIPLES.
A DISCOT0UI="SIM
Delivered in the Jefferson Park Church, Chicago, on Sabbath, Feb. Ist, 1875,.
BY
FRANCIS L. PATTON, D. D.
CHICAGO:
METROPOLITAN PRINTING Co., 90 & 92 FIFTII AVE.
1875.
.4 
~ \'
I'I?. -..,
I 
CHICAGO,-April 2d, 1875.
RFv. FRANCIS  L. PATTON, D. D.,
DEAR Sin' 
Having read with great satisfaction your sermon on the Principles, Polity, &c.,
of the Presbyterian,  Church, published in a recent number of TuI  INTEnRIO, and
believing that a more extended circulation of this discourse will do          to' remove
misapprehensions existing in the inild(s of many persons in regard to the teachings
and( views of onr beloved (churchl, and possibly i.lduce them to seek  a home  in our
household of ff,ithl, we respectfully a,ld earnestly request your consent to its publicatioll in Tract form.
Verv sincerely yours,
C. B. NELSON,
E. S. WELLS,
JOHN V. FARWELL,
H. G. MILLER.
CHICAGO, April  i9th,  1875.
GENTLT,EM.EN:
I thank you for your kind words respecting my sermon on "Presbyterian
Principles," a,nd herewithl send you a corrected copy, in accordance with the request
contained il youri letter of 2(1 instant.
Very sincerely yours,
FRANCIS L. PATTON.
To MNessrs. C. B. NELSON,:,. S. WELTLS,
JOIN V. FARWELLIT, and H. G. MrLLER.
3   -.2   F  -, /" I'S 3 
I 
PRESBYTERIAN PRINCIPLES.
"The laying on of the hands of the presbytery."- 1 Timothy, iv., 14.
I invite attention to the principles which underlie our form of government.
Nor is the discussion upon which I enter altogether unneeded. For it would be
a great mistake to suppose that all who worship in Presbyterian churches are
ex animo Presbyterians. And I do not make the remark in any disparaging
sense.either, I would have you understand. A great many circumstances occur
to take people inside the Presbyterian Church. Some, to be sure, are born ill it,
as most of us were; some come in by marriage; some make a home in it because
they do not find any church which would exactly correspond with their
ecclesiastical preferences, though this may come nearest to such a correspondence.
This is all right. And so we, to-day, for one cause or another, find ourselves
ecclesiastically related to the Shorter Catechism and the Westminster Confession
of Faith.  There can be no harm, then, in our knowing exactly what is meant
by being a Presbyterian. I do not wish to be regarded to-day as blowing the
trumpet of sectarianism. A minister may be about better business. But it is
possible to show the reason for our preferences as miermbers of a particular church
-A, 
6
without saying anything to the discredit of other churches, just as it is possible
for us to seek to build up our own congregation without grudging our neighbor
the ground he occupies.
The peculiarities of the Presbyterian denomination are found in two things;
its polity and its creed. It is in regard to its polity that I intend to speak particularly.
I. POLITY.
Oni the general question of church polity there are three leading views.
There are those who believe in the principle of individualism. They do not
believe in the divine authority, or in the practical value of a church organization and a standing ministry.  There are some good Christian people, earnest,
devout, and enthusiastic in their attachment to the doctrines of grace, of whom
it is nevertheless true that their influence is disintegrating, and that it would be
destructive of the church's organic life were it to hold sway.  Next to the sacerdotalismi which unlchurches all who do not belong to a prelatic communion do
we deprecate the individualism which would disorganize the Church by disparaging the ordained ministry.  Our feelings of regret and our sense of the wrong
which is done in both cases are not lessened by the consciousness that some of
the most devout and devoted of God's servants are found in both classes.  There
are those again who hold the expediential view of chuirch polity. They maintain
that as great enterprises can be most wisely undertaken by joint action, so the
work of Christians can be best performned in a corporate capacity. If we wish
to build expensive railroads, we must put the funds of individuals  in a joint
stock. If we wish to make aggressive war, it is necessary to muster an army and
put it under efficient command.  So if we are to do the work which Christ
has left his disciples to perform, there must be an understanding among  us 
7
and concerted action.  Moreover, as the same man cannot do one thing well
if he has everything to do, it is proper that there should be a class of men who
will hold themselves responsible for ministering in word and doctrine. The
minister, they maintain, is evolved by the law of division of labor, the same as
the lawyer and the physician.
