bers of this body, reveals the fact that special attention were necessary in the final revision to the following points: 1. The insertion of proof texts after the manner of the Cambridge Platform, and also of references to standard works on Congregationalism. 2. The definition of Church Polity. 3. The definition of the Church Visible, and the whole arrangement of the definitions of the Church, local and universal, visible and invisible, militant and triumphant, with reference to the question of genus and species, and of logical consistency. 4. The statement concerning councils, as to their action in certain cases as boards of referees, as to the propriety of admitting persons as corresponding members not invited in the letters-missive, as to the propriety of sending stated supplies to act as pastors on councils, as to the propriety of using the word " Synod." 5. The relation of ecclesiastical societies to the churches, and the degree and kind of control which such societies should have over Church property, and also as to the recognition and commendation of the practice of dispensing with the "ecclesiastical society" altogether, when the civil law allows. 6. The relation of baptized children to the Church. 7. The designation of the Church members who may properly vote in Church meetings. 8. The more distinct recognition of the aggressive and missionary functions of the Church, and the question of a more direct control by the Church of the various benevolent enterprises which they maintain. 9. Sundry question concerning ministers and the pastoral office, such as these: :-Should a minister be a member of the Church of which he is pastor? Are the statements of the platform under consideration, concerning the eldership and the presbyters, on page nine, correct? What should be the office of the pastor in inaugurating and administering discipline in the Church? Is a pastor, ex officio, the moderator of all the meetings of the Church? Are the rights and powers of a pastor correctly stated? Should the pastor have entire control of the service of teaching or preaching in his own pulpit? Should a Church ordain and depose from the ministry, or only a Council? 10. The grouping of all the churches of a city or town into one Church, page six. 11. The scriptural requirement that the Psalms be used in public worship. 12. A more precise specification of the only mode of separation from the Church. 13. The importance of introducing more fully the doctrines of the Cambridge Platform, concerning the withdrawal of fellowship from a disorderly Church by its sister churches. 14. The importance of sharply defining, in a separate chapter, the distinction between the Church polity of Congregationalists and the polity of other denominations. 15. The principle and law of fellowship through Councils and the proper functions of ex-parte Councils. 16. The statement made on page thirteen, article six, concerning the treatment of excommunicated Church members. 17. The statement made on page eighteen, section twelve, respecting the confederation of churches, and the question whether there should be a recognition of standing Councils. 18. The expediency of securing the preparation of a catechism upon the cardinal principles of our faith and polity, for the use of the churches. Such your committee have found to be the general character of the two docu ments submitted to them, and such are the points which seem to require special attention and revision. In conclusion, your committee recommend the following action on the part of the Council: Resolved, That this Council, having received and duly examined the two statements of Church polity presented to them, hereby express their approval of the general principles and scope of the same. Resolved, That these documents be referred to the committee reporting them, consisting of Rev. Leonard Bacon, D. D., Rev. Alonzo H. Quint, and Rev. Henry M. Storrs, D. D., which committee shall be enlarged by the addition of twenty-four members, of whom six shall be professors selected, one from each of our six theological seminaries; viz., Bangor, Andover, New Haven, East Windsor, Oberlin, and Chicago, to be nominated by the Committee on Nominations and appointed by this body, who shall revise and publish the same under the following instructions: 1. All members and ministers of Congregational churches, either in an individual or associated capacity, and especially the committee who framed these documents, shall be invited by the committee of twenty-five to indicate such additions, emendations, and omissions as they may judge proper. 2. The committee shall take into special and careful consideration the points to which attention is now called in this report, and in general shall be empowered to make such changes and additions to the documents in their charge as they may deem advisable, and as may not be inconsistent with the general principles now approved. 3. In cases where, without a violation of the cardinal principles of Congregationalism, the usages of Congregationists differ, the mode preferred by the committee shall be inserted in the text, and the varying usages shall be indicated in a foot-note. 4. The origin and history of the document shall be set forth in a preface, to which shall be appended the signatures of the committee. 