66

this subject entirely explicit. Article XXXIX. says: "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon persons professing faith and that are made disciples, who upon profession of faith ought to be baptized, and after to partake of the Lord's Supper." This is the first formal definition of the denominational position upon this question in our denominational history, and ought to be taken, we think, as showing that, historically, strict communion is an original principle with us. An appendix to this Confession appeared in the same year, written by Benjamin Cox, an influential Baptist minister. In this appendix he says, in one place: Though a believer's right to the use of the Lord's Supper do immediately flow from Jesus Christ, apprehended and received by faith; yet, inasmuch as all things ought to be done not only decently, but also in order, and the word holds forth the order that disciples should be first baptized and then taught to observe all things (that is to say all other things) that Christ commanded the apostles; and accordingly the apostles first baptized disciples and then admitted them to the use of the supper; we therefore do not admit any to the use of the Supper, nor communicate with any on the use of the ordinance but disciples baptized, lest we should have fellowship with them in their doing contrary to order." What is here said is confirmed by a passage in Neale's "History of the Puritans." Speaking of the Baptists, as they were at or near the date of this Confession, Mr. Neale says: "The people of this persuasion were more exposed to the public resentments because they would hold communion with none but such as had been dipped."

This, then, was the well-understood position of English Baptists, as a body, at the beginning of their history. There seems, however, to have been a continuance, more or less, on the part of individuals, possibly of individual churches, of those relations, especially with the Independents, of which we spoke. The practice of mixed communion appears, indeed, to have increased, so that in the Confession of 1689 no such clause as that just quoted from the Confession of 1646 is

found; while in a kind of appendix to that Confession it is stated, that as some differences in this regard existed amongst the churches joining in it, "it was judged expedient to lay down no specific rule on this point, on account of this difference." This has operated ever since as a species of sanction of mixed communion, so far as the English Baptists are concerned. The practice has grown increasingly common, having been greatly promoted by the influence of Bunyan and Robert Hall, until now the great body of English Baptist churches are open-communion. In some cases, in fact, it would be hard to tell whether the church is Baptist or Pædobaptist, though called by the former name, so loose is its practice as regards both ordinances.

In this country the history of this question has been quite different. At the very outset, American Baptists were a people proscribed on all hands. It was scarcely possible for a question of communion with other churches to arise, for who would have been willing to commune with them? There seems to have been at one time, in New Hampshire, some feeble attempt at mixed communion, but it came to nothing. American Baptists in the beginning of their history found no temptation to swerve from their integrity and consistency in this regard; and in their later history, they have for the most part had the firmness to stand by their principles in spite of the wavering of some, and in spite of all reproach from outside.

Religious Freedom.

Upon the subject of freedom of conscience Baptists have a great history, which can here be handled but briefly. Their position during the whole course of their denominational career, from the very beginning, is admirably defined in Article XLVIII. of the Confession of 1646; which, after stating the general principle, as quoted in a former paper, concludes thus: "As we cannot do anything contrary to our understanding and conscience, so neither can we forbear the doing of that which our consciences bind us to do. And if the magistrate should require us to do otherwise, we are to yield our persons in a passive way to

their power, as the saints of old have done. And thrice happy shall he be that shall lose his life for witnessing (though but for the least tittle) of the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ." The accusation brought against them of disavowing allegiance to the civil authority they met by distinctly declaring that they held the civil magistracy to be an ordinance of God, which all men were bound to respect; but upon the other hand, they maintained that the citizen may claim of the magistracy protection in the enjoyment and exercise of every right, that of religious freedom included.

It is our privilege to recall with just pride the attitude and language of our brethren at a time when they were objects of attack upon every hand, misrepresented and slandered in the most scandalous manner, imprisoned and robbed, sometimes lying for months and years in foul dungeons, for no crime but their religion. Their utterances during that period have always a dignity, a breadth of view, a comprehension of essential principles, found scarcely any where else in that age. Here is what they say on one occasion: "It would not become us to give any such intimation as should carry a semblance that what we do in the service of God is with a doubting conscience, or with any such temper of mind, that we do this for the present, with a reservation that we will do otherwise hereafter upon more mature deliberation: nor have we any cause so to do, being fully persuaded that what we do is agreeable to the will of God. Yet we do heartily propose this, that if any of the servants of our Lord Jesus Christ shall, in the spirit of meekness, attempt to convince us of any mistake, either in judgment or practice, we shall diligently ponder his arguments, and account him our chiefest friend that shall be an instrument to convert us from any error that is in our ways; for we cannot do anything against the truth, but all things for the truth."

It is sometimes said that there is no evidence that if Baptists had had the power, they would not have become persecutors in their turn. We think there is evidence, in the tone and spirit of such utterances us these just quoted; in which

there is no sign of an arrogant claim that all the truth is with them, or of a right to sit in judgment upon others. These words were written and printed more than two hundred years ago. It would not be possible, now, when the principles they imply, of submission to Scripture as the final test of truth, and of the right and duty of every one to know and testify to that truth for himself, are so universally admitted-though then avowed by scarcely any others save these few despised Baptists; it would not be possible to clothe these principles today in better language, or to declare them more in the spirit of genuine Christian tolerance. There is, so far as we know, no word or act upon record, representative of Baptist views upon this subject, which can justify any man in saying that had Baptists possessed the power, they would at any time in their history have, as every other denomination save one has done, become persecutors in their turn.

Conclusion.

Necessarily, we treat the subject of Baptist history, here, in the merest outline. We think, however, we are at least justified in concluding that our history, in both its great branches,-as denominational, and as what we may perhaps term ante-denominational, is deserving of study. The indications seem to be that interest in such study is likely to increase amongst us, and we may perhaps hope for a time when what is obscure in this history will come more into the light, and we shall be able to decide, upon historical evidence, some of those questions which are now left to be matter of opinion simply.

Note. While the manuscript of this book was in the printer's hands, Dr. Armitage's noble volume, "History of the Baptists," was given to the public. In this very able work much of what is in different places in this paper spoken of as a thing to be desired, as a more complete and conclusive history of those "principles and practices " by which Baptists are characterized than any yet furnished, has been provided.

XII.

THE EPISCOPACY.

THE Episcopacy of modern times, laying apart that Romanist form of it which is the original one, presents itself for study under the three several phases, English Episcopacy, American Episcopacy, and the Methodist Episcopacy.

The history of English Episcopacy, al

English Episcopacy- though concerned with an

Its Origin.

established

church rather than with a denomination, properly so called, is of importance here, as throwing much light upon three points very essential in a study of this particular system of church order. (1) The first concerns the causes which gave to the English Reformation, in this phase of it, the Episcopal character. (2) The second relates to the question when and how the doctrine of the divine right of episcopacy, and that of the apostolical succession, since made so much of, and which, as we shall find, was not an original principle even in the English Episcopacy-when and how these had their origin. (3) The history shows what, in two notable and representative instances, have proved to be the inherent tendencies of the system itself.

When we enquire for the causes which Governmental Policy. gave to the English Reformation in this phase of it the Episcopal character and form—in other words, for reasons why the work of reform as a return to primitive Christian simplicity was herein cut short, we find that these causes were in part political. We do not refer, in this, to that which has so often been mentioned in this connection, the personal quarrel of Henry VIII. with the Pope, so much as