Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1893-03-07
cHuRoH GovERNmENr.

COngfogat1On0l m1nlSt0f8 FTe8Cn TO
and for Wen of Wealth-Dr. Twftch-
ell and Mr. james Protest-Presby-
terianisn,, Congregationalism and
Episcopacy Cross Lances.
The regular weekly minister meeting |
was held at the Center church chapel yes
terdsy morning at 1890. About twenty |
Eve ministers were present, among whom
were Rev. Drs. McLane, Twitchell and
Kelley and Messrs. James, Cooper, Cut
ting, Pollard, Lines, Meserve and Mulch.
Rev. Mr.. Cutting of the Whitneyville Con-
church opened with prayer,
after which DR.. McLsne, who presided,
read letter from DR.. Vail of Trinity N.
e. church stating that he had been called
to New York by the illness of his nephew
and would consequently have to be excused
from reading his paper on the episcopal
Form of Church Government" Rev. Mr..
Cooper of Epworth NJ. E. church was
asked to make few remarks on that sub
ject in the absence of DR.. Vail. DR.. Nc
Lane then announced that Rev. q. O.
Badger of Cambridge, Mass, would read a
paper at next weeks meeting, presumably
on Bishop Phillips Brooks.
Rev. DR.. Twitchel of Dwight Place
church, who was selected to argue for the
Congregational form of church govern
ment, then spoke, in effect, as follows:
I am not of the number who deity
church politics. Our early training has
much to do with it. We find ourselves
is true some ministers change for various
reasons. But the majority of Christian
ministers do their work in the church in
which they were born. There Is not much
doubt but that the first churches were
governed by the Congregational polity.
do not see how one can read the early his-
tory and doubt this. Congregational
church polity is democratic and every
church governs its own affairs. Ia the
end I suppose the M. E. church ia the
principal church in bringing out the talent
of the lay membership. And it has been
greatly blessed in that line of work. But
next to them think the Congregational
church has bsen the most successful. In
saying this I am aware that the Congrega-
tional church has been in the last few
years to certain extent PREDETERMINED
and the Presbyterian church In a manner
Congregationaiized.
In the Congregational church q great
many matters of social interest are now
referred to committee rather than to have
them brought before the whole church as
body. In my own pastorate We have had
several very sad lapses in religious life and
character and we have appointed a COM
mfttee to investigate and they have re-
ported on the matter to the church body.
And for my part 1 think it is good plan.
When the council of the Congregational
church is called, besides the ministers from
the various churches there is also a lay
delegate from each church. In this re-
spect think the Congregational polity is
ahead of the Presbyterian church form of
government. In regard to the calling of
a minister the Preshy terian church session
exercised the principle right in this mat
ter without even calling for delegation
from the church. But in later years 1t has
become to an extent Congregationalized Sd
that the churches know about the minister
they will have.
For my own part, as said In the begin
ming of my remarks, I do not think that
Christ laid down any form of church gov
eminent whereby 1t is necessary for us to
go to be saved.
By the time the discussion had reached
this point Rev. F. "A. M. Brown of the
First Presbyterian church had not arrived,
so Dr. McLsne, who was born and bred in
the Presbyterian church and was formerly a
Presby terian minister, took up the argument
for the Presbyterian form of government.
He said;
While it would seem that the early
churches were much like the Congregation
al church, I can see that in the progress of
the church through the middle ages during
the government by kings. emperors and
princes the Episcopal form had particular
advantages in staying the rulers power.
In the Presbyterian form I can see many
advantages. It ia the golden mean be-
tween Episcopaoy and Congregationslism
I was brought up in the old school Pres
byterisnism and, as I remember, the
church had voice in selecting a pastor.
And in the local church the only difference
was that the elders received members into
the church or severed members church
connections, If it was a matter of disci-
pline, and reported it to the church. The
representative government has an advsn-
tage over the purely democratic form, as
the wissst and most righteous men are thus
pat at the he ad of the church. An sggrieved
person, however, can appeal first to the
presbytery, then to the synod, which is
now conterminous with state boundaries.
then to the general assembly. And think
that this form brings the ministers together
into closer fellowship than the Congrega-
tional form. I think the troubles in the
Presbyterian church have sprung not so
much from their form of government as
from their creed.
The elaborate creed contained in the
Westminster confession of faith offers An
opportunity for persons of very strict
ideas to find fault with those who arrive at
more liberal ideas. Personally I can see
the great advantages of the Episcopal
form of government. Having each church
to a certain extent an autonomy in the
election of ministers and management of
missions, and then have a number of
bishops to supervise and~give general ad-
vice. agree with DR.. Twitchell that the
Congregational church developes strong
individuality, produces powerful men but I
do not think that 1t brings men together
in that close fellowship which the Presby-
terrain church attains.
Rev. Mr.. Cooper of the Epworth NJ. E.
church, in the absence of Dr. Vail, then
spoke for the Episcopal form of govern
ment. He said:
I was very much pleased to hear DR..
Twitchell say that he did not think Christ
laid down any set form of church govern
ment. There are three great forms of
church government: Episcopscy, indie
pendent, and Presbyterian. In speaking
for Episcopacy do not claim that Christ
laid down that kind of government, but I
Wv oA"tA1A =" 10 sAo SSAohSoSS AoAAA' tuIAh
that the more honor paid to the minister
the better. Not to make him tyrant. For
in the Episcopal church he has
certain limitations. But he may grant
letter to q member who is in good stand
ing, transferring him from one church to
another. The Methodist church is more
free than the Congregational church. In
the Congregational church a minister is
almost bound to preach to suit three or
four men of wealth or influence in the con-
gregation, while in the Methodist church
if the field is not agreeable to the minister
or the minister agreeable to his people the
bishop will give him a new place. I have
known Of Congregational ministers candid
ating for three or four years. In the Meth
odist church there is no candidating, al
though there is often some little arrange
ment with the bishop in regard to the field
to which minister shall be assigned.
The Methodist church, while the young
est of the Protestant churches, Ia the great
est In numbers, and these are the strong
est and most vigorous churches in that
denomination.
In the general discussion which followed
the statement that Mr.. Cooper made, cay
ing that Congregational ministers preached
for men of wealth in their various congre-
cations, called forth protests from Mr..
James and Or. Twitchell. Mr.. James said
that he did not think that trait was confined
to the Congregational church by any
means, aud DR.. Twitchell heartily sup
ported him. After some further discussion
tho n, aatino adiourpad