necessary for a clergyman to understand, and I venture humbly to suggest to our fathers in God that a careful study both of the history and doctrines of Dissent might well be exacted from our candidates for ordination. This would only be giving practical effect to one of the recommendations of the Lambeth Conference.

(2) A second complaint is that we misrepresent their motives. My correspondent instances the question of Church and State. He observes that we constantly assume that they are animated by a desire to injure the Church. He affirms that "the number of Nonconformists who would vote for Disestablishment and Disendowment, if they believed such measures would injure the spiritual efficiency of the Church, is so small as to be negligible." I am bound to say that I agree with him. I believe the great majority of Dissenters to be as honest as they are mistaken in this matter-and that is saying a good deal-and that we injure religion and postpone reunion when we credit them, largely or indiscriminately, with selfish motives. Of course there are Dissenters and Dissenters, but then there are Churchmen and Churchmen.

(3) A third and a very common complaint is that we are so narrow and exclusive in our religion. They think it strange that men who believe in the same God, read the same Bible, and sing the same hymns, will not worship with them in their meetings. Now here our reply is unanswerable; so unanswerable that it is always a marvel to me how Dissenters could ever take this ground. Our reply is that this is just what we were thinking, and have been thinking ever since they left us. Our reply is that we did not leave them, but they us. The separation, the standing aloof, is on their part. They said, by the very act of their secession, that we were not fit for them to worship with, and now they complain that we will not worship with them; we are the lamb that has fouled the stream. I respectfully and affectionately submit to Nonconformists that, in this particular at least, the boot is on the other leg.

(4) Nor can I recognize much greater justice in another charge, namely, that we ostracize them-I use their own word-ostracize them from society. This is a very sore point with them, and no wonder. They have even complained that Mr. Gladstone, clarum ac venerabile nomen, only asked their ministers to breakfast when the eggs were growing stale and somebody must eat them. But the answer to this is that we cannot help what society does and decrees. We are not responsible for its laws and usages. They might as well expect us to set the fashions, or we might as well complain that society does not receive some of the clergy and does receive some Roman priests. All the same, I should like to say that, in my opinion, we make a profound mistake if we do not cultivate the friendliest relations with Nonconformists. We ought to call on the ministers; it might do something to soften asperities if we did. Of every such advance it may be said, Emollit mores nec sinit esse feros.

(5) I now come to matters of much greater moment-to the "head and front of our offending." They complain that we "unchurch" them, by which they sometimes mean that we do not recognize their communions as "churches," and sometimes that we do not regard them as Christians. I take the latter first. I emphatically deny that any sane clergyman has ever said that they were not Christians; if he has,

perhaps they will give us his name. We could not do it, and the higher our sacramental views are, the less could we do it. We not only believe that they are Christians, but Churchmen─unconscious and, if you please, contumacious Churchmen, but Churchmen still-by virtue of that ،، one baptism" which admits men into the one Church. I say that, so far from "unchurching" them, we "church" them; it is they who unchurch themselves; who will have it that they are not members of the "one body," but of a brand-new Dissenting body. We recognize every baptized Dissenter as a Christian, and many of them as better Christians than we are. In fact, we assign them a higher place than they claim for themselves. They say they are members of Wesley's Church; we say they are members of Christ's Church. It is true that we deny, or at least I do, that their communions are Churches. But even so, I only do what they did themselves, most of them, a few years ago. All that they then claimed was that they were "connexions," or "associations," or "societies." The Wesleyan Conference of 1793, for example, professed that it "had no design of making the societies Churches"; the Conference of 1893 claimed that the society was and long had been a Church. But more: I only do what the New Testament does. On their own showing, it knows of no sectarian or denominational "Churches"; the only "Church" it recognizes is the visible society founded by our Lord, or a branch of that society. Yes, they allow that there was no Dissent, nor any provision for it, in New Testament times; all they can say is that the New Testament was written a long time ago, and that many things have changed since then-an observation which might have some value if God had changed, or man, or God's way of saving and blessing man. No, we cannot allow this novel claim. We can no more recognize "Churches many" than "Gods many" or "Lords many." Loyalty to Christ and love for Dissenters alike forbids it. But while this is so, we recognize all devout Dissenters as of the soul of the Church, and all baptized Dissenters as members of its body. We should insist, I think, in season and out of season, on these two points-that no new society can be God's Church, and that every baptized man is a Churchman.