5. An appendix shall be added, containing such ecclesiastical formulas as the committee may deem expedient. JOHN P. GULLIVER, J. S. HOYT, J. G. DAVIS, J. D. LIGGETT, E. S. BURR. Rev. Dr. Leavitt, of New York, made the following minority report: MINORITY REPORT ON THE STATEMENT OF CHURCH POLITY. The undersigned, a minority of the committee of the National Congregational Council, to whom was referred the statement of Congregational Polity presented by the Committee of the Provisional Conference at New York, respectfully report: That the Council, and the churches they represent, are under obligations of grat itude to the Provisional Committee for the pains and study they have bestowed in the preparation of this document, which is both instructive and valuable as a presentation of the ancient principles of Congregationalism in their application to modern circumstances. Should it be published, as it ought to be, either among the doings of this Council or in a separate work, or in both these ways, it will add one more to the many attempts of wise and good men to reduce these principles and their applications to the form of a consistent and harmonious code. As the latest in ordinary time, it will be found among the most complete and useful of similar compilations in our language. But valuable as all must admit it to be in its general character, and worthy of high respect as a comprehensive statement, it is quite beyond both the province and the capacity of this Council to determine, with the needful deliberation, the innumerable points of detail of so extensive a work. And it would be neither right nor wise for the Council to seem to attach the authority of its sanction to statements which it has neither formed nor considered in their minute expression and multifarious application. What is rather appropriate for this Council, would be such a statement of the general principles of Congregationalism, and such an exposition of the bearing of those principles upon the civil and religious liberties of the country, upon our free institutions, and upon the growth and character of our American civilization, as would be fitted to commend their principles to the respectful consideration of those that are not Congregationalists, and illustrate the benefits which would accrue to churches and Christians of every name from the general adoption of the simple methods of Church government exhibited in the New Testament. If Congregational principles are destined to meet with general prevalence throughout our country, I apprehend that it will not be done by the present slow process of training up Congregational ministers in Congregational seminaries, who shall gather Congregational churches, forcing their way in antagonism to all the other churches, so much as by ministers and churches of other denominations coming by convincement of fact and conscience to the belief of the soundness of our principles and the safety and good effects of maintaining Church life and efficiency with such simple machinery. The Congregationalists of England and Wales, some of whose churches are older than our own, and whose numbers and efficiency, the learning and orthodoxy of their clergy, and the general intelligence and piety of their members, entitle their views and practices to great weight, and with whom we hold equal fellowship, have published a general statement of their principles of faith and order, which may afford a useful hint in regard to the business before us. It was prepared at the annual meeting of the Congregational Union of England and Wales in 1832, submitted to the ministers and churches of the respective county and district associations, and, having met with general approbation, was unanimously adopted in 1833,"with the distinct understanding that it was not intended as a text, or creed, for subscription." Of this document, the "Principles of Church Order and Discipline" occupy about one page, and this has been found, for more than thirty years, to be a sufficient exposition of the nature of their Church order and discipline. The most important parts of this declaration may be given with still greater brevity, omitting such portions as relate to their particular circumstances, and with such changes of phraseology as may give to the principles a greater distinctness of expression. 1. They hold it to be the will of Christ that believers should assemble together to observe religious ordinances, to promote constant edification, to perpetuate and propagate the Christian religion, and to advance the worship and glory of God; and that such society of believers, having these objects in view, is properly a Christian Church. 2. That the New Testament contains, either in the form of express statute or in the example and practice of apostles and apostolical churches, all the principles of order and discipline requisite for constituting and governing the churches; so that human traditions, fathers, and councils, canons and creeds, possess no authority over the faith and practice of Christians, and all questions are to be settled by appeal to the Scriptures. 3. That the New Testament authorizes every Christian Church to elect its own officers, to manage all its own affairs, and to stand independent of all authority, saving that only of the Lord Jesus Christ. 4. That the only officers placed by the apostles over individual churches are the bishops or pastors, and the deacons, in numbers according to the necessities of the Church; and to these, as the officers of the Church, is committed respectively the administration of its spiritual and temporal concerns, subject to the approbation of the Church. 5. The power of admission into any Christian Church, and rejection from it, is vested in the Church itself, and to be exercised only through its officers. 6. That no persons should be received as members of Christian churches but such as make a creditable profession of Christianity, are living according to its precepts, and attest a willingness to be subject to its discipline; and that none should be excluded from the fellowship of the Church but such as deny the faith of Christ, violate his laws, or refuse to submit themselves to the discipline which the word of God imposes. * 10. That it is the duty of Christian churches to hold communion with each other, to entertain an enlarged affection for each other as members of the same body, and to cooperate for the promotion of the Christian cause; but that no Church nor union of churches has any right or power to interfere with the faith or discipline of any other Church, further than to separate from such as in faith or practice depart from the gospel of Christ. 