which is common to them all. Thus the strong may help the weak, and the wealthy may help the poor, and all may utilise for the common good whatever talents they possess.

-66

66

The Independency which stands aloof from all other churches looks cold, and selfish, and unlovely. It will neither give nor take the friendly service which God intended we should give and take. It looks exclusively on its own things when it should also look on the things of others. It seems too much in accord with that selfish proverb which is the creed of many worldy people: Every man for himself, and God for us all." It is too little like Him who pleased not Himself, but lived and died and rose again for.us. It does not seem to know that grand motto, Each for all, and all for each." It does little or nothing to demonstrate before the world the unity which belongs to the one body of Christ, which has "many members in one body." It is so afraid of any interference with its liberty that it retires from that society of churches which may be organised with as much mutual advantage as that of individual members in the one church. And when it is not strong enough to plant new stations and create new centres of light and influence by itself at home or abroad, it prefers to do nothing rather than to co-operate with others.

Many Baptist churches have been too much isolated. They have been formed through repulsion from other bodies not willing to allow free play to their convictions, and have not yet been drawn to one another, and are perhaps a little timid lest a central union might not respect their much-prized liberties. But they are gradually broadening in sympathy, and gaining confidence.

The Associations gather together as many of the churches of their respective districts as are willing to join them, for sympathy, counsel, encouragement, and co-operation. They have been very useful to the churches, and have subserved, in various ways, the interests of religion. They have brought together the pastors and messengers of those churches to discuss subjects of great importance to them all, to take counsel concerning the best method and plans of work, and to encourage and help each other to overtake the ignorance, the superstition, and sin which prevailed around them; and from their assemblies have gone forth, to all the churches, instruction, admonition, or direction, as they have been needed. They have thus found that "Union is strength," and that "in the multitude of counsellors there is safety." The wisdom centred in a single church has become, as God doubtless intended it should, the property of all.

These Associations are capable of much more service than they have hitherto rendered. The churches of these associations may, and should, feel deeper interest in one another, and watch over one another with more godly jealousy, and give and receive more candidly and more lovingly the cautions and counsels which they may severally need, and the substantial help they may be able to give. They may do much more to call into systematic exercise the dormant talents of the churches, and supply the spiritual necessity of the towns and villages round about them. They may do more to lift the ministers of the smallest and poorest of their churches above want and anxiety about temporal things, and in many other ways promote the cause which is dear to them all. In so doing they will be acting according to reason, and agreeably to the Word of God. The churches of the New Testament took an interest in each other, as is manifest in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles.

Then there is The Baptist Union, which seeks to bring together the churches of the whole kingdom for the accomplishment of similar objects on a larger scale. It would be out of place here to enlarge upon the service already rendered by the Union, by the addresses given, the papers read, the meetings convened, the funds raised for various denominational objects, and the influence which it has gathered up and used in behalf of civil and religious liberty, justice, and peace, etc.. It is not always possible to tabulate or express in figures or money columns the good that is done. Suggestions are often made which are seeds of action carried to the several churches,. and there planted to bring forth fruit in distant places and in future times; and when the harvest is reaped it is not always remembered whence the seed came. There is, of course, danger in centralisation when ecclesiastical organisations become large, lest they should assume an authority which is inimical to a proper freedom. Against this we must be watchful; but must take care not to become mere watchdogs, who do nothing but bark. The Union will be of most value, as it brings together for counsel and Christian work the wisdom and energy of the Associated Churches; as it undertakes and carries forward those movements which are required to promote the interests and efficiency of the denomination as a whole, and stimulates the associations and churches throughout the country to more vigorous, self-denying, and united home and foreign mission work. Having no authority and no legislative power, it can accomplish its objects and justify its existence only by its practical utility; or, in other words, by making,

itself necessary to the Associations and churches of the denomination, by guiding, helping, and stimulating them.

XVIII-BAPTIST NONCONFORMITY.

The Israelites were necessarily dissenters in Egypt and in Babylon, Lot in Sodom, Elimelech in Nineveh, Daniel, Shadrach and others in Babylon, St. Paul and his fellow apostles and primitive Christians at Athens, Rome, Ephesus, Jerusalem and other places."

ROBERT ROBINSON.

Baptists are Nonconformists in England, as Daniel, Shadrach and others were in Babylon, because they cannot conscientiously be anything else. When their Nonconformity subjected them to greater disabilities and penalties than they have to suffer now, they had no alternative. To those who commanded them to conform, and threatened them with the consequences of not doing so, they replied in the language of the apostles, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to obey men rather than God, judge ye." Though some of them had their goods confiscated, and some were cast into prison, and all were debarred the use of the universities and other national educational institutions, and excluded from civic and Parliamentary honours for which they were otherwise qualified, and were made in many ways to feel that they were branded with the mark of social inferiority through their Nonconformity, they adhered to their convictions at all cost.

