We note a decided improvement in this form of the resolution as compared with the first, in that the formal principle of Congregationalism is here openly avowed. Yet the manner of the avowal is still such as to contain a constructive denial of the same principle. We have already seen that this principle refuses to send the believer for his rule of faith to the Word of God as interpreted in and through any form of creeds. Such a form of holding the principle covertly destroys it while openly avowing allegiance to it. Does, then, this resolution mean simply to state, that, as a matter of fact, Congregationalists do interpret the Scriptures in substantial accord with their brethren of the different denominations called evangelical? or does it mean to erect the so-called evangelical creeds as interpretations of Scripture into a rule of faith for Congregational pastors co-ordinate with, or even superior to, the Scripture itself? With the former meaning, the statement would be one of simple truthfulness to fact. If the resolution meant the former fact, it should so have stated its meaning as to have admitted of no misunderstanding: having done this, it would have removed all formidable objection. If it meant the latter opinion, it covertly denied the very principle it openly asserted. There is for Congregationalism only one objective rule of faith: this is the Word of God in the Bible as seen in its unity with the Christian consciousness, its interpreter. The resolution seems to imply that the interpretation of the Christian consciousness is finished and set forth in obligatory form by the creeds of our former general councils. Such a doctrine would certainly have greatly shocked John Robinson and the founders of Congregationalism. To this interpretation of the resolution we are, however, almost forced by the

fact that the motion to amend, by adding the following words, "Provided that nothing herein affirmed be construed as a denial of the right of appeal from all human creeds to the Word of God," was lost by a large majority.

And, should it be claimed that the entire transaction was instituted in this convention in the interests of the entire denomination, we have no question to raise concerning the motives of those brethren who were its supporters. But the wisdom of their proceeding would doubtless have been described by the author just quoted in such terms as he applied to the advocates of the before-mentioned sixteen proposals: "They appear (indeed) something in the manner of Nehemiah's men on the wall (Neh. iv. 17). As it were with a trowel in one hand, with which they now and then put on a little untempered mortar, to plaister over a thing or two, where the old work by length of time is somewhat weather-beaten, to pacify the jealousies of the inhabitants, that they may think these builders (surely) are mending and not marring their old comfortable habitation. But in reality they have in the other hand a formidable maul, not as Nehemiah's weapon to defend, but to break down, the building; for they are all hands at work banging the platform in pieces upon which the old fabrick is built."1

If the length at which the formal principle of Congregationalism has been treated in this Lecture should seem somewhat out of proportion to the satisfactoriness of the treatment, I beg to remind you of the great difficulty of this theme. Upon it we are confident there is yet "more light and truth to break forth out of his holy Word."

1 Rev. John Wise in Churches Quarrel Espoused, 4th query.

LECTURE VI.

THE PRINCIPLE OF A REGENERATE MEMBERSHIP.

AMONG the secondary or derived principles of the true church polity there is no other one so nearly preeminent, both in itself, and in its relation to the remaining principles of the same rank, as that of a regenerate membership. This third one in the order of enumeration is first in the order of logic. The visible church of Christ should be composed only of such persons as give credible evidence of having in a godly way repented of their sins, believed unto salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ as their divine Saviour, and begun a life of allegiance to him as their King. The conviction that upon this principle alone can the constitution of the Church be duly and safely placed was distinctive, in their time, with the founders of our church order. Nothing else more pressed upon the consciences, weighed in the judg ments, and bore down upon the hearts, of these men, than the fact that they were compelled by the constitution of the Church of England to commune, in a church way, with men who were manifestly unbelieving in heart, and even flagrantly unholy in life. To tolerate those who differed from them in the theory and practice of church government, they found by no means impossible. To receive to their communion the godly members of the Church of England, they by no means re

fused. They were not unmindful of the obligation laid upon them by the Word of God, to be patient with weakness, long-suffering with error, gentle in giving rebuke. They did not make conformity in creed a condition of membership in their churches. Their complaint was not that they might probably be in church bonds with those who could not pronounce some Shibboleth in their fashion, or who had honest mental difficulties with certain scriptural truths. They found "profane Atheists, scandalous mockers, and grossly ignorant persons," in the so-called Christian churches of which they were legally bound to be members. The pastors were required to administer the sacraments to such the brethren had no power to sever such from their Christian brotherhood. Their study of the New Testament led them to know that the apostolic churches were constituted in a different way: the witness of their pure consciences led them to believe that their churches ought to be constituted in the apostolic way. They reasoned: "Profane Atheists, and scandalous mockers, and grossly ignorant persons, have no spiritual communion with Christ (neither according to the influence of saving graces, nor of common gifts); and therefore such persons are not to be received members of that body, the church, whereof Christ is the head.” 1

The great importance of this principle, in itself considered, is readily made obvious. But let us see more particularly what is its relation to all the other principles of a true church polity. Practically the law which determines the nature of the membership of different churches will determine much else in all the characteristics of their doctrine and life. The constitution of

1 Words taken from Cotton's treatise, Of the Holinesse of ChurchMembers, London, 1650, p. 26.

the Church is the fundamental fact in the order of its development: the laws followed in constituting any particular church organize the elements of its subsequent history, and determine what sort of a church it shall be in unfolding the elements intrusted to it according to the working of those laws. We cannot, indeed, look upon any particular church as the mere aggregate of the individual members which are at any one time in the enjoyment of its communion; but the principles of communion upon which it is constituted, and according to which it is developed, will largely determine the nature of its membership. The principles which underlie its constitution and growth, and the actual condition in doctrine and life of the membership, will together show us fully what the church is. Different ways of constituting different churches have much to do, then, with their total difference. The church which requires from its members assent to creeds will differ from that which requires credible evidence of socalled saving faith: both of these will differ from those churches which require only that their members shall be born into membership.

The intimate and pre-eminent influence of this principle, in its relation to the other principles of church polity, is almost equally obvious. It was in no small degree on account of their desire to secure the privilege. of separating themselves from the unregenerate in their church life, that the early Congregationalists laid so much emphasis upon the exclusive rulership of Jesus Christ. And, indeed, if Christian churches are not to be composed of those who profess really to acknowledge Christ as both Saviour and King, it is difficult to see why they should claim the right to live as churches solely under his rule. If the members of the "particu