This is as far as some are willing to go. And since they fobund their doctrine
of the need of a polity upon expediency, of course they will not be particular
about the form which that polity assumes, though their preference may incline
them to one rather than another. They say:
"For forms of government let fools contest,
That which is best administered is best."
In all our churches men of this sort are to be found. And there are,
thirdly, those who believe in a jure divino system of polity. That is to say, they
believe that at least the outlines of an ecclesiastical polity are laid down in the New
Testament, and that New Testament precedent is to be our guide in the organization of the church. The Episcopal, the Presbyterian, and the Congregational
churches are all based upon the jure divino idea, and represent the three different opinions in regard to what the New Testament polity is.
Now the Presbyterian polity is summed up in three cardinal principles:  1
Parity of the Ministry.  2. Popular Government.  3. Ecclesiastical Unity.  Let
ius notice these in their order.
1. Parity of the Ministry.
We believe that all ministers of Christ are on the same level. And this
mnarks the point of our divergence from Episcopalians. The latter say that there
are three orders of ministers: deacons, priests and bishops. We say there is only 
8
one order; that deacons are not ministers, )llt layiieil; that the word priest is an
abbreviated expression foir presbyter; and that presbyter and bishop are two
words for the same office.  There was a time when the Episcopal office was
defended by an appeal to the passages in which Paul speaks of bishops.  l]iit
biblical interpretation was in its youth then.  No scholar would risk his replultation by any such appeal nowadays.  The old arguraent is fairly on the shelf; illiasmuchl as nothing is more certain than that Paul calls the same men in Acts xx.
both elders and bishops.  Because it is common for us to speak of ministers as
pastors, it does not follow that.pastors and ministers are two distinct classes of
men.  The usual mode of arguing now, is to assume that the three orders olriginally were apostles, presbyters and deacons; that bishops are successors of the
apostles, though out of reverence for the original twelve their successors are not
called by this name.  And no fault can be foiund with this argument excel)t that
it is gratuitous.  There is no evidence that the apostolic office was meant to be perpetual, and there is no reasoni why the name should not be continued if the office was.
The best testimony to the substantial accuracy of the position taken here comes
finom a man of undoubted scholarship and of high position in the university of
Cambridg,e, England.  Prof: Lightfoot concedes the whole argument which Presbyterians are in the habit of making,, and defenuds Episcopacy on the strength of
antiquity.  Its charter, he virtually says, is not in the  New Testament, but
Episcopacy grew up so early that it miay fairly claim to have apostolic sanction.
It is enough for us, however, thlat its charter is not in the New Testament. The
argument from antiquity is worth very little, and a iman needs more than mnortal
vision to see through the fog of patristic literature so as to discern the outlines
of the ecclesiastical polity of the apostolic age. Now, the differences and the
alienations which keep Presbyterians and Episcopalians apart grow out of their 
9
denial of our principle of parity of the ministry, o', if tihat is the more complinientary way of putting it, our denial of their princil)le that there are three orders
in the miniistiy.  Bishops are higher in rank than presbyters or priests. Bishops
alone Call confirln, Call ordain.  A  church without ordination is a church without a ulinistiry.  But a church without a ministry is not a church at all.  Hence,
Presbyterians have no church, for they hleave no ministry; for they have no ordination; for they have no bishop.
High (lChurch Episcopacy is open to serious objections.  It lavs grievous
burdens upon its advocates.  But it is consistent.  If we held High Church
prenisses, we should hold High Church conclusions,'too. We have great respect
for the learning, piety and devotion of high church leaders.  But apostolic suece.ssion is the proton pseu(Io,' of the system.  It is well that the Reformed Episcopalians liave rejected the dogma.  Ilad they retained it they would have made
slhipwreck of their cause, and their separation firom the "Protestant Episcopal
chllurch" would have been  nc(,alled fotr.
The parity of the ministry, then, is our first principle.  All ministers are
on a level.  The youn,g man has as good a right to vote as the old man.  Neither
gray hlairs, nor a doctorate in divinity, nori a large salary, nor a metropolitan pulpit, gives anly man a place an inch above the young man, the untitled man, or
the minister of a rural charge.   I do not mean that every man's opinion has the
samlne weight.  Men differ in brains, in industry, in spiritual power, in ripeness
of experience, in their competency to speak upon and deal with different subjects,
and it is right that these elements should be taken into account in the respect
which is accorded to them. But there is no10 official superiority recognized in the
Presbyterian church.
