it; but this is a specimen of the way in which J. W. C. writes all through. After briefly mentioning Quaker peculiarities of speech, dress, and so forth, which he regards as not of much consequence, and some of which have been already discarded, he refers to other matters of which the Society make profession, but which, he says, they share with other people, such as the taking of oaths, and their opposition to war; and he then says:

There remains, then, the grand principle which distinguishes the Society of Friends from all other churches or sects, and which they are accustomed to sum up under the expression of the entire spirituality of the Gospel dispensation! This idea has led to their rejection of the outward ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and to their views on Worship and the Ministry.

He proceeds, therefore, to deal with the three points which make up Quakerism as distinguished from general Christianity, namely, their rejection, first of Baptism; second of the Lord's Supper; and third their ideas and practice on worship and the ministry. Upon each of these the writer treats at some length, and we have not space even to epitomise his arguments. We do not regard them as very strong, and they have been answered probably often enough in the history of Quakerism, for they are by no means new. As a sample of the method of argument we may be content to give the reasons of J. W. C. for passing over to the Establishment. They afford another illustration of the meeting of extremes. He says:

Having to leave the Friends, to whom must I go?. Should I join the Methodists? I should hardly feel disposed, when leaving a Society established two hundred years ago, to join some section of another established one hundred years ago. Then there are the Independents and Baptists. These are rather older than the Friends; but in doctrine they differ more from the Friends than does the Church. Robert Barclay's arguments are largely directed against persons holding their views, and he frequently has the best of it-not always by proving that he was right himself, but by showing that his supposed opponents were wrong. George Fox's controversy, also, was as much with Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, as it was with the Church. He spoke of "the wicked priests, Presbyterians, and Independents," and tells us how, under the Commonwealth, there was great spoiling of Friends' goods for tithes by the Independent and Presbyterian priests, and some Baptist priests that had got into the steeple houses. All these dissenting sects hold all the doctrines and practices which Friends do most condemn; they all observe the outward ordinances; they all employ a "hireling ministry," who preach and pray at set times; they all take judicial oaths; and their members go to the wars, if so inclined. It is a much

greater step for a Friend to go from Quakerism to Calvinistic or Evangelical dissent, than it is to go to the Church--that is, on a question of doctrine. It is from political causes, and not from religious sympathy, that some Friends have of late years been led to join other dissenters in hostility to the Church. Then I had another consideration. If our Saviour had instituted these ordinances, must He not have commissioned some one to administer them? We find from the gospels that He commissioned His apostles, and we find from the Acts of the Aposeles, and some of the epistles, that they appointed others as bishops, elders, and overseers of the Church which they had been commissioned to establish and spread upon the earth. If one could meet with any body of Christians, or Church, who could show on reasonable historical grounds their connection with, or continuance from, this original church, it would certainly be a very pleasant thing to be associated with them. The Roman Catholic Church can show these grounds; but that Church has embraced so many corruptions and errors that one could not entertain the idea of joining it. The English Church can also show the same grounds; and though she has to trace through a period of corruption, yet she remains, so to speak, a branch of the original corporate body; and if we reject her on the ground of the corruptions from which she has purged herself, we might as well reject Christianity altogether on the same grounds, as the whole Christian Church was at one time equally corrupt. I think, too, that my remarks before made about the visible Church will to some extent have pointed to the direction in which I should go. Indeed, having to leave the Friends, it seemed a necessity that I should join the Church; for so strong is her claim, for the reason last mentioned, that it appears a duty, if only on the ground of Christian unity, to enter her fellowship, even if there were some minor points of doctrinal disagreements. I cannot think that it is consistent with the Divine order, as disclosed in the Holy Scriptures, that any set of men should be at liberty from time to time to separate and form themselves into religious societies and sects, on the basis of some mere matter of opinion. But if any people are justified, it certainly is the Society of Friends; for if they are right, everyone else must be very wrong. As we have seen, on all their points they differ from all other churches, societies, and sects (except it be on the one matter of oaths, where they agree with the Moravians).

The Quaker community does not grow; indeed, the Society, if not expressly, does really discourage the addition of people from without. After its long existence, it numbers only a few members. We have before us the annual publication of Extracts from the minutes and proceedings of the Yearly Meeting of Friends, held in London," for the current year. It gives the total number of members at the end of 1869 as 13,955, or 6,631 males, and 7,324 females, and this number includes 227

resident in foreign parts, as New Zealand, Australia, Africa, &c. There are, it appears, nearly 4,000 persons habitually attending meetings, but not in membership. The number of births in the Society is even given, and they were in the year named 258. Putting the returns together it appears the Society had an addition of fifty-two to its membership in the year 1869. These numbers are almost the same as five years ago. 1865 the number of members was 13,756, or 6,459 males, and 7,297 females, 226 of whom were resident abroad.

