PAM. 
 
 SEAM. 
 
 Ollli ECCLESIASTICAL, POLITY. 
 
 
 A S E 11 M 0 N 
 
 
 DHI.IVFRPD BFFORR THE 
 
 SYNOD 
 
 OF NEW-YORK AND NEW-JERSEY. 
 
 
 IN THE 
 
 FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, BROOKLYN Y Y WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 25, 1856 
 
 i 
 
 li EY. 
 
 MY THK 
 
 EDWIN F. HATFIELD, D . D . , 
 
 PisVoR OF THR NORTH PRRSBTTERUS CHTROH, NEW-TORK 
 
 | 
 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE DIRECTION OF THE SYNOD 
 
 JOHN A 
 
 X EW-YOEK: 
 
 GRAY, PRINTER, 16 AND 18 JACOB STREET. 
 
 FIRE-PROOF BUILDINGS. 
 
 1 856. 
 

OUll ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 
 
 A S E E M 0 N 
 
 DELIVERED BBPORB TUE 
 
 SYNOD OF NEW-YORK AND NEW-JEUSEY, 
 
 IS TUB 
 
 FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, BROOKLYN, N. Y, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 18>G. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. EDWIX F. HATFIELD, D.D., 
 
 PASTOR OF THE NORTH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, NEW-YORK. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE DIRECTION OF THE SYNOD. 
 
 NEW-YORK: 
 
 ■JOHN A. GRAY, PRINTER, 16 AND 18 JACOB STREET. 
 
 FIRE-PROOF BUILDINGS. 
 
 1856. 
 

 
 ' 
 
 
 
<Dur ct-rdfsiastiral ^lolito 
 
 “ From which all the body, by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, 
 and knit together, increaseth with tko increase of God.” — C olos. 2 : 19. 
 
 A beautiful harmony pervades the works of God. Order 
 and symmetry characterize all the divine creations and opera- 
 tions. They are all perfect — absolutely and relatively ; com- 
 plete in all their parts, proportions, and combinations. “As 
 for God, his way is perfect.” 
 
 Of all the works of God, the last is the best, if best there can 
 be, where all is good and perfect in its kind. The greatest 
 achievement of divine wisdom, the greatest display of the grace 
 and the glory of God, the crowning work of the creation, was 
 the last. Man is the glory of God. The human frame, instinct 
 with life and thought, emotion and will, exhibits more of the 
 majesty of its Creator, than the wide earth itself, “ and the full- 
 ness thereof.” In the material of this curious mechanism, its 
 texture and shape ; in the composition and configuration of the 
 various bones and muscles, joints and ligaments, nerves and 
 sinews, veins and arteries ; in the construction of the aliment- 
 ary organs ; in the conformation of the heart and lungs, the 
 veins and arteries, the blood and other vital fluids ; in the nice 
 adjustment of the various membranes, the skin, the tongue, the 
 ear, the eye, the brain ; in each, in all, God is seen. How ad- 
 mirable the order, the symmetry, the beauty, the strength, as 
 well as the compactness, of the body “ fitly joined together and 
 compacted by that which every joint supplieth,” pervaded with 
 vital air, and actuated throughout by the living, thinking, self- 
 determining, all-controlling soul ! ITow strange the process by 
 
4 
 
 which this gifted being is produced, sustained, perfected ; by 
 which the infant becomes a man, and attains to the full matur- 
 ity of its stature, its strength, its capabilities and susceptibi- 
 lities; by which “all the body, by joints and bands having 
 nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the 
 increase of God !” 
 
 Such, in their kind, though inferior, are all the works of the 
 Divine Architect. Form, order, compactness, symmetry, 
 beauty, strength, more or less characterize all his creations — 
 the vegetable and the animal, the material and the immaterial, 
 the satellite and the planet, the sun and the system of suns. 
 The same unvarying laws control them all ; they act or subsist 
 in perfect harmony with the grand designs of the all-wise 
 Creator. 
 
 “All are but parts of one stupendous whole, 
 
 Whoso body Nature is, and God the souL” 
 
 The moral, not less than the natural, government of the Al- 
 mighty presents these aspects. The whole intelligent creation 
 of God constitutes but one immense empire. The various or- 
 ders of rational beings — thrones, principalities, and powers — 
 are subjects of the Great King, dependent on the will, and 
 controlled by the word, of the all- designing, all-seeing, and all- 
 governing Mind. “For in him we live, and move, and have 
 our being.” “For of him, and through him, and to him, are 
 all things.” 
 
 As a part of this vast community, and in fulfillment of the 
 one great plan, the human family subsist. Man is placed upon 
 the earth, not to isolate himself from his kind, but to act in 
 harmony with man, to attach himself to his race, and become 
 part and parcel of an organized and orderly community. The 
 offspring and the root, lie partakes of the nature, and depends 
 on the kind offices, of his fellow-man. He may not, must not, 
 can not, if ho would, be independent of his brother, lie was 
 made a social being, with endowments for society, with facul- 
 ties that can attain their proper growth, and find their full and 
 appropriate development, only in association — in the organized 
 fraternity. 
 
 “ Man iu society is like a flower 
 Blown in its native bed ; ’t is there alone 
 Ilis faculties, expanded in full bloom, 
 
 Sliino out; there only reach their proper use.” 
 
o 
 
 A careful attention to mutual rights and interests, a strict 
 observance of law and order, as well as the exercise of mutual 
 regard, are indispensable to the well-being of society. It must 
 have government. Law and order must be established. The 
 child must be under law to the parent; the servant to the mas- 
 ter; the scholar to the teacher; the subject to the ruler; the 
 citizen to the commonwealth ; the less to the greater. This it 
 is that keeps in motion, and binds in one, the universe of being. 
 This produces the harmony of the spheres. 
 
 11 Order is heaven’s first law.” 
 
 These general principles are, in the highest degree, appli- 
 cable to the great community of believers. “The general as- 
 sembly and church of the first-born which are written in 
 heaven,” are constituted in conformity to this essential law. 
 Every individual of this highest class of human society, how- 
 ever peculiar may be the circumstances by which he becomes 
 a child of God, is made, by the regenerating grace of God, one 
 of a household of common origin, common sympathies, com- 
 mon interests, aims and ends. “ Jerusalem is builded as a city 
 that is compacted together.” And such is the construction of 
 “the holy city, Xcw Jerusalem, coming down from God out 
 of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” 
 
 The redeemed from among men, of whatever age, clime, or 
 condition, are uniformly represented, in the book of revelation, 
 as one. They are an aggregate unit ; an orderly community, 
 of which the Son of God, “ the Author and Finisher of our faith,” 
 is the Governor. They are spoken of as members of the same 
 body, mutually subsistent, fitly compacted and knit together, 
 and to Christ their head, by joints and bands, deriving from 
 their head, life, health, and strength. “ The bread which we 
 break,” says Paul, “ is it not the communion of the body of 
 Christ ? For we, being many, are one bread and one body ; 
 for we are all partakers of that one bread.” “ For, as we have 
 many members in one body, and all members have not the 
 same office, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and 
 every one members one of another.” “ For, as the body is one 
 and hath many member’s, and all the members of that one body, 
 being many, are one body, so also is Christ ; for by one Spirit 
 are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gen- 
 
6 
 
 tiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been all made to 
 drink into one Spirit.” “Now ye are the body of Christ, and 
 members in particular.” He is “ the Head over all things to 
 the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all 
 in all.” The ministers of Christ are designed “for the edifying 
 of the body of Christ, till we all come, in the unity of the faith 
 and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, 
 unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,” 
 “ from whom the whole body, fitly joined together and com- 
 pacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the 
 effectual working in the measure of every part, maketli increase 
 of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” “ For we are 
 members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” He is 
 “the Head, from which all the body, by joints and bands hav- 
 ing nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with 
 the increase of God.” 
 
 Such are the beautiful illustrations, and so forcible, by which, 
 on various occasions, are divinely exhibited the coherency, 
 compactness, order, symmetry, and unity of the household of 
 believers. They are applied now to the whole family, and then 
 to a particular branch of the family; now to the universal 
 Church, and then to an organized association of Christian dis- 
 ciples of the same vicinity, meeting together for the stated 
 worship of God. The true followers of Jesus, however divided 
 and separated, one from another, by physical barriers, or con- 
 ventional arrangements, are one commonwealth, bound toge- 
 ther in faith, and love, and the order of the Gospel ; united to 
 Christ, their common Lord, as the body to the head ; and from 
 him deriving their light, life, and vigor. By him they are also 
 united to each other — are members one of another ; each be- 
 liever, of his particular church; and each particular church, of 
 the .community of churches in the city, province, state, or na- 
 tion, — in the w r orld. None are, or can be, independent of others ; 
 no church, of other churches ; no part, of the whole. A bond 
 of brotherhood, mightier than in all mere earthly associations, 
 binds them together in one. Made “ partakers of the divine 
 nature,” they are made partakers of each other ; and so are, and 
 are to be, more or less visibly, “fitly joined together and com- 
 pacted,” “by joints and bands,” and knit together in one mind 
 and heart, and spirit. 
 
