Beyond 'Congregationalism C': A Study of Ecclesiological Evolution
by The Reverend Steven A. Peay, Ph.D.
 

Introduction
 "…the Lord hath yet more light and truth to break forth from his holy Word." Pastor Robinson's words to the Pilgrims departing Leyden have become something of a mantra for Congregationalists. The thought of "more light" is what will be looked to in the following study, since it has seemingly been the fate of Congregationalism to repeatedly sail between the Scylla of Independency and the Charybdis of Presbyterianism with more light needed to chart the way. This dangerous course was noted by the late Reverend Dr. Harry Stubbs who said in 1969, "Fifteen years ago 90% of Congregational churches in this country allowed themselves to be Presbyterianized. Now, if the other 10% allow themselves to be seduced by Independency, there will be no Congregational churches left." ¹

What has been attempted here is a study in the evolution of Congregational ecclesiology from roughly the middle of the nineteenth century to the present. Thus, it will examine Congregationalism A, B, and C, as three discrete models of both ecclesiology and polity. This study also offers a possible new permutation of the classical Congregational ecclesiology and polity for the immediate future. It is hoped that this work will offer a bit more light.
 
Congregationalism A
Douglas Horton first used the term Congregationalism A in an address to the General Council of the Congregational Christian Churches in June 1950. Congregationalism A was used as a descriptor for the polity practiced at that time by Congregational Christian Churches. The practice rested upon the autonomy of the local churches and the associational relationship of those churches at the regional (association), state (conference), and national (general council) level. Horton's description of A says, "…according to Congregationalism A the organs like the General Council, the Conferences, and the Associations are controlled by the local churches. . . ." ²  Congregationalism A, it can be said, is representative of classical Congregational church order.

Congregationalism A, though not denominated as such, was demonstrated in 1954 by way of historic documents and actual usage by the Committee on Free Church Polity and Unity. The committee described a Congregational Church as follows:

A Congregational Christian church originates as a body of believers in a particular Christian community. It writes or chooses its own statement of purpose, belief, covenant or creed, adopts its own constitution, or other governing rules, and is subject to no external ecclesiastical authority for the substance of them. In practice there is often consultation with representative Congregational Christian individuals or organizations. Provisions for extending fellowship to a church by an association vary, but in no instance do they or can they prevent a church from governing itself according to its own desires. "Recognition" is recognition of a church that already exists; it is not the "creating" or "constituting" of a church which had no prior existence. But recognition by other Congregational Christian churches is a prerequisite of denominational standing. ³

The foregoing description is consonant with the historic Congregational understanding of the completeness and autonomy of the particular, gathered church under the headship of Christ.

The traditional understanding of the church also sees the local, or particular, church as the only true expression of the church. One can speak of, or profess belief in, the "communion of saints" or the "catholic church," but this does not imply the reality of the church. William Ames related this position in his Marrow of Theology, a text which would have a formative influence on the development of American Congregationalism. Ames wrote:

6. Such a congregation or particular church is a society of believers joined together in a special bond for the continual exercise of the communion of saints among themselves.
7. It is a society of believers because the same thing makes a church visible in profession which in its inward and real nature makes it a mystical church, namely, faith.
14. Believers do not make a particular church, even though by chance many may meet and live together in the same place, unless they are joined together by a special bond among themselves. Otherwise, any one church would often be dissolved into many, and many also merged into one.
15. This bond is a covenant, expressed or implicit, by which believers bind themselves individually perform all those duties toward God and toward one another which relate to the purpose [ratio] of the church and its edification.
21. No sudden coming together and exercise of holy communion suffices to make a church unless there is also that continuity, at least in intention, which gives the body and its members a certain spiritual polity. ⁴

No other visible body, save one joined in covenant, can truly be considered a church in the classical Congregational understanding of ecclesiology.

The reality that the gathered, particular church is the only valid ecclesial expression does not preclude the 'communion of saints.' Rather, it encourages the fellowship of these churches. In fact, the only means by which a church may come to be denominated "Congregational" is by the mutual recognition of the sister churches. While A. Hastings Ross notes that fellowship is not the sole property of Congregational polity, he nonetheless declares it the means by which a Congregational Church ceases to be a purely 'independent' church.

