temporaries, clearly foresaw and predicted that the time was not very far distant, when these principles would assert themselves offensively and injuriously. The views which I advocate, therefore, were not suggested by a present theological emergency. They are not new. They are as old as these Societies. They were earnestly advocated in a report made to the General Association of Connecticut by a Committee of which I had the honor to be the chairman, sixteen years ago. They are as old, I may say, as Congregationalism itself. And it is in the name and behoof of Congregationalism—the polity of the New England Fathers, and of the apostolic churches-that I undertake this discussion.

A fundamental inquiry is: What, in respect to benevolent Christian work, is the prime design of the organization of the local church-which is the only organized church known to Congregationalism—the church in Philippi, for example? Is it not to combine and concentrate all the Christian elements within its sphere of activity in that city, into itself, as a corporate unity, for the greatest possible efficiency in doing good? These elements thus unified become a coördinated active body of which Christ is the head and the Holy Spirit the organizing life; or, to change the figure, a covenanted band of inspired workers with God and for God. A church is thus instinct with a divine life and power, whether it expends its forces upon the local community, or upon some outside field, as when the Church of Antioch, single-handed, sent forth Paul and Barnabas upon their evangelizing tours; or as the Church of Pastor Harms at Hermannsberg established large and successful missions in Africa; or as recently, the Berkeley Street Church, Boston, proposes to commission one of its members to labor in Japan, or some other Asiatic field.

Suppose now, that the Christian elements in Philippi propose to unite with those in Thessalonica, and in Bera, and in the other cities of Macedonia, where the Gospel has gained a footing, for systematized permanent work, on a large scale, in outside mission fields,-Would it accord with the Scriptural idea, for a few believers from Philippi, and a few from each of the other cities of the province to organize themselves into an association for this purpose, without seeking the authorization

or even the approval of the several churches? Suppose that such an association should issue a circular of this tenor:

"Dear Brethren of the Churches-We have taken it upon our own responsibility to organize 'The Macedonian Missionary Society.' We are prepared to establish and conduct missions among the unevangelized peoples of this province, and in foreign parts. We ask you therefore, to furnish us with laborers, to forward contributions to our treasury, and to give us your sympathies and prayers. We beg leave to assure you, that we, associated as individuals, can do this work a great deal more efficiently, more wisely and more successfully than you, as Churches, can do it."

What would these churches have said to have seen their church-life thus ignored and overridden? What would Paul have said, to have seen these focal organized centers of Christian light, which he had set up in obedience to the Master's will, held so cheap and obscured? No; this is not the divine order, nor the method of Christianity. These require that the local churches enter into such an association as integers, representatively, at least. No other form of association does due honor to the church, as Christ designed it, or brings it into so close relations to its own appointed work. No other so fully develops the concentrated power latent in it as a divine organism, and so stimulates the growth of its graces. Let the unscriptural individualism, which now prevails in our great benevolent societies, be carried out consistently and universally into all our other Christian relations, and it is questionable whether Christianity, as represented by Congregationalism, would survive the experiment for a century. It would disintegrate us. And I have not a doubt, but that the principal reason why Congregationalism has lagged so far behind other denominations in numerical strength in this country is, that we have sacrificed the church idea to this exaggerated individualism. Individualism has its place, and a very important one,-in Christian work, as it stands related not only to private spheres of personal activity, but to coöperation with others, wherever circumstances call for it. But, if we would bring the full power of Christianity into action on any large scale for the extension of Christ's kingdom, we can do it only through the principle of concentration as divinely embodied in church organization, and in the unity of covenanted Christian fellowship.

The history of Congregationalism in New England reads us a serious and instructive lesson. Not resting satisfied with her simple church-polity, framed out of the word of God by the fathers, as distrustful Israel of old sought help from Egypt on one side and from Assyria on the other, so she has leaned on extraneous supports to remedy supposed defects in this polity. She at first courted connection with the State in foolish imitation of the Church from which she came out. She then set up over the financial affairs of her churches "Ecclesiastical Societies," which not seldom abused their trusts, and, in many cases, foisted heterodoxy into her pulpits, corrupted her doctrines, and drove her children out from their sanctuaries and their livings. She dallied with a half-fledged Presbyterianism, under the name of "Consociation," which established stated and authoritative courts of judicature over her churches. She gave her adherence to a "Plan of Union" with a strong National Church, through which she lost the most valuable portion of her rightful western domain; and having on her side all the advantages of early occupation, a godly ancestry, superior intelligence, and large wealth, she has shrunk to the dimensions of one of the smaller tribes of Israel. And now, notwithstanding all this disastrous experience, she wakes up to two amazing facts, that almost unwittingly she has committed her great benevolent work, for the doing of which her church organizations were in large part designed, into the hands of independent and irresponsible outside bodies, and, that she herself is declared utterly incompetent for its management.