These principles, so fully exhibited in the word of God, are 
 to be kept in view in the determination of the outer form of 
 the Christian Church. To every organization of human society, 
 must, in the nature of things, be given some particular shape. 
 Formless it can not be. If the followers of Christ associate for 
 the maintenance of public worship, and the celebration of the 
 divinely-instituted ordinances, as the Gospel plainly requires, 
 they must have some particular form and order of organization. 
 All forms are not alike adapted to secure a particular end. 
 Some are far more likely than others to effect a specified object. 
 To say, with the bard of Twickenham, 
 
 “ For forms of government, let fools contest ; 
 
 Whate’er is best administered is best,” 
 
 may seem to savor of a large-hearted catholicity ; but such a 
 saying can not stand the test of experience, and is proved false 
 on every page of human history. Those are the best forms 
 that most readily and most surely promote the true ends of 
 government, whether in Church or state. Such forms have 
 been found and tried, in respect to the state. Such may be 
 found for the Church. 
 
 Numerous systems of church polity have been devised and 
 adopted for the government of the household of faith. The 
 most of them are, by their advocates, represented as taught or 
 sustained by the Scriptures. These representations can not all 
 be correct. Some of them are at fault. The very fact of so 
 much variety would seem to indicate a want of precision, in 
 this respect, on the part of the sacred writers. It may be, that 
 a slight diversity of form prevailed among the churches founded 
 by the apostles and their associates, according as the churches 
 were composed of Jews or Gentiles, Greeks or Romans. The 
 circumstances of the people, the peculiarities of the place, the 
 customs of the nation, may have had much to do in determin- 
 ing, if not the kind, yet the minor details, of their ecclesiastical 
 organizations. Such was unquestionably the fact. Much that 
 pertained to form was left to be developed, as always, by a 
 fuller experience of the necessities of the case. 
 
 But, if it be admitted that no one form of church govern- 
 ment is clearly and undeniably indicated in the written word, 
 are there not principles there inculcated, from which we can 
 
8 
 
 gather the system, in whole, or in part, which is best adapted 
 to secure the ends for which the Church of Christ is constituted ; 
 the system that is best conformed to the teachings and prac- 
 tices of the apostles, and most conducive to the healthful 
 growth of the Church in truth and goodness? We are Presby- 
 terians — an organic body of Christians, professing a common 
 faith, practising a common worship, and submitting to a com- 
 mon form of government. In the good providence of God, the 
 pastors and delegates of our churches assembled in solemn 
 convocation, nearly seventy years ago, and, after full consider- 
 ation, adopted “a plan of government and discipline,” for “the 
 Presbyterian Church in the United States of America by 
 which plan, or polity, amended subsequently in some minor 
 particulars, our Church, in the administration of its ecclesias- 
 tical affairs, has been governed to the present day. Are the 
 principles, by which our fathers were guided in the adoption of 
 our ecclesiastical polity, conformed to the general principles 
 of the inspired word, and such as are best adapted to secure 
 the true ends of church government ? 
 
 What are the main principles of our ecclesiastical polity ? 
 They may be grouped in a few particulars. 
 
 I. The unity and universality of the Church of Christ. 
 
 It never entered into the minds of the framers of our consti- 
 tution to limit the grace of God to their own communion. 
 They had their particular views of theological truth, and dif- 
 fered on many points of faith from their brethren of other deno- 
 minations. They were ardently attached to their time-honored 
 and simple forms of worship. They had long practised, and 
 fully tested, the order and discipline to which they gave at 
 that time a wider expansion. They greatly preferred these 
 forms to all others. But they had no thought of saying, in the 
 self-righteous language of ancient Israel, “ The temple of the 
 Lord — the temple of the Lord — the temple of the Lord arc 
 these !” They regarded themselves and their churches as but 
 a branch of the true vine, but an humble part of the twelve 
 tribes of Israel. They asserted, for their faith and order, no 
 monopoly of gospel grace, no exclusive occupancy of the fold 
 
0 
 
 of “ the Good Shepherd.” Most gladly did they recognize the 
 cheering fact, so beautifully expressed by their Lord, “ Other 
 sheep I have which are not of this fold.” They extended, 
 therefore, the fellowship of a common brotherhood to “all that 
 in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, 
 both theirs and ours.” 
 
 This universal brotherhood they regarded, very properly, in 
 a twofold aspect — as visible and invisible ; as seen, and heard, 
 and known of men ; or as seen by the heart-searching God. The 
 former they recognized as embracing the wliolc body of pro- 
 fessed believers ; the latter, only such as God knows to be his. 
 They discriminated, by this distinction, between the true and 
 the false, the precious and the vile, the clean and the unclean, 
 the genuine and the counterfeit ; according to that scripture : 
 “ lie is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that cir- 
 cumcision which is outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew which 
 is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the 
 spirit and not in the letter ; whose praise is not of men, but of 
 God.” 
 
 “ The catholic or universal Church which is invisible,” they 
 say, “ consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, 
 are, or shall be, gathered into one, tinder Christ, the head 
 thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that 
 filleth all in all.”* This definition is clearly conformed to the 
 oracles of divine truth. This is the Church that the Redeemer 
 “ purchased with his own blood,” “ 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 
 Avithout blemish.” It comprehends the church militant and 
 the church triumphant ; all the regenerate that are, and that 
 are to be, on the earth, of all nations, tribes, and kindred; Avith 
 all the ransomed host in glory. This includes not a feAv 
 who have been denied a place in the visible church ; and some, 
 too, whom the weakness of their faith, or feebleness of their 
 hope, or the wrath of man, or the want of opportunity, has kept 
 from a profession of the true faith. It excludes a vast number, 
 who, in ignorance, or hypocrisy, or by virtue of their birth and 
 lineage, or by intimidation, have been brought within the pale 
 
 * Conf. of Faith, xxv.. 1. 
 
10 
 
 of an external Christianity. This invisible Church is the true 
 Church — the only one. None but they who have been chosen, 
 called, regenerated, and justified by the Holy Spirit, are, or 
 can be, the children of God and heirs of heaven. All such, 
 however regarded by man, and in whatever ecclesiastical con- 
 nection they are found, Papist or Protestant, Prelatical or Pu- 
 ritan, belong to this honored brotherhood. Nor can one of 
 them be cut off, or cast out, by any authority or ordinance of 
 man, by excision, exclusion, or excommunication, from “ the 
 general assembly and church of the first born.” The hypo- 
 crite, the unregenerate, the children of the wicked one, may 
 find, and in all ages have found, their way into the church visi- 
 ble ; into the church invisible, never. 
 
 The church visible, according to the symbols of our fathers, 
 “ is also catholic or universal under the Gospel, not confined to 
 one nation, as before under the law,” and “consists of all those 
 throughout the world that profess the true religion, with their 
 children.”* As this catholic or universal church is not limited, 
 as of old, by blood or national affinities, neither is it by terri- 
 torial or denominational boundaries. All of every name, “ in 
 all ages and places of the world,” who “profess the true reli- 
 gion,” are enfolded within its ample bosom. None are ex- 
 cluded ; or may arrogate to themselves the sole occupancy of 
 the house of God. If asked, “ Which, the Episcopal or the 
 Presbyterian, is the true Church?” we reply, “Neither:” just 
 as the foot is not the body, as the door is not the house, as a 
 part is not the whole. We find the visible church wherever 
 “ the true religion” is professed. We accord to all professing 
 Christians a place in this lower house, but not the house itself. 
 W T e meet them all on the broad platform of a common Christ- 
 ianity. No figment of apostolical succession, or of prelatical 
 grace, separates us from other branches of the Church of Christ; 
 nor yet a peculiar administration of one of the ordinances. We 
 know nothing of “ close communion.” To the sacramental 
 board, the common heritage of the Church, we receive, and 
 welcome with open arms, the whole household of faith. We 
 “believe in the Catholic Church,” excluding none who hold 
 the Head. In the highest sense, ours is a catholic polity. 
 
 Put, in these admissions, we are far from making light of 
 
 * Conf. of Faith, xxv., 2. 
 