2.  Popular Governmient.  We believe that the people have  a right to be 
10
heard in the management of the church's affairs. Everything which concerns the
management of the church's spiritual affairs is, on Presbyterian principles, the
joint action of the ministers and the people. We'are not always understood in this
respect.  By our Congregational brethren our system is sometimes looked upon
as a hierarchy. Now, the difference between us and our Congregational brethren
in this respect, grows mainly out of the third principle, which I shall announce
presently. The people have a right to be heard. Presbyterians say this as
strongly as Congregationalists.   The difference between  us is in regard to
the question, HTow shall they be heard? Directly, or by representatives? Shall
these parties be received into membership? Shall these be dismissed? Is
this man accused of wrong deserving of censure, or is he not? Shall we sing as
a congregation or by proxy? All these are questions on which the people have
a right to an opinion.  Only in the Presbyterian church they express it by their
representatives, the Elders.
The representative system which we have adopted provides for the expression
of the popular will. A Congregational church mnight elect and ordain Elders
and commit the management of its affairs to them without destroying its Congregational character. The elders of a Presbyterian church are the representatives of the people, appointed by them to act for them in the management of
their spiritual interests. That is a simple matter. Says our Form of Government, chapter v.: " Ruling elders are properly the representatives of the people,
chosen by themn for the purpose of exercising government and discipline in
conjunction with pastors or ministers."
In our church we set great store by the eldership. To their prudence, piety
and wisdom, the church, under God, owes, in very great degree, her peace, purity
and prosperity.  They are men upon whom the minister can rely for cool judg 
11
ment, sound advice, and hearty co-operation; and he is a foolish minister who
goes outside the circle of the session for counsel, or who seeks to act independently of his constitutional advisers. In these days, when the pastoral office is
generally of brief and always of uncertain tenure, the eldership should become
even more important. The elders are permanent. Their families belong to the
church. They have an interest not only in the cause of Christ generally, but in
the cause of Christ as promoted by the particular church of which they are members. Congregations would do well to be jealous of the honor due to the elders,
and on no account should the eldership be treated as an office co-ordinately
related to the trusteeship, as it sometimes is.  It would add greatly we believe
to the efficiency of our church, as well as to the comfort and success of her ministers, if throughout our land the sessions were willing to assume or free to
exercise to the full the duties of their office.   But if this were done at once it
would be a revolution.
3. Ecclesiastical Unity. The only debatable ground on the subject of church
polity, lies, in my judgment, between Presbyterianism and Congregationalism.
Prelacy has not a leg to stand upon,- scripturally. I do not say that the Episcopal form of government has no excellencies, or that men have no right to
adopt it. What I do say is that a ministry of three orders cannot be found in
the N-ew Testament. The only battle is between Congregationalists and Presbyterians. And the real difference between Congregationalists and Presbyterians
lies in the meaning of the word church. The idea and the error of Congregationalism is the doctrine of absolute congregational independence.
Out and out Congregationalism is not the prevailing system in this country
among the Congregational churches. But the principle of Congregational polity
is that every congregation is independent. It can manage its own affairs; elect, 
ordain, install and dismiss its pastors as it pleases; try, acquit, censure, excommunicate offenders beyond hope of redress; split, combine, swarm, multiply'as
convenience or selfishness may suggest. Congregationalism of this radical type
is not the prevailing bform of Congregational polity in this land. Generally the
different Congregational Churches own a relationship to each other; the smaller
recognize the moral weight of the larger bodies, and though a Congregational
council has only advisory power, its decisions nevertheless receive serious consideration.  In a word, and we say it in no exultant tone, Congregationalism has
been more or less Presbyterianized, as in fact Presbyterianism niay have beeni to
some extent Congregatioiialized.
It would be easy to occupy time in the citations of texts and arguments in
defence of the positions taken in this sermon, but I shall do so only to a limited
exten t. The issue between Congregationalists and Presbyterians as to the
breadth of the word churcIt can only be settled b)y an examination of the passages ill the New Testament in which the word occurs.  Presbyterians are accustou'edl to argue, and it seems to me with a great deal of force, that the application
of the word to denote the Christians living in a city, is proof that its meaning is
not confined to those who worship statedly under the same roof. For example,
Paul does not speak of the churches of Ephesus, but of the c/urch of Ephesus.