2. These independent churches, sustaining the same relation to the indivisible kingdom of heaven, stand in the closes relation to one another in fellowship, a fraternity or brotherhood, with obligations and duties that bind them into associations of communion, assistance, cooperation. No church can live unto itself alone. The oneness of the kingdom constrains all useful modes of fellowship.
3. This fellowship may find expression in occasional councils of churches, to inquire and advise in matters of common concernment, or of church discipline and peace, or respecting any questions where light and advice may be needed.
4. But as fellowship is a constant force wider than advice, and should therefore have stated and systematic expression, the churches should meet statedly for consultation and cooperation, in bodies that should have and exercise no authority of coercion, but only the right of self-protection. {author's note: Ross then describes the various levels of fellowship at regional, state, and national levels.} ⁵

These organs of fellowship exist so that churches can truly be Congregational churches. Henry Martyn Dexter made it clear that it is only when a church is gathered by mutual covenant and then is "in fraternal relations with kindred organisms" is it a Congregational church. ⁶

These organs of fellowship arose first out of the very nature of the covenant community as a Congregational church and its need to fellowship. This is what Dexter, and later Harry Stubbs, would reference as the "adelphity," or sisterhood, of the churches. ⁷  When the Cambridge Synod produced its Platform in 1648 it was to provide a framework for the churches to exercise their covenant communion one with another. This concern for fellowship and for the achievement of mutual work was to be accomplished through the working of the Ecclesiastical Council of the Vicinage. ⁸  As the Vicinage Council became less and less visible as a means of fellowship and service, various associations of church and individuals evolved. At each step of the evolution, which led to several layers of associational fellowship, culminating with the formation of the National Council in 1871, the primary concern was still the safeguarding of the local church as the only valid ecclesial articulation. ⁹

So the association (including the Vicinage Council), state, and national structures were formed solely for the purpose of the fellowship of the local churches. It is clearly demonstrated in the Report of the Committee on Free Church Polity and Unity, especially in the section on Congregationalism in its practice, that fellowship structures came as the result of local churches extending themselves as covenant bodies into covenant relationship with each other. These structures, then, do not form 'the church' or serve to articulate it. The Committee's Report sums up very nicely what appears to be classical Congregational order in praxis.

The Congregational Christian churches are distinguished by a unique combination of attributes. Basically, these churches accept the will of God made know in Christ as their sole authority and refuse to give spiritual allegiance to any human agency at all. The local church is a company of Christ-followers held together by a covenant agreement and governed solely by itself. All wider agencies gain their power to act by winning the support of the local churches for common causes, on the basis of voluntary assumption of responsibility in a purposeful fellowship.
They are further distinguished by the absence of external compulsions, either of the local church on its members or of wider bodies on the local church, by the adoption of positive statements of faith or purpose rather than creedal tests of membership, by the "gathered" rather than the territorial nature of the local church, by historic rootage in the traditions of the Congregational Christian churches, and by an over-arching faith that God "has yet more truth and light to break forth from his holy Word." Our churches seek to express their adventurous and pioneering Christian faith by ever continuing revisions of such statements as the 1913 Kansas City Statement of Faith. We are a voluntary fellowship of a responsible nature. ¹⁰

Douglas Horton's articulation of Congregationalism B struck at the foundational principal of the Congregational Way, namely, that only the particular, covenanted church is a valid ecclesial expression. ¹¹  Horton based his theory on the 'freedom' of the organs of fellowship to act and to constitute themselves. In this way, he opined:

At one all-important point, however, according to Congregationalism B, organizations like the General Council are like the local churches of Congregationalism. They are free. They are controlled by their own members and by nobody outside their membership. They and they alone can say who shall be their members and how they shall be elected . . . the constitutions of these organs are their own. They are not merely the articles of agreement under which their own members work together to give aid, advice, and fellowship to the local churches – and the Associations, the Conferences, the Mission Boards, the colleges, and the other groups within the denominational framework. ¹²  
 

