III. AS TO OUR ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. I have before alluded to certain leading principles on this subject, the authority of which may be deduced from Scripture, and the value of which has been illustrated by experience. Upon these principles there must be no innovation. They appear to me to be landmarks which must not be disturbed: yet in filling up the divine outline of church polity, and in the practical application of our principles, is there not room for some improvement? Our fathers revived the Congregational system more than two hundred and fifty years ago. It attained pretty nearly its present shape in the latter half of the seventeenth century. Have the study and experience of two hundred years taught us nothing in addition to what the Puritans learnt? They certainly anticipated something like progressiveness in the system of church government. "Neither do we confine ourselves," said they in those venerable old covenants that we find in their church books; "Neither do we confine ourselves to the words of this covenant, but shall count it our duty at all times to embrace

any further light or truth that shall be revealed to us out of God's word." They thought it possible that in process of time some new light might be thrown upon God's will in relation to church

VOL. XXVI.

matters; and therefore they bound themselves to walk in God's ways, as he had revealed, or should further make them known." As to the leading principles of our church polity, I conceive they are of Divine authority, and the New Testament has stereotyped them; but as to some of the details, our system has not the same authority for them. Did our fathers in nothing misunderstand the Scripture teaching on the subject? Is there no room left for improvement in their work? Have days and years since rolled by in silence, never speaking a syllable in the way of suggestion ;-never uttering a lesson of wisdom to the posterity of the Puritans? And it may even be inquired, whether their descendants have not departed in some things from the precedents they set, which had better have been retained? Is not the time come for the working out, by thoughtful practical minds, such problems as these?—How more of union and co-operation, and how the giving of fraternal counsel, and the exercise of moral influence among our churches, may be effected without innovating upon their right of internal selfgovernment? Whether it would not be better, and at the same time in full harmony with primitive usage, instead of multiplying small churches, to preserve large ones, by affiliating congregations

X

together within a given district, who might all meet at certain times in one place for the administration of the Lord's Supper, and for the transaction of church business? These two problems the Puritan fathers did work out to some extent. With what success, and whether their descendants are justified in departing from their ways, should come in for inquiry. It may also be asked, whether some system ought not to be contrived for strong churches helping weak ones, without putting the assistance in the shape of an almsgift to the minister of a poor congregation? Whether a plurality of pastors ought not to be more generally adopted? Whether, if we had not larger churches with many pastors, there might not be more of a division of labour among them, each one doing that which the God of nature and grace had fitted him to do, instead of all trying to do everything, including some things for which they have not much qualification? Whether more attention might not be paid to the young, and separate services be established for the benefit of children? Whether some kind of public instruction might not be provided and supported for young persons of intelligent, inquisitive, and sceptical habits-a kind of Christian instruction in an intellectual and literary point of view, above what could be expected or would be desirable in our pulpits generally? Such things, and others might be mentioned, have often

*There are some remarks on this subject in the last number of the British Quarterly, p. 330, deserving the attention of Independents:

"The maxim of primitive Independency appears to have been unity to the furthest possible extent practicable, while the maxim of modern Independency would almost seem to be--division to the furthest extent possible, or at least to the extent most consistent with each church having but one pastor, and with many having no pastor at all." "If on this point or any others we are wrong, happy is it for us that nothing extraneous exists to prevent our returning to the right. Without consulting kings, or parliaments, or bishops, or canons, or synods, or conferences, or unions, we can take the law of the kingdom into our hands, and rectify by its guidance any discrepancy in our practice, if we please."

been hinted at; but they seem to demand a more thorough investigation than they have ever received. Reform is the watchword of the day. Reform in the State. Reform in the Church. Is there no room for-no need of reform among ourselves? Are we so far in advance of all other bodies as to be beyond the possibility of reform? Is it policy, is it duty, for us to be ever looking abroad, and trying to set the whole of Christendom and the entire world to rights, and neglecting to put our own house in order? to go about it and see what requires to be mended,-what old useless thing had better be put away, and what new furniture and appliances ought to be introduced? I think that as wise householders we ought to look more to our domestic affairs than we have done.

And as to the exhibition of our distinctive principles as Congregationalists: should we not diligently exhibit them,—— time-honoured, God-honoured as they are,-before the men of this generation? Essentially they are the same they ever were; but may we not improve upon our predecessors in the mode of exhibiting them? Were they not exhibited formerly too much in a negative shape; as a denial of what was erroneous and corrupt in other churches? Were they not too commonly like the utterance of an emphatic "No," in answer to certain mistaken affirmations on the part of others? Ought we not rather to give our principles a positive form, not so much denying what others say, but affirming calmly and solemnly what God, and time, and history have said? Ought we not to make the development of the principle, that Christ's kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, like the utterance of an emphatic "Yes," to the oracles of truth, unfolding, illustrating, and commending them to all Christians; repeating our amen to heaven's own teaching, till we can bring the whole earth to say it too; and amen to God's whole revelation shall be reverberated from pole to pole? And seeing in the story of the past how true it is that "the wrath of man worketh not the