may be evoked. When this way must be employed as means of securing a pure ministry, the greatest care and delicacy are necessary to blend rightly the two principles involved: these two are the principle of the autonomy of the local church and the principle of the communion of churches; for in this way of communion these principles often seem to be mutually exclusive and contradictory. The attention of the neglecting church should, first of all, be more carefully and tenderly called to the apparent neglect. If neglect of attention be followed by explicit or virtual refusal of attention, admonition may issue as the next act. Continued neglect or refusal may compel the subsequent steps, which, following closely the path laid down by Christ for the discipline of an offending member, may at last terminate in the united and deliberate act of a council of neighboring churches, declaring the offending church "to be obstinate." Lastly follows the declaration of "the sentence of non-communion" from the "particular churches approving and accepting the judgment" of the council. Thereafter the churches which have withdrawn fellowship cease to hold communion as churches with the offending church in any of the more formal ways of communion. They do not consult with it in union meetings, or in common councils or synods; they no longer give and receive admonition for subsequent faults; they do not receive its pastor into their pulpits as a Christian minister, or its members into their churches by letter from it; they do not dismiss their members by letter to it, or suffer their pastors to enter its pulpit. This consummation of the extreme act possible under the principle of the communion of churches is, indeed, not a consummation devoutly to be wished, except in extreme cases. It is the last resort

possible to express the disapprobation of Christ's people for the false teacher and for the congregation who cherish and consent unto him.

The question may, however, be pressed, Is there no less onerous and roundabout fashion of reaching derelict ministers, possible to our church order? In reply, you will please notice that I have constantly made a distinction between the minister as such, and the pastor or chosen officer of the local church. The distinction, whether or not it be theoretically valid, we must in practice admit. As to any special means indirectly employed by the churches, and effective through associations, conventions, consociations, or other standing forms of union among ordained and unordained members of local churches, we shall speak briefly at another time. The purity of the pastors of our churches, of the men who are statedly teaching those churches, is to be secured and conserved, so far as it is directly committed to the local church, or to the fellowship of churches, in the ways indicated above. The discipline which these various bodies exercise over the ministers within them is only indirect means of reaching the same ministers as pastors. If, however, any church persist in hearing as their teacher a man found unworthy by any of these ecclesiastical bodies of which this man may happen to be a member, such church may be admonished for the offence. In order, however, to make this course practically effective, we must recognize those who have been chosen by the churches to teach, and to administer the sacraments, for no matter how brief time chosen, and whether installed or not, as the pastors of those churches.

If the further question be asked, What shall be done for the ministerial purity of notably impure and hereti

cal men who are neither pastors of churches nor acknowledged members of any ministerial body? the question itself must be declared to be on the very verge of absurdity. The churches that wittingly hear them may be admonished, so that these blind leaders shall not be leaders of the blind. But, as for the men themselves, the purity of the ministry is best preserved by letting them alone, that alone they may fall into their ditch. From this ditch the memory of a former ordination will not preserve them; and, when they are once consciously there, a helping hand may best be extended to them for the restoration, not, in any case, of their ministerial standing, but of their characters, and for the saving of their souls.

LECTURE VIII..

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMUNION OF CHURCHES.

THE application of the principle of the communion of churches has given rise to more heated debate, and has been the occasion of more division and strife, than that of any other principle belonging to church polity. Congregationalists have been more divided, both in theory and in action, by determining how they shall best be united, than in any other way. Such division appears the more remarkable when we consider for a moment the very obvious truth, that the entire basis of this principle lies in the great and celestial fact of Christian brotherly love. The communion of churches has no real meaning to thought, and no valid claim upon consideration or conduct, except in so far as we regard this communion in the light of charity. The communion of churches is the expression of that love toward one another which belongs to all true followers of Christ. That Christian men should be separated most widely by the very effort to unite Christian churches, is, indeed, a most remarkable fact. But this fact is by no means peculiar to the working of any one church. order. The effort at union has divided believers in all ages of the church.

Within our own churches, and especially in the body of our ministry, there has been a marked difference of

opinion, and at times a notable discord, as to the wisest and most effective ways of applying this distinctive principle. The principle is distinctive with Congregationalists, not in itself, but rather in its adjustment to other distinctive principles. And in this fact we may find one reason for the difficulties which encompass its application. For just as all theologians are always to be divided into two classes, the first of which is called, by itself and by its opponents, Calvinists, and the second of which is called, chiefly by its opponents, Arminians, so are all Congregationalists always to be divided into two classes, the first of which is called, by itself and by its opponents, simply Congregationalists, and the second of which is called, chiefly by its opponents, Independents. The sharp contests and discordant conduct of these two classes may be traced through more than two hundred years: all this time they have been more or less divided about the right way to be united. And the very nature of the debate, as well as the names which have been fixed upon the two parties, has shown that the adjustment of the principle of the autonomy of the local church with the principle of the communion of churches is the subject in dispute. The class which has emphasized the former principle has often been accused, justly or unjustly, of Independency: the class which has emphasized the latter principle has often been accused, justly or unjustly, of Presbyterianizing. And, after all, the difference has been largely one of emphasis. This difference in placing the emphasis involves, however, the possibility of a much wider and a continuously widening difference. The beginning of a schism is, generally, in an excess of emphasis upon some one principle. The possibility of a "new denomination" has always lain, and still lies, in this difference of opinion