He posits a freedom of action and existence never envisioned by the architects of Congregationalism A, where organs of fellowship and mutual service have a life of their own and are valid expressions of the church. Horton wrote, "According to this view the independency of the local churches does not blight the independency of Association, Conference, Council, Board, College, or any of the other denominational units." ¹³  The particular gathered church becomes simply a part of, in Horton's words, "a spiritual solar system," where no body is really answerable to another. He says,

Each one of these controls itself under Christ through its own members. None are regarded as being agents of the others . . . between the various bodies in this kind of Congregationalism there is no master-servant relationship: it is that of friend and friend. The organs of fellowship serve the local churches not because they must but because they may, and it in the same spirit the local churches contribute to the organs of fellowship. ¹⁴

Horton makes the leap to this new form of Congregationalism – which looks a great deal like Presbyterianism with different names – based upon a new concept of Congregational ecclesiology. No longer is the church the particular body of covenanted believers; it is now all the levels of ecclesiastical fellowship and service functioning in a co-equal manner. He supports his thesis with the traditional Matthean text. In fact, in the one paragraph summary of Congregational ecclesiology he offers, he beautifully articulates the classical understanding:

What is it that gives the local church its authority? What is the rock upon which it is founded? A greater than Peter is here. The answer to the question is well given in the message from the International Congregational Council to the churches of the world: "As Congregationalists we base our churchmanship upon the amazing assurance that 'where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them.'" That is the heart of it, P. T. Forsyth called the local church the outcrop of the Church Catholic in a particular place. In that local church is everything that is in the greater Church, because Christ is there – and Christ is all-in-all. This is the beginning of all authority in the Church, a worshipping community in one spot inquiring for the will of God with Christ in its midst. Here lies the ageless power, here lies the historical inevitability of Congregationalism. ¹⁵

It is so unfortunate that Dr. Horton did not simply stop there. What follows is what created the great difficulty.

In the next paragraph he tries to apply the "where two or three are gathered" to the meetings of the organs of fellowship. At this point he ignores the classical Congregational distinction articulated by Ames, Owen, Cambridge, Savoy, Dexter, Ross, Barton and Forsyth of the fundamental distinction between the Church Catholic as a spiritual, and thus invisible, body encompassing all believers in all times and places, and the concrete, visible church of gathered, covenanted saints. At this moment Congregationalism B becomes another term for Presbyterianism, since classical Congregationalism sees no valid expression of ecclesial identity apart from the local church.

Horton's Congregationalism B provided the theological rationale to challenge the initial decision in the Cadman case, to ignore the findings of the Committee on Free Church Polity and Unity, and to pursue the essential dissolution of the Congregational Way.

Congregationalism C
When it became clear that the merger movement was going to proceed, those dedicated to the continuation of Congregational polity assembled first at the Fort Shelby Hotel in Detroit, Michigan (1955) and then at the First Congregational Church of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin (1956) to form what became the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches. While it was clearly the intention of these dedicated people to preserve the classical way of the Congregational Churches, the result of their effort was yet a third way, Congregationalism C, if you will.

Part of the difficulty, or so it seems, is that the structure of the NACCC was devised within the extant structure of the Congregational Christian Churches. ¹⁶ Its design was as an association of churches to promote the Way as it then existed. Those present at the Wauwatosa meeting were warned by Reverend Malcolm Burton that setting up parallel ecclesiastical machinery would jeopardize future lawsuits. Reverend Harry Johnson, the first executive secretary, supported Burton by pointing out that by such action the 'Continuists' would lose "our legal status as Congregationalists" and would forfeit "all possibility of our own legal defense." ¹⁷  However, when the merger proceeded and the United Church of Christ was formed, there was no accommodation of the polity structures into the already extant NACCC.