11 
 
 theological differences. Some portions of the visible church 
 partake more of the spirit of the Master, and conform more 
 fully to the truth, than others. “ This Catholic Church,” we 
 maintain, “hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. 
 And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more 
 or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught 
 and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship 
 performed, more or less purely in them.” * “ The purest 
 
 churches under heaven,” as we believe, “are subject both to 
 mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become 
 no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.”f In accord- 
 ance with these views, we do not hesitate to speak of “ the Pope 
 of Rome,” as “ that antichrist, that man of sin and son of per- 
 dition, that exalteth himself in the Church, against Christ, and 
 all that is called God.”;}: Our large-hearted charity does not 
 
 require us to regard the Papacy as the true Church, or even a 
 part of it; nor to recognize the ministers of antichrist as a part 
 of the true ministry. With the most strenuous of the anti- 
 Papal portions of the Church of Christ, we protest against its 
 unfounded claims, and unrighteous usurpations. We hold to 
 the Catholic Church ; but deny that the Roman, or the Greek, 
 or the Anglican, is, has been, or can be, the one only Church 
 of Christ. We abjure alike the Papal and the Prelatical ap- 
 propriation of the channels of divine grace. We are Catholics, 
 but not Roman Catholics. We are Presbyterians, but Christ- 
 ians more, “fellow citizens with the saints” of every name, 
 “ and of the household of God.” 
 
 Our system also recognizes, 
 
 II. The subdivision of the Catholic Church into particular 
 churches. 
 
 The necessity of such a distinction is obvious. “As this im- 
 mense multitude,” who constitute the universal Church, “ can 
 not meet together, in one place, to hold communion, or to wor- 
 ship God, it is reasonable, and warranted by Scripture example, 
 that they should be divided into many particular churches.Ӥ 
 
 * Conf. of Faith, xxv., 4. 
 
 * Conf. of Faith, xxv., G. 
 
 f Conf. of Faith, xxv., 5. 
 § Form of Gov., il, 3. 
 
12 
 
 The ii(iiA7jOLa of the sacred writers, though properly denoting a 
 convocation or assembly, is, at times, to be understood of the 
 whole body of believers. More commonly, however, it is to 
 be received literally, as denoting a particular congregation of 
 real or professing Christians. The Scriptures speak of “the 
 churches of God,” “ of Christ,” “ of the saints,” “ of the Gen- 
 tiles,” “of Judea,” “of Asia,” “of Galatia,” and “of Mace- 
 donia;” “the church of Ephesus,” “of Smyrna,” “of Sardis,” 
 and others. 
 
 Any number of Christian people “professing the true reli- 
 gion,” and meeting statedly for the worship of God and for the 
 administration of Christian ordinances, is a church, whatever 
 may be the peculiarities of their discipline, or the mode of their 
 organization. They may be more or less pure in faith, and 
 scriptural in worship ; more or less conformed, in their eccle- 
 siastical order, to the apostolical model ; and yet be entitled to 
 the rights and privileges of a Christian church. 
 
 “ This principle,” says a recent writer, “ is not only funda- 
 mental and organific, but really distinctive in the Congrega- 
 tional theory,” as distinguished not only “from that of the Pre- 
 latist,” but “the Presbyterian” also. ¥e are told, on the 
 same authority, that our system, “ as strictly interpreted by its 
 standards,” “does not even recognize the existence of local 
 churches, but only of one comprehensive and general Church, 
 in which there are embraced distinct congregations;” and that 
 “ it holds certain antecedent processes, conducted by the mem- 
 bers of a specified order, to be essential to their correct and 
 scriptural existence.”* 
 
 Passing by the implied contradiction in these two affirma- 
 tions, we have only to appeal to the very language of our 
 standards, to show how easy it is for a zealous sectary to deceive 
 himself and others, in a blind partiality for his own communion. 
 Our polity knows as little of the “ consolidation of churches 
 into a mass,”f as that with which it is so unfavorably contrasted. 
 Our Form of Government treats of the “ ordinances in a parti- 
 cular church,” “ regularly constituted with its proper officers ;” 
 “ of the church session ” as the officers “ of a particular congre- 
 gation ;” of “ a church ” “ without a pastor,” and of the watch 
 
 * “Congregationalism, by Richard S. Storrs, Jr.,” pp. 11, 13. 
 
 f “Congregationalism.'’ p. 37. 
 
13 
 
 to be kept over “ the members of the church," by “ the church 
 session.” It requires, at the installation of officers in a parti- 
 cular congregation, an answer to the question, “ Do you, the 
 members of this church, acknowledge and receive this broth- 
 er,” or these brethren ? It specifies that candidates for the min- 
 istry are to be “ regular members of some particular church 
 shows how a bishop is to “bo translated from one church to 
 another,” and what “ any church desiring to call a settled min- 
 ister,” is to do ; and says, that the installment, in such a case. 
 “ consists in constituting a pastoral relation between him and 
 the people of that particular church.”* It uses the words, 
 “congregation” and “church” indiscriminately, as denoting 
 the particular, or local, association of believers in a covenant 
 relation. 
 
 Our system, “ as strictly interpreted by its standards,” there- 
 fore, recognizes not only “one comprehensive and general 
 Church,” as is right and proper, “ but, as really and truly as 
 the rival system, “ the existence of local churches,” having all 
 the appropriate functions of a church ; with a distinct member- 
 ship, associated by covenant ; with officers chosen by them- 
 selves; dependent on no other organization, or “specified order” 
 of individuals beyond and above them, for the administration 
 of the ordinances, for the exercise of internal discipline, and 
 for the management of their particular affairs. Strange as it 
 may seem to those who speak so disparagingly of the autonomy 
 of our congregations or churches, and so frequently ring the 
 changes upon “ the iron rule of Presbytery,” “ understanding 
 neither wliat they say nor whereof they affirm,” our Form of 
 Government nowhere specifies the mode of proceeding in the 
 organization of our particular churches ; nowhere defines the 
 “ antecedent processes ” of a regular formation, nor “the mem- 
 bers of a specified order ” through whom the organization is to 
 be effected ; nowhere speaks of any set forms as “ essential to 
 their correct and scriptural existence bnt leaves the people 
 to proceed in such a way as their own judgment may dictate. 
 “A particular church,” it says, “ consists of a number of pro- 
 fessing Christians, with their offspring, voluntarily associated 
 together for divine worship and godly living, agreeably to the 
 Holy Scriptures, and submitting to a certain form of govern- 
 
 * Form of Gov., vii., is., xiii., xiv., xvi. 
 
14 
 
 ment.”* * * § Nothing can be more liberal, or savor less of the 
 rigid rule of sect. 
 
 As has been said in praise of a rival system, we may say of 
 our own : “ There is no precise law and pattern of organization, 
 which must be adhered to, and a deviation from which inval- 
 idates the proceeding. The whole is a matter of free consent 
 and mutual adjustment. Upon the platform of their common 
 faith, the associated disciples, by their agreement with each 
 other, erect their own church organization ; an organization 
 complete within itself, and rightfully independent of every 
 other. ”f Not a word in our Constitution teaches otherwise. 
 The church may call in the aid of one or more of the ministry, 
 or apply to a Presbytery to aid them in their organization ; but 
 not necessarily. They may choose to associate with other 
 churches similarly constituted, or not. If they approve “ of the 
 government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in these 
 United States, they may be admitted to the fellowship of our 
 churches, and not a word asked as to the antecedent processes 
 of their formation. 
 
 To all intents and purposes, theoretically and practically, 
 each of our congregations of believers is a complete church 
 within itself — as truly so as a Congregational church. “ It is,” 
 to use the words of another, “ a young republic, having its 
 popular assemblies, its delegated representatives, its local tri- 
 bunal, its independent by-laws, and the entire and exclusive 
 management of all matters which are purely local. Each con- 
 gregation is thus a commonwealth, as truly as each synod. It 
 has its own important and independent sphere of action, and is 
 a type of the general government of the whole Church. Here 
 the laity — the people — rule and reign.”§ 
 
 The same necessity of mutual watchfulness, that prompts the 
 individual Christian to associate himself with other Christians 
 by covenant engagements, may prompt the individual church 
 to associate with other churches ; but it loses thereby nothing 
 of its prerogatives as a church of Christ. It is none the less a 
 church, because it enjoys the orderly fellowship of other simi- 
 
 * Form of Gov., ii., 4. 
 
 t “ Congregationalism,” pp. 28, 29. 
 
 t Form of Gov., xiii., 4. 
 
 § “Ecclesiastical Republicanism, by Thomas Smyth,” p. 81. 
 
15 
 
 lar organizations. It enjoys all the advantages of a Congrega- 
 tional church, and more. It secures, by our system, peculiar 
 privileges. What it loses of independency is of its own prefer- 
 ence, and is more than compensated by what it gains. 
 
