million Europeans" have been raised during the present century, "from a degraded and ever dissatisfied vassalage to the rank of free and self-governing men." This is the rising monument to the Puritans.

83

But the greater share of this glory belongs to the Congregational Puritans who went beyond the Presbyterian Puritans as respects liberty, in their theory of government. Archbishop Laud, in his sermon February 6, 1625–6, at Westminster, before Charles I, said: "And there is not a man that is for parity—all fellows [that is, equals] in the Church—but he is not for monarchy in the State." Prof. James S. Candlish, of the Free Church College, Glasgow, points out the difference between the Presbyterian and the Congregational Puritans. "The Presbyterians were anxious to reform the Church of England more thoroughly, but they desired still to retain its national character. They would have a Church in alliance with the State, and embracing as far as possible all the people, not only preaching the gospel and dispensing the sacraments, but exercising discipline, and in all these functions aided and supported by the civil power." The Congregationalists on the contrary "sought an entire and unlimited toleration." "Cromwell contended that godly men should not be excluded from the public service because they would not take the Covenant." This position landed the Congregationalists in "a political theocracy, the Church being merged in the State, and the kingdom of God conceived as a Christian State." 35 Thus the Congregational Theory emerged as a Christian State both in England and in New England; but it soon was forced to correct its error in England by the Restoration, and in New England by a slower process. Yet while thus embarrassed by inherited notions from state establishments, the influence of this theory of the Church upon liberty in the State has been immense. It laid the foundations of this Republic and may

33 Mackenzie's Hist. 19th Century, 459. 35 Cunningham Lectures, 1884, 294-296.

4 Hanbury's Hist. Memorials, 1, 476.

even claim the form of its development. "The Church was the nucleus about which the neighborhood constituting a town was gathered." No institution "has had more influence on the condition and character of the people" than the republics called towns, which for several generations were churches or parishes acting in civil and political relations.36 The germ of our state and national institutions was this town-church, and this church was democratic and Congregational. Thus it was that this "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," became the guiding star of all nations in civil and religious liberty. "To Robert Browne belongs the honor of first setting forth, in writing, the scheme of free church government." "Such was the commencement of that great movement on behalf of the independence of the churches which has electrified the globe and wrought out the most stupendous political and moral revolution of modern times." There was an earlier but abortive attempt in Germany. The synod of Homburg, in 1526, gave the first formal development of Congregationalism since the Reformation,38 but it was too revolutionary to suit the times. No statesman can omit to study the forms of church government of the country he governs, for they have the closest relations to, and the most controlling bearing upon, the liberties of that country.

It has been said that "the Presbyterian Church is the most republican church, the most American church, so far as political institutions can be assimilated to religious institutions; but close inquiry does not justify such claim. The word republican means "pertaining to a republic; consonant with the principles of a republic;" and a republic is "a state in which the sovereign power is exercised by representatives elected by the people." The particular churches under the Presbyterian polity elect their respective sessions only in part. Such sessions are composed of pastors and ruling

36 Palfrey's Hist. New Eng., ii, 11, seq.

37 Orthodox Congregationalism, Dr. Dorus Clarke, 39.

38 6 Cong. Quart., 276–280.

elders. Each Presbyterian church elects and ordains its own ruling elders; but its pastor, the presiding officer of the session, must receive his call through the presbytery, subject to its discretion; for election by the church is considered as only a petition for installation, and his acceptance as only a request for installation. Hence the session is not wholly elected by the people. The session of each church within a specified district chooses one ruling elder, and these ruling elders with the ministers of those churches, and possibly other ministers, constitute a presbytery. The synod is made up in the same way, but from a wider district. But the general assembly consists of an equal delegation of ministers and ruling elders chosen by the presbyteries, in some specified ratio. Thus the ruling elders are the only representatives fully and directly elected by the people. Until quite recently the ruling elders were chosen for life; and they are still generally so chosen. Hence after the first election of the church session, there may be no other election by the people for a full generation, and then only to fill vacancies. This infrequent choice of ruling elders, and the choice of petition for a pastor, are all that the people have to do in "the most American church." For the presbyteries and synods are made up of ruling elders elected by the sessions, together with the ministers. The presbyteries choose from themselves the commissioners of the general assembly. Thus every election after the choice of the session is made by church officers from their own number. If our political institutions were of this sort, then the election of town and city officers generally for life by the people would exhaust the people's right and duty. For the city and town officers would elect from their own number both county and state officers; and these again from their own number would choose all national officers, as the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. From the beginning to the end, the people would have but one choice, the election of town and city officers. Every thing beyond this initial point would be

done by officers holding generally life tenures, who would elect from themselves, directly or indirectly, county, state, and national officials. This is not so much republican as aristocratic in its principles and operation.

This brief statement of Presbyterianism, as given in its Form of Government, does not justify the claim that the Presbyterian Church is "the most American church." It is almost wholly a government of officers elected for life, by officers chosen from among themselves and by themselves. It is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

A nearer approach is found in Congregationalism, as lately developed into district, state, and national associations of churches. It is true that the element of authority is lacking in this system, an element not Christian, but introduced by the union of church and state under Constantine. But this return to the plan of the apostles does not deprive Congregationalism of its resemblance to republicanism. Congregational churches elect and install their own officers, choose delegates to ecclesiastical councils, to district and state bodies, and to whatever conventions they may wish to attend. Thus elections are frequent, and by the membership, not by the officers. The election of delegates to the National Council is indirect, as the election of United States senators is indirect. And the candidates are not confined to officials but may include any member. Here is a closer parallel between civil and ecclesiastical institutions, as is fitting between the child and the parent; for our civil institutions had their origin in Congregationalism.

§ 83. It would seem hardly necessary to add that each one of these theories determines the activities of its adherents. Theological differences within the evangelical lines have some bearing upon benevolences and labors. A Calvinist and an Arminian can, however, worship and work together, if brought into the same church, and soon forget their differences in a common brotherhood. There is noth

ing in church action to raise their doctrinal differences into controlling position. But it is not so in matters of polity. A true Papist can not fraternize with a Congregationalist, though both believe in the consensus of faith of all Christendom; for every church act involves a theory of the Church, and in their theories they are at antipodes. It is so also with an Episcopalian and a Presbyterian. Indeed, the attempt has been made to make two theories standing nearest together coöperate in missions at home and abroad; but the theories were stronger than utilities, and so have drawn them into separate channels of activity. It is not wholly bigotry that keeps churches asunder (§ 45), but often adherence to principle. Conscience lies at the bottom. Doctrine is not so much involved in acts of worship and church action, but polity is involved, and hence must assert itself. And each theory of the Church demands that church acts be in harmony with itself, and that all activities center in itself.

§ 84. The ecclesiastical development indicated by the theories presented has been useful. God's method is: "First the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear (Mark 4: 28). The theories have been tutors, leading unto the truth. They are experiments needed for the discovery and confirmation of the plan of Christ. The followers of Christ were placed as children under the liberty and unity of love, not under a minute and inflexible law, as were the children of Israel. Grand determinative principles were given to guide them, not minute ordinances like those which Moses gave, and which became a yoke of bondage. In applying these principles mistakes arose which required centuries for their full development, as we have seen, and which may require centuries for their elimination. This is the training of God's providence in his school of grace. We may say of the theories of church government, what has been said of the Christian clergy: "They came to be what they were by the inevitable force of circumstances, that is