11. That it is the privilege and duty of every Church to call forth such of its members as may appear to be qualified by the Holy Spirit, to sustain the office of the ministry; and that Christian churches unitedly ought to consider the maintenance of the Christian ministry in an adequate degree of learning, as one of its (sic) especial cares; that the cause of the gospel may be both honorably sustained and constantly promoted. 12. That Church officers, whether bishops or deacons, should be chosen by the free voice of the Church; but that their dedication to the duties of their office should take place with special prayers, and by solemn designation; to which most of the churches add the imposition of hands by those already in office. 13. That the fellowship of every Christian Church should be so liberal as to admit to communion in the Lord's Supper all whose faith and godliness are on the whole undoubted, though conscientiously differing in points of minor importance; and that this outward sign of fraternity in Christ should be co-extensive with the fraternity itself, though without involving any compliances which conscience would deem sinful.1 In comparing these passages with the document referred to this committee, or any other accredited publication on American Congregationalism, several consider 1 See Hanbury, Historical Memorials, vol. 3, pp. 599, 600. able differences are apparent, both in the presentation and the application of the practical rules drawn from the one fundamental principle which is common to both countries, the perfect autonomy of the local Church. For instance, they do not require the strictness of an actual covenant to the being of a Church, but take practical union in worship as a sufficient basis of Church power and Church responsibility, which is all that can be clearly proved from Scripture. They give the binding force of law to no custom or inference not clearly found in Scripture. They give more distinct and express prominency to the tenet that the Church is "independent of all authority" but Christ's. On the other hand, their requirement, that all Church action should be "through its officers," would not be well received among us, where all our people are accustomed and trained to take an active part in the management of affairs. A still more important difference appears in their broader presentation of the rights and relations of churches, so as to include, not Congregational, but all "Christian churches," alike in their claims and responsibilities. Has not the time come, and is not this Council the appropriate agent, for American Congregationalists to take this elevated ground, and, looking away beyond the narrow bounds of a denomination, proclaim to all Christian churches our recognition of their right to all the liberties which we enjoy, and our readiness to embrace in our fellowship of the churches all who give evidence that Christ acknowledges them for his? This view of the possible duty of the Council suggests another reason why the document referred to us is not quite appropriate to the occasion. It is based upon the Cambridge Platform of 1648, and is a transcript of much of that famous and valuable record, including as well its antiquated phraseology as its uncouth and lumbering logic. But that Platform was an outgrowth of the circumstances in which our Pilgrim Fathers then found themselves, only twenty-six years after the first settlement at Plymouth; and it is submitted that the circumstances in which this Council convenes call for an utterance as different in tone and aim as our present situation, duties, and responsibilities differ from theirs. If we throw ourselves back into their case, we shall find a Synod summoned and authorized by the civil power, embracing the representatives of thirty or forty feeble churches, the only Christian lights of about as many thousand civilized inhabitants, sprinkled through the dense wilderness from Salem to Hartford. They were pressed down with two great anxieties which they looked to the Synod to allay. First, their hearts longed, even to bursting, in their solitude and weakness, to feel the fellowship and confidence of the churches of the Old World, so large and so strong. And secondly, they felt that the future welfare and even life of their whole enterprise depended upon the preservation of entire unity among themselves. And their utterances naturally took the forms calculated to meet these their greatest necessities. As the churches of the Old World with whom they were in correspondence were all Calvinistic, and mostly Presbyterian, the Synod gave full and emphatic assurance of their own adherence to the Calvinistic formularies, but only "for substance of doctrine;" and were also careful to put such a face on their own Congregational usages as was best fitted to make them appear as good as Presbytery. And on the other point, they made the cords of their unity fully as stringent as could possibly appear consistent with the cardinal principle of the autonomy of the individual Church. And from that time to the present, Congregationalism has suffered itself to be shut up in a corner of the country, and has presented itself as on the defensive, in the presence of the more organized and governed bodies of Christian churches in this country; and all its utterances have been more or less apologetic |