In

It is a shame to have to record that the members of the Society have still to suffer from the enforcement of religious taxes. In the year last past the number of cases of distraints of the goods of Friends for rent-charge was 117, and the amount involved £1229 2s.; there was one case of tithe modus by warrant, seven of Church and vicarial rates, and eleven of other kinds of ecclesiastical demands; the total amount involved in these nineteen cases was £129 3s. 10d. In Ireland the impositions of the kind amounted to £299 13s. 2d. Bad as all this is, and most humilating and discreditable as it is to the Established Church, there is comfort in the knowledge the figures convey that these ecclesiastical exactions grow less and less, and are now small as contrasted with even a very few years since. In 1865 they amounted to nearly £4,000.

*

Our space will not allow of further observations, else we might have given some interesting information about the Society, derived from a bulky official volume now before us.* Historically the volume is valuable, and it is certainly a very comprehensive compilation relating to the doctrines and practices of the community. It is, however, vague, in the matter of information to outsiders as to discipline. The directions as to modes of procedure in cases of infraction of Quakers' rules are not definite; mostly we read that offenders are to be dealt with in "a spirit of love, kindness, &c." merly discipline was severe; as for instance, where friends. married out of the community. We believe much more liberty is now generally allowed, but facts relating to the subject are not accessible.

For

ALFRED RAMSDEN.

*"Extracts from the Minutes and Epistles of the Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, held in London, from its commencement to the present time, relating to Christian Doctrine, Practice, and Discipline." Friends' Book Depository, 12, Bishopsgate street, London.

ART. VI. DENOMINATIONALISM AND NEW

TESTAMENT TEACHING.

THE question of Christian union has of late been much discussed. The subject is confessedly important. Every enlightened and right-hearted Christian will feel a lively interest therein. Intolerance, strife, and dissensions are inimical to the spirit, and opposed to the precepts, of Christ's religion. To preserve "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" is incumbent on all who profess the Christian name. The manifest subsidence of bigotry and uncharitableness in the churches, and the visible increase of the spirit of union and love, must therefore be regarded as favourable and auspicious indications, and to the really wise and good will be a source of unfeigned joy and gratification. We believe this state of things to be existent at the present time. This is, indeed, as we take it, so obvious that to produce proof were superfluous. The hard lines of bigoted sectarian divergence are contracting and softening, and Christians are getting to understand each other better, and to love each other more. All this augurs well for the future.

Whether the different sections into which the Church of the Redeemer is at present divided will ever attain to such a oneness of view and of feeling as to lay aside all denominational names and distinctions, and merge into one grand colossal organization, is a question in relation to which opinions may and will vary. We are free to confess that we are unable at present to see exactly eye to eye with those who would take the affirmative side. Is such a consummation really desirable? Is it certain, or even highly probable, that it would, on the whole, be beneficial? And is there any direct and conclusive evidence to show that it is the wish, or that it enters into the purpose, of the Church's Founder? On these points we have exercised considerable thought, but have not, as yet, been able to reach a conclusion that would harmonize with the views of those who think denominationalism a serious evil, and that it must cease ere the designs of the Great Head of the Church can be fully carried out.

We know it is contended by some that the Churches during the Apostolic age were organically and governmentally united, that this must be regarded as the normal state of the Christian Church,-and that, therefore, denominationalism

cannot be held as in accordance with, but as opposed, to the will of the Church's Head. We demur to this argument. Even were we to grant the premises, we do not see that it would necessarily follow that the same condition of things, without modification or alteration, was intended to continue under all circumstances and throughout all time. We venture to think this would not be a logical deduction. At the very most the argument would only be a presumptive one.

But can the organic unity of the first Christian Churches be proved from the New Testament? We believe not. It has, indeed, been said that so clear and abundant is the evidence contained in New Testament history of the organic union of Apostolic Churches, that no intelligent reader can fail to be struck with it; and that he who denies the fact, might as reasonably deny the existence of the sun when he shines at noonday in a cloudless sky. But is there not more of exaggeration than sober truth in such averments ? We have no hesitation in saying that there have been, and still are, many intelligent readers of the New Testament who, although not at all disposed to deny the existence of the sun, whether shining in noonday splendour or otherwise, have not been "struck by what is alleged to be so conspicuous and self-evident. If the proof be so full and all-decisive that the Churches in New Testament times were distinguished by visible ecclesiastical unity and governmental oneness, where are the passages which express this so very plainly? If the Churches were all governmentally united, and if the evidence of this be so overwhelming, what was the form of government adopted? Where is it specified? Or from what passages can it be inferred?

That the Apostles exercised a managing and directive control over the Churches we do not question. It is clearly evident that they did, and that they did so as inspired teachers and guides. But we hold that their authority, as Apostles, was not transferable to others, and that what they did proves nothing as against denominationalism, or in favour of the organic unity of the Churches in the Apostolic age.

But our friends who differ from us on this subject, and who insist on the "organic unity" in question, have endeavoured to establish their position by quotations from the New Testament. Whether they have been successful is altogether another matter. In support of the position assumed it has been alleged that the human constitution is an "organic unity," and that the Apostle Paul makes use of this to illustrate the constitution of the Christian Church. Several passages are cited in which the Church is represented as the body of Christ, as Rom. xii. 4, &c.

TT