such a basis can be a true church of Christ, nor its communion table, the table of Christ. No body can be entitled to any recognition as a church of Christ, that does not admit the necessity of the new birth, the atonement, the divine Saviour, and the hopeless state of the finally impenitent. These at least are necessary to the creed of a true church. And they are no less necessary to the heart of the individual Christian. Nor can he give good evidence of piety who does not give evidence that these doctrines have a hold upon his heart. Yet we do find that evidence, where they have not yet reached the intellect and the person does not think that he believes them. A church must, however, be judged not by the esoteric character of its individual members, but by the exoteric basis of its organization. It must be built on the true foundation not merely invisibly and spiritually, but visibly and bodily. The individual Christian is to be judged by the state of his heart as shown in his words and his life. A church is to be judged not by the state of heart of its members, but by its own organization, its outward conformity to the cardinal points of the gospel Though not at all probable as an actual case, yet we can easily imagine a true church of Christ, no member of which is a real Christian. On the other hand, there might be a church organization, every member of which might be a true Christian, whom we should gladly welcome to our communion, with which as a church we could not consistently meet on terms of fellowship. Permitting such individuals to participate with us in the ordinances is simply an act of Christian fellowship due to all Christians as such; but if we participate with them when they administer the ordinances, it becomes an act of church fellowship due not to Christians as such, but to churches only. We may, therefore, very properly grant the one and refrain from the other. With Christian fellowship, creeds have nothing to do any further than they may indirectly help to decide the question of personal piety. But for church fellowship we must have a doctrinal test embracing at least the doctrines already named. So far we have not touched the question of the propriety of the division of Christian churches into denomininations or sects. This depends mainly upon the terms of admission to the local church. That is, if no doctrinal test be imposed upon candidates for admission to any church, then all churches will be alike in having no creed except the belief of different members. Denominationalism will then either die out or become intensified in the ministry, with a tendency to clerical tyranny over the people. Probably denominations will never cease to exist in the church militant. They will be divided by church polity, if not by creed. But with this the subject before us has nothing to do. The practical question to us, as Congregationalists, is, shall we, with our free church polity, throw open the doors of our local churches to all who give satisfactory evidence of piety, irrespective of creed? As we receive members to our churches, shall we require assent only to the covenant, or shall we also demand assent to our Calvinistic articles of faith? This is a question depending very much on the view we take of the ordinances. If Baptism and the Lord's Supper are church ordinances, that is, in the sense of pertaining to the local church only, as our Baptist brethren say, so that no person can receive them without becoming a member of some particular church, then we can properly have no use for creeds in admission to the church. We can find no Bible authority for interposing a creed, save simple belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, our between any Christian and the ordinances of Christ's household. But if we regard them as Christian ordinances, pertaining to the church general, and agree with our Methodist brethren, who, if we are rightly informed, administer both Baptism and the Lord's Supper, without insisting on union with the local church, then, a creed embodying all our denominational articles of faith may very properly and wisely be subscribed by all who enter churches. Thus, while excluding from the ordinances none who love the Lord Jesus, we shall yet preserve intact the Calvinism of our churches, nor by our Christian charity obliterate or obscure the distinctness of our denominational boundaries. Though, when providentially thrown together and not strong enough to maintain separate organizations, there can be no impropriety in the union into one church, on such broad terms as they can best agree, of Christians of all shades of belief, from Wesley and Taylor to Luther and Calvin, yet it is doubtless better, in ordinary circumstances, that the laws of elective affinity should prevail in organizing a local church, and those only be admitted who can subscribe to the same creed. "How can two walk together except they be agreed ?" Christians uniting to together for the maintenance of the means of grace, and for mutual watch and assistance in their heavenward course, will do far better to be mutually agreed in faith as well as practice. It is better, as a general rule, that Calvinists should cluster together, and Arminians together. Such divisions are really more productive of harmony among Christians, than the mistaken effort of some to embrace