 In holding these principles, and practically maintaining them, 
 as in all our churches, we can not see, as has been intimated, 
 that we are “ in advance of” our system ; or that our Form ol 
 Government has but “ little sympathy with the principle ” of 
 the completeness of its local churches. So far as the experience 
 of our denomination extends, we have yet to learn that any one 
 of our particular congregations is not every whit a church. 
 
 Advancing upon these principles, we recognize also, 
 
 III. An organized confederacy of particular churches. 
 
 The right of any number of similarly-constituted churches to 
 combine and associate together, under specified conditions not 
 involving a sacrifice of principle, for mutual edification, and for 
 the advancement of the common interests of truth and godli- 
 ness, can not be questioned. If, as claimed by the churches of 
 another denomination, “ each local society of believers, having 
 once, by its own act, been constituted as a church, is therefore 
 self-complete, and self-controlling, and rightfully independent 
 of the jurisdiction of others,”* then, surely, it may determine 
 for itself to form a partnership with others similarly organized. 
 The right of self-control must include the right of forming alli- 
 ances with others ; as in the case of the sexes and the conjugal 
 union ; as in the case of mercantile partnerships ; or as in the 
 union of political states. If this right be denied to other 
 churches, we claim for our own a higher liberty, a better sys- 
 tem of ecclesiastical polity, more complete, and, to say the 
 least, not less scriptural. 
 
 Nothing in God’s word, whether of precept or practice, de- 
 nies this right to the local church, or forbids its exercise. Much 
 appears in both to favor it. The Jewish Church was one body. 
 Whatever were the provisions for keeping up the worship of 
 God on the Sabbath, previous to the captivity, and however 
 extensively synagogues, or churches, were organized subse- 
 
 * “Congregationalism,” p. 27. 
 
16 
 
 cjuently, the people were one, and their Church one. A parti- 
 cular community of Israelites, residents of the same neighbor- 
 hood, might hand together as a an eMchTjota, a congrega- 
 tion, a church; and meet statedly, on the Sabbath and at other 
 times, for the celebration of divine worship ; and possess all the 
 elements of completeness as an organized association ; yet they 
 did not thereby cease to be part and parcel of that ecclesiastical 
 commonwealth, the pattern of which was shown in the holy 
 mount, extending over the whole land of Israel. It formed no 
 part of the divine counsel to institute a system of local organiz- 
 ations, each of which should be rightfully and actually sub- 
 ject to no extraneous control, under law to no higher organiza- 
 tion, nor in any sense amenable to other churches, “ except as 
 it freely submits to and invites”* their counsel on special 
 occasions. The chosen people of God were bound together by 
 the strong bonds of family, kindred, tribe, and a common pro- 
 genitor, in the ecclesiastical as well as the political common- 
 wealth. 
 
 The first Christian churches were gathered out of the Jewish 
 Church. As followers of Christ they had been taught by their 
 Lord to look upon themselves as members one of another; that, 
 under the new dispensation, believers were more one than 
 ever ; that, instead of being released from the obligation of a 
 visible recognition of brotherhood, a far higher obligation now 
 rested on them, as partakers of divine grace, to give a practical 
 demonstration of their oneness with Christ and with each other. 
 Their inspired teachers urged upon them this specific duty. 
 They illustrated this oneness by a reference, as we have seen, 
 to the human body. They taught, not merely that the individ- 
 ual was one with the members of a local church, as at Phil- 
 ippi, or Corinth, but that every local church was itself but an 
 inseparable member of the body of believers, as truly as the 
 hand, or the foot, of the human body ; that none were independ- 
 ent of others. 
 
 Accordingly, wo find them banding together as one, for the 
 promotion of a common cause, the advancement of the Ile- 
 dcemer’s kingdom. They were more in number, even in Jeru- 
 salem, than could meet together statedly for the worship of 
 God, and yet they were but one Church, though composed of 
 
 * “ Congregationalism," p. 28. 
 
17 
 
 many congregations. Surrounded by eager foes, ever watchful 
 for their destruction, they felt the need of combination, of mu- 
 tual assistance in every practicable form. Their common 
 interests are made the care of all. Councils or synods are 
 convened, occasionally at first, and then statedly, for advisement 
 and adjudication. They recognize a higher jurisdiction than 
 the brotherhood of a local church. They act on the grand 
 principle, that particular congregations, made such by local 
 necessities, are but parts of one great ecclesiastical common- 
 wealth, embracing all of every name and nation who confess 
 Christ before men. This principle is thus early incorporated 
 into their whole polity, and transmitted to successive genera- 
 tions. It has been adopted, from that day to the present time, 
 by all branches of the visible Church, save the Brown ists 
 and Independents, and, it may be, some few fragmentary sects 
 of but little note. 
 
 Neither the teaching of Scripture, therefore, nor the practice 
 of the early churches, militates, in the slightest degree, against 
 the right and privilege of entering, on the part of a particular 
 church, into a permanent confederacy with other churches. It 
 is an inherent right. If deemed expedient, in a particular case, 
 country, or communion, it may be exercised. The Great 
 Charter, from which all our churches derive their constitution, 
 favors it. It seems to grow out of the very fundamental prin- 
 ciples of the Bible. 
 
 The question, then, of an organized confederacy of churches 
 becomes, in a measure, one of expediency. Is it best for the 
 congregations of an extended communion to be thus banded 
 together? Are there important ends to be secured without 
 hazard to Christian liberty, by such an arrangement? If gov- 
 ernment is needed in the smaller circle, is it not in the larger? 
 If in the family, is it not in the community of families ? May 
 every household set itself up to be independent of all others ; 
 and every hamlet, village, town, or city make the same demand ? 
 Is it thus that well-ordered and prosperous states are consti- 
 tuted and conducted ? Man is the same, whether in the church 
 or the state. The principles, applicable to his government in 
 the one, are just as applicable in the other. Society, ecclesias- 
 tical as well as political, needs to be bound together by visible 
 joints and bands. Why is it that, not only in monarchical 
 
18 
 
 Europe, but even in republican America, in democratic New 
 England, the system of confederation pervades the whole body 
 politic? Families of diverse origin, whose lot is cast in the 
 same general vicinity, prompted by a very natural regard for 
 their common welfare, resolve themselves into an organized 
 municipality — a town, a borough, a city. The several towns 
 of the same locality, in order to guard against encroachment, 
 and to provide for mutual interests, assume the form of a comi- 
 tatus , or county ; counties become states ; and states or common- 
 wealths, a confederated republic, a consolidated nation, a king- 
 dom, an empire. 
 
 The necessity of such a system, in order to the peace, the 
 comfort, the freedom, and the progressive development of the 
 human family, in all matters pertaining to the body politic, will 
 not be questioned by the American people. We have no 
 thought of any other system. We are theoretically and prac- 
 tically republicans — nothing but republicans. The principle is 
 embodied in the Constitution of every one of the States ; and 
 particularly in the Constitution of the United States, that 
 “• guarantees to every State in this Union a republican form of 
 government.”* This great exponent of republicanism, suscep- 
 tible as it may be of slight amendments, we justly regard as 
 the charter of our rights, the palladium, not of bondage, but 
 of freedom. In the providence of God, it has been the salva- 
 tion, as it is the glory, of our land. At a period of distrust, 
 depression, and wide-spread bankruptcy, when discord and 
 jealousy pervaded the land, when agricultural, manufacturing, 
 and commercial enterprise was almost extinguished, and ruin 
 hung like a pall over the country, the fathers met in council, 
 and sought a remedy for these impending evils. A govern- 
 ment must be devised and inaugurated, more stable and effi- 
 cient than the system of independency then prevailing. What 
 shall it be ? 
 
 It never entered into the thoughts of the most ultra-demo- 
 cratic of that memorable convention, that the best possible 
 government for the millions of the American people would be 
 a return to the simple forms of the town-meeting; to a system 
 in which every little knot of neighbors, banding together as a 
 municipality, is to be perfectly “ independent of the jurisdic- 
 
 * Art. IV., Sec. 4. 
 
19 
 
 tion of .all others “ where the influences exerted ” by these 
 communities “ over one another are moral merely, and not 
 magisterial ; where each is held to be free from the control of 
 all the others, free even from any interference on their part, 
 except as it assents to and invites it.; where all, in a word, 
 while allied closely by confidence and friendship, by kindred 
 impulses and similar aims, are uncombined in any structure of 
 laws, and, therefore, though free to advise, are not at liberty 
 to dictate,”* the only visible exemplification of fellowship and 
 union being an “occasional call of each upon the others for 
 counsel and advice.”f This system, the boast of Independency, 
 from one of whose most zealous advocates this description is 
 taken, had in part prevailed too long in the State, and was 
 itself one of the evils under which the country groaned. As a 
 political theory, it could not have been put into practice even 
 where embraced ecclesiastically. 
 
