The first of these is the relation of the seven national societies to the churches. There are many who desire an undisputed and complete control of our associated missionary and benevolent work by the churches through their state conferences and the National Council. This matter, having been referred in 1907 to a special commission, need not be discussed in this report. It is a far-reaching proposition, involving many serious legal questions, and possibly calling for a referendum to the churches before its final settlement.

A second question is the relation of the Congregational Brotherhood, as a national organization, to the churches. This organization was authorized by the last Council, and steps were soon taken for its establishment. Since that time the Brotherhoods have begun to be organized in each state as a department of the state conference. It is the hope of the officers of the Brotherhood that the national organization may be similarly related to the churches as a department of the Council. This matter, also, being under the jurisdiction of a special committee on Congregational Brotherhood, requires no action by this committee.

The question of the frequency of the meetings of the Council is one of timeliness. The business of our denomination is now of such importance that the opportunities afforded for its dispatch by the crowded gathering held once in a triennium are absurdly insufficient. The question raised is whether the Council should not meet annually. Your committee cannot affirm that there is a well-defined opinion in the denomination upon this matter. The Council is rapidly becoming a more and more important factor in the life of the denomination. If it is to become an administrative body, its sessions should be held annually. The alternative would seem to be an executive committee with considerable powers.

More essential, still, to the efficiency of our scheme of service is the adjustment of the moderatorship of the Council. By common consent the moderator now has a tenure of three years, but the constitutionality of this arrangement has been questioned. The original office was carefully limited. It ceased with the Council over which the moderator presided. But at Chicago, in 1886, for the sake of promoting the prompt organization of each Council, the moderator of one Council was authorized

to open the session of the Council next following and to name the committees on Nominations, Business, and Credentials. In 1895, at Syracuse, the authority to name these committees was withdrawn and he was merely permitted to name the Nominating Committee, subject to the approval of the Council. In 1901 at Portland, Me., Dr. Amory H. Bradford was elected moderator. Interpreting By-Law XIV to mean that he was the moderator until his successor was elected, he served the churches in a representative capacity from 1901 to 1904. At Des Moines in that year a resolution was adopted which recognized and approved this wider interpretation of the functions of a moderator. Dr. Washington Gladden acted accordingly during his term, and Mr. MacMillan has been repeatedly welcomed in Congregational circles as our moderator since 1907. This practice seems to reflect the desire of the majority of our churches. If this be true, the status of the moderator should be defined constitutionally and with clearness. Professor Nash, in his recent book on Congregational Administration has well said of the moderatorship, "[It is] an eminent post of honor and service, not a prize of ambitious politics, but a stewardship entrusted to capacity and consecration. Its occupant should be a man of national proportions, administrative ability, and spiritual power. He is for the time the first man in the Congregational land."

But the most important change that is called for denominationally is a change in the secretaryship. It has become in our usage mainly an editorial office. Its importance and efficiency as now conducted must not be overlooked, but the present movement in Congregationalism seems to demand an expansion of the office. The secretary of the National Council should be our recognized leader in promoting the great issues of the denomination. The editorial work should go on under his general direction, or under an Editorial Secretary, but his work should be that of an "organizer of our national forces for world-wide enterprise." It seems to your committee better to have a salaried secretary than a salaried moderator. We can have the services of a great moderator at a comparatively slight outlay; a secretary of national size with the capacity of constructive leadership of the churches must have an adequate salary and liberal expense account.

Congregationalism needs just such leadership at the present time. We are trying many experiments. Notably among them are the congresses held on the coast, in New England and in the Southwest, and planned for other sections, at which the laity and clergy have sought to formulate fresh expressions of our denominational consciousness and new means for promoting denominational efficiency. As a denomination we are getting ready for a general reformulation of methods by which the status of our national executive officers, the place of our Council in the management of denominational interests, the relation of the churches to the benevolent societies, the adequate support of our benevolences, and the other important problems of to-day may be brought into a genuine unity. That this may be achieved without impairing in any degree the independence of the local church or of the district associations is our conviction.

