would suffer, no great movement in favor of the kingdom of God and the well-being of man would be arrested.

Already has the New School church disappointed both friends and foes. Regarded for a long time as the party of progress in the Presbyterian family, and by some as the revolutionary party, all the world expected that, on coming out and taking its independent position in the family of churches, it would accomplish something worthy of its pretensions. But what has it done? What great act has it performed? What are its heroic achievements in the cause of God and man? It has done nothing original; nothing that its great exemplar, the Old School, has not done or might not have done. The mountains have been in travail, and an ordinary birth only has occurred, not to speak of more diminutive results.

At the present moment, New School Presbyterianism is an empty name, or, to a great extent, a duplicate of the system of the Old School. The two are not distinguished, or distinguishable. Other denominations can be distinguished, and are distinguishable. The Old School Presbyterians contend for organizations according to the Westminster confessions and book of discipline; the Baptists, for immersion, and adult baptism only; the Congregationalists, for church democracy; the Episcopalians, for episcopal government. But what do the New School Presbyterians contend for, peculiarly, in distinction from all others? Nothing. A small fraction of them contend for new views in theology, which are not found in the confession of faith. A portion of them contend for interdicting slavery to the membership, and disciplining it. But the great mass contend only for the confession of faith, and adhere strictly to all the principles of Old School Presbyterianism.

It does not seem possible that this order should long retain its separate independent position on the platform of its elder neighbors, without going over to them and joining them, or else shooting ahead of them, and putting a little more distance between themselves and the church from which they haye seceded. In

respect to church-boards, it appears destined to follow its Old School brethren at no distant day. Nay, it is on the road after them already. And it ought to be there. Because in this respect they are ahead, and on the track of duty and sound policy. It was supposed that the New School would adopt a different policy from the Old on the subject of slavery, and interdict slaveholding to its membership. But it will not. That matter is sufficiently settled, and may be allowed to rest. A struggle of sixteen years, under the most favorable circumstances, that has accomplished nothing, had better be given up. And if it is not, sixteen years more will accomplish just as little. That is not the field in which to do battle against slavery. A skilful commander not only fights, but chooses his field of conflict with a sound discretion. He will not fight everywhere and anywhere. nor allow himself to be attacked everywhere and anywhere. He chooses his field of confiict where he can fight to advantage. Otherwise he labors in vain, and spends his strength for naught. So in the great moral conflicts of the age; the friends of great principles must choose their fields of conflict, if they would hope to prevail; and the field where nothing can be gained had better be deserted. Had the New School church interdicted slavery to its members as a great sin, not to be tolerated; had it placed the holding and dealing in stolen and oppressed men and women on the same ground that it places dealing in stolen horses or other property, and disciplined for it as a sin, not only to be remonstrated with, but to be prohibited; not to be prohibited merely, but already prohibited by the law of Christ, and on no account to be indulged by his people, then it would have had one original, peculiar point of difference to distinguish it from the Old School. Right or wrong, it would have been something tangible and intelligible.

Had it adopted the system of representative elderships, by electing its elderships in all cases, or at the option of particular churches, for a term of three or four years, and restricted all judicial business to the presbyteries, it would have essentially

modified its system, and increased the power and influence of the membership in the regulation of church matters. It would have become an intermediate system between pure Presbyterianism and pure church democracy. There would have been this in its favor, that it would have had an intelligible and permanent character of its own.

Had it revised its confession of faith, it might have set up a claim to superiority on the ground of an improved standard of faith. But it has done none of these things, and will not do any of them. There is a party of reformation, or there are parties of reformation, that would attempt improvements in all these respects, but they are perfectly powerless and harmless. The conservative element is so predominant, that no considerable change can be effected. Nor is this strange. The system is not constructed to be easily changed. It was designed, at the beginning, to last forever, and to last without change.

The consequence of all this is, that New School Presbyterianism has begun to lose members on both sides. On one side it loses extreme conservatives, to the still more conservative Old School body; and on the other, it loses progressives, to bodies that are more popular and more progressive. And this process is likely to go on with increased rapidity on the side of progressives, as fast as they get their eyes opened to see that their church is really not a church of progress, but of conservatism. Besides, there is a large Congregational element in the membership, and one of some magnitude in the ministry, that requires but a slight occasion, at any time, to repel it from Presbyterianism to Congregationalism, the system of its preference.

There is a party in the New School church which has expected better things, and some of them still cling to that expectation. Being moderate progressives themselves, they wish to believe that their church is so, and that the progressive element can be so stimulated and increased as to secure gradual and steady progress. But time and experience is fast dispelling this illusion. Sixteen years have passed, and where are we now? Have we

advanced a step? Have we established a character of originality and improvement in any point? Not a step of progress can be shown; not a point of improvement in the way of departure from Old School precedent. All our change has been to greater conformity to that body. We are more conservative, more orderly, more orthodox, more in subjection to the confession, and pervaded with a higher and deeper reverence for that instrument; and many of our ministers and members are complaining because we are not more conservative still. Nor is this all. Members that propose progress, or urge discussion in that direction, in any of our judicatories, are subject to continual reprimand as troublers of Israel.

At the time of the New School organization, it was thought that there was a sufficient element of progressiveness, among Presbyterians, to form a denomination of this character; and many went into the experiment with this expectation, in the hope, not of following Old School Presbyterianism at a respectful distance, taking particular care never to get out of sight of its precedents, but of building up a new order on better principles. Of all this, not a thing has been done; and, at the present time, not a thing is likely to be done. The two Presbyterianisms are sailing after the same chart precisely, and in the same direction; and everything is arranged so much alike, that when seen together, without any artificial badges of distinction, one cannot ordinarily be distinguished from the other; and this is not by the Old School becoming New, but by the New School becoming Old.

DIVISION VI.

THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES.

CHAPTER I.

CONGREGATIONALISM AND ITS OFFICERS.

CONGREGATIONALISM is another name for church democracy. It derives its name from the government of the church, on democratic principles, by the congregation. The Congregationalists were originally called Brownists, from the name of their founder, and, subsequently, Independents. The name of Independents was given with reference to the doctrine of the independence of single churches, and the rejection of all superior supervision and control. Congregationalism is opposed to the Papacy, the gov ernment of the church by a Pope; to the Episcopacy, the government of churches by bishops; and to Presbyterianism, the government of churches by sessions or boards of elders chosen for life. Congregationalism acknowledges no spiritual court above the church, and no superior authority but that, of Christ. It is, therefore, the uncompromising enemy of all hierarchical and aristarchical church despotisms whatever, and denounces them all, as unscriptural and inexpedient, and as leading to indefinite corruption and unlimited abuse.

It admits the pastoral associations of ministers for mutual advice and counsel, but not as. church courts of legislation and spiritual jurisdiction. It admits mutual and exparte councils to advise the church, but not to rule it. conferences, conventions and synods.

The same may be said of

None of these bodies have