 “In order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, 
 insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, 
 promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liber- 
 ty to themselves and their posterity, the people of the United 
 States ordained and established a political Constitution, which 
 to this day has withstood every assault, and been the greatest 
 bulwark of political freedom. It has made of numerous sove- 
 reign States one united people, binding together their discord- 
 ant interests, prompting them to consult and labor for the com- 
 mon weal, and giving them character and influence in the 
 household of nations. It has made us, by the blessing of God, 
 a prosperous, powerful, and happy people. It has secured to 
 the individual, and to the humblest of the States, the utmost 
 liberty consistent with safety and strength, guarding them from 
 all encroachment. Well may we prize it, cherish it, cling to it, 
 and plead with the God of nations that it may be perpetual, 
 lie that would rend it in twain is a foe to his country, an ene- 
 my to man. W e can not but frown on every attempt of every 
 demagogue, of every political faction, of every sectional party, 
 to disparage its principles, to pervert its obvious intent, or to 
 trample it in the dust. Perish the hand that is lifted against 
 
 * “Congregationalism,” p. 31. 
 
 f “Congregationalism,” p. 28. 
 
 t Preamble to the “ Constitution of the U. S. of A.” 
 
20 
 
 if ! Perish the politicians and the political party, -who, in de- 
 fiance of its manifest import and avowed purpose, its princi- 
 ples and its spoirit, use it as the instrument of a crushing oppres- 
 sion, a tool of tyranny, and a shield of despotic ambition ; or 
 madly conspire, in the failure of their visionary schemes, to 
 rend asunder, what God has so manifestly joined together, the 
 States of the American Union ! 
 
 The Church, more than the State, is, and should be, one. 
 By virtue of its divine constitution, it is compacted and knit 
 together in the bonds of a holy love. Its various portions have 
 common sympathies, relations, and interests. Reason, Scrip- 
 ture, and experience teach, that, where the churches of a terri- 
 tory, state, province, or nation, have the same or similar views 
 of doctrine, -worship, government, and discipline, it is both right 
 and wise to institute or adopt some organized mode of exhibit- 
 ing and confirming their union ; thereby also to secure the 
 rights, privileges, and interests which pertain to them as Christ 
 ians and churches, and which are ever liable to be brought 
 into jeopardy. 
 
 On these principles the framers of our ecclesiastical consti- 
 tution acted. They aimed to give embodiment as well as ex- 
 pression to the fellowship of the churches ; to deepen the inte- 
 rest of each in the other ; to furnish the most ample guarantees 
 of mutual regard ; to provide for the denomination a suitable 
 ministry ; to preserve them from the encroachments of ignor- 
 ance, superstition, inordinate ambition, and immorality in the 
 pulpit ; to secure the most abundant redress from the injustice 
 of intolerance and bigotry ; to guard in the most effectual man- 
 ner the right of private judgment, and to maintain the unfet- 
 tered exercise of Christian liberty. They sought to strengthen 
 each other’s hearts and hands in the good work of advancing 
 the kingdom of holiness in their own souls, and in the souls of 
 perishing men throughout the land and throughout the 
 world. 
 
 These men were staunch republicans and true patriots — 
 none more so — true friends of Washington and the American 
 Congress. They had laid their all on the altar of liberty — 
 periled every thing in their unwavering opposition to tyranny 
 and oppression. None more heartily and steadily maintained 
 the rights of the people as proclaimed, not in “glittering and 
 
*21 
 
 sounding generalities,”* but in 4i the words of truth and sober- 
 ness” embodied in the Declaration of Independence. John 
 Witherspoon, the scholar, the senator, and the divine, the 
 friend of freedom and the uncompromising foe of oppression, 
 was the fitting representative of the Presbyterian Church, when 
 he appended his name to that national protest. They accepted 
 his act as their own, and stood by him to the end. The men 
 who assembled in the Synod of New-York and Philadelphia in 
 17S6 and 17S7, by whom our ecclesiastical platform was 
 constructed, had but just come from the scenes of that memo- 
 rable struggle which gave freedom to the nation. At the very 
 time, when the fathers of the Pepublic were laying the founda- 
 tions and erecting the superstructure of our political Const! tu- 
 tion, the fathers of the Presbyterian Church were accomplish- 
 ing a similar work for their religious commonwealth. 
 
 The period was auspicious. Questions pertaining to the sci- 
 ence of human government had excited the utmost attention, 
 had been discussed most freely, and had been deeply pondered, 
 from the earlier stages of the great contest for freedom. The 
 ablest writers of the age were tasking their energies, and con- 
 tributing to the formation of a healthful public sentiment. 
 Xever before, at least on this side of the great sea, had the 
 human mind been so thoroughly roused in relation to human 
 rights. Jealous of their blood-bought liberties, and sensitive to 
 the last degree in the matter of ecclesiastical domination, hav- 
 ing but just escaped from the impending visitation of a lordly 
 hierarchy from a foreign shore, they were the last men in tin- 
 world to impose the yoke of an “ iron rule ” upon the necks of 
 their brethren. They were laymen as well as clergymen. 
 Genuine haters of popery and prelacy, they could not but favor, 
 and to their utmost promote the parity of believers, of church- 
 es, and of the ministry. 
 
 God alone,” they said, £l is the Lord of the conscience, and 
 hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men. 
 which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in 
 matters of faith or worship.” They maintained, therefore, 
 that “ the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect 
 religion,” are “ universal and unalienable ;” and u that in per- 
 fect consistency with ” this “ principle of common right, every 
 
 * Hon. Rufus Choate. 
 
22 
 
 Christian church, or union or association of particular church- 
 es, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its com- 
 munion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members, 
 as well as the whole system of its internal government which 
 Christ hath appointed.”* "What could be asked for more, even 
 by Independency itself? 
 
 The result of their deliberations is embodied in a written 
 Constitution, or form of government, discipline and worship, 
 conformed in a remarkable degree, as might have been expect- 
 ed, to the political system of our country, as well as to the 
 Scriptures of divine truth ; a Constitution in which, while the 
 rights of the individual, and of each particular church, are 
 carefully secured, the unity and the community of the whole 
 brotherhood of believers, and especially of the denomination, 
 are fully recognized and practically illustrated ; a Constitution 
 which, for all the important ends of church government and 
 discipline, may well challenge a comparison with any and every 
 other ; of which we have no need to be ashamed. 
 
 Some recognition of the fellowship of the churches, and 
 some responsibility on the part of particular churches, one to 
 another, are deemed necessary even among our Independent 
 and Congregational brethren. If we have our Presbyteries, 
 they have their Associations and Consociations, their Councils 
 and Conferences. If we have our Synods, they have their 
 General Conferences, Conventions and Associations. If we 
 have our General Assembly, they have their Cambridge, Say- 
 brook, and Albany Synods, or Congregational Unions. f Their 
 necessities, as well as ours, constrain them to the adoption of 
 these principles. 
 
 As individual believers need the watch and care of a con- 
 federated Church, united by “ solemn league and covenant ” 
 in one body, so, also, individual churches arc to regard them- 
 selves as members of the same body, and, by some visible or- 
 ganization, provide for their mutual inspection. As the lone 
 Christian is prone to wander and fall, so is the lone church. 
 The experience of the present, and of every past age, teaches 
 us, in the words of our Constitution, that “the purest churches 
 under heaven are subject both to mixture and error,” and may 
 
 * Form of Gov., i., 1, 2. 
 
23 
 
 be “ so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but 
 synagogues of Satan.”* If the fall of one professing Christian 
 is an evil to be carefully avoided and prevented, much more 
 the fall of a whole church. Why guard, in our ecclesiastical 
 systems, so carefully against the one, and not the other ? Why 
 provide an organization in the one instance, and none in the 
 other ? 
 
 The necessity of making application for the counsel and co- 
 operation of other churches is not denied, by even the most 
 strenuous advocates of Independency. They differ from us, 
 however, as to the form or mode by which this mutual assist- 
 ance is to be secured. Shall it bo perfectly systematized, or 
 left to mere exigencies ? Shall it be regulated by fixed princi- 
 ples and determinate rules, as in a written constitution, or shall 
 usage and tradition alone be regarded ? Shall the combination 
 of sister churches be such as to require periodical convocations, 
 or shall these be only occasional ? Shall the confederacy be of 
 the same churches and their pastors, or shall the membership 
 in every particular instance be determined by the parties seek- 
 ing counsel? Shall the power and authority of these ecclesi- 
 astical bodies be exercised in accordance with constitutional 
 law, and with a definite responsibility, or by an evanescent 
 convention, whose existence begins and ends with the occasion 
 that calls them together, and whose responsibility terminates 
 with their existence as a temporary organization ? It is not a 
 question as to the nature of this power. In both connections 
 it is the same. “ All church power,” we maintain, “ whether 
 exercised by the body in general, or in the way of representa- 
 tion by delegated authority, is only ministerial and declarative ; 
 that is to say,” “ the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith 
 and manners;” “no church judicatory ought to pretend to 
 make laws to bind the conscience, in virtue of their own au- 
 thority; and” “all their decisions should be founded on the 
 W ord of God.” So say our standards. “ Their power is wholly 
 moral or spiritual, and that only ministerial and declarative.”+ 
 
 In determining these points of difference, it is well to con- 
 sult those who have been trained and have passed their lives in 
 Xew-England, under the operation of a system commended so 
 
 * Conf. of Faith, sst., 5. 
 f Form of Gov., L, 7 ; viii., 2. 
 