On the Congregational theory, therefore, we are bound to believe that after Paul
had been preaching three years in that large city, there was only a handful of
converts who could get inside the walls of an ordinary dwelling for stated worship.  For you must remember that was before the day of large churches, it
was in fact at a time when churclh-going woutld not have been the safest thing in
the world either.  Similarly with the church of Jerusalem -church, mark, not
churches, though three thousand people were converted in one day, and that was
12 
13
before the day of "tabernacles."  I might cite other examples, but these are
sufficient to show that the word " church" is not a synonym for congregation.
Indeed a leading Congregationalist divine in England, Dr. Stoughton, has con ceded as much in his able essav on "The Primitive Ecclesia."  His view is that
all Christians living within the bounds of a imunicipality ought to be embraced
under the word church.  As if all the Christians in Chicago were, kniown as the
Church of Chicago, and were absolutely independent of churchles outside the
corporate limits of our city.  This view is to be sure not Presbyterian, but it is
fatal to Congregationalism. The inioment the principle is accepted that all the
congregations in a city are or may be under corporate jurisdiction the absolute
character of Congregationalism has passed away. The difference between us and
our Congregational brethren in the interpretation of the word e(clesi,a makes the
(lifference in the two systems of ecclesiastical polity which are so apparent.
With them, each congregation mainages its own affairs, calls whom it pleases and
retains his services as long as it pleases.  It gives no account to any higher judicatoriv of its actions, and has no tribunal of aii authoritative kind before whom
the aggrieved can appear.  Our view of the matter entails upon us a great deal
of machinery and restrains our libertv.  We are not as independent  as Congregationalists are.  We are not so irresponsible.  The question is whether this loss
of liberty is made up by- counter-balancing advantages. We cannot install a
pastor without the concurrence of Presbytery. We cannot dissolve the pastoral
relation without its sanction.  Nay, we neither form it nor dissolve it.  Presbytery does botl). Of course the great reason -which we have for advocating
Presbyterianism is that it is scriptural.  We believe in the divine right of Presbytery.  But there are obvious advantages coinnected with our system of polity.
1.  It protects the church against unreasonable divisions.  In the Congrega 
14
tional system a church may colonize just when it pleases. When men are
offended, or not suited, the most ready way of settling the difficulty is to build a
new church under the eaves of the old one, to be an eye-sore to the minister and
people of the old congregation.  "That is the beauty of our system," say the
Congregationalists. But that depends very much upon your point of view. It
is a very simple matter of arithmetic to show that a given number of people who
can barely support one pastor are unequal to the task of supporting two, when
supporting two means erecting another edifice, paying two sextons, two gas bills,
two fuel bills, two organists, and sometimes two choirs, for churches usually get
ambitious under these circumstances. Now the system which allows the undue
multiplication of churches is an unjust one.  When  a congregation becomes
large enough to divide without injury to the pastor, it is right enough to do so;
but until it does, division is unkind, and unkind because it puts a yoke of care
around the neck of a man who has care enough without the additional anxiety
of asking, "What shall I eat, what shall I drink, and wherewithal shall I
be clothed? " That is why I like the Presbyl erian system. It can say to those
who contemplate a new enterprise: "No, there is no room for another church in
your town.  You are unable to do justice to one pastor, and it is folly for you to
attempt the support of two."
2. Another advantage of our system is, that it gives opportunity to every
man of having justice done him. We have a gradation of courts. First, the
Session, composed of the minister and the ruling elders; then the Presbytery,
composed of all the ministers of a district, and an elder from each congregation;
then the Synod, composed of a number of presbyteries; and then the General
Assembly, which is a representative body made up of commissioners from all the
Presbyteries of our church. Every decision of an inferior adjudicatory may 
15
come before the higher courts in one of four ways: by appeal, complaint, refer ence, and review; and control. If a man is unjustly dealt with in the Session, he
can be heard in Presbytery; if' dissatisfied with the action of Presbytery, he can
apl)peal to Synod; if the Synod will not sustain him, he can appeal to the General
Assembly, and by that time, if the judgment is still adverse, hlie should be ready
to admit that he is wrong, or to bear his grievance in silence.