Where Congregationalism B extended fellowship to the point that it destroyed the distinctive Congregational understanding of local church autonomy, Congregationalism C has extended the freedom of the local church to the point of damaging the necessary fellowship implicit in the Congregational tradition. This position, no doubt a reaction to the 'presbyterianizing' tendencies of the United Church, assumes both faith and fellowship, but doesn't articulate them or provide venues for their nurture or accomplishment, all because the dominant operative understanding has become the freedom of the local church. The first paragraph of the Preamble to the Articles of Association makes this emphasis very plain:

Whereas Churches of the congregational order have historically held to certain truths, chief among which are the freedom of the Christian man maintained at all costs and all hazards; the right of the local Church to self-government in all matters temporal and spiritual, because Christ's word that where two or three are gathered together in His name He is in their midst; the fellowship of Churches in the spirit of love without compulsion or restraint and free from the bondage of creed and ecclesiastical control. . . . ¹⁸ 

This extreme emphasis upon freedom lends itself more to an Independent ecclesiology, rather than that of classical Congregationalism. The late Reverend Dr. Harry Stubbs articulated this tendency in a paper given at Toledo, Ohio in 1969. He wrote:

To go back to my original metaphor, if we are amnesic about who we are, it is not due to the fact that we confuse ourselves with Presbyterians. It is, rather, due to the fact that we do not sufficiently distinguish between Congregationalism and Independency. The truth of the matter is that in our declarations, policy statement and practices we could hardly more thoroughly succeed in confusing the two. I asseverate that we presently have nothing in the Articles of Association of the National Association that defines Congregational Churches over against Independent churches . . . we assume a definition rather enunciate one. ¹⁹

Dr. Stubbs would be pleased to see that definition of a Congregational Christian Church is now supplied, but the operative phrase "in fellowship with sister Congregational Christian Churches" (Article III, 1.a) is nowhere explicated. In short, now we talk about the fellowship but do not provide all the available means, or the incentive, for the fellowship to take place.

The two areas where Congregationalism C's shortcomings become most glaring are in the areas of state/regional associations and the question of ministerial standing, both are directly related. Local fellowships and Associations are listed in the NACCC Yearbook "for informational purposes," but there is no organizational tie to the NACCC. Such a structure leaves out an important means for local fellowship. It further makes the whole question of ministerial standing problematic, since it returns the locus of standing to local churches, which is a deviation from classical Congregational understanding. ²⁰  Stubbs summed up the difficulties of Congregationalism C when he wrote:

I think we have constructed a marvelous chassis in the National Association. However, the National Association is not an ecclesiastical body. It is not in the business of legitimating or authenticating either Congregational Churches or Congregational ministers. All it can do for Congregational ministers is to record their standing that has been achieved by some prior process or indicate the lack of same. The only instrument for the legitimation of church or minister is an ecclesiastical body, and the only authentic ecclesiastical body possible in Congregational ecclesiology is the ecclesiastical council of either local association or vicinage. The truth of this and the necessity for it are two things we must learn before it is too late for the churches of the National Association. ²¹  

Beyond Congregationalism C
The task before 'continuing Congregationalists' is not the restoration of Congregationalism A; quite simply, one can't recreate that ecclesiological experience any more than one can reproduce the church of the New Testament. We can't and we shouldn't because the church, like its doctrine, is a living, growing organism. The task at hand is to move beyond these models of church life in order to offer a viable, responsive, authentic form of the church for the new millennium. As Stubbs said,

On this continent, through almost three hundred fifty years the Congregational churches have carried on their individual and collective lives within an evolving Church Order living in the context of an evolving civil order. The nature of this Church Order has not been identical from one decade or one century to the next – nor, for that matter, from one place to another. ²²

The emphasis, however, must be on the authenticity of the formulation. The church, again, like doctrine, should not grow into something that it is not, but into the ever-increasing fullness and expression of what it is: Christ's Body. Thus, the relational principle of covenant church life comes fully into play. As we have seen, the hallmark of Congregational ecclesiology and polity is the notion of the completeness and autonomy of the local church. This fellowship among the churches is what provides the constitutive element of the Congregational understanding of both unity and catholicity.

