W. cWr

Mvvv2b ¦b54t

i^>w_  _^cf<^^;v  ^^M

V:/

The Gospel Model of Church Organization,]^
and Discipline.
A SERMON,
PREACHED JULY 23, 18.54,

IN T II K

ft

FREE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH, }v
OF STRONGS VILLE, '*;
Designed to show its form and the reason for its Organization.

BY WILLARD BURR,
(PASTOR OF THE FREE CONGREGATIONAL CIRRCII, OF RAVENNA.)

PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. OF THE CHURCH.

BAVBHSA,, OHIO.
I'mnrr J*rns of Hall, Berriok d Wadsworth.
1854.

*^>°^ " ^^ctie&yp^

The Gospel Model of Church Organization,
and Discipline.

A SERMON,
PREACHED JULY 23, 18^4,

IN THE

FREE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH,
OF STRONGSV1LLE,
Designed to show its form and the reason for its Organization.

BY WILLARD BURR,
(PASTOR OE THE FREE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH, OF RAVENNA. )

PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OF THE CHURCH.

RAVENNA, OHIO.
Power Press of Hall. Hcn-ich <£ Wadsworth.
1854.

SERMON.

"PROVE ALt THINGS J HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD. 1 Thes. 5: 21.
The import of this passage is at once plain and obvious. It enjoins
the duty of a candid and thorough inquiry on all religious subjects,
and a faithful adherence to that only, which is found to harnionize
with the spirit, and principles of the Gospel.
Nor is this duty restricted to any particular class in the Church,
&>ut is binding upon all; the laity as well as the clergy. Each and
-every individual is required to examine for him and her self, in the
light of the Gospel, every form of religious faith and practice, and
retain in their confidence and support only such as agree with its
Divine teachings.
Such being the import of this passage, it forbids the "habit so com
mon among Christians, of letting their minister, or accustomed
leaders do aU the thinking for them; and also the habit of supporting
certain ecclesiastical arrangements, and Church forms, without in
quiring whether they are Divinely imposed, or are the inventions of
fallible men. This habit among the common brotherhood of the
different denominations, is known to be widely prevalent. How few
comparatively, ever take the trouble to compare their church polity
with the simple Gospel model to see if it is Divinely authorized, or
is a mere human fabrication.
And this feeling of indifference, so common among the laity, is
not without its', cause. It has resulted, very riaturally, from the oft
repeated declarations and arguments which they have heard from
their teachers on this subject. How often have they been told by
their learned divines that the New Testament enjoins no particular
form of church , government, that it only inculcates certain, funda
mental principles of church order and discipline, and leaves it dis
cretionary .with christians in their attempts to carry out these

principles, to establish such forms of government as they, under the
circumstances, shall deem best. According to this argument, the
form of church organization is a matter of mere human discretion. —
TheTe is . nothing positive, nothing authoritatively binding upon
christians in respect to the form. Hence the, natural conclusion is^
that the form is a matter of 'indifference* and each one "may establish
and support such a form as his discretion mky choose. One, for
example, may give his Support tfe Congregational independency,'
another to Presbyterianism, another to Episcopacy, another to the
Papacy, and each have as good a ^warrant for ,so doing as the other.
Nor can this conclusion be avoided, if we admit the argument of a
discretionary right in man, to establish such a form of church gov
ernment as he may think best. If in the matter of church organiza
tion and discipline, the form is left to the discretion of fallible man,
then' in point of legitimate and binding authority, the Papacy rests
on the same foundation with Episcopacy, Presbyterianism or Con
gregationalism. The right to establish the one is the same as the
right to establish the other; and one is as justly entitled to be called,
and treated as a divine institution as any other. Either, then, ail
forms of church government which human discretion. may establish
are equally • divine, or the New Testament has revealed a definite
form, which is binding upon all christians, in __p.ll times, and under
all, circumstances.
How that form is revealed, and what it is, will appear in_another
place. The question then of . christiaii institutions, including the form of
the church, should not be treated with feelings of indifference. The
question is an. important one, equal. in importance to the question of
sustaining and Spreading true Christianity 'in the' world. Iii feet,
these questions intrinsically, are but one. For the divinely appointed
institutions of Christianity, are only the legitimate expressions and in
struments of its spirit and principles. It is by means of the simple
and nnadulterated forms of Christianity, including the mode of
church government, that its true spirit and principles are exempli
fied, and savingly impressed, up6n*a .sin-ruined world.
This being the relation which the form lusjains to the spirit
of Christianity, the former should always be studied iii the light of
the latter; and if this is done in the 'spirit of christian candor, the
gospel model of church organization' and discipline will be made to
appear.

