Reformers, more especially the Antislavery Reformers,who struggled earnestly to assist the Society in practical labors for the overthrow of slavery. The latter, in many cases, were made to feel the rod of ecclesiastical proscription and outlawry. Conservative Quaker preachers denominated Abolitionists as irreligious and worldly men, whose purpose it was to destroy the ancient landmarks. The disownment of Isaac T. Hopper (see his Life by Mrs. Child), and of that sweet-spirited and deeply religious man, Charles Marriott, in New York, for the offence of belonging to the American Antislavery Society, may be taken as an example of what was done by the rulers in the Quakers' Israel in different parts of the country. The said rulers maintained that the Quakers were a 'select people,' and that it was a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Discipline, for members to unite with those not Friends in works of charity and reform. They were allowed, however, without molestation, to join political parties, and such benevolent associations as brought fame and reputation to the Society. The rule was applied only to those who went into unpopular reforms. The contest between these parties went on, until the Reformers were compelled to choose between dishonorable submission to ecclesiastical tyranny, and the organization of new associations. The form of organization which prevailed among the Friends afforded many facilities for the exercise of despotic authority. The Yearly Meetings have full power over the Discipline, and to them the Quarterly Meetings were held directly responsible, while the Monthly Meetings, in their turn, were answerable to the Quarterly.

"The_first_movement for a new organization was made by the Friends of Green-Plain Quarterly Meeting, in Ohio. This meeting was a part of the Indiana Yearly Meeting, which brought the whole weight of its power upon it to compel submission. The Reformers constituted a very large majority of this Quarterly Meeting, and, thus pressed, they took refuge in a new organization, framing it upon Congregational principles,— that is, giving each local congregation full power to manage its own affairs, and holding larger meetings only for good fellowship and union in philanthropic and religious objects. This meeting was formed, I think, in 1848, and its name and style was' GreenPlain Yearly Meeting of Friends who have adopted the Congregational Order of Church Government.' Owing to extensive emigration to the West, this meeting is now extinct, though some of the local congregations sympathizing therewith yet remain.

"Next in order comes the Waterloo Yearly Meeting of Congregational Friends.

1856.]

The Congregational Principle.

"Next is the Ohio Yearly Meeting, formed in 1852. "The Michigan Yearly Meeting was next formed.

5

"The Pennsylvania Yearly Meeting of Progressive Friends, though the youngest, is yet the most numerous and efficient of all."

One of the features of this movement, it will be seen, is that it has adopted a Congregational principle of church government. This is significant of a tendency which showed itself in England and America in the seventeenth century, as one of the first results of the second Reformation. Papacy, Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, and Congregationalism are, in the Church, the same things that Royalty, Aristocracy, Republicanism, and Democracy are in the State. But the seventeenth century was not ready for this form of government, and consequently there has been a long reaction in the Protestant Church in favor of less democratic institutions. The first, or Protestant Reformation, did not tend to Congregationalism, but rather to Episcopacy;-in England being pure Episcopacy; in the Lutheran Church, a mixture of Episcopacy and Presbyterianism; in Sweden and Denmark, a system varying very little from the Roman Catholic, except in the absence of the Pope. But the second, or Puritan Reformation, tended to Presbyterianism, or the government of the Church by the whole body of the clergy. In this system the laity have scarcely any influence, and it is a church of the clergy rather than of the people. But Congregationalism, in its strict form, does not recognize the distinction between the clergy and the laity. The Cambridge Platform declares that "there may be the essence and being of a church without any officers." Ordination, according to this Platform, is not a sacrament conferring any spiritual character. "We account it nothing else," says the Cambridge Platform, "but the solemn putting a man into his place and office in the church whereunto he had right before by election." It declares that "imposition of hands may be performed by the brethren ";"" for if they may elect officers," it says, "which is the greater, and wherein the substance of the office doth consist, they may much more impose hands in ordination, which is less, and but the accomplishment of the other." Thus they gave to each church the power of continuing its

own existence, which it could have on no other principle, and struck at the root of the principle of Sacramental Succession. To complete their work, they ordained that a man ceasing to be an officer of a particular church ceased to be a clergyman, and had no right to perform an official act until regularly chosen for another church, in which case he ought to be again ordained. By this declaration, the whole distinction between clergy and laity was struck away. But the Congregational churches have not acted up to this, their own principle, but have always had as much of a clergy as other churches. They have, however, maintained the independent principle of church government, although they have not succeeded in extending its domain, since the beginning of the eighteenth century. But we may be sure of this, - that whenever a body arises in the Church seeking a broader activity, it will pretty certainly plant itself on the Congregational principle of church government. It must necessarily do so in order to escape the oppressive tendencies and the narrow spirit which come from an authoritative union of churches. Such, therefore, was the action of the Friends who, in New York and Ohio, took the name of Congregational Friends, but who now are generally known as Progressive Friends. But the main point of their testimony is in behalf of various moral and social reforms, or applied Christianity.