While the hallmark of Congregational ecclesiology and polity is the notion of the autonomy and completeness of the local church under Christ, it is to be understood that this in no way negates the catholicity or oneness of the 'great' or Catholic church. R.W. Dale offers a description of the New Testament church which applies directly to Congregational ecclesiology.

…. these are descriptions of the Holy Catholic Church, and not of separate communities of Christians. For, according to the spirit and idiom of apostolic thought, what is affirmed of the universal Church appears to be affirmed of every organized assembly of Christian men. It is not the manner of the apostles to address any particular Church as though it were a fraction of a larger community. The Church at Corinth is not a mere member of that "one Body" into which all Christians are "baptized" by the one Spirit;" it is itself the "Body of Christ." The whole is present in every part. ²³ 

Each particular church embodies the wholeness of the church, since the body of Christ is never dismembered. Does this catholic completeness of the particular church mitigate against the broader fellowship of the churches? The Elders and Messengers assembled the Bay Colony in 1662 thought not. Cotton Mather cites their response in the 'synodicon' section of his Magnalia Christi Americana.

"1. Every church or particular congregation of visible saints in gospel-order, being furnished with a presbytery, at least with a teaching elder, and walking together in truth and peace, hath received from the Lord Jesus full power and authority ecclesiastical within itself, regularly to administer all the ordinances of Christ, and is not under any other ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatsoever. For to such a church Christ hath 'given the kingdom of heaven, that what they bind or loose on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven,' (Mat xvi.19 and xviii.17). Elders are 'ordained in every church,' (Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5) and are therein authorised officially to administer in the word, prayer, sacraments and censures(Mat. Xxviii.19, 20; Acts vi. 4; I Cor iv. 1, and v. 4, 12; Acts xx. 28; I Tim v.17 and iii. 5) The reproving of the church of Corinth and of the Asian churches severally, imports they had power each of them within themselves to reform the abuses that were amongst them (2 Cor. v; Rev ii. 14, 20). Hence it follows that consociation of churches is not to hinder the exercise of this power; but by counsel from the word of God to direct and strengthen the same upon all just occasions.
2. The churches of Christ do stand in a sisterly relation each to other (Cant viii.8) being united in the same faith and order, (Eph iv. 5; Col ii. 5). To walk by the same rule, (Phil iii.16) In the exercise of the same ordinances for the same end, (Eph iv. 11, 12, 13; 1 Cor xvi 1) under one and the same political head, the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph i. 22, 23 and iv. 5; Rev ii.1) which union infers a communion suitable thereunto. ²⁴

Therefore, the completeness of the local church is not compromised by the communion of the churches and vice versa. The ministerial office, then, relates directly to both since it affects the Body itself. We simply cannot say that we live, as Christian communities, independent of one another. Nor can we say that the ministry of any particular church is of no concern to the larger fellowship of churches. This issue was argued very forcefully before the National Council of Congregational Churches at Boston in 1865. The Reverend Dr. Leonard Bacon stated that not only was the autonomy and completeness of the local churches one of the distinguishing marks of the Congregational Way, but also the fellowship of the churches. He said:

Do we believe in the importance of the communion of the churches one with another, as that idea has been developed and applied in the experience of the two hundred and seventeen years that have elapsed since the Cambridge platform was formed? Do we believe in it? I do, for one; and I believe in it so firmly that I will have nothing to do. . . .with any denomination of Congregationalists in which that principle of communion of churches one with another, in all matters of common interest, is not recognized and acknowledged.
Now how do our brethren in England ordain their ministers? According to my understanding of it, a church elects its pastor and ordains him, and it is nobody's business who he is or what he is. According to our principle, the church elects its pastor and ordains him and it is the business of all the churches who he is and what he is; and the church that ordains him is responsible to all the churches to give an account whom it is that they elect to that office, and of his ordination – what he is, what theology he holds, what faith, what principles of order — what qualifications he has by nature, by education, and by the grace of God for the performance of that duty; and if a church falling back on its reserved rights, its extreme powers, says: "We will have nothing to do with other churches, we will elect whom we please to be our minister, and we will turn him away when we please," we say, "Very well, only you don't ride in our troop, that's all. ²⁵