all forms of belief in one church organization. But, however this may be decided by different churches in different circumstances, the one point to be rigidly insisted on is, that creeds shall not exclude from ordinances. Every believer in Jesus, by virtue of that belief, is entitled to Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and no man or body of men may innocently exclude him from either. The only creed required of the jailer and the eunuch was belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. They however became members by baptism of no particular church, but only of the visible church general. It is safe to follow the example of Paul and Philip. So much for Christian and church fellowship. Let us now consider ministerial fellowship. And what has been already said of church fellowship implies nearly all that need be said of ministerial fellowship. It is evident that we may not in any way recognize, as a minister, one whose church is not a church of Christ. Ministerial fellowship must extend just as far as church fellowship, and no farther. We should be ready to exchange pulpits with, and extend all other acts of fellowship to, any pastor of a church that we can properly recognize as a church of Jesus Christ. The lack, then, of a creed embracing — I will not say the essential truths of the gospel, for all truth is essential - but those truths without which there is no gospel, must exclude entirely from ministerial fellowship. To exchange pulpits, or unite in conducting religious meetings with, or in any form to recognize as a minister, one who denies the God-man, or eternal punishment, or the atone-· ment, or regeneration, is to become ourselves recreant to the honor of our Lord. But there is a still closer and narrower kind of ministerial fellowship exercised by and towards those of the same denomination only. Should we, then, in the reception of new members to the ranks of the clergy, that is, in the approbation and ordination of ministers, require a specfic creed? The answer seems obvious. It is absurd to expect Calvinists to ordain Arminians, or vice versa. Just here, it seems to us, is the most important use of a systematic creed. Heresies do not come into the church through the laity, but through the clergy. Guard the pulpit from error, and you 'most effectually guard the church. The great Unitarian defection in New England was of the ministry. It also crept in almost imperceptibly by councils' ordaining men who only slightly departed from the old landmarks of faith. Had the ministry stood firm, and rejected at the outset every candidate who was not clearly and decidedly Orthodox, that defection must have been very much modified in its extent and influence, if not entirely prevented. The only security we can offer against heresy is to induct into the sacred office only such men as will "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." It was to the ministers Timothy and Titus that Paul addressed his most solemn admonitions against departure from the doctrines they had been taught. "Hold fast the form of sound words," is his injunction to Timothy. We shall do well to make this our invariable rule in the examination of candidates for the ministry. Where "the form of sound words" is retained, the living truth may not always be found; but where that form is rejected, there it is certain the substance of truth is also denied. Men who are unwilling or afraid to use the strongest biblical expressions in their statements of doc. trine, without some modifying or limiting phrase of human device, are to be distrusted. Their soundness in the faith is to be seriously doubted. We may not with safety admit such men to the ministry. An error in a leader apparently very slight will work untold mischief. It is not necessary that every private soldier should have the right theory of war, or a completely correct knowledge of military tactics; but a general without these will be the ruin of the army. So the true Christian may fight well in the army of the Lord, though he belong to no particular church, and though his creed may not be entirely conformed to the standard of sound doctrine. But it is essential that his leader be one who understands and will maintain all the truth. It is not enough for the minister that he possess talent, learning, biblical erudition, or fervent piety; he must be also sound in the faith, or he will lead the church astray. A slight laxity in the understanding of one doctrine will give tone to a man's whole ministry. It will undermine the foundations, and prepare the way for more serious defection, till by degrees his successors depart entirely from the gospel of Christ. The danger from this source is very great at the present time. Too many confound the different kinds of fellowship, and with sophistical reasoning apply the laws of Christian fellowship to the more limited conditions of church and ministerial fellowship. Indolence and fear of commotion influence us also to a timid course. It is much easier to say, "The man is a good man, an able preacher, and will be likely to do good,” and so let him pass along with his errors, than to take the decided stand required by Paul, and reject the man that is a heretic. We are not indeed to forbid him who casts out devils, because he followeth not us, provided he followeth Christ. Let