24 
 
 zealously at tlie present time as “a more excellent way" than 
 our own. 
 
 “Synods orderly assembled,” say the constructors of the 
 Cambridge platform, in 1G4S, “ and rightly proceeding accord- 
 ing to the pattern, Acts 15, we acknowledge as the ordinance 
 of Christ ; and though not absolutely necessary to the being, 
 yet many times, through the iniquity of men, and perverseness 
 of times, necessary to the well-being of churches, for the estab- 
 lishment of truth and peace therein.”* * * § 
 
 “ The Consociation of churches,” says the famous Richard 
 Mather of Dorchester, Mass., in 1039, “ into classes and synods, 
 we hold to be lawful, and in some cases necessary ; as, namely, 
 in things that are not peculiar to one church, but common to 
 them all. And likewise when a church is not able to end any 
 matter which concerns only themselves, then they are to seek 
 for counsel and advice from neighbor churches.”f 
 
 “ All the churches,” observes John Cotton of Boston, “ the 
 patriarch of Xew-England,” in 1044, “have the liberty of send- 
 ing their messengers, to debate and determine, in a synod, 
 such matters as do concern them all.” Such synods “have 
 power, by the grace of Christ, not only to give light and coun- 
 sel in matter of truth and practice, but also to command and 
 enjoin the things to be believed and done ;” as also “ to decree 
 and publish such ordinances as may conduce according to God 
 unto” “reformation.”^; It is said of Mr. Cotton, that he 
 “ would sometimes bewail the deficiency of the churches in 
 Xew-England in this particular;” and that, not long before his 
 decease, he drew up certain “ propositions concerning the con- 
 sociation and communion of churches,” which were published 
 in 1675.§ 
 
 “We must agree,” said Thomas Ilooker of Hartford, the 
 patriarch of Connecticut, a short time before his decease, in 
 1047, “ upon constant meetings of ministers, and settle the con- 
 sociation of churches, or else we are utterly undone.” 
 
 The question, “Whether, according to the word of God, 
 
 * Cliap. xvi., 1. 
 
 f ‘‘Congregational Order,” p. 25. 
 
 X 11 Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, ” pp. 45, 57, 58. 
 
 § “ The l’anoplist,” x., 327. 
 
 D “ Magnalia Christi Americana,” ii., 232. 
 
25 
 
 there ought to be a Consociation of churches, and what should 
 be the manner of it ?” was submitted, by the General Court oi 
 Massachusetts, to a Synod convened at Boston, in 1662 ; and 
 “with a marvellous unanimity, not one elder, nor so much as 
 two brethren in all that reverend assembly, dissenting,’ they 
 answered the first part of the inquiry in the affirmative. “The 
 churches of Christ,” they said, “in this country, having so good 
 an opportunity for it, it is meet to be commended to them as 
 their duty thus to consociate.”f 
 
 Trumbull, the historian of Connecticut, informs us, that, at 
 the commencement of the last century, “ the state of the 
 churches was lamentable with respect to their general order, 
 government, and discipline;” “that, for the want ot a more 
 general and energetic government, many churches ran into 
 confusion ; that councils were not sufficient to relieve the ag- 
 grieved, and restore peace. As there was no general rule for 
 the calling of councils, council was called against council, and 
 opposite results were given upon the same cases, to the reproach 
 of councils, and the wounding of religion. Aggrieved churches 
 and brethren were discouraged, as in this way their case seemed 
 to be without remedy. There was no such thing, in this way, 
 as bringing their difficulties to a final issue.” “ A great ma- 
 jority of the Legislature and clergy in Connecticut, were for 
 the association of ministers, and the consociation of churches.” 
 A synod was convened at Saybrook, in 1T0S, which “provided 
 for one or more consociations in each county, which should be 
 standing, known, and responsible tribunals, with appellate and 
 final jurisdiction. The design of the framers of the Saybrook 
 platform was, “to prevent picked councils, ex parte councils, 
 and councils upon councils which should give contradictory 
 results, and plunge the churches into deeper troublcs.Ӥ The 
 plan of confederation went into very general use ; and, after it 
 “had time to operate, the churches became more regular and 
 harmonious in their discipline, enjoyed more general peace, 
 and their numbers constantly increased. ”|| 
 
 * “The Panoplist,” x., 327. 
 
 f “ Magnalia.” ii., 257. 
 
 I “ Complete History of Connecticut,” i., 507. 
 
 § “Cong. Order,” pp. 34, 35, 
 
 | Trumbull, ii., 17. 
 
26 
 
 At the expiration of more than a century, during which pe- 
 riod the churches of Massachusetts had passed through a sea ot 
 troubles, and had been repeatedly distracted and rent asunder 
 by internal commotions, attention was again turned to the con- 
 sociation of the churches. In an elaborate report, made in 
 1815, to the General Association, by such men as the Rev. 
 Drs. Morse, Worcester, Woods, Austin, Lyman, and Cooley 
 reference is made to the counsel of their early divines, and it 
 is affirmed that “ the consequences of disregarding this sound 
 advice have been witnessed in the state of the churches in Mas- 
 sachusetts for a century past, and are appai'ent in their present 
 state.” “ So distracted,” they say, “ is the state of our ecclesi- 
 astical affairs, and so vague, and loose, and weak the principle 
 of union, that churches in our fellowship may go to the great- 
 est length of apostacy, without any inspection, and without 
 losing that indefinite fellowship with us, which they before 
 enjoyed.” “There is no explicit acknowledgment of mutual 
 responsibility, and no definite intelligible statement of recipro- 
 cal rights and duties, or of the method of intercourse.” “ We 
 are under a kind of necessity of allowing our disorderly mem- 
 bers to call in churches the most defective in Christian char- 
 acter, to censure our principles, to overturn our internal dis- 
 cipline, to sanction disorder and heresy, and to attack the repu- 
 tation of faithful ministers.” “ We have no effectual means of 
 keeping corrupt or incompetent men from entering into the 
 ministry and obtaining ordination. A corrupt church, with a 
 heretical minister, has opportunity to exert a corrupting influ- 
 ence upon the whole body of Congregational churches. The 
 great evil here complained of is at present protected and suf- 
 fered to spread, without any effort for its cure.” “We have 
 no regular, acknowledged, and uniform method of trying a 
 minister for any violation of the laws of Christ.” 
 
 The only remedy provided by the system, for the removal ot 
 these evils, is the calling of occasional councils, by mutual 
 choice, or by an aggrieved party. Of mutual councils, Dr. 
 Morse and his associates say : “ Such occasional, transient 
 bodies, however useful they may sometimes be in composing 
 particular disturbances, can afford no regular and permanent 
 support to the friends of religious order, or do any tiling effect- 
 ually to restrain offenders. Mutual councils, in present cir- 
 
27 
 
 curastances, may bo evaded. Offenders may refuse to join in 
 the choice of them, or to submit to their decisions.” “Nor is 
 it determined among our churches,” they add, “ in what cases 
 councils arc to be called ; nor what is the extent of their juris- 
 diction, or the authority of their results. Mutual councils, on 
 the present plan, may be multiplied without limits. Difficul- 
 ties may be so managed, that there shall be no end of strife." 
 “ Mutual councils, at present, are constituted in a manner ex- 
 tremely unfavorable to impartiality, justice, and unanimity; 
 so that there is but little prospect of a decision which will give 
 satisfaction to the parties. Councils are chosen in a time of 
 contention, when the minds of all concerned are liable to irri- 
 tation, if not to bitterness. And, what is more, they are chosen 
 by the contending parties ; and the offender, however excep- 
 tionable his character, and however flagrant his crimes, has an 
 equal influence in constituting the tribunal with the other party. 
 Doubtless he will make it his object to select men who will be 
 his particular friends and advocates — not those who will be 
 judicious and impartial.” “As circumstances are, it is by no 
 means strange, that a trial before a mutual council is frequently 
 nothing but a scene of animosity and strife, in which the par- 
 ties, aided by two divisions of the council, come forward to con- 
 tend for victory. The evil here complained of, is like that 
 which would be felt by civil society, if courts of justice, instead 
 of being permanent bodies, organized in a manner wisely cal- 
 culated to exclude all injustice and respect of persons, should 
 depend for their existence and continuance, on the will of dis- 
 agreeing parties, and so should, in fact, be the offspring of self- 
 interest, dishonesty, and strife.” 
 