3.  Our system makes provision for doctrinal purity on the part of its ministers. Nothing is said against the character of a man if it is'affirmed that his
theological views are unsound. Men differ materially in regard to what soundness is. Now the Presbyterian Church has a creed. All her ministers profess
adherence to it. All Christians would not mnake a creed just like ours. We
know as a matter of fact they do not.  And we do not think the less of them as
Christians for that either. But our church has a creed, and along with the great
verities in which all Christians agree, are to be found the doctrines which are peculiar to us, and which justify our denominational existence. Our form of government is constructed on the supposition that men are not only free but "mutable."
It contemplates the possibility that men will depart from thile faith, and it provides a constitutional way whereby an exercise of an individual's right to change
his belief may not imperil the doctrinal purity of the Church.
4.  It will appear to anyone studying our system, how compact and symmetrical it is; how completely it answers the ends of popular government with such
wise centralization of authority as is necessary to make any government efficient.
In every matter which affects the interests of the Church, the people have a
voice, and act through their representatives.  This popular element goes into
every department of the Presbyterian system. Ministers and elders sit together
ill every court, consult in every commnittee, and in the session the popular ele 
. 16
ment largely predominates.   Yet the power is centralized.  Take, for instance,
the working of the affairs of a congregation.  Everything in the management
of a church, so far as worship is concerned, is in the hands of the session.
Unnecessary questions are sometimes asked as to the extent of the session's jurisdiction.  Some  seem to favor the idea of putting some interests out of the
session's reach, and of appointing extra committees to share the session's respon
sibilities.  Some are disposed to regard the Sabbatli-sclool as a separate institution.  Some think the choir gallery is meant to hold another select committee,
with powers which place them beyond sessional jurisdiction.  zNow the truth is,
that the men whom  the people elect to consult for the interest of the  church,
and who are solemnly set apart- to the oe of ruling elder, are the mien who
should mianage the churchll's affairs.  And to talce Day department of church work
out of their hands and away friom  their jurisdiction is not only ulnpresbyterialn,
but is an indication of a want of respect for the ordained office bearers of the
church.  Everything pertaining to spiritual atfaiirs that can in ally way be made
a matter of legislation belongs, according to our system, to tlhe session. AWhetlher
members shall be received into ()r dismissed firom  a church; whlethier  a certain
mode of instruction shall be adopted in the Sabl)batlh-slciool; ihlietlier tlhe pastor
shall superintend the school or a substitute, and if a substitute, whether hlie shall be
appointed by the session or elected by the school; what collections for benevolent
purposes shall be taken up; whether the church b)uilding shall be used for other
than religious purposes; all these are questions of wlchlt the session has the right
to take cognizance.  And inasmnucll as the people in all other  matters speak
through their representatives, it is of great importance that the riglht men shoulld
fill the office of ruling elder, and that when elected and ordained, they shiould
have the respect and confidence of the congregation. 
I7
II. DOCTRINE.
Mliniisters and elders of the Presbyterian Church profess adherence in the
Westminster Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught
ill the Word of God.  It is a Calvinistic creed.  We believe in predestinationthe Trinity, the supreme divinity of Christ, total depravity, vicarious atonement,
justification by faith the eternal punishmtnent of the impenitent, etc.  Those who
sit under Presbyterian preaching will hear these doctrines preached.  While  a
man may reasonably be irritated when the minister does nothing but harp on
one string, preaching God's justice as if He had no mercy, or speaking of the law
as if there were no NTew Testamant, it is clearly unjust for him to be irritated at
the infusion of doctrinal statement which a faithful and judicious minister will
work into his sermons.
But the Confession of Faith subscribed to by ministers and elders is not
understood to be subscribed to by private members. This leads me to some
remarks on the idea of membershlip in the Presbyterian Church.  Members of
he visible church according to our standards are "believers and their children."
Now suppose a case.  A lady comes to me and says: "I would like to unite with
your church, but have difficulty with some of the doctrines."  I should say:  Do
you know that you are a sinner?  Do you know that you have a Saviour?  Do you
trust in the precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christs And if she should say,
"Yes, I do," I should say, Do you wish to take yowr place with God's people, and
join with them in commemorating our Lord's death?  And if she should say "I
do," I should say: Come into the church, it may be you will get light on these
other questions by and by. Any one whom I have reason to believe Christ
would admit into heaven, I would admit to the Lord's table.  And, therefore, I 
s18
would admit to the coimnmnnion table and receive into the chlrch many whose
theological views 1 colld not appll)rove, and wlll) (,'ild not sublscribe to the Confession of Faitlh.