It must however be acknowledged, that, though she has been a dull scholar, Congregationalism is wiser than she once was in respect to the several points just named, except the last,—a point which it is to be hoped will not long remain an exception. She has learned, that the being ousted from her old position, as the "Standing Order" in the State, has been an untold blessing instead of a calamity. She has learned that the churches can manage their own temporalities, quite as well, and perhaps a little better, without the appendage of Ecclesiastical Societies. And time has taught her that Consociationism is a foreign excrescence happily sloughed off.

She used to accept it as a maxim, that New England was her

proper heritage and home, and that, in communities west of Byram river, she was an impertinent intruder, and could never flourish. But already she has discovered, that her western possessions are promising to become, in extent and worth, the rivals of those at the East. And further, when, within twenty or twenty-five years, State Conferences and Associations representing the churches, began, in the older States, generally to supersede the old ministerial bodies, and especially when the National Council was organized, there was aroused a feeling of jealousy lest the autonomy of her churches would be interfered with, and the alarm cry of "centralization" was heard. But she has found that this change has contributed rather to her strength, and it is seen that, with the proper safeguards, associated action on a large scale, through representatives of the churches, is as germane to her polity, and as safe, as under other systems of church order.

But perhaps it will be said, that Boards, appointed by the churches or their representatives, to do the benevolent work of the churches, would, in order to their efficiency, require a larger liberty of action than is allowed to our State Ecclesiastical bodies or to our National Council, and therefore, that they would be more likely to become a source of mischief in our denomination, through their necessary assumption of authority, than in National Churches. But their discretionary power may be so clearly defined and limited as to constitute no ground of apprehension, especially so, as their doings would statedly come under review by the representatives of the churches. And it would certainly seem, that on the score of the assumption of authority, there is more security for the rights of the churches in a body responsible to the churches, than in one which is independent and irresponsible.

If anything further needs to be said to prove the feasibility and safety of bringing our Benevolent Societies under the control of the churches, I point with confidence to the methods of our Baptist brethren, who constitute "the straitest sect" of Congregationalists. Their "Missionary Union" is now in its seventy-fourth year, and is steadily growing stronger. It elects a Board of seventy-five managers,-to hold office for three years, one-third of the number annually, which in turn chooses

the Executive officers. While I do not, in all respects, regard its Constitution as a model, thus much can be said of it, that it is a body strictly representative of the Baptist Churches and denomination. And if any serious difficulties have attended its workings, or any dangers have accrued therefrom to the churches, the fact has not yet come to light. It has proved itself a mighty power for evangelization, and has done its work grandly and successfully.

The truth is, that as Congregationalists, we have very little of what may be called a church-consciousness, and therefore very little esprit-de-corps. For reasons which are patent, large numbers of our leading men can hardly tell why they are Congregationalists rather than Methodists or Episcopalians, except that it is a matter of taste. For the want of the requisite positive teaching, our young people grow up with the idea, received almost as a Scriptural maxim from their elders, that it is a matter of indifference what church they belong to, provided only that they make a public profession of their faith, and live up to it. The result has been and is now, that our Eastern Congregational parishes are foraging and recruiting grounds for proselyters of every name. In marriage connections between

our church members and those of churches of other denominations, it is accepted as a matter of course that the Congregationalist must yield to the choice of the other party, whether husband or wife, whose plea is deemed conclusive, “Oh, you know I can not leave my own church." I have been told that Pastors of these other churches have sometimes advised their young people to seek matrimonial alliances with Congregationalists for the end of denominational enlargement. The compliment thus paid us is rather too dearly bought.

But to return more directly to our subject: There is no pretence that our National Benevolent Societies are the creations of the churches. The American Missionary Association gives delegates of churches the rights of membership at its meetings. But this concession amounts to little or nothing, as touching the management of the Association. It is a pleasant compliment. With this seeming exception, the Societies acknowledge no direct responsibility to the churches and are as entirely independent of their control as is Harvard University; while at the