1

We may, then, approve the communion and consociation of churches, as does Davenport, while, at the same time, adding some cautions from Mr. Cotton's "Keys" and from "Mr. Shepheard's and Mr. Allen's Defence of the Nine Positions, in Answer to Mr. Ball." From the "Caution" of the last-named gentlemen we quote these words: "Association of divers particular Churches, we hold needful, as well as the combination of Members into one Church; yet so, as there be no Schism of one from another, nor usurpation of one over another; that either one should deprive the rest of peace, by Schism, or many should deprive any one of its power by usurpation. . . . Consociation of Churches we would have cumulativè (not in words, but in deed) to strengthen the power of particular Churches: Not privative, to take away any power, which they had from the gift of Christ before. For, as on the one side, it may seem strange, that one Church offending should have no means of Cure by the conceived power of many; so, on the other side, the danger may appear as great, and frequently falls out, that, when many Churches are scandalous, one innocent church may be hurt by the Usurpation of all. And hence we see not, but that Fraternal Consociation is the best Medicine to heal the Wounds of both."

It remains that we should briefly consider those ways of the communion of churches which have been classified under the terms "indirect" and "formal." The indirect and formal ways of the application of the principle of the communion of churches comprise, besides those societies and boards organized for benevolent enterprises which will receive a measure of special attention, all the various organizations that are of distinctively clerical characteristics. The so-called Association of

1 Power of Congregational Churches, p. 146, f.

Ministers is the typical form of such organizations. Many of our conventions, conferences, and consociations, however, show a marked liability to lapse into this form, and become really and practically little more than associations of ministers.

There can be no doubt, of course, that ministers have the same right as other classes of society, based upon grounds of law and common morals, to form themselves into fraternal bunds and various forms of communion. There is, perhaps, as little doubt that such associations have a right to existence, based upon grounds of pure Christian morality, whenever it appears that they may be made useful to the churches and to the general cause of Christian progress. What however, is the relation which these associations sustain to the communion of the churches? It is apparent at once, that this relation cannot well be otherwise than practically most intimate. Of necessity, the terms of admission to the ministerial association must have much to do with the terms exacted by the churches for admission into the order of their pastorate; and this will happen without any formal agreement of the churches to place themselves under ministerial tutelage for instruction as to the men fit for their offices. The candidate who has been examined and licensed by the clerical association is commended as fit to the churches: he is in the place of the physician or lawyer who has obtained his full certificate of professional attainment. The man who has failed to gain membership in the association, or who has, for any reason, lost a membership once gained, cannot stand before the churches upon equally advantageous terms as a candidate for the pastoral office. However much we may deny the theory of any jurisdiction or authority over the particular churches or their councils, as be

longing to or emanating from the ministerial body, practically such authority and jurisdiction will be largely recognized. Doubtless this informal recognition is, on the whole, most beneficial.

It is necessary, then, that we should at once place these ministerial bodies, so far as they have influence upon the relations of the particular churches, on their proper basis of principle. If they are indirect and yet formal ways of the communion of churches, - and such, to a large extent, they must necessarily be, they are governed by the principles already enunciated. Genuine love for Christ's people, and free but veracious expression of such love, must motive all the measures of these ecclesiastical bodies. To secure such motive is of more importance than to organize the clerical force of the churches into more compacted and expressive forms.

The history of the formation of such distinctively ministerial societies in our church order is very interesting and instructive. We have already seen the truth of history, that two tendencies the one toward the exclusive self-control of the particular churches, and the other toward the more formal use of the principle of the communion of churches for the purpose of controlling those churches-have been struggling together from the beginning until now. We are at this point called upon to notice another truth of history. The tendency toward centralizing the forces of our church order has repeatedly suffered defeat from the spirit of independence which is in the particular churches themselves. Now, no body of men, whenever strongly advocating and pushing this centralizing of forces, can fail to come into conflict with this spirit of independency. This spirit of independency is now in all the Christian

churches, of whatever church order or denominational name. Not to acknowledge it is either ignorantly to overlook it, or intelligently to propose to check it. To acknowledge it should lead us intelligently to brook and guide it. At any rate, this spirit of self-control is, I repeat, firmly seated in our churches; it has not yet been exorcised; it will not easily be cast down or cast out. When, then, the centralizing tendency, the tendency which seeks for some more compacted and seemingly forceful forms of controlling evils, meets this counter tendency, -the spirit of independence, which is wise or unwise, which is crude self-will or intelligent freedom, as the case may be,- its customary and inevitable resort is to ecclesiasticism. What the churches, led by their pastors, do not accomplish or will not undertake, the clergy as a class may be induced to try. This tendency, therefore, strives to obtain enlarged expression for itself by enlarging the powers of the clergy. The history of our church order will especially show, what the general history of the church will confirm, that the effort to express the centralizing force as a rule takes the form of ecclesiasticism. In the history of Congregationalism the effort to tone up the slackening strings of our harp has invariably resulted in a song to the praises of some form of the clerical association. These praises have generally been preceded or accompanied by lamentations bestowed upon the weakness and unsatisfactoriness of so-called mutual councils. The assumption has repeatedly been made, that if we could have some means of expressing force through a more distinctively clerical body, like the presbytery or synod of the Presbyterian Church, then we should see more results of genuine and beneficent and rational force.

To illustrate what has just been said let us take but a glance at the history of ministerial associations. As early as 1633 a number of ministers of Massachusetts Bay agreed to meet together once a fortnight for conference concerning the interests of the churches. Mr. Skelton and the erratic Roger Williams, who were then ministers of the church at Salem (although the latter had not been formally inducted into his office), held aloof from this meeting, out of fear that it might grow into a presbytery, or some form of ecclesiastical tribunal. The others, then, all decidedly and unanimously expressed themselves of the opinion that no church or person can have any power over another church; and in fact they scrupulously abstained in these meetings from the slightest show of a disposition to exercise jurisdiction over the churches. Indeed, there are few signs of any marked tendency to constitute a semi-juridical body out of the Congregational ministry until a century and a half later. The germinal and tender stages in growth of this tendency are thus described by Rev. John Wise, whose words I quote at length as most amusing and instructive, but without expressing confidence in the perfect accuracy of the view espoused by this writer: "About thirty years ago, more or less," declares Mr. Wise, "there was no appearance of the associations of pastors in these Colonies, and in some parts and places there is none yet. But after the country had suffered much in the slaughters and depredations committed by the heathen, and by some other afflictions, the neighboring ministers in some counties met to pray together, &c., and for no other intent that I ever knew or heard of. But after they had continued their meetings for some years, and others, following the 1 Quarrel of the Churches, part i. sect. viii.