(6) Still more offensive in Nonconformist eyes is the fact that so many of us deny the orders of their ministers, or, to use their own phrase, "stigmatize them as illegitimate." They say that "this should be impossible to a Christian heart." They point to their piety and ability and success as so many proofs of a Divine commission; they call it "arrogance" and "impertinence" on our part to question it. Now, what shall we say to these things? We say, first, that we allow them to be almost everything which they themselves claim to be. They claim to be Baptist or Methodist ministers; we allow it. They claim to have the gift of prophesying; we allow that. They claim to be as devout and eloquent as the clergy; we allow that. They claim to be called of God to the ministry; we do not even deny that. What we are compelled, respectfully and regretfully, to deny is, that they have been ordained bishops, priests, or deacons in the Church of God. And how can they wonder if we dispute their "orders," when they sometimes say themselves that "there are no such things as orders." They point to their eminent fitness for ordination-which we do not presume to question--but we reply that qualifications are one thing, and appointment

is another. Judas was an Apostle, though he was not fit for the post; Justus was fit, but he was not an Apostle. But, secondly, we point out that if we cannot recognize gifts, however eminent, and piety, however sincere, as proofs of lawful appointment, we only follow their own example. Do the Wesleyans recognize every pious and able and successful Wesleyan as a "minister amongst them? Indeed they do not. They say that those men only are Wesleyan ministers who have been appointed such; appointed in the Wesleyan way, and with Wesleyan rites. There is not a single Dissenting body, so far as I know, which accepts qualifications as a proof of commission, and yet they are hurt and indignant if we decline so to do.

(7) One word on a kindred point. Some Dissenters feel aggrieved that they are denied access to our pulpits. It is simply a wonder to me how they could expect it. Their very name and position shows that they disagree with us; they dissent from our teachings and usages; they object to them so much that they cannot even be members with Then what do they mean by claiming to act as ministers? One day they say that the Church's ideas of religion are not theirs, and the next day they claim to air their ideas of religion in the Church's pulpits.

us.

(8) On another point, however, I do think that they have some right to resentment. They complain that we ignore or undervalue the good work that they have done, "their missions, their philanthropy, their services to our country." I would not say that we have ignored it— certainly some of us have never done so-but I do fear that we have recognized it somewhat grudgingly. Yet there is no reason why we should do so, even if it were just and right to do it. The good work, the great work, which Dissenters have done, is no recommendation or justification of Dissent, and this just because it has been accomplished, not by virtue of their Dissent, but by virtue of their Christianity. There is no saving power in mere secession; if souls are saved, or lives are changed, it is by the power of God; Nonconformity cannot take the credit of it. And the less so, when we remember that all this work might have been accomplished without any separation at all-all the good might have been done, and the friction and the jealousy and the misery and the waste might have been avoided.

(9) Nor am I disposed to differ from Dissenters when they say that the Church needs to be reformed, or when they accuse it of being too worldly, or when they say that we clergy are by no means as spiritual or as earnest and exemplary as we should be; all this seems to me to "go without the saying.' All ancient institutions require reforms from time to time; all Christian bodies are exposed to corruption; all ministers are miserable sinners. But I respectfully ask them, if they feel these things so strongly, why did they leave us, or why do they not now help us. If they could prove that the Church was in a deplorable state, I should reply that, on their own showing, they are largely to blame for it. They tell us that they have more life and zeal and fervour than we. But this simply means that they have taken all this life and zeal and fervour out of the Church-taken away the very leaven which might have leavened the whole lump. So with reforms. If they are so urgent and so imperative, why do they not help us to secure them? It is no secret that some of them have resisted them. I repeat: we may admit every charge which Dissenters bring against the Church, and still hold Dissent

mainly responsible for them. We might have been preserved from these evils had they remained with us or returned to us.

(10) One point more, and my task is done. They constantly accuse us of petty persecution. They say the squire and the parson make the lives of some Dissenters a burden to them. They also say that we make proselytes by underhand means. These serious charges, to our great shame and sorrow, our fellow Christians constantly bring against us. Are they true? I cannot say; but one thing I can say that they never by any chance give us the means of proving or disproving them. They never give us any particulars; they only make vague and general accusations against the clergy as a class. And I submit to you, and I submit to them, that this is most ungenerous and most unjust. If they can prove them, then they ought so to do; if they cannot, then they ought never to make them. And the same remark applies to the charge of priestism and sacerdotalism. These accusations are constantly flung in our teeth by men who have no idea what they mean by the words. If they can define the terms, if they can bring a specific charge against us, then they ought to do so; if they cannot, then they ought never to insinuate one. I am anxious, deeply anxious, to remove every Nonconformist grievance, but I must say I think that Nonconformists have lessons to learn, and wrongs to remedy, as well as ourselves.

ADDRESS.