They did not undervalue political and social advantages; but they set a much higher value upon their principles and loyalty to conscience, and to Christ the Lord of conscience. And though many of the disabilities which once they suffered have been removed, their principles are the same, their practices the same, and their reasons for Nonconformity the same. And these reasons are many and weighty. We cannot hope in one short paper to do more than indicate a few of them.

We do not love dissent for its own sake. We value the communion and co-operation of all good men, when they can be secured without the violation of conscience. We long for unity, and are willing to do all we can to secure it. We hail every opportunity of joining with brethren of other denominations, so far as we are in agreement with them; but we neither feel at liberty to compromise our convictions nor require others to compromise theirs. If we wished to conform to the Church of England we should be met with serious difficulties at the commencement.

1. We object to the Baptismal Service. If the clergyman immersed the candidate, as he is required to do ordinarily,

but as he seldom does really, we should still object to the subjects admitted to baptism, believing, as we do, that baptism should be administered only to such as make a credible profession of "repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ," and that such persons only are properly qualified to be members of the church. We cannot consent to infant baptism and infant church membership. We are shocked by the solemn vows which godfather and godmother make in the name of the child. We cannot join with the clergyman in thanking God that it has pleased Him to regenerate the child in baptism. We cannot tell our children that they were thus made" members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven." We do not believe it, and "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." We dare not tell them what we believe to be untrue in a matter of such solemn moment.

2. We object to the Confirmation Service. The confirmation in which we believe is that spoken of in the New Testament, which was done by the apostles and others when they visited the churches and confirmed their members in the faith and hope of the Gospel by their teaching and exhortation. In this sense we all need to be confirmed, not once in our life, but again and again. We receive confirmation thus in various degrees, from those who are Divinely enlightened, and are able. to overcome our doubts and fears, and inspire us with more confidence in and more zeal for God, whether they are bishops or not, or whether they have any special office in the church or not. But we are told that in the Church of England "it is a confirmation or ratification, on the part of those who receive it, of their baptismal engagements, and a confirmation of the renewal by Almighty God of all the privileges of their baptism," and that it is a rite which is not to be administered by all the ministers of religion, but exclusively by prelates, as the successors of the apostles, and who, as such, belong to a superior order of clergy.

The Lord Jesus Christ, who instituted baptism and the Lord's Supper, instituted no such rite as confirmation by the laying on of hands. We think that this rite is highly objectionable as confirming the fallacy of sponsorial vows, as being calculated to convey the impression that the bishop has power to confer the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and as consequently exalting him to a dignity, and investing him with a special sancitity, which do not belong to him. How then can we conform so long as this rite is kept up, and so much importance is attached to it that it is made the porch through which we must come to the Lord's table?

3. We object to other services, such as the absolution of sin in the Visitation of the Sick, and the language of the Church which the clergyman is compelled to use when interring even a notorious sinner if he has been baptized and confirmed. What is the natural impression produced upon the mind of an unsophisticated person as he hears the priest say: --"I absolve thee from all thy sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Will he not think that such language implies that he who uses it claims power in God's name, and on God's authority, to forgive sins?" But who can forgive sins but the Lord Jesus Christ only? And what must be the impression made upon such a mind when, attending the funeral of an ungodly man, he hears the clergyman thank God for taking to himself the soul of the departed, whose body he commits to the earth "in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to everlasting life," and prays that those who surround the grave may finally rest in Christ, "as our hope is that this our brother doth"? Can it be made to harmonise with what, perhaps, that same clergyman teaches from the pulpit of the necessity of a godly life in all who are to enjoy a happy eternity? Many of the clergy would fain be freed from the necessity of using this service over persons known to have lived and died in sin, and have petitioned Parliament for relief. A late Bishop of Durham is represented to have said, in a charge given to his clergy: "Cases not unfrequently occur in which the officiating minister is reluctantly obliged to read over the remains of the deceased, expressions of thanksgiving and assured hope which the largest charity cannot justify, and which become a scandal and a stumblingblock to the living. In 1850, upwards of 4,000 of the clergy openly protested against the obligation. Every year I have applications from clergymen in my diocese asking for permission, which I have no power to grant, to alter, or omit one or two expressions, rather than utter with their lips words against which, in the special case, their inmost convictions revolt, and which the universal opinions of their parishioners pronounced to be a lie." How then can we conform when this is what conformity involves ? Should we allow any

power on earth to coerce us to do that against which our "inmost convictions revolt ?"

But even if Parliament were to pass a law granting relief from what may be deemed objectionable in these services, we could not be won over to Conformity, for

4. We object to the subordination of the Church to the State. The monarch is the recognised earthly head of the Church of