or without due reasons, by so many Congregationalists. If we will use the spirit of unity in our work as churches, we shall have no need to enforce uniformity. In general we must come to the conclusion that the real grounds of dissatisfaction with Congregationalism do not lie in the nature of its ancient institutions, customs, and rules, but in the manner of the use which we have made of them. The fault is not with the Congregationalism of our fathers so much as with the Congregationalists of the present day. The changes needed are not so much in our polity as in ourselves.

Our general thought may be made more specific by an illustration or two. We hear much hope expressed by some as to the unifying effect of the National Council, and, by contrast, much complaint of the previous lack of fellowship amongst Congregational churches. But what course have the complainants, in common with the majority perhaps, hitherto pursued in the matter of the fellowship of churches? Have we all been as brave, frank, unselfish, and kind as our principles require, or even as were our earliest fathers, in fostering by mutual councils the fellowship of the churches? Have the pastors of the large and influential churches in the centres of population been prodigal of their time and care in fellowship with surrounding smaller and weaker churches? Shall we certainly accomplish in the great council the very thing we have not taken due pains to accomplish in many smaller councils? And, further, shall we, by majorities and indirection, discipline unsound pastors and churches so as to convince them of error, and lead them to the faith, better than we might have done by that direct and courageous rebuke of doctrinal error which our ancient polity makes incumbent upon us? We do well indeed to be

dissatisfied; but we should do better to make sure that our dissatisfaction is well directed. And it may turn out, that not our ancient polity, but the conduct of its modern representatives, viz., ourselves, is the very fittest subject for dissatisfaction and for improvement. Christian pastors cannot in self-indulgence neglect all the minor and local opportunities for a real fellowship with neighboring churches, and then satisfy the demands of the principle of fellowship by an annual attendance upon the State Association, or a triennial election of themselves as delegates to the National Council.

By all means, then, let solid and permanent improvements be gained from a reasonable dissatisfaction; but let fair arguments, and diligent attention to history, first make it clear that the proposed subjects of dissatisfaction, and the consequent changes, cover the real grounds for the feeling. This drift of unrest in discontent with the past is hopeful for the future of a true church polity; but it is at present quite too blind and ignorant to serve as a guide into safe and helpful changes.

Another manifestation of the pervasive spirit of the times is seen in the tendency to exalt the beneficial results of so-called force and authority. The most distressing and alarming feature of our present condition as a church order lies herein. The ancient and honorable custom of Congregationalism, nay, its acknowledged and principled obligation, has been to appeal to reason and to the Word of God, and then to rest confidently in the appeal. It has aimed to make its doctrines, not rationalistic in the unworthy sense of the word, but rational in the highest sense; it has committed its polity to the fairness and good judgment of the average Christian; it has always hitherto been ready to answer with reasons, and to argue its case

with all inquirers. But the present hour feels the impulses of another kind of movement. This movement is impatient of prolonged and careful inquiry; it scorns all lengthy and detailed examination; it cannot spare time to consider in the presence of opposers its own proposals as they appear in the two lights of the natural eye and the eye of God in Scripture. The tendency is toward a large confidence in mere success, and, since force seems to win success, toward a longing after force. There is force in majorities who can limit the speeches of their opponents to a few minutes each, and then close their own ears against these very speeches, resting in the assurance that the force is, after all, when it comes to voting, with the majorities. In former days Congregationalism has not, indeed, been without sporadic exhibitions of such force. We have already seen how Rev. Increase Mather makes evident that the synods of 1657 and 1662 had no intention of listening to reason, but pushed on to the exercise of the authority which is in the majority vote. But all such exhibitions are contrary to the real genius and spirit of Congregationalism. To reach in hot haste the expression of authority in the majority vote, and to suppose that the outcry of opposing reasons is thereby hushed, seems quite too much the drift of disposition in our church order at the present time. We find it difficult to remember that even the Westminster Assembly, although it kept squinting at the probable effect of the force which was in the approach of the Scotch army, gave to the minority, headed by Dr. Thomas Goodwin, rather the larger place in the general debate. The tendency to drive things by so-called force, to trust in force, to scorn lengthy argument, and silence minorities by the majority vote, to distrust the

judgment of the people, fairly and deliberately taken, as to what is reasonable and conformable to the gospel, is an alarming tendency in our church order. It certainly is quite the reverse of the tendency displayed in that first synod, which debated its one subject for twenty-four days, and did this to such good effect that those who came together with hearts exasperated finally departed in peace.

Of this tendency, however, we notice that it also is not confined to our church order or to ecclesiastical affairs alone. The method of iron and fire is apparently coming again into great esteem. Somewhat in politics must be at once accomplished, and the opposing and disintegrating forces are strong. The masterful grip is needed: the iron hand of some Goetz von Berlichingen is required to quell the mob. Our American politics is showing a surprising esteem for mere success, and, therefore, for that crowding and pushingforward to success which comes of sheer force. The same tendency is seen in business. Great corporations and immense fortunes have force: principles and arguments are to stand one side while the strong work their way to the front. Large churches, immense denominations, have force. To become large as a church, immense as a denomination, force is needed. Argument seems mere talk. It is understood to be not in order to present reasons: reasons, when presented, are not presented in order to convince the judgment, but for the display of force. In legislative halls and ecclesiastical tribunals votes are counted before the case is heard. The end to be reached is the expression of the bare unreasoning and selfish will of the majority. Even this will cannot be allowed to come to self-consciousness: it must be forced by the stronger will. The majority is manufactured by the leaders and by force.

At the same time we find, of course, a loss of confidence in the ability and honest intent of the people at large to do intelligently right. There is no time or disposition to submit an argued case to the majority at large, in the calm confidence that reason will, if it can have its free working, serve them well. Even the majority are not expected to reason in order to vote wisely they are expected to vote in order that the measure may have force.

From this same tendency comes that hot and unthinking partisanship which we used to flatter ourselves we had almost as a denomination escaped. The temptation becomes strong to take things "by parties in a lump." Sides must be formed, that force may be met with force. The noble mind looks sadly through all this tinsel of so-called authority, and sees a few noble forms standing up, two centuries and a half ago, to face the authority of all Christendom with the declaration of what is reasonable, and according to the Word of God. Of those forms one is that of Dr. Thomas Goodwin. From him there come to us words as noble as is the attitude of the man who speaks them: "This I say, and I say it with much integrity, I never yet took up religion by parties in the lump. I have found by trial of things that there is some truth on all sides I have found holiness where you would little think it, and so likewise truth. And I have learned this principle, which I hope I shall never lay down till I am swallowed up of immortality; and that is, to acknowledge every good thing, and hold communion with it, in men, in churches, in whatsoever else. I learn this from Paul, I learn this from Jesus Christ himself."

Another threatening tendency which seems to show