In some of his published writings of this year, we find him looking into the subject of church polity, and endeavoring to answer the question, "_Where is the power of government?_" He noticed four different systems for answering this question, systems which have had their favorites, from all of which, he adds, "I am led to dissent in certain respects." These are: 1. The idea of submitting the power of government to the civil authority, as in the Church of England, as in state religion generally. He affirms that good government does its office when it defends our rights and protects our persons; that it never should attempt to enforce the laws of the church, or dictate in any way to the conscience. 2. The idea of a central man, or of a few chosen men, in whom the authority shall be vested. "The New Dispensation," said he, "establishes a kingly government; yet, as the government is on the Messiah's shoulder, I cannot consent that the power should be given to any other." He is the legislative centre. "A Diotrephes was rebuked for loving the preëminence." 3. The idea that in a council of ministers, exclusive of churches, the controlling power concentrates. 4. That in the churches, independent of the ministers, all power resides. In neither of these systems does Mr. Badger confide. He confides in the union of ministers and churches, in their assembled light. He refers to the consultation at Jerusalem as combining several elements: "apostles, elders and brethren," all being interested and active on the subjects agitated. The general state of the Christian Church called for something which the local action of no one society could give, and hence there was a general assemblage drawn together at Jerusalem by the magnitude of the questions to be discussed; and even their decisions were not sent out as _laws_. "We, in submitting to the LAWS of Christ, have a government among us, and each is to be esteemed for his work's sake. Not considering churches and ministers as two parties, but as one," says Mr. B., "we find them authorized with the power of government, but not to _make_ laws." Referring to the council at Jerusalem, he remarks that "it is a beautiful example for modern Christians, one that fulfils the saying of the wise man, 'In the multitude of counsellors there is safety.' Where no counsel is, the people go astray." In this brief article, published in 1819, is expressed the main view to which he always adhered in his ideas on church government; a view more widely expanded and qualified in a series of articles published in the "Christian Palladium," in 1837. He goes against the spirit of isolation and individualism, and contends for the united concentration of all the light of the church--for the active union of the ministers and people. Hence he was neither Episcopal, nor a radical Congregationalist, who boasts a church government independent of the ministry.