The idea which the Progressive Friends have in view appears very plainly in the annual reports which now lie before us of the New York Yearly Meetings for eight years back, the Pennsylvania Yearly Meeting for the last three years, and the Ohio Yearly Meeting. All of them contain testimonies in regard to Temperance, Slavery, the Rights of Woman, Amusements, War and Peace, the Treatment of Criminals, the Use of Tobacco, and the like. They are in correspondence with distinguished persons in different parts of the country, whose letters are printed in these reports. They appear to be well provided with zeal and earnestness in behalf of their ideas. Their Yearly Meetings are well attended, and they have the ardor of a new people.

This body of Progressive Friends is trying a great experiment, namely, Can a Christian denomination exist without a distinct theology of any kind? And again,

1856.]

The Experiment on Trial.

77

Can a Christian denomination take an active part in the different reforms of the day? The experiment is certainly worth trying. For our own part, we do not believe in the necessity of a fixed theology in a church. There must, no doubt, be some common conviction as the basis of union; there must be some central belief, and some standard to which to appeal. Roman Catholics have the Bible and Tradition, and an Infallible Church to decide what these teach. Protestants have the Bible, and the Creed, and a majority in the church, to decide what these mean. Unitarians have the Bible, and each man's reason to decide what it teaches. But these Friends go a step farther, and take all nature and history as the source of truth, and individual reason as its rule. Now this may well constitute a church of seekers and students; but how is it as regards a church of believers? Can such a church be said to have any belief at all? and if no belief, can they be a teaching church in any sense ? How can those teach who have nothing to say? And if they have nothing to teach, have they any evangelical or missionary character? have they any gospel, any method by which to save the souls of men? Have they, in fact, anything to do except to discuss and debate? In reply to this, the Progressive Friends would doubtless say, We are more of a missionary church than any other, more evangelical than any other; for our mission is to carry to the world practical Christianity; we preach a gospel of practical goodness. But the question returns, What goodness? what practical Christianity? Practical measures are based on speculative ideas; there can be no union as to practice where there is not first a union as to principle. There may be a temporary union which shall agree to oppose intemperance and slavery. But how does it follow that a man who is willing to act with others against slavery, shall also be willing to act with them against the use of tobacco? Does it follow that, because a man is opposed to capital punishment, he shall also be in favor of the rights of woman? For a time men may be led by their interest in leading reformers to follow them into the various reforms which they advocate. But evidently, unless it can be shown that there is a clear connection among them all, there

must soon be a divergence of action, because there will soon come a difference of opinion. Even in the Antislavery movement, how many sects there are agreeing in the end, but differing as to the means. There is the party of Mr. Garrison, who hold the Constitution of the United States to be a pro-slavery document; and who think, that, by supporting it, and even by voting under it, they are supporting slavery, and who therefore demand a dissolution of the Union. Then there is the party headed by Gerritt Smith, which believes the Constitution to be an antislavery instrument, and that it is the duty of Congress to abolish slavery in the slaveholding States. And thirdly, there is the Republican party, who believe the Constitution a mixed instrument, which is in the main antislavery, but in some particulars pro-slavery,

which does not think it has a right to abolish slavery in the Slave States, but thinks it ought to be abolished by the general government in the Territories. Now, if these three parties are unable to work together, when they have the same end, how can it be expected that a body can remain united who have so many different objects in view?

One way of obviating this difficulty, and the most obvious way, is to have it made a condition of union with the body, that one shall be willing to do, or to abstain from doing, certain things. Instead of making it a condition of admission into the church, that one shall hold certain opinions, the condition would be, that one should do certain actions. But this test of fellowship is more objectionable than is belief of doctrines. The creed will often slumber in the church, doing no one any harm; but this practical test would interfere very unfavorably with Christian liberty, and would put a stop to Christian progress. It is evident that any such condition of membership would be in fact a creed. The Pennsylvania Yearly Meeting, in its invitation for 1855, says that "the chief characteristic of the Progressive Friends is, that they prescribe no system of theological belief as a test of membership." But to require those who join them to unite with them in opposition to slavery, intemperance, war, capital punishment, the denial of the equal rights of woman, &c., is to prescribe a system of ethical belief as a test of membership. In