The Rev. H. SUTTON, Vicar of Aston, Birmingham. IT is a commonplace to say that there may be unity without uniformity, and uniformity without unity. It is equally obvious that Christians weaken their witness for Christ, waste time, talent, energy, money, impair their power to destroy Satan's strongholds, by divided counsels and internecine contests, as a consequence of their unhappy divisions. It is not my business, however, to prove that Christian unity is desirable; that would be to "paint the lily." I have to consider what are the hindrances to such unity in relation to Nonconformity.

I.-I put first, indifference to its importance; this notwithstanding much that may seem to point in a different direction. The number of Nonconformists who really feel that this is a question of the hour is small. In 1892, Mr. R. F. Horton said, "I do not wish to see any section of the Christian Church abolished, because there is just as much necessity for the existence of each of them as for the Church of England itself." I wonder did he include in his optimistic view of the question each of the five sections into which Plymouth-Brethrenism is said to be divided in the ancient city of Carlisle.

Again, the Independent and Nonconformist of October 3rd, referring to the address of the President of the Congregational Union, deprecates the attention given to the question of reunion, "lest the prominence given to it should foster the feeling which is abroad that it is really occupying the attention of Congregationalists." "Such an idea," it adds, "would be a mistake. Indeed, there are not a few who believe that more than enough time has been spent upon mere sentiment." This does not look as if that organ of Congregationalism attached much importance to Christian unity. More significant still is the fact that no speech seems to have been received with such enthusiastic applause at Brighton as that of Mr. Hollowell, who ridiculed the idea that Nonconformists were going to "trot two-and-two into some great ecclesiastical

ark."

It was not probable that

He feared there would be great overcrowding. the family would be a happy one. The spiritual death-rate would, no doubt, be high. An unprincipled amalgamation of Churches opposed to each other in vital truths would be an imposture amongst men and an offence to God.

Deep down in many minds is the dread that the unity for which some so eagerly long might crush thought, limit liberty, promote persecution, silence some who have a real message from God for the world. The history of the past shows that such fears are not without foundation in fact. But public opinion ripens fast in this age. Indifferent as the majority are at present to the question of Christian unity, that indifference will cease if it is shown to be "within the range of practical politics."

II. The second hindrance I believe to be-loyalty to the past. Churchmen have little idea with what pride and reverence Nonconformists look back at their past history. The persecutions their forefathers endured, the courage, faithfulness, and self-denial they displayed, awaken an enthusiasm to-day which retains many within the ranks of Nonconformity. The meeting of the Congregational Union furnishes me with proof that I am not over-estimating this feeling. A speaker who pleaded very powerfully for a better-paid ministry in country places, said: "It is a poor thing if the descendants of the men who built up the American Republic, with Plymouth rock as its corner stone, cannot sustain the men who are in the outposts, fighting now against a revival of sacerdotal persecution and bitterness which is as cruel as that which sent John Penny to the gallows, and the men of The Mayflower to die in a foreign land." These words were received with loud applause. But no speech was so enthusiastically cheered as that of Mr. Hollowell, who, amongst other things, said: "The fathers of the Nonconformist Churches have not been pigmies. Though no longer here in the flesh, they speak to us from the library shelf and from the page of history. We are proud to be of the lineage of Cromwell, Milton, Owen, Baxter, Howe, Flavell, De Foe, John Robinson, the Pilgrim Fathers, Philip Nye, and John Bunyan." We must remember that this is just the sort of sentiment to appeal to the more high-minded, pure-hearted, unworldly young people of Nonconformity. Closely allied with it is love for parents, reverence for good men and women, whose lives are "a living epistle, seen and read of all men," and surely not least by those who know them best.

III. A third hindrance is the mutual misunderstandings of Churchmen and Nonconformists. These misunderstandings hinder the sort of union which, without being all that we desire, yet would minimize the evils of the present state of things. They arise partly from (1) lack of personal intercourse. May we not take shame to ourselves in this matter? Have we been as courteous as we might have been? Have we not stood aloof from Nonconformists, as if we were very superior persons? Have we never given ourselves airs which must have been very provoking to men who (so short-sighted are some men) may have failed to recognize our vast superiority to themselves? All honour to the Archbishop of York and to the Bishop of Worcester for the kindly courtesy they have shown to Nonconformists. There would be much more hope of Christian unity if their example were more generally followed. (2) So far as Nonconformists are concerned, a fruitful source of disunion is misunderstanding of the true teaching of our Church. They think that Romish error looms large in her teaching and her ritual. Is it wonderful that they should so think? There are clergymen who are proud as peacocks to be mistaken for Romish priests, who would consider it a deadly insult to be supposed to be Nonconformist ministers. They hate the very name Protestant; they abuse the Reformers; they put into the hands of their people manuals which, to quote the Archbishop of Canterbury,