The questions at issue which this Council may be asked to decide are so perplexing and many-sided that many delegates may hesitate to take action. Only the churches can finally determine whether they desire an administrative council, meeting in annual session, directing the affairs of the whole church, with a body of delegates whose expenses are paid. Your committee would favor (1) the adoption by this Council of resolutions which clearly express its desires in these respects, and (2) the appointment of a commission, empowered to consider all matters of denominational polity referred to it, to report to the next Council a unified scheme and to submit for adoption a new constitution and by-laws. This committee should be also empowered to test its conclusions by a referendum to our churches. To accomplish these ends, your committee submits the following resolutions:

(1) The Council recognizes the importance of the recommendations of the Committee on Polity of 1907, reaffirms them as being a sound and progressive expression of Congregational polity in the different states, and recommends their general adoption.

(2) It further approves of the appointment of an advisory committee in each district association to coöperate with the advisory committee or board of trustees of the state conference in dealing with the general interests of the churches.

(3) Recognizing the value to our denomination of adequate

leadership, this Council hereby reaffirms its approval of that conception of the office of moderator which encourages the incumbent to assume the task of denominational inspiration and service, acknowledging him as our most representative leader during his three years of service, but without other authority in his acts and utterances than their weight and force convey.

It further approves of a broader interpretation of the office of secretary, which shall provide not merely for the existing editorial and office functions, but include the active management of such interests as are placed in charge of the Council and not otherwise provided for, and the general function of leadership among the churches, counseling with conferences and associations, and promoting the great issues which our churches are working out.

We would also present the following recommendation:

In view of the conflict of opinion regarding changes in the methods of national administration which this Council should adopt, your Committee on Polity recommends that the Council appoint a carefully chosen Commission on Polity of not less than fifteen members, empowered to consider the questions on which the Council is in doubt; to develop a consistent scheme of national activity; to test its conclusions, if necessary, by a referendum to the churches, and to submit to the next Council a constitution and by-laws which shall adequately express the will of the denomination.

We further recommend that the Council make provision for the expense of the meetings of this commission.

Respectfully submitted,

FRANK K. SANDERS,
ALBERT E. DUNNING,

CURTIS M. GEER,

FRANK S. FITCH,

BENJAMIN F. BLAIR,

STEPHEN B. L. PENROSE,

LUCIUS O. BAIRD,

HENRY M. TENNEY,

HENRY W. DARLING,

Committee on Polity.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RELIGIOUS EDUCATION TO THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES FOR THE TRIENNIUM ENDING OCTOBER, 1910.

The Committee on Religious Education was appointed in 1904 at Des Moines, "to take into consideration all questions relating to the interests of religious education in our churches, and, so far as may be feasible, to give practical form to its conclusions."

During the triennium preceding the Cleveland meeting, it did not seem feasible for the committee to propose any specific Congregational movement. It could only recognize with approval the numerous experiments, many of them under Congregational leadership, which were under way for the betterment of religious instruction, and ask for a continuance of its commission.

The three years that have passed since 1907 have been years of rapid progress in the organization and development of religious education in our own denomination and throughout the country. The opposition once encountered to the formulation of a scientific scheme of religious education, based upon the real facts of the growing consciousness, has largely disappeared with the clearer and more general understanding of its desirableness.

Our own churches have usually shown a readiness to consider and adopt methods which give promise of better results, but the vast majority of them have also desired to keep in line with the plans of the International Sunday-School Association. With the adoption in June, 1908, by the International Convention at Louisville, of a resolution favoring the publication under International auspices of a genuine system of graded lessons, the way has been opened for a very general advance in Sundayschool instruction of which our own Sunday-School and Publishing Society and our churches have not been slow to avail themselves. It is pertinent to state in this connection that our own denomination furnished no small share of the influence which carried this movement for more scientific methods in