The hymn beginning,

is restored.

"There is a fountain filled with blood"

It was voted not to print "Amens," which probably means that no distinction is to be made in this respect.

ORGANIZATION BY SELF-GOVERNING CHURCHES FOR MISSIONARY

WORK.

THE two articles of faith which first attracted and absorbed the thought of Christian believers were the Person of Christ and the Church. It is natural and profoundly suggestive that when again the first of these doctrines becomes ascendant the other should also start into prominence.

We publish in this issue of the REVIEW two papers from men trained in denominations which have limited the conception of the organized and self-governing church to the local society of believers. Their contributions express a growing conviction that the doctrine of the church, as it has been practically apprehended in the communions to which we have referred, needs revision and expansion both on its theoretical and executive sides. It is not our custom to review editorially the opinions of our contributors. We do not propose to do so now. Yet because of our agreement with the main direction and contention of these papers, and because we would second their appeal in behalf of more efficient church organization for Christian work, we permit ourselves a few comments upon some of their statements which seem to us liable, if unqualified, to prejudice the issue which we all alike desire.

The penetrating criticism of Dr. Gould on the inability of Congregationalism to embrace in its conception of the church the social as well as the individual principle we accept as truer empirically than theoretically, and as only partially correct where it is best warranted. In principle Congregationalism is not Independency, nor has it in development, however serious its deficiencies, been oblivious of catholicity. Especially do we object to the statement that its idea of the church is that of "a purely voluntary association of men who think alike in regard to religious beliefs." That there has been at times, and under certain conditions, a misuse of creeds, confusion of their different ends, violation of true church principles in their construction, we frankly acknowledge and deeply deplore. But the abuse is due to other causes than to a conception of the church which reduces it to the rank of a theological club. Our fathers sought for a pure church. Revolting from institutional holiness, they emphasized personal piety. The church is a fellowship of believers. Confession of faith is a revelation of faith, an outward sign helpful in determining who are believers. The idea that the church is a merely voluntary association of men who agree in religious belief was foreign to the thought of the early Congregationalists. The church was to them a

divine institution, even as to its particular form. Membership in it was a sacred obligation. The qualifications for admission were repentance and faith. The covenant was the formative act, not acceptance of a creed. The individualism of the movement was rooted in its conception of religion as personal, and of Christianity as vital faith, a conception which is essential to a true doctrine of the church, and which should be controlling in all schemes of organization for Christian work.

That we may not appear to be giving a mere opinion, we would call attention to a few authorities.

The Cambridge Platform thus defines :

"A congregational church is by the institution of Christ a part of the militant visible church, consisting of a company of saints by calling united into one body by an holy covenant, for the public worship of God, and the mutual edification one of another, in the fellowship of the Lord Jesus."

Following the logical method of the time, a church is further defined by its matter and form. The members are saints," that is (1) believers who give evidence sufficient to "satisfy rational charity" of the reality of their faith, "the weakest measure "of which must be accepted, so that "the weakest Christian, if sincere, may not be excluded nor discouraged;" and (2) the children of such believers. The form of the church that is, the principle and act by which it comes into distinct expression and being — is a voluntary agreement or covenant, explicit or implicit, "to meet constantly together in one congregation, for the public worship of God and their mutual edification." "All believers ought, as God giveth them opportunity thereunto, to endeavor to join themselves unto a particular church, and that in respect of the honor of Jesus Christ, in his example and institution," for the good of Christian fellowship, for protection and recovery, and for the perpetuation of the society. Evidently the authors of such statements thought of the church as a divine institution, universal in its claim upon all Christian people.

The Platform of 1865 follows the same lines. "A particular or local church is a definite and organized part of the Visible Church Catholic." It" consists of those who visibly belonging to Christ are separated from the ungodly world and united in a holy fellowship." Its matter and form are treated as in the earlier document. "It is not needful that the profession of repentance and faith should be always in the same form of words." "Neither Christ nor his apostles prescribed any form of words to be imposed on disciples or on churches for the confession of their faith." "However explicit the covenant may be, it can rightfully express nothing more than a mutual agreement to observe all Christ's laws and ordinances as one church of Christ." "No church has any rightful power to make itself other than simply a church of Christ, in which his mind, as made known in the Scriptures, shall be the only rule of faith and practice."

These are organic principles of Congregationalism. They exclude the

conception of the church as a mere voluntary association of men who may agree in religious thought.

Nor does Congregationalism, any more really than other Protestant communions, Lutheran or Reformed, organize "on the basis of a creed." It has creeds, as do all churches springing directly from the Reformation. It has, especially in one portion of its history, emphasized these creeds in the reception of church-members. We are not now defending this particular practice, but looking at principles. And from this point of view we deny that Congregationalism, any more than other evangelical denominations, or at all, makes a creed the foundation of a church. Each local society is a church of Christ. He is the one foundation, and not dogmatic formulas, even though Christ is their subject. Justification of this claim for Congregationalism is given in the citations from the Platforms already made. Church-members are those who "visibly belong to Christ," not those who simply think alike about Him. The creed question for Congregationalists in respect to church organization, as for all churches of the Reformation, arises in connection with the distinction between the church invisible and the church visible, and in determining the notes or signs of the latter. There is no difference in principle here between Congregationalists and the other communions to which allusion is made.