The operative term here is the communion of the churches. Congregationalism D, if you will, is made operative by the relational nature of the church. As local churches are brought into being by individuals entering into covenant relationship, so too are the churches brought into communion. The relationship, however, must be cyclic rather than hierarchical, since each local church fully incarnates the reality of the church universal. ²⁶

The cyclic relationship of the churches reaches first to the churches of the vicinity or region for fellowship. Here the churches would serve each other for the purpose of authenticating themselves and the clergy called to serve them. The regional association would also provide a venue for the 'self-care' needed by churches, as well as by their ministers. The second cycle of relationship would be to the churches in their regional associations across the country in a national association. This cycle of fellowship would allow for the accomplishment of tasks or services achievable only by cooperation in a larger body. Within this proposal, in contradistinction to the current approach, the regional associations are included in the organizational structure.

We use the cyclic understanding based upon Henry Martyn Dexter's notion of Congregational polity as an ellipse with two foci: the independence of the local church and the mutual friendship and helpful co-working of all local churches. True Congregational church life must cycle between the two foci, drawing the covenanted believers that constitute it into ever closer relationship. This cyclical understanding does not see the regional or national associations as expressions of church. Rather, they are simply venues for the sharing of fellowship and mutual service. These associational organizations exist only to enable the articulation of the completeness and autonomy of the gathered, covenanted community of faith.

Conclusion
Congregationalism is an organic approach to church life and order. Its emphasis upon relationship, first to Christ, then to those who seek to join together in following him, and then to others so gathered, lends itself to the desperate search for community and stability in this new century. For that community to become evident and viable the necessary freedom must be accompanied by fellowship. As we have seen, Congregationalism A offered this, served well, but its time is now past. Congregationalism B was/is an exercise in the deforming of the Congregational Way. Congregationalism C has been a valid attempt to continue the Way, but has systemic shortcomings that make it less and less a viable approach. This writer, then, firmly believes that a fresh approach to Congregational church order – with none of the institutional overtones overt in B and often implicit in C – can bring a fresh vitality to the Way of being Christ-followers in search of yet more light and truth.