him go with his own denomination in peace and with a benediction. But we should do all in our power to forbid the preaching of those who in any form reject Christ, receiving them not into our houses, neither bidding them God-speed. And, more than this, we must not, at the peril of our Puritan, Pauline faith, send forth to instruct and guide our churches men who even slightly depart from the ancient symbols of apostolic doctrine. If the minister holds election, or native depravity, or a vicarious atonement, or eternal punishment in some modified form only, his people will soon cease to hold them at all. It is thus dangerous in the extreme to admit to the pulpit the slightest deviations from the strict standards of Orthodoxy. Here let the creed control our action and limit our fellowship. Bristling with five or twenty-five points, if need be, let our Calvinistic creed stand sentry at all our pulpit doors, but never let its terrors forbid approach to the communion table or the baptismal font. LIST OF ALUMNI OF THE CONGREGATIONAL COLLEGE OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA. NOTE. Those marked thus (*) left the Institute of C. E. previous to its amalgamation with that of C. W. in 1845. Congregational Necrology. Dea. JEDEDIAH BUSHNELL was born in Keesville, N. Y., 21 Aug., 1798. When an infant, his parents removed to Waitsfield, Vt. The town was then in its infancy. A few settlers had made comfortable homes for themselves. The forests were beginning to fall rapidly before the sharpened steel, which the early inhabitants knew how to use effectively. Dea. Bushnell commenced life with these sturdy, noble pioneers. He had an iron constitution which yielded to no fatigue or exposure til nearly threescore years and ten of service. He died on the 22d of February last, at the age of 68 years, six months. He was an energetic, thrifty farmer. He provided for himself and family a comfortable and cheerful home, where all the abundance which belongs to a well-supplied New England farm-house was rightly appreciated and enjoyed. Necessities, comforts, and innocent luxuries were mingled in due proportion. The writer will never forget the last Thanksgiving eve which he, with his family, spent at the Deacon's, where body and soul seemed feasted to the uttermost ; the one not too much for the other. He enjoyed all the good things that a bountiful Providence gave him, and "kissed the hand of the Giver." In early life Dea. Bushnell yielded his heart to God, and at the age of twenty united with the Congregational church at Waitsfield, then in the twenty-second year of its existence, and in its seventh year of the pastorate of the late Amariah Chandler, D. D. The writer once heard him say that he had thoughts of entering the ministry, but soon came to the conclusion that he was not fit for the work. Eight years after uniting with the church, he was chosen deacon. For nearly half a century he was a consistent and devoted member of the church, and for more than forty years an earnest and efficient standard-bearer therein. In character he was entirely positive. He was bold and fearless in every respect. Every one might easily know where he stood, what his opinions were, and precisely why he held them. So bold and open was his nature that in discussion, which he loved to a fault, whether pertaining to theology or politics, in both of which he was perfectly at home,he seemed to delight in those strong, sharp statements which, while true and clear if carefully examined, are nevertheless liable to misconstruction when not considered with precision and candor. He was a man of principle in an eminent degree. He examined every subject carefully through the medium of the intellect. What could not endure the probings of a sharp intellectual analysis received his rebuke. What seemed right and proper, thus viewed, that he approved, regardless of the feelings of himself or others. The abstract rule of justice and right was enough for him, in ordinary circumstances. When called upon to decide some practical question, of a benevolent nature for instance, neither his feelings simply, nor his apparent pecuniary ability at the time, led chiefly to a decision, but what, after reflection, seemed right and desirable, — what would help man and honor God. One time was as good as another to preach benevolence or anything else to him. He always heard candidly, and then took time for deliberation. Dea. Bushnell was a man of remarkable faith. He believed that God reigns in heaven and on earth. His trust was constantly in Him. Did events move prosperously with him, it was to God he gave the praise. Did the storms of adversity beat against him, it was still well; God allowed them for a wise purpose; and he sought grace that he might endure and profit thereby. He experienced many trials. The wife of his youth was early taken from him. He buried several children, some of them under painful circumstances. One was drowned, at the age of nineteen. Another died while preparing for the ministry. Another was killed in a skirmish in Arkansas, during the rebellion. At such times he could mount up to the throne of God till a sight of the divine wisdom and goodness seemed to satisfy him. When we knew that his heart was aching with anxiety and sorrow, his countenance indicated that he leaned on one who helped to |
