for the conversion of sinners and the enlargement of Christ's kingdom. But does God authorize Christians to form themselves into such ecclesiastical bodies as now exist, i. e. distinct and separate ecclesiastical sects or denominations? Does not the Apostle Paul earnestly protest against it? (See 1 Cor. 3: 1—4, and many other places,) and is not the existence of such sects a standing subject of lamentation with all enlightened Christians? Much is said against the associations of benevolent individuals for benevolent purposes, because they are formed voluntarily, in contradistinction to what is expressly of divine appointment. But are these benevolent associations more voluntary, and more in contradistinction to what is expressly of divine appointment, than the combining of Christians into separate sects in an ecclesiastical form?

What then is to be done? Let me ask, what is done, even by those who contend that every thing should be done by that one association of men, which the word of God expressly authorizes, and by no other? Why, each separate sect or denomination, though existing in that separate state in direct opposition to the divine institution, goes on and acts, as a distinct and separate and voluntary association, in accomplishing every great and good object, and seems not to doubt that all is right. Yes, even those, who maintain that every thing should be done by that one public association of men which the Bible authorizes, act in this way, i. e. by uniting together as a distinct denomination, separate from the great body of good men who constitute the real church of Christ, (a proceeding far from being authorized by the Bible;) or, when they cannot bring their whole denomination to unite, they bring a part of it to unite; and with that part, even if it be a small part, they undertake the business of christian benevolence. I do not mention this to object to it. But it is manifestly in direct opposition to the principle, that nothing should be done, except by the one divinely authorized public association of men, the church of Christ. For plainly, those members of the denomination who are prepared to act together, are not the church of Christ. Nor is the whole denomination the church of Christ. If you say, they are a part of the church ;—so are any individual Christians who choose to unite together in doing good.

To maintain that an ecclesiastical organization is the only one which can properly prosecute the work of benevolence on a

large scale, would be attended with special difficulty among the Congregationalists in Massachusetts, and in other parts of New England. For, except particular churches, and a few Consociations, we have no permanent ecclesiastical organization. And this want of ecclesiastical organization makes it impracticable for us to do any thing on a large scale, in an ecclesiastical way. For example: The Congregationalists in Massachusetts cannot engage in the missionary work ecclesiastically, unless the members of all the churches meet in one great assembly and act together in sending forth missionaries, or appoint representatives to act in their stead. The first cannot be thought of. As to the second method, how important soever we may consider an ecclesiastical body, representing the Congregationalists in Massachusetts; yet we have none. The Convention of Congregational ministers, the Pastoral Association, the General Association, and the several district Associations, are all clerical bodies, having no delegates from the churches, and not being themselves representatives of the churches. The General Association is indeed a representative body; but it is merely clerical, and is made up of delegates from other clerical bodies. Now suppose we were, at this time, to begin the work of Foreign Missions, as we did a quarter of a century ago. Should we call all the churches to come together in one great_body? Or should we invite them to send delegates to form a Foreign Missionary Society? But what if they should refuse? Besides on the principle under consideration, who would have a right to send forth such a call, unless previously authorized by the churches? And if any individuals should venture to do it, might they not be charged with an unwarrantable assumption of ecclesiastical power? Should then the General Association undertake the work? But the General Association is not the church, nor is it a body which represents the church? It is not an ecclesiastical, but a clerical body. And if it should do any thing in the name of the churches, or any thing involving the churches in any obligation; would it not be regarded as clerical usurpation? Would there, then, be no way to begin the work of Foreign Missions? Might not the members of the General Association, or any other ministers or Christians, in compliance with the commands of God, engage in the business themselves, as individuals? And might they not propose it to others to join with them? Doubtless they might. The members of the General Association in 1810 actually did this, as a clerical body, VOL. XII. No. 32.

34

without claiming any ecclesiastical power. But they had confidence in the churches, on whom the success of their undertaking depended, and trusted that through the mercy of God, so good a cause would be patronized. Nor did they trust in vain. That beginning of the missionary work has been a plant, which though small at first, has grown up and become a great tree, the leaves whereof are for the healing of the nations. Is it said, that those who commenced that important work, should have postponed it till they had brought the churches to a readiness to engage in it? But this might have required long continued efforts on the part of those who were disposed to be active in the work. And then, upon the principle of the objector, how could they with propriety have made these efforts, without having been in any way authorized by the churches? And if they had themselves delayed all action in the cause of missions till they had persuaded the churches to unite in the work, they might, on this very account have failed of persuading them. For in all probability, the only successful appeal to the churches depended on the actual and vigorous prosecution of the work of missions, for a time, by those who were its hearty and active friends, and on the evidence derived from acknowledged facts, that it might be prosecuted with success.