We b)elieve, lloreo(ver, tlia-t tlle clildrec!l of l)elievers are also members of
the church, and, therefore, it is not stiictly c )froct to sp)eak of them  as joining
the cl,uvc/I.  Tlhey 1}elong t() the viUille 1c)l1 ty virtue  of tllcir relation to tie
lhousehold covenant.  Tliev t aie ictubers (ot'  ite cllllrcli, an(-  Ieiiig memlbers,
they lhav-e a right to the sacranments of the (.11cll'; to baptismn in tlheir infancy,
and to the ILorid's Supper whlen they reach,t sllital)le age, "if they be free from
scandal, appear soberi and steady, and hiave knowledge to discern the Lord's body."
This quotation firom our directory for worship) is to be followed up however  by
another which says that those who are admitted to) sealing ordinamces shlall lbe
"examined as to their knowledge and piety."
I have presented in outline the lead(ling characteristics of the Presbyterian
system  both in polity and doctrine.   In a(ddition to lwhat'has been said, it is to
l)e noticed that it lhas thlese consideratiolls to recmnmend it; its liberality and its
elasticity.
.,,
We do not unchlureli other denominiations, though preferringi our own.  We
do not say that Episcol)acy is not a proper form of chliurcl  goveirnment; we do
not deny that it has its excellencies.  If a Clhistian c()omiunnity wvishes a polity
which makes a great deal of three orders in the ministivr we have nlo objection.
We recognize the validity of' tlhe EIpiscopal o(rdination.  if meni prefer the Congregational mnode, sighl foi liberty, and cannot be at liomye in the Presbyterian
Church, we say, We do not agree with youii in this matter, but have no fault to
find.  We recognize the validity of Congregational ordination.  We do not deny
the validity of baptism by immersion, and if a man thinks he would  be more 
19
effectually bap)tized in a river than ill a basin I should not blame him  for applyilg to a Baptist minister.  It is the liberality of the Presbyterian Church, the
openi door which it offers to all who are Christ's, joined with strict conservatism
so far as its office-bearers are concerned. which constitutes in great mneasure the
strength of Presbyterianisiti.
And the system is elastic.  There is room for play of choice within the cardinal principles of Presbyterian polity.  The Presbyteiian Church and  the
Reformed Church are near aliii - only thleir catechlismr is the Ileidelburg, ours
the Westniilstei; they la\e a litulnrov, we  have  none; their ministers wear the
Geneva gown which our ministers have laid aside, thotiuglt some, we see, are putting tlein oil again.  The Presbyterian Churchl and  the MIethliodist Church  are
closely related, so fu as church governmenit is concerned; only their bishop  is a
sort of perpetual nioderator, vwhile oilur ioderatoi of Presbytery is changed every
six mionths.  The Reformed Episcop)al Churich in discarding the doctrine of
apostolic suceession, has eliminated the element which keeps Presbyterianism and
Episcopacy apart.
I do not kInonv how  tfar youI will a(gree wvith  me in these remarks.  If I
have presented Piesbyteriaiisin ill a more iil)eral aspect than you ]iave been
aceustoined to regr'id it, I callt only sayv that the views I haive presented can all
be verified at your pleasure b)N reerring to our lForm of government.  If I have
removed fi'om the minds of any tlie iml)ressioi that ours is a narrow, repressing
religion, I shall ble glad.  If I have saidl antltii (-g to increase your respect or
rouse your enithusiasm folr our system of doetrine al(] I)olity, I shall feel that I
have accomplished good.  Our IlChurch has a history of whiiel  we may be proud.
The history of Presbyterianisin is one of the giandiest clapters in the history of
civil liberty.  To the Presbyteriani Church is assi(gned the  high honor of being 
20
the earnest advocate and defender of that doctrinal systemn which  magnifies God
and makes His glory the end of the universe.  Our doctrines are true, and our
polity is scriptural, practical, wise, and consonant with the spirit of republican
government. What we need is not a change of creed or polity, but a full appre
ciation of the one and a faithful administration of the other. We have machinery
which is well adapted to the work we have to do.  It is only necessary for us
to put it into effective exercise, and go on, in harmony with our brethren of other
Christian names, to the conquest of the world for Jesus.
-t..t_kl 
....
'i-.
i,       i.