a world-embracing organized hierarchy. This is the aim and profession of the Roman church; and it is a logical result of the premises. Rome at least is consistent with this principle.

If we still introduce higher organizations above the local church, and yet fall below a universal hierarchy, then we have organizations of local churches in particular states and nations, called churches of such states or nations. But what is to unite them? They must either remain divided, or at last rely on intellectual, moral, and sympathetic unity in God, on which Congregationalism relies from the beginning.

But if in addition to this, in any state or nation, as in ours, there are many organizations above local churches, each called a church, then the unity of each is not the unity of Christ's whole church, even in that nation. How, then, are these great churches to be united? To make any union, they must again resort to intellectual and moral unity, through God, even as Congregationalism does from the beginning.

But such large organized hierarchies, called churches, instead of promoting the union desired by God, tend rather to produce division, in its worst and widest forms. For when divided opinions as to doctrine or order or the choice of rulers occur, the interests, powers, and honors involved are vast, and tend to blind and deceive the conscience, and result in immedicable schisms. And when, in such vast organizations, schisms occur, they run through many local churches. Moreover, in large bodies, extending over a wide extent of territory, and developing love of power and honor, and by them intensifying conscientious convictions, and party beliefs and interests, the causes of division and disruption are not only multiplied, but are so intensified as to become irresistible.

Hence the history of hierarchies is a history of divisions, wide-spread and intense. The history of the Roman hierarchy is a history of schisms. The attempt to unite the.

church under a world-embracing hierarchy, led to the great and immedicable schism between the Greek and the Latin hierarchies. The schisms of the Greek church still pervade the oriental world. Who does not recall the great schisms of the papal hierarchy, when European Christendom has been divided between two or more contending and excommunicating popes? Who cannot recall the numerous schisms of Presbyterianism, both in Scotland and in this country? How many Presbyterian bodies there are, each of which calls itself the church, and talks of the unity of the church. What hierarchal body is exempt from such tendencies, and similar facts in its history? Such centralized judicial and legislative bodies, therefore, neither unite the church as a whole, nor do they unite even those portions of the church which they embrace. On the other hand, they involve in themselves the elements of division, and that of the worst and most wide-spread kind.

Congregationalism alone, by rejecting the hierarchal principle entirely, and aiming at an intellectual, moral, and sympathetic unity, through God, aims at a unity commensurate with the kingdom of God. This is a universal, a world-wide unity. It aims not at the unity of one denomi nation, not at the unity of all the churches of the nation, but at the unity of all who are redeemed by Christ in all nations. If this is to be effected by the hierarchal principle at all, it demands a universal hierarchy. Congregationalism renounces the hierarchal principle entirely, and aims at universal, intellectual, moral and sympathetic unity through God. Even hierarchal systems lower than the papacy are obliged to resort to the same principle, or else renounce other Christian bodies as no part of the church or of the kingdom of God.

It is the grand peculiarity of Congregationalism that it resorts to this idea of unity from the beginning, from the free local church. By this they aim to cultivate holiness, and by the power of God acting through this, to unite all the Christians of this earth as one.

The Power of the Congregational Principle.

It cannot be denied that the most powerful influence, intellectual and moral, that can act on the human mind, is communion with God and subjection to his influence through his word. Nothing so ennobles and so healthfully develops the intellectual powers. Nothing gives to the mind such true enlargement and comprehensiveness of vision. Nothing so quickens and perfects the moral sense. Nothing gives such courage and energy to adhere to the right. Nothing so searches the heart, reveals sin and error, and delivers from delusion. Nothing so surely guides in the study of all truth, theoretical and practical. But the grand, the vital idea of Congregationalism, is to bring all men, as individuals, into habitual communion with God, and to keep them under his influence, through his word. For this very reason it avoids ecclesiastical monarchies, and all large centralized organizations. For this reason it denies the existence of two orders of Christians, one of which, as a clerical caste, has dominion over spiritual things, and is the essential medium of intercourse with God to the other class. It teaches that all Christians are kings and priests to God; that all have, through Christ, direct personal access to the Father; that all can enter the holy of holies. This was the original apostolic doctrine and practice. A distrust of the reality of this divine power of God over all men as indîviduals, and a fear to rely on it, lead to hierarchies. A caste of spiritual rulers, to act as mediators between God and common men, and to centralize them in religious monarchies or aristocracies, is felt to be needed to take care of the church. Confidence is reposed in the great whole, so organized. In one sense, this view produces a strong government. It is strong to prevent free, general, and popu lar intellectual growth and development. It is strong to enslave the human mind to the traditions of men. But to produce universal popular development, in the highest and noblest form, it is not strong. It does not tend to a universal reign of God through intelligent regenerated men, organized in free, self-governed people.

On the other hand, Congregationalism is powerful in this direction. It centralizes the local church around God's word in the Bible as its supreme law of thought, feeling, and action. It aims to bring each individual under the direct influence of God, through the Bible. It thus makes God the great centre of all things, and not a human monarch, nor the church. It aims to make each man a king and a priest to God, intelligent, God-governed.

Thus the rejection of the hierarchal principle, that is sometimes alleged as the weakness of Congregationalism, is the very source of its peculiar and highest power; for it centres all things around God in his word.

Congregational Councils.

We are now able to understand the grand peculiarity of Congregational councils. They are a mode of securing and expressing that unity, sympathy, co-operation, and fellowship among Christians, which grow out of the nature of God and the universality of his kingdom, without introducing the hierarchal principle.

Viewed in their relations to God, there is a unity among all regenerated persons, which they can neither make nor unmake. They are, in the nature of things, so united to Christ, that, in the strong language of inspiration, they are "members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones."

If they act in sympathy with God, through his word, they must aim at the same great ends. They are one by reason of the unity of divine thought, ends, purposes, and emotions, proceeding from that God who is above all, and in all, and through all. Hence from the nature of God, and the universality of his kingdom, originates a unity, sympathy, co-operation, and fellowship, among all Christian churches, which Congregationalism acknowledges its obligation to develop and preserve.

The hierarchal principle it regards, as we have seen, not only as not adapted to this end, but as in spirit diametrically opposed to it. It therefore excludes it.

This exclusion of the hierarchal principle is the grand peculiarity of Congregational councils. As soon As soon as they lose this, the system loses its vital element of power, and is transformed into one of the many hierarchal systems with which Christendom has been filled.

A council is an assemblage of the representatives of any number of Congregational churches, to investigate and give light on doctrinal or practical questions of common interest, to give advice in difficult cases, to express fellowship, to aid in forming churches, in ordaining and dismissing pastors, in conducting difficult cases of discipline, and in removing divisions and dissensions.

A council convened for any of these ends receives its fundamental character from two great facts: 1. that the Bible, and that alone, is its fundamental constitution and only standard; 2. that the churches retain the right of judging all its decisions by the Bible, and accepting or rejecting them, as they are found to agree with it. On this point, the Cambridge Platform is express. Concerning the decisions of synods and councils they say, that they are, so far as consonant to the word of God, to be received with reverence and submission;" without such agreement, they say, "they bind not at all." Of course the churches must judge for themselves of this agreement. In general, they say that "synods and councils are not to exercise church censures in a way of discipline, nor any act of church authority or jurisdiction." In these views eminent Congregational writers are unanimous.

If, in view of this statement, it should be alleged, as it often is, that councils are devoid of power, let the following things be considered :

1. That personal holiness, and a sense of the presence of God, and prayer, all of which the Bible requires in a council, do more than anything else to remove the causes of error and division, and to lead into all truth, whether doctrinal or practical.

2. That the truth itself, when clearly stated, in a right spirit, has great power.