If for example, on a candid examination of the gospel, we find
that the distinguishing spirit, the fundamental principle of Christianity,
is that of christian love and union, then we may judge at once,
that no sectarian arrangement by whieh acknowledged christians are
excluded from the church, and unworthy members are retained in it
is after the gospel model of .church organization, for no such
arrangement .is any true or adequate expression of its spirit, but ex
presses and tends to foster the opposite spirit of division.
If from the gospel we find also that the, spirit of Christianity is that
of human liberty and human equality, or a common brotherhood in
Christ, then we may know at once that that form of church polity
which subjects the laity to the control of the clergy, the common
mass to the" honored and official few, is' not the true one, for
instead of exemplifying the true spirit of Christianity, belies it.
So too if the principles of Christianity are democratic in their
nature, devolving the right and duty upon each church member, to
aid in the administration of its government, if they hold each mem
ber responsible for its right administration, then any ecclesiastical
form by which this government is taken from the common brother
hood, and placed into the hands of a standing committee, a board of
elders, a licensed clergy, a Bishop or a Pope, must be anti-gpspel,
for by no such form can the pure principles of christian democracy
be fully and properly carried out.
Now in the light of the above examples, < we can see in what man
ner the New Testament reveals a certain definite form of church
o-ovemment. It does this not directly, but through its distinctive
spirit and principles., It is the spirit, the fundamental principles/of
Christianity, that settle, every question of church polity that can be
raised. Let a person first obtain a right conception of this spirit and
these principles, and he then has an infallible rule to guide him on the
question of christian institutions. For such must be the connection
between gospel institutions ( including the form of the church, ), and
its living spirit and principles, that the former shall fully illustrate
and exemplify the latter, or Christianity is like a house divided
against itself, and can hare therefore no just claim to a divine
origin. If then it be asked here, what form of church organization
is divinely authorized, or is after, the primitive model, we answer,
that only which in its legitimate workings, will fully express and
efficiently represent the distinguishing spirit and principles .of the

christian religion. To such a form only, should we "hold fast as
that which is good." ,
Now jn accordance with the rule.of .our text, and in fulfilment of
a design previously formed at the.iequest of your Pastor, I propose
to examine the. form of this church in the light of the above test;,
that you may see whether or not it is worthy of your confidence and
support. In respect then to its governnrent, I remark that its form istliat.of
congregational . independency, or a christian democracy, a form
which allows each member to ,ha,ye a voice in the doings of the
church, in the matter of employing and dismissing a Pastor, and
confines the entire management and discipline, of the church to its
own individual members; Now does this form agree with the
spirit and principles of Christianity as revealed in the gospel. Is
there any adequate expression h^ie of that principle of christian
equality which recognizes all as members of the same " royal priest
hood," invested with the equal right and honor of "Kings and
Priests unto God." And is there any complete and efficient repre
sentation here of the rule of discipline given by Christ in the 18th
chapter of Matthew's gospel. That rule, you know, requires, first:
— the labors of a single individual with the offending brother: next,
the labors of a select few, and then if these steps are unsuccessful,
the case is to pa,ss from their hahdsijnto -the hands ofthe entire body,
or the assembled brotherhood. '<*Tell it to the church '•' is the last
resort, not to a board of elders, not to the preacher in charge; not to
any body of church officers, whether under the name of Conference;
Presbytery, Synod, General Assembly, Aarch-deacons, Archbishops
or Pope. "But- tell it to the Ghi&ck," the-assembjed brotherhood
for final adjudication and decision. Now can such a rule of church
discipline as is here laid down, be-fully expressed by a church or
ganized as this is, on the basis of local and democratic independency.
I might ask, can any other- form of church government but this illus
trate this rule. • Suppose- you had a form .which permitted the case
to go before a bench of ruling elders, or to be placed in the hands of
the traveling preacher or bishop, for final adjudication and decision ;
would that confine-the process to ifoe letter and spirit of this rule? —
By no means, uiiless it* can be poved that such officers are the
church. This -I presume will not be attempted.
The rule theiiwhich Christ has giiren for the discipline of his church
can 'be Strictly and fully carried out by no other form of government