The stress of our contributor's criticism falls, therefore, on the refusal of Congregationalism to extend the conception of the visible and organized church beyond local societies. Here the Platforms come to his support. The Boston Platform (1865) says:

"As the notion of a visibly organized and governed Catholic Church has no warrant from the Scriptures; so the notion of a national church having jurisdiction over the particular churches in a nation is equally unwarranted. Under the gospel the visibly governed church is not ecumenical, nor national, nor provincial, nor diocesan, but only local or parochial, - a congregation of believers dwelling together in one city, town, or convenient neighborhood."

Unquestionably Congregationalism has thus far declined to call its churches a church with any implication of a government of the local societies by the whole body. Yet, no less beyond question has it, from the beginning, advanced the idea of a body of which local churches are members, and with reference to which all their duties are to be determined. The Cambridge Platform affirms that the communion of churches is obligatory, and it grounds the duty in their common relation to Christ as their "political Head." The language is worth quoting in full:

"Although churches be distinct, and therefore may not be confounded one with another, and equal, and therefore have not dominion one over another, yet all the churches ought to preserve church communion one with another, because they are all united unto Christ, not only as a mystical, but as a political head, whence is derived a communion suitable thereunto."

The later Platform is equally clear in principle and more explicit in

statement. It recognizes a "Visible Church Catholic," though it denies "a visibly organized and governed Catholic Church." It says that "all the churches ought to preserve church communion one with another, because they are all united to Christ as integral parts of his one Catholic Church, Militant against the evil that is in the world, and Visible in the profession of the Christian faith, in the observance of the Christian sacraments, in the manifestation of the Christian life, and in the worship of the one God of our salvation, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." On the basis of this principle, which, it should be observed, recognizes the whole body of believers, a visible, catholic church, and is constructive, -Congregationalism has developed a system of church councils and associations coextensive with county, state, and national lines.

Whether or not it shall call itself the Congregational Church of the United States, or of some other country, is a question of definition. It regards itself in its totality as a part of the one visible church of Christ. If the word church describes a communion of churches, Congregationalism can appropriate the term. If the word signifies a body invested with governing power, it cannot appropriate it, provided this governing power necessarily conflicts with local autonomy. It is, however, to say the least, an open question whether a representative government springing directly from self-governing churches is necessarily antagonistic to local autonomy. At present, however, by its traditions and customs, if not by its permanent principles, Congregationalism admits of no governmental unity of churches. Beyond the point of association in the local church it refuses to carry the notion of government. It does, however, as we have seen, most emphatically affirm the idea of union. It makes this an obligation and a formative principle. It limits, or as we believe to be a truer conception, it completes the conception of the local church by bringing in the conception of the Church as a body. Every particular church is bound to govern itself as a part of the whole. In every act it is to regard itself as united, with all other churches, to Christ, the Head. The only questions of importance at this point, therefore, between Congregationalism and communions which admit governmental unity, are, whether it is lawful, and if lawful expedient, to secure union in the things that are common and for ends that are common, in a governmental way, or solely in a moral way. To our apprehension these two questions will reduce themselves to one. The real issue is one of effectiveness in Christian work an effectiveness measured not by immediate or partial results, but by the purity and power with which Christianity is propagated and maintained. If the Congregational polity is not as adequate to this end as some other, it is thereby judged, nor can any theory built upon the use of the word church in the New Testament be deemed conclusive against results which express, and principles which are founded in, the nature of Christianity.

For the present we distrust the alleged necessity of a governmental

unity. The Congregational principle includes and emphasizes unity, but makes the bond ethical and spiritual. It seeks to secure efficiency in Christian organization by fostering self-governing societies, and by using this developed individualism in free combination under the obligations of Christian fellowship and service. It has the advantage of making service the common and principal aim. One contributor rightly calls attention to the changed conception of government which has arisen since our Congregational fathers framed their system of church polity. This change is essentially a higher ethical conception of government. It involves an increasing recognition and gradual elevation of the moral bond of society. Congregationalism emphasizes the spiritual bond of union. So far as government resolves itself into moral influence it admits government on the largest scale. It prefers, however, until human nature in the Church is more controlled by the Christian spirit, to emphasize everywhere the spiritual bond of union, and to reduce governmental action, through human agents, to a minimum. The progress of society may make this latter species of action more and more pure, and its abuses less and less probable. But when government in the Church becomes perfectly safe, because it is a reflection of the mind of Christ, the difference between governmental and spiritual unity may become unimportant. Christ will reign by his truth and Spirit.

However this may be, it is evident that Congregationalism, if it is to maintain and approve itself in these strenuous, searching, and sifting times, must show that it has the energies and agencies of a great Christian communion. It must carry out its own principles on their catholic as well as individualistic side. It must think of itself rigorously, thoroughly, and constantly as a representative part of the one true Church of Christ, and as bound to maintain itself in the purity and breadth and freedom of such a Church. It may and should embrace many schools of thought. It violates its charter and name if it becomes in any wise a private association, or a combination of private associations, for scientific or philanthropic ends. Very plainly is it called upon to manifest its competency for aggressive Christian work, and for such organization as is requisite to its accomplishment. Here we are in full agreement with our contributors. There is a common and indescribably great work to be done by our churches on missionary lines, both at home and abroad. They are not engaged in it, or in contact with it, at all as they should be. One main difficulty, we are persuaded, lies in their having no opportunity to take that part in it which most awakens interest and stimulates effort. They are appealed to, constantly and impressively, to aid in it by prayers and contributions. Their individual relation to it as churches, still more the personal relation to it of the immense majority of church-members, is not made otherwise apparent, and cannot be made so, to any adequate degree, on present methods. The consequence is that our benevolent societies whose management