Same subject.

government, and to meet that responsibility. Now, as in no denomination so much is expected of the mass of the church as in ours, so in none are intelligence, and other suitable qualifications for church membership, so urgently demanded. Other forms of church government favor these things, just in proportion as they approach towards, or recede from, the standard of pure Congregationalism.*

* In reply to a letter of inquiry, whether there were any Congregational churches, in a particular section of our country; an intelligent correspondent says "No.", And assigns, as a reason, the want of general intelligence among the people of that section of country.

Congregationalism unquestionably demands a greater measure of religious intelligence, in the mass of the church than any other system of church government. "I do sincerely think," says my correspondent, "that out of New England, it is exceedingly difficult to make Congregational churches live and why? Because out of New England, there is (comparatively speaking) only here and there an enlightened man. He must be an elder and take care of the rest."

Richard Watson, already referred to, grounds an objection to "a popular form of church government," on the supposed ignorance and youth and inexperience of the mass of every religious community. He speaks with a sort of holy horror, of "referring every decision to members and suffrages, and placing all that is good and venerable, and influential among the members themselves, at the feet of a democracy." Institutes, Part IV. chap. 1.

It is too obvious to require argument, that the very necessity for intelligence, will, with good men, be a strong inducement to become intelligent. And, it seems to me altogether reasonable to believe, that in these very communities where it is now supposed that the want of intelligence forbids the existence of Congregational churches, there would have been a vastly greater amount of religious knowledge, if such churches had long ago been established among them. If the intelligence of New England, originally es

To Cong. principles we owe most of our Schools and Colleges.

Some of the legitimate effects of this system are seen in the efforts of the Pilgrims to establish schools and seminaries of learning, as well as to plant churches and to propagate the gospel in this land of their exile; and these were established, mainly, as auxiliaries to their churches.

Scarcely had these venerable men felled the forest of New England, when they began to provide means to ensure the continuance of their churches and the stability of their civil government. "Learning and religion," they wisely judged to be "the firmest pillars of the church and commonwealth." Harvard college, which had previously existed as a high school,* was established at Cambridge as early as 1638, eighteen years only after the first tree was felled in New England.

To Congregational principles we are indebted for most of the colleges of New England. From the same source has flowed down to us that system of common schools, which, notwithstanding its defects, has so long and so richly blessed our land and the world.† The same spirit has founded and endowed all the Theological Seminaries of New England.

The influence of Congregationalism in establishing theological and literary Institutions at the South and West is well known.

Can any man consider the facts now alluded to, without perceiving that this system of church order and discipline is preeminently favorable to general intelligence?

tablished Congregationalism, it is equally true, that Congregationalism, has preserved for New England that intelligence.

* "In 1636 the general court gave £400 towards a public school at Newton." Hutchinson.

↑ See Appendix, No. 6.

Cong. best preserves the churches from general corruption.

4. Another advantage of this system of church government and discipline is, that it presents the most efficient barrier to the inroads of heresy, and false doctrine, and general corruption into the churches of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am not ignorant that some persons regard Congregationalism as the very parent and nurse of all heresy, and of all errors in doctrine and religious practice with which the country is now, or ever has been afflicted.

The very independency of our churches, and the freedom of our government, the right which our churches claim to choose whom they will for pastors, and to adopt what articles of faith, and to pursue what particular practice they please, are regarded among the most objectionable features of this system. That this liberty may not be abused, I shall not contend. That any other than a virtuous people are capable of self-government, I do not believe. That the Congregational system of church government is unsuited to any but truly pious persons, I have already asserted: for none others was it designed. But for these, it is admirably adapted. To such, there is no danger of intrusting the liberty of judging and choosing for themselves. An unconverted, proud, ambitious, worldly minded church member may, it is true, do more injury in a Congregational church, than in any other. For men of this description our church government was never designed. Such men, however intelligent, have not the first, and most important of all qualifications for church membership. But, let our churches be constituted and kept pure by discipline as they ought to be, and there is no danger of intrusting to them the power of electing their

Objection, that bad members cannot be kept out-answered.

own officers, making their own by-laws, and regulating all their own affairs, under Christ.

It may, perhaps, be said: "It is impossible to keep out unworthy members; they are in the church now, and they will always be found there." It is true, this matter demands great watchfulness on the part of our churches; and, after all, some unworthy members may creep in: if, however, the great mass of the church be sound and pious, there will be, under ordinary circumstances, comparatively little danger from the unsoundness of a few individuals. Certain it is, that there is much less danger that the ma- jority of a church will become unsound and heretical, than that a single man, or a few men, constituted governors of the church, will swerve from the faith. Every system of church government, which takes the power out of the hands of the brethren-or the church itself-places it in the hands of individuals. If these are members of the particular church which they control, the danger to the church will be, in proportion to the fewness of her governors that is to say, there will be more danger that one man will become unsound and heretical, than that five will; and more danger that five will swerve from the truth, than that one hundred will. And, should these governors be chosen by the churches themselves, the state of the case will not be materially altered.

Upon this subject ecclesiastical history lifts an admonitory voice. It is notorious that when the control of the churches fell into the hands of synods, then the purity of the churches began visibly and rapidly to decline. This declension became more serious, as the influence of many, in the government of the churches diminished to a few; and it became total, when "THE MAN OF SIN" mounted the

Independency of churches a barrier against defection.

papal throne, and claimed to be the Head of the Church; the Vicegerent of Christ; the Infallible Interpreter of the mind of the Spirit, and the Unerring guide of the faithful.

Now, inasmuch as our Congregational polity places all church power in the hands of the brethren of the church, it provides the greatest possible safeguard against the inroads of heresy.

Then, again, the independency of the churches, furnishes a further barrier against general defection from the faith. The more closely you connect the different communities of Christian professors for purposes of government, the more readily are they affected by each other. Bring these associated communities under the government of one man, or of a few men, and you increase the danger of corruption in the whole mass, in proportion to the intimacy of the association and the influence and power of its governors. But, should a Congregational church become heretical in its faith and erroneous in its practice, it will not necessarily affect sister churches. It will not, except by the force of bad example. Each church standing independently of every other, so far as its internal management is concerned, has the means of defence in its own hands. It can shut the door; and no man can open it.

Then, in respect to its teachers this system furnishes as complete a barrier against false and dangerous doctrine, as it is possible to raise. It recognizes no man's right to send to a church a preacher, or to place over it a pastor. We know no metropolitan-no general or yearly conference having authority to say to this man, go; and to another come-no presbytery to tell us whether we may, or may not call a pastor. Each church judges and chooses for itself. Every brother in the church has a perfect right