than the one this church has adopted, and consequently no other
form can be divinely authorized or find any support from the
gospel. Every other form, whether it be Presbyterian, Episcopal or
Papal, must be a mere human inflSition. And here let me say that
this view of the subject is ndt exclusively my own, but is held by all
the most reliable and standard writers of church history., . Neander,
Mosheim, and Lord King one ofthe most learned men of > the church
of England in the 16th centUry,«hold to the same view. They all
tell us in their history of primitive Christianity that for nearly .three
hundred years the churches were independent. In feet no Well in
formed person of even the Episcopal order attempts to. deny this. —
And if they give their support to any other form of church govern
ment, it is from motives of expediency, and not because they believe
the primitive standard requires it. t . But a departure from this stand
ard we maintain is a human corruption which all should reject who
would have their faith rest in the wisdom of God, and not in the in
ventions of fallible men.
We come now to consider the form, or doctrinal basis of union
adopted by this church.
This basis requires simply an agreement. in the essentials of salva
tion, and a. mutual'toleration of each other's minor differences, while
it allows freedom of thought and expression to all in respect to those
differences. There is then combined m this basis of union a
christian unity, a christian diversity, and a christian liberty. Now
does this form accord with the spMt and principles of the gospel?-^
In one place it declares that christians "are all One in Christ
Jesus." In another it says, "the body is not one member but
many," having 'i'diversitieSs of gifts but the same spirit," and that
"God hath tempered the body that there should be no schism in it,"
and that christians should receive1- the weak in faith but not to-
doubtful disputations.. ¦ The gospel' also declares that christians have
been "called to liberty." It exhorts them also to " stand fest in the
liberty of the gospel, and not become entangled with the yoke of
bondage," that is with any ecclesiastical or church restrictbns not-
imposed by the gospel.
Here then in these quotations tifce feature of a christian unity, a
christian diversity, and a christiaMiberty, are clearly expressed, as
constituting the elements of church union. - And it is manifest
that the bond of union in the primitive church embraced these
elements. And did time permit, it could be shown that.there can

8
be no real, vital, christian union where either of these elements are
wanting. Christians - must be united on the essentials of their
religion, be tolerant of each other'* minor differences and' be free to
express their minds on them,, or thf-ir union will be devoid of vitality
and the elements of christian progress. But what will be the influ
ence of a union established upon the basis under consideration? —
Will it lead to the formation of rival sects, and the separation of chris
tians one from another, for nonMigreement '• on points of "doubtful
disputation" and because they are unable to pronounce each Other's
'shiboleths?" Will any such fruits result from' the legitimate working of
such a basis asthis? By no means, but directly the opposite. From it
will flow the fruits ~ of brotherly Jove, peace and harmony. And
such fruits we know accord with the spirit of gospel Christianity,
and consequently the basis from which they spring, must be, after
the gospel model. ••
Now, combine this basis of church union with church indepen
dency, and what kind of a moral instrument have you? It- is one
which if faithfully wielded will put down all ecclesiastical domina
tion — deliver the free thought and spirit of the laity from thechafing
bands of clerical authority, and upturn and demolish the foundation
of sectarianism. And need any one be told that an instrument
adapted to accomplish such results is Heaven derived and Heaven
ordained. "The tree is known by its fruits."
But there is /another feature in ithis churchorganization which I
deem worthy of notice. It is its relation to the sin of slavery, which
is that of non-fellowship. Being an independent church it can have
no -ecclesiastical connection with it. And its united contributions I
believe are given to the cause of Free Missions. I shall not stop
here to prove that this feature of the organization belongs to the
church of Christ. If a separation from a known sin is not a distinc
tive feature of Christ's church, then in point of character it differs
nothing from the world and is of no moral benefit to it, but a curse.
Having examined the polity of this church and found. it, to be
after the gospel model, it is expected that I present the reasons for
its organization, or show why it was formed. . < v ,
These reasons are mainly found in the distinctive features of the
organization itself. The reasons are found here because those who
formed this church could not secure those features in the organiza
tion to which they previously belonged. And they could not con-
scienciously give their support to a church that rejected them, and

so they withdrew and formed one that would embrace them. Their
old organization, for example, rejected the feature of congregational
independency, or of strict Congregationalism. Though originally
organized on a congregational basis, and baptized, with its, name, yet
it soon became married to' the presbytery, and by so, doing, accord
ing to the decision of presbyterian courts on the Reserve, changed
its *' organic structure" and became so presbyferianized that if all
the members but one should withdraw from, the presbytery, that one
would constitute the church.*
Now to this marriage, having such' a power of transformation as
this, a majority of that church Could not give their consent, and so
they asked to have the marriage tie severed. But a majority thought
that a union with Presbytery at a distance was dearer to them than
a union with their brethren at home, and hence they would not give
their consent, and this refusal became a wedge of division between
them. Now if it be asked why* the minority objected to this mar
riage, I answer mainly for three reasons :
First, Because such a union according to Presbyterian decision,
deprived the church of its strictly-congregational feature." ' '
Second, Because it placed over the church a- Presbyterian minis
ter, and' allowed the settlement of no other. And that too, in direct
violation of the original constitution ofthe church. I have read that
constitution myself. And one article expressly declares that "it
shall be the' object of this church and society to supply the pulpit
with preaching of the Congregational order." I showed this article
to the then acting Pastor, and asked him if he was a Congregation-
alist. (I use his own language.) -• "No!" says he, "lam a Pres
byterian td the back-bone." Then said I, you hold your office in
the church by' a direct violation of that article and you may see one
cause of the division.
Third, Because such a union connected them ecclesiastically with
slavery. The Presbytery was then and is now in religious fellow-
shipwith slaveholding Presbyteries at the south. The minority felt,
that they' cduld riot hold a connection with a body fellowshiping
slavery, without themselves becoming involved in its guilt, and for
this reason also they wished it to* be dissolved. But as I said the
majority Opposed it, and as a consequence the wedge of division
entered and the minority withdrew, and organized themselves into
a Free Church. "• -
•See the action of Medina Presbytery Apr. 1844 and 1:<45, Published in Ohio Observer/