1 Harry Stubbs "On Recovering the Genius of Classical Church Order" The Proceedings of the Wisconsin Congregational Theological Society Vol. I, August 1999, p. 45. (Return to text)
² Douglas Horton, "Of Equability and Perseverance in Well Doing" Address to the General Council, Minutes of the Tenth Regular Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio June 22-26, 1950, p. 65. (Return to text)
³ "The Report of a Study by the Committee on Free Church Polity and Unity to the General Council of the Congregational Christian Churches of the United States," June, 1954, p. 23. (Return to Text)
⁴ William Ames Marrow of Theology John Dykstra Eusden, ed. and trans. (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1968), p. 179-80. Also cf. Robert Browne's "Book Which Sheweth. . . ." in Williston Walker The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press, 1969), p. 18-21, Henry Barrow's "A True Description. . . " in The Reformation of the Church: A Collection of Reformed and Puritan Documents  Iain H. Murray, ed. (Carlisle, Pa: Banner of Truth Trust, 1997), p. 196-7, both of the foregoing clearly demonstrate the concept of the local church as the only visible expression of the 'church catholick.' The same position is also articulated in the 1648 Cambridge Platform, see Walker "The Cambridge Synod and Platform," p. 204 ff. and Steven A. Peay, "Visible Saints: An Approach to Congregational Ecclesiology" in A Past With a Future: Continuing Congregationalism into the Next Millennium Steven A. Peay, ed. (Oak Creek, WI: Congregational Press, 1998), p. 35 ff. (Return to text)
⁵ A. Hastings Ross The Church Kingdom: Lectures on Congregationalism (Chicago: Congregational Sunday School and Publishing Society, 1887), p. 80-81. See also Henry Martyn Dexter The Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years, As Seen In Its Literature  (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1879), p. 523 where Dexter analyses the evolution of Congregational polity in terms of fellowship. Both Ross and Dexter reflect the position taken by John Owen in The Nature of A Gospel Church, p. 198-9. (Return to Text)
⁶ Dexter, p. 696. (Return to text)
⁷ Dexter A Handbook of Congregationalism, p. 65 as quoted in Harry Stubbs "On Recovering the Genius of Classical Church Order" The Proceedings of the Wisconsin Congregational Theological Society Vol. I, August 1999, p. 45. (Return to text)
⁸ For the best contemporary explications on the role and use of the Vicinage Council see Lloyd M. Hall, Jr. "Advice Sincerely Sought and Taken: The Vicinage Council and Ordination," A Past With A Future, p. 100-110 and his "Especially for Light and Peace: The Usefulness of Inter-Church Councils in the Resolution of Conflict," seminar presented at the Hartford, CT. meeting of the NACCC, June 28, 1999. (Return to text)
⁹ Gaius Glenn Atkins and Frederick L. Fagley History of American Congregationalism (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1942), p. 182ff, nb p. 201. (Return to text)
¹⁰ Report, p.57. (Return to text)
¹¹ Charles Sumner Nash would refer to this as "essential Congregationalism": "Essential Congregationalism resides in the local church. If we try to state our polity in a single sentence, we must affirm the native right of individual Christians to organize themselves into a church, sovereign in private life and uniting with other sovereign churches in voluntary forms of fellowship and work. It is in the local church not as an isolated and self-sufficient integer, but as a social being and member of a body, that we find the essence of our Congregational order." in Congregational Administration (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1909), p. 73. (Return to text)
¹² Horton, p. 66, emphases his. (Return to text)  
¹³ Horton, p. 67, emphasis mine. (Return to text)
¹⁴ Horton, p. 68. (Return to text)
¹⁵ Horton, p. 70. (Return to text)
¹⁶ cf Arvel M. Steece A Thoroughfare for Freedom (Oak Creek, WI: Congregational Press, 1993), p. 25-30. Also see, Alan B. Peabody, "A Study of the Controversy in Congregationalism Over Merger with the Evangelical and Reformed Church," D.S.S. diss. Syracuse University, 1964, pp. 534-5. (Return to text)
¹⁷ Peabody, p. 598. Peabody cites two sources for his construction of the account: Rev. Clarence M. Kilde, "Continuing Congregationalists Convene," Advance, CXVIII (Nov. 30, 1956), 15f; Kilde, "'Continuing' Hope Struggles Ahead," Christian Century, LXXIII (Nov. 14, 1956) 1340-1342. It should be noted that both of these accounts were thought to carry a "belittling tone," cf. Peabody, pp. 598-99. (Return to text)
¹⁸ Preamble, Articles of Association of the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches in the United States in the Yearbook (Oak Creek, WI: Congregational Press, 2000), p. 223. (Return to text)
¹⁹ Stubbs, p. 43-4. (Return to text)
²⁰ cf. Steven A. Peay "And his gifts were that some should be . . . pastors and teachers: A Consideration of the Ministerial Office and 'Standing' in Light of Congregational Ecclesiology," unpublished paper presented to the Wisconsin Congregational Theological Society, September, 1999. (Return to text)
²¹ Stubbs, p. 52 (Return to text)
²² Stubbs, p. 43 (Return to text)
²³ R.W. Dale, The Idea of the Church in Relation to Modern Congregationalism (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1871), p. 396. (Return to text)
²⁴ Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi American, or the Ecclesiastical History of New England, From Its First Planting in the Year 1620, unto the Year of Our Lord 1698, vol. II, book five (Hartford: Silus Andrus & Son, 1853), p. 299-300. (Return to text)
²⁵ Leonard Bacon, "Report of the Committee on Church Polity" in Debates and Proceedings of the National Council of Congregational Churches Held at Boston, Mass., June 14-24, 1865 (Boston: American Congregational Association, 1866), p. 452. (Return to text)
²⁶ cf Miroslav Volf After Our Likeness: The Church in the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p 214-19, Volf notes the 'perichoretic' relationship which exists in both intra and inter church relationships, a relationship which he implies binds these bodies ever closer in a sense of oneness. (Return to text)