 “ An ex parte council,” they say, “ resorted to as a substitute 
 for a mutual council, is still more exceptionable. It will, from 
 the very nature of the case, be regarded with suspicion, and 
 can never have the power of terminating a contention. A 
 second ex parte council may be called to contravene the deci- 
 sion of the first, and so on without end.”* 
 
 Not less decided and definite are the objections urged by 
 President Dwight against this whole system. He speaks of “ a 
 select council” as “a judicatory most unhappily constituted.” 
 “ It seems absolutely necessary,” he says, “ that every ecclesi- 
 
 * “'The Panoplist,” xi., 3G1-368. 
 
28 
 
 astical body should have its tribunal of appeals.” This tribu- 
 nal, he thinks, should be “a standing body,” “always existing, 
 of acknowledged authority,” “ a court of record, having a regu- 
 lar system of precedents.” And beyond this, he judges, there 
 should be “ a still superior tribunal, to receive appeals, in cases 
 where they are obviously necessary.”* He vastly preferred 
 the Presbyterian to the Congregational way. 
 
 If, at the expiration of nearly two hundred years, during 
 which the He w-En gland system had been on trial, its ablest 
 divines, the men of ripest experience, familiar from their child- 
 hood with its workings and with its history, most trusted and 
 trustworthy, are constrained thus to deplore its obvious defects 
 and manifest evils, we wonder not that President Edwards, in 
 1750, should have said, “ I have long been perfectly out of con- 
 ceit of our unsettled, independent, confused way of church 
 government in this land ; and the Presbyterian way has ever 
 appeared to me most agreeable to the Word of God, and the 
 reason and nature of things.”f 
 
 The testimony of these venerated men applies just as forci- 
 bly now as then, to the system of which they complained. The 
 evils specified are incident to the system. Let error creep into 
 the churches, as in the days of Stoddard and Edwards, or as in 
 the days of Morse and Channing, and what is to hinder the 
 spread of defection from the faith ? If a gifted pastor makes 
 an excursion into the regions of speculation, and returns with 
 perverted views of “God in Christ,” of the great sacrifice for 
 sin, and of regeneration, who but his own church arQ to call 
 him to account ? And, if they sustain him, who is to expostu- 
 late with them, and save the community from the inroads of 
 false doctrine, especially if they proclaim their independence 
 of all superior jurisdiction? Under such a system, who can 
 tell whether a church, or its pastor, is sound in the faith or not, 
 save by direct investigation ? Every body knows what a Pres- 
 byterian is. A man, or a church, may be Congregationalism 
 and yet be Arminian, Socinian, or Universalist. The errorist 
 invariably finds our system too unyielding and uncomfortable. 
 He greatly prefers its opposite. When churches or ministers 
 become restive under the Avholesomo restraints of our ecclesi- 
 astical polity, they very readily adopt a system under which 
 
 * “Theology,” Sor. 1G2. 
 
 f Life, by Dwight, p. 412. 
 
29 
 
 the)’ can demand to be let alone, and can insist upon the right 
 of believing and teaching as they please. 
 
 Ours, we believe, is the more orderly, the “ more excellent 
 way.” While the particular church retains, and is sustained in, 
 the right of conducting its internal affairs in its own way, sub- 
 ject only to the fundamental law of the confederacy, as in all 
 well-ordered states, the utmost care is taken that the common 
 interests of truth and goodness shall suffer no damage. If the 
 poorest of the flock is aggrieved, provision the most ample and 
 inexpensive is made for redress. From the Session he may 
 appeal to the Presbytery, a body not created at the will of the 
 parties for the mere occasion, but, like our courts of justice, 
 permanent and responsible. Thence, too, he may go to the 
 Synod and the Assembly, as in civil cases to the Superior and 
 the Supreme Court. The rich may not oppress the poor, nor 
 an overbearing party in the church trample on the weak. The 
 pastor may not, on the one hand, play the despot and set at 
 naught all authority ; nor, on the other hand, be crushed by a 
 cruel and cunning despotism on the part of a self-constituted 
 clique of leaders in the church. An effectual shield is fur- 
 nished in either case. Every wrong may be redressed, every 
 fatal error be arrested, every withered branch removed, with- 
 out encroachment on inherent rights, or prejudice to the liber- 
 ties of the people and their pastors. 
 
 The purity of the pulpit can not be too effectually secured. 
 Ecclesiastical history is, on almost every page, laden with the 
 evils consequent upon the ministry of the ignorant, the weak, 
 the covetous, the crafty, and the unprincipled. Our system 
 aims to keep the pulpit pure. Free to choose, without restraint, 
 their own religious teachers, our churches are protected from 
 imbecility and imposition, from heretical pravity and impiety, 
 on the part of those who desire the bishop s office, by the re- 
 ference of the call to a standing council, whose position and 
 relations give them abundant facilities for testing the gifts, de- 
 termining the faith, and trying the spirits, of candidates for the 
 honors and responsibilities of the pastoral work. The doors 
 of the sanctuary are to be shut against the unworthy, and in- 
 truders are to be thrust out. This great end of our ecclesias- 
 tical polity has thus far been well attained. When the most 
 baleful errors have pervaded other communions, and when 
 
30 
 
 Independency lias proved in this respect a failure, our own 
 churches, by the will of God, have been kept pure. 
 
 This system of confederated councils, therefore, we main- 
 tain, is worthy of all confidence. It is sanctioned by the al- 
 most unanimous suffrages of the Christian world, being tacitly 
 adopted even where in theory it is rejected. It is based, more- 
 over, upon those principles of government which underlie every 
 well-ordered political state. It accords admirably with the 
 theory and spirit of our own municipal institutions, and secures 
 all the ends of government, with as few incidental evils as can 
 well be expected, in a -world of so much selfishness, prejudice, 
 and corruption. 
 
 Nor is it the least of its excellencies, that it requires us to 
 “ go by a book that the metes and bounds of our con- 
 stitutional government are known, recorded on the printed 
 page, and made a matter of covenant ; that nothing is left to 
 conjecture or tradition, but all the essentials of faith, order, and 
 discipline made certain. Scripture is infinitely to be preferred 
 to tradition ; written law, to conventional usage. The definite 
 is vastly better than the indefinite — far less liable to perversion 
 and abuse ; more available for all the legitimate ends of gov- 
 ernment ; more conducive to union, concord, strength ; and 
 more reliable for the oppressed. We have a book, and we 
 “ g° by a book not the compilation of some self-appointed 
 scribe, or annalist, but the work of the whole Church, well 
 digested, and heartily adopted. It is one of the felicities of 
 our system, that, when one of our standing councils convenes, 
 the question is not asked, “ What is the usage, what the cus- 
 tom ?” as in those evanescent Conventions where nothing is 
 fixed, nothing certain. We are not left to the treacherous and 
 varying memories, impulses, whims, fancies, or prejudices, of 
 self-constituted leaders, who may choose to put their own inter- 
 pretation on traditionary forms. 
 
 Another distinctive principle of our ecclesiastical polity, and 
 the last to be enumerated, is 
 
 IV. A representative administration of government. 
 
 In all constitutional governments, where the power emanates 
 
 * Address before the Am. Cong. Union, by Win. A. Stearns, D.D., p. 56. 
 
SI 
 
 from the people, the system of delegation prevails. It grows 
 out of the nature of the case. Once only, or but seldom, in 
 the year, can the town assemble in mass for the supervision of 
 their common interests. If a street is to be graded, a road 
 repaired, a ditch dug, a post set, a tree planted, a walk laid, a 
 pond drained, a fence built, the town-house swept, a broken 
 sash repaired, a leak mended, a door re-hung, or a pulley ad- 
 justed, must the whole town be called together ? In the admin- 
 istration of justice, in matters of dispute between neighbors, 
 in the adjudication of the claims of the grocer, the baker, the 
 tailor, the hatter, the seamstress, and the milliner, must the 
 whole town be summoned to hear, consider, and determine l 
 Are the nice and intricate questions of civil and criminal law, 
 and every judicial process against a debtor, a pilferer, a forger, 
 a burglar, a midnight brawler, a boxer, a murderer, to be de- 
 termined in “ town meeting” ? The most ultra democrat of the 
 land never ventured his reputation on such a theory. All 
 such matters are better intrusted to the hands of a chosen few — 
 the selectmen, the aldermen, the standing committee, the 
 supervisors. The town rnnst needs act, in a thousand things, 
 by proxy, by representation, by officials. It is the only ration- 
 al mode. The principle pervades our whole body politic. 
 