10
But another objection which thei minority, had, to, the old organiza
tion was the character of its creed* or basis! of union. This they
considered to be sectarian, as it contained points of " doubtful dis
putations," or such as, christians jmight honestly differ upon — such
a creed, they considered to be secretarian, and hence opposed to
the spirit of christian union, and liberty. Its opposition to the spirit
of christian liberty, some of them suffered under, as they attempted
to express their feelings, and. views, in the prayer meetings, on the
subject of sanctification or christian holiness. So strong did this
creed influence bear upon them, that they were led to the conclusion,
that theymust either give up their christian liberty, cjt their church
organization. They chose thejatter, and formed a church upon a
doctrinal basis, that imposes no restrictions, upon the free exercise of
the christian spirit.
Here then is seen the reasons,?, for the formation of this church.
They lie as I said in the distinctiare features of its organization viz:
that of congreational independency — an anti-sectarian doctrinahbasis,
and a separation from slaveholding religious bodies. For the mainten
ance of these features, as illustrative of the spirit and principles ofthe
christian religion, this church was formed.
. Since its, formation, two or th?e.e attempts have been made be
tween, the. two churches, to effect a, re-union. In every such
attempt, this church has asserted these features, as the condition of
union.. The other not complying, the union is prevented. And to
my mind, the question of union on any qther( condition, than, that
which this church has proposed, is equivalent to the question,
whether the church shall be organized upon a gospel basis,, or one of
man's invention, *>i;
One, or two remarks and, I close.,
The prominent cause of the division of the church, in this, place
is substantially the same that has produced divisions elsewhere on
the Reserve. It is found in the the Plan of Union that was early
adopted for the organization of Churches in this section/ This plan
attempts to unite Presbyterianism- and Congregationalism together or
two kinds of church government in one organization. And how has
the plan worked ? , .,...„•
It has either Presbyterianized' the Congregational element, in the
church, or in case that element has refused to submit to the.process, it
has resulted in its separation from Presbytery, either the, church as a
body or a part of it. The plan then has either built up a union all

11
on one side or caused the division of churches, where a resistance to
such a union was offered. And this Was what might have been ex
pected. Two different forms of polity cannot be made to harmonize
in one church. One will tend to-Aubvert the other, or they will tend
apart. And such has been the result of the plan so fer as my knowl
edge extends on the subject.
Some have attributed these divisions to Oberlin. But the real facts in
the case, as well as more recent dejrelopements, show that they have
been caused by a collision in the churches, not so much on the ques
tion of Oberlin's peculiar doctrinal views, as on the question whether
the church should be governed, 4sy the spirit and principles of the
Congregational polity or by the ecclesiastical power of Presbytery. It
is well known to many that that power in order to retain its hold
upon a portion of a disaffected church, has in some instances assum
ed judicial authority— and adoptedtcoersive measures (such for ex
ample) as declaring that when a 'majority, vote to withdraw from
Presbytery, they by that act cut themselves of from the Church, and
also continuing a Presbyterian minister over a church, against the
wish or vote of the majority.
But though these extreme measures, have in several instances re
sulted in the division of the church, they have failed to accomplish
their object. And they are now reacting upon the system that used
them. Churches thus divided, are now being reunited on the strict
congregational basis, and others once connected with that system are
coming out on to the same ground. These facts and these develop
ments show what has- divided the churches established upon the
Plan of Union.
Second. The power for good does not lie in any church organi
zation itself however perfect or near the gospel model it may be.
The simple local church, as a body 'is but an instrument — an instru
ment it is true of divine appoinment, yet always needing the pres
ence and power of the Holy Spirit, to render it efficient, and suc
cessful. Hence beloved let none of you. rely upon your gospel
church polity for success. The power is not in it, but in God. —
Yet it is only through such a polity, that the power and glory of his
religion can shine forth. "Hold fast then to your present form of
organization, but let each part be in its proper place, and all be kept
in motion. If any part, even the smallest,, becomes disaffected or out
of joint* it will thus far derange the movement of the whole body,
and to the same extent impede its progress. Let then each member

12
stand in his proper place, and let all be fully joined together by the
uniting power of Christ's love, and let the powder of the Holy Spirit
ever animate and urge the whole forward, and abundant success
will crown your efforts, , to the salvation* of many souls and to the
glory of God.