If you ask, to whom a missionary, or other voluntary society, formed in the usual way, are responsible? I ask, to whom is an Association, or Consociation, or Presbytery, or Synod responsible? Either of these bodies, undertaking the cause of missions alone, acts on its own responsibility, except that it is responsible to the Christian public, and especially to God. But you say, the Association, Consociation, Presbytery or Synod intrust the missionary business to a Board of Directors, and that this Board are responsible to the body which appoints them? The same is true in the other case. A missionary society intrust the business of missions to a Board or Committee; and this Board or Committee are responsible to the Society. There is an equal responsibility in both cases, and created in the same way. And why are not the interests of the Society equally safe, if the men who constitute the body, acting as a missionary society, and the men who are appointed as directors, are equally numerous and equally intelligent, pious and faithful ? ~ The circumstance of their acting as members of a clerical or an ecclesiastical body, cannot give security to the missionary interest committed to them, unless they are intelligent, trustworthy and faithful in their individual capacity.

In view of the foregoing remarks, I cannot but think, that those who affirm, that benevolent works should be undertaken by the church of Christ, and by that only, in an exact ecclesiastical form, will find the position difficult, embarrassing, and untenable.

Christians are united together in the form of a church, or in the form of churches, for very obvious and important purposes; and this church form is evidently adapted to accomplish these purposes. And why may not Christians be united in other forms for other important purposes? And why may not other forms of union be best adapted to accomplish these other purposes? Is it not so in our civil state? Our being united together as Towns, Counties, States, and a nation, is manifestly suited to various important purposes; but not to all purposes. For weighty reasons we judge it best to form other associations for literary, charitable, agricultural, mercantile, and moral objects. An attempt to accomplish all these by acting as Towns, Counties, etc. would embarrass and shackle all our movements, and end in disappointment.

It may be said, that, if Towns, Counties, States, and the nation were what they should be and acted as they ought, in the capacity of civil corporations, they would be competent to do all that could be done in promoting every good object. Now, although this is not perfectly evident, I will admit it. But these civil bodies are not what they should be. And the question is, can every important design be carried into effect by their agency, they being what they are? Is there no occasion for other Associations? And may not other Associations be better adapted, than those above mentioned, to various important objects? And if the laws of the land should prohibit all other Associations of men, and require that every thing should be done by these civil bodies, would it not cramp the active spirit of the community, and hinder their useful exertions? Is it not generally by the genius and enterprise of individuals, sometimes acting by themselves, but more commonly forming themselves into smaller or larger associations, that the community at large is advanced in the useful arts and sciences, and in all social and civil advantages? hold in respect to the objects Church organization is a divine various and momentous purposes.

And why may not the same of Christian benevolence? institution, and is suited to And say, if you please, that

if the church at large were what it should be, it is suited, in its appropriate organization as a church, to ALL important purposes. But the church is so far from what it should be,-it is so divided into sects and parties, in which there is so little holiness and so much sin, that it is by no means suited, in its present state, to the various objects of benevolence. You cannot bring the whole church on earth to act together as one organized body, in disseminating the Bible, or in sending the Gospel to the heathen. And you may not be able at once to bring all who belong to a particular denomination, or any considerable part of them, to act together in such a work, in an ecclesiastical way. Will you therefore do nothing? If you have a little company of fifty or a hundred, who are of the same mind with you; will you lie still because others are of a different mind? Will you extinguish the benevolence and zeal which God has kindled up in your breast, and deprive the world of the benefit of its influence, and hinder the accomplishment of that great work of love, which may be accomplished, if you, with a few others, will resolutely commence it, and move others by your example?

As to the Congregationalists in Massachusetts and other parts of New England, to whom I have already referred,—if they act at all, they must act in a way correspondent with their condition. But you may say, they should forthwith change their condition, and put themselves into an ecclesiastical state, suited to the great objects of benevolence which are now presented before them? Suppose then this change to be desirable, and suppose it to be practicable too, in consistency with Congregational principles; as would appear from the ecclesiastical state of Connecticut. Still while Congregationalists in Massachusetts retain their present opinions, as they have a right to do, on the subject of church government, the proposed change cannot take place. Must we then abstain from all efforts to evangelize the heathen? And if our present ecclesiastical state is to remain for generations to come, must we, through all those generations, still do nothing for the conversion of the heathen? Because we are not prepared to act in the way which you think to be the best, shall we not act at all? And, to go where they have a settled ecclesiastical organization; because the clergy and people of the church of England are not disposed, as a church, to engage in the missionary work; shall