 Our system of church government herein conforms to the 
 most approved precedents, the dictates of reason, and the 
 Scripture model. We have our selectmen, aldermen, or eld- 
 el's, in every church, chosen by the people from their own 
 number, to administer the discipline, watch at the door, and 
 supervise the affairs of God's house. Whatever may be 
 thought of, what some among us maintain, the divine war- 
 rant of the eldership, none can deny, not even the most strenu- 
 ous advocates of the people's power, or so much as question, 
 the right of any church to adopt, if it suits them best, the re- 
 presentative form in the government of their fraternity. It is 
 clearly at their option, to commit so much of the supervision of 
 their community as may be deemed best, into the hands of a 
 session or standing committee. Nothing in God’s Word for- 
 bids it. Congregationalism claims it as an inherent right, to 
 determine in what form church government is to be adminis- 
 tered. It exercises the right in numerous instances. Its 
 
churches transact their business, to a great extent, by commit- 
 tees. The standing committee is in effect a session. 
 
 The principle prevails more or less in every church. “ It 
 must often happen,” says Dr. Chalmers, “ that even under the 
 most democratic economy of a congregation, the minister vir- 
 tually obtains his office by the appointment of the few, and 
 only with the accpiiescence of the many. In every assemblage 
 of human beings, this is the method by which all their proceed- 
 ings are really carried forward. The ascendency of worth, or 
 talent, or station, or some other natural influence, is ever sure 
 to vest the power of originating with the few, aud to leave 
 nothing with the many, but the power of a veto ; nay, even in 
 many instances, to disarm them of that power.”* 
 
 The pastor of a Congregational church in the city of Xew- 
 Vork,+ was asked, not long since, “Have you not ruling elders 
 in your church?” and the instant reply was, “Host certainly.” 
 “ And is it not so in all your churches?” “Certainly.” Such 
 being the inevitable tendency of all democracies, we avail our- 
 selves of the principle. Seeing that, whether officially or un- 
 officially, the power will be exercised, we prefer to make it a 
 responsible power — to hold the few accountable to the many, 
 by official trust, and so to guard the rights of all most effectu- 
 ally. I\othing is more to be deprecated in any government, 
 civil or ecclesiastical, than irresponsible power, whether exer- 
 cised by lord bishops or lord brethren. 
 
 This delegation of authority implies no sacrifice of equality 
 or liberty. The senator is but a servant. The Presbyterian 
 elder, as truly as the Congregational deacon, is but one of the 
 people, chosen to minister in things pertaining to God, for his 
 brethren. This cherished principle of democracy pervades our 
 whole ecclesiastical polity. The pastor is but one of the peo- 
 ple. In all our assemblies — sessional, presbyterial, synodi- 
 cal — the popular element is at the least numerically equal with 
 the clerical. 
 
 Such an administration greatly relieves the people — frees 
 them from needless burdens. Why should a whole church be 
 called away from their daily avocations to settle every little 
 dispute or difficulty, or adjust every little question of duty or 
 
 * “ Christian and Civic Economy, '' i.. 23fi. 
 f Rev. George B. Cheever, D.D. 
 
33 
 
 expediency *' Or, since it can not be fully convened save on 
 the Sabbath, why must the holy hours be appropriated to the 
 business of the week ? The Christian enters the church not to 
 be a ruler, or a judge; not to be trained for the forum or the 
 bench ; but to honor Christ in his ordinances, and to advance 
 the kingdom of holiness among men. Freed from the immedi- 
 ate responsibilities and burdens of the ruler and the judge, he 
 is more at liberty to pursue his appropriate work, and secure 
 the higher ends of church fellowship. 
 
 The prerogative of sitting in judgment on the admission of 
 members to the church is claimed, in some quarters, for all 
 the brethren. Was it so in the beginning? The Church is 
 not a mere voluntary organization, but a divine institution. 
 The ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are of Christ. 
 Admission to these sacraments is a holy privilege ; exclusion 
 from them an awfully serious thing. Are the body of the 
 faithful, in any church as ordinarily constituted, young and 
 old, learned and unlearned, experienced or inexperienced, pro- 
 perly qualified to determine such questions? Where in the 
 New Testament does it appear, that the question of admission 
 to the ordinances was, in any case, decided by the suffrages of 
 the brethren already admitted ? Is there any such case on the 
 sacred record? Was baptism administered only on the vote 
 of the congregation ? 
 
 The numerous details of church discipline call for the exer- 
 cise of the highest wisdom. As in the judiciary, it is safer far 
 to commit the supervision of such affairs to a bench of prudent 
 men, selected with special reference to their fitness for such a 
 work. Great injury is often done to religion, by the publicity 
 given to matters of indelicacy, that transpire in the trial of 
 scandals before a church. We greatly prefer that such pro- 
 cesses should be conducted with as little of publicity as the 
 ends of truth require. A participation in the responsibilities 
 of an ecclesiastical tribunal is by no means needful to the 
 Christian’s growth. The members of our own churches, we 
 think, show their profiting cpiite as much as others. 
 
 To the pastor of a church the eldership is of incalculable 
 service. Often called to act, in circumstances demanding no 
 small amount of caution, prudence, and judgment, on the one 
 hand, or of energy, promptness, and dispatch, on the other, he 
 3 
 
34 
 
 finds in his eldership the very best counsel that the case ad- 
 mits. Many of the pastors of New-England have lamented 
 this defect in the policy of their churches. It takes away, in 
 many instances, the temptation, on the part of the pastor, of 
 assuming the responsibility of exercising the people’s power 
 without reference or consultation — of exercising the one-man 
 power. 
 
 A distinguished divine of A ew- England,' * gave expression, 
 150 years ago, to his forebodings, in these words: ‘‘When 
 churches have some hundreds of souls under their discipline, 
 but the single pastors are not strengthened with consistories of 
 elders, or an agreeable number of wise and good and grave 
 men, chosen to join with the pastor as their president in that 
 part of his work which concerns the well-ruling of the dock, 
 there discipline will by degrees be utterly lost; the grossest 
 offenders will by degrees, and through parties, be scarce to be 
 dealt withal. ”f A faithful eldership, while it abridges nothing 
 of the just liberties of either pastor or people, is an invaluable 
 blessing to them both, and to the Church at large. 
 
 For this system, therefore, in view of the principles thus ex- 
 hibited, we claim a large-hearted and scriptural catholicity; 
 a jealous regard for the rights and principles of its membership, 
 ..its ministers, and its churches, with the most ample provision 
 for their security and defense; a holy jealousy, also, for the 
 purity in faith and manners, the piety and the power of the 
 pulpit; with the most effective arrangements for prompt and 
 energetic action on the part of the individual church, and for 
 the utmost combination of the energies of the whole denomi- 
 nation, in the work of publishing the Gospel to every creature. 
 
 As a system of church order, our ecclesiastical polity is all 
 that we can desire. It is the growth of acres. It is the fruit of 
 a world’s experience. Its love for the past blinds it not to the 
 riper fruits of a coming era. Whatever of wisdom can bo 
 gained in the future, it may easily and orderly appropriate. 
 Its frame-work is elastic. It provides a safe and ready mode 
 for the incorporation of new forms, and the modifying of the 
 old, at the will of the people. It adapts itself to every phase 
 of society. It is at home everywhere. It works to a charm in 
 
 * Rov. Cotton Mather, D.D. 
 f “Tho Panoplist,” x., 324. 
 
(lie single church. nor less admirably in file widest expansion 
 of the confederacy of churches. It. is Jilted peculiarly for the 
 indefinite extension of the Redeemer's kingdom. It. may co- 
 operate with other organizations, or pursue the work bv itself. 
 It is a voluntary combination of churches, presbyteries, and 
 synods, pledged at (rod's altar to the high and holy work of 
 promoting the cause of Christ, as God shall give them oppor- 
 tunity. It needs no other organism for the work of bringing 
 forward and sustaining its candidates for the ministry, of fur- 
 nishing the churches with a godly literature, of exploring the 
 waste places, planting new churches, and sustaining them in 
 our own land, and. in a word, of instituting and supporting 
 missions wherever man is found, in Christian and in heathen 
 lands. It is a world-converting institution. It needs but the 
 breath from heaven, the living soul, the Spirit's mighty im- 
 pulses, the heart, the will — to make it all that any system can 
 be. 
 
 Pure and scriptural in her faith, regenerate in her member- 
 ship. served at her altars with a learned and godly ministry, 
 simple in her worship, strict and equal in her discipline, effi- 
 cient in her government, beautiful for situation, the joy of the 
 whole earth,” is the Church of our love, the habitation of our 
 God.