approaches it with credentials furnished to him by the Church from which he comes, and both he and the Church that furnishes them, expect and claim for him admission to the Church of his locality, on the sole ground of these credentials, without his being subjected to any questioning whatever. Now in all these cases there is action which is not confined to the Church alone, and in the one last cited it is action which in reality affects the membership of other Churches. This is the general practice among Independent Churches, and plainly indicates that our Independency is not regarded by its upholders as inconsistent with an Interdependence, such as is involved in cases similar to the above.

One con

It may now be asked on what foundation those claims rest. gregation will not show much sympathy with the movements of another unless it have full confidence in the soundness of that other Church in faith, doctrine, and practice. One minister will not change pulpit-services with another unless there be mutual confidence. Pastors of Churches will not commit themselves by sharing in the ordinations and settlements of ministers, unless they have satisfaction with the character and gifts of the new minister. Churches will not receive the bearers of letters of dismission from other Churches without a satisfactory assurance that those Churches supply them only to persons who are worthy of them. This kind of satisfaction, on which the Churches act, implies that those Churches and pastors have a right to demand such satisfaction before they yield to the claims set up in the cases now supposed. This, then, is the state of the case: Churches that regard themselves as completely Independent, exhibit claims upon other equally Independent Churches, which latter Churches admit the claims, after their own claims of knowing something of the faith, administration, and transactions of the former have been satisfactorily met. And all these Churches proclaim themselves Independent, although the practice they adopt shows that they must modify their normal Independence in their intercourse with one another. Instead of censuring this kind of mutual claim and right in each other, our conviction is that it ought to be commended, and that our Independent Churches and pastors will act most wisely and scripturally in insisting on a strict and scrupulous adjustment of these mutual relations. And we go further, and affirm that it would be of inexpressible benefit to our Independent Churches if this relation of Interdependence could be introduced into a wider area of Church transactions.

It seems to us that the question which has occasionally been discussed amongst us, of establishing some more systematic means of arbitration and counsel in the several centres of our numerous Churches, would be but an extension of this practice of Interdependence that already exists. We should then have the action of the Churches more concerted, more regular, and judging from ancient precedents, more successful in repressing those evils whose abatement we demand in Churches before we recognise, associate with, and aid them. Against this proposal (there are arrayed the stock

objections that, first, It is a virtual surrender of the Independence of the individual Church; second, It is at variance with the system of Church order as it was advocated and practised by our fathers, the venerated founders of our Independency; and thirdly, It is an attempt to Americanise our Church system by introducing a kind of judicature that is peculiar to New England, but which has never been known in the old country, and which would fail to commend itself to our English habits, judgments, and instincts.

In reference to the first of these objections, we might reply that that kind of Independency which would be menaced by such an institution, does not exist. We are indeed Independent of the State, of the Established, and of other Churches, but our practice shows that among the Churches called Independent a virtual Interdependence prevails. Again, it may be well to ask whether communion and counsel, advice and arbitration, are intrinsically at variance with our Independency? If it should be denied that there is any such intrinsic and necessary hostility to Scriptural Independency in asking and in receiving advice and counsel as to our Church procedure, and if it should be further allowed that such a course of action is conformable to Scripture practice, and has often been found to be of advantage to the Churches that have adopted it, then all we ask for is granted. A mediating agency, which is only employed when its action is sought for, and which has no power to enforce its recommendation except "the power that is in the reason of it," could never encroach upon the rights and liberties of any person or community. Such an agency is not unknown among us now. But, unhappily, recourse is often had to advisers when good advice comes too late, when the trouble in the Church has become unmanageable, and peace is only at last obtained at the cost of ministerial displacements or congregational secessions. But the fact remains that Churches do ask for this kind of assistance from without, that committees of reference and arbitration have to be improvised, that advice is given, and that such referees' committee in giving their advice do not assume any right to enforce a compliance with the recommendations they give. In such cases there is no violation of a Church's right to be itself the ultimate determiner of the course that should be adopted. A man in perplexity may seek advice from his neighbours to help him out of his dilemma, but he does not part from his personal freedom in so doing, nor in following the advice tendered to him, if it seems good. Communities of men or Churches may also have recourse to the counsels of others, but the freedom or Independency of those communities is not invaded or even touched, by the recommendations they may receive. A Church that is torn by internal dissensions, and which refuses assistance that may come from without, through some unreasonable fear of compromising its Independency, is a very sorry illustration of Scriptural Independency. Such is not Independency, it is Isolation, it is Ishmaelism, it is a mode of Church existence, without love, without brotherliness, without confidence, and in such a fellowship we may reasonably

An

xpect to find increasing degeneracy, decay, and ultimate dissolution. association of Independent Churches, by appointing a committee of its own members to act in such cases as may be referred to it, would not be trenching upon the rights and liberties of the Churches that compose the association, as it would be a recognised principle of its existence that the Churches would still be free to avail themselves of the services of such a committee or not as it should seem good to them, and also that the deliverance of such a body of referees could bind none but those who were willing to be bound by it. An arrangement of this nature would hurt no man and no Church, while its influence, in healing differences and composing strife, would be incalculably beneficial. We make combined efforts for missions both domestic and foreign, we associate for prayer, for edification and mutual benefit, and we never dream of losing our Independency by so doing. Is it any more reasonable to suppose that such a voluntary combination for advice and counsel in time of need, will prove an encroachment upon the sovereign rights of a Church to administer its own government and discipline? II. Respecting the judgment of the Fathers of English Independency on this subject, we are able to adduce their public advocacy of such combinations among the Churches, and also to refer to the oldest "Confessions of Faith," in which strong prominence is given to the value and necessity of such associated action. A few selections from these Fathers and "Confessions" may help us in determining how ancient Independency regarded this matter.

Henry Ainsworth, one of the earliest and most learned of the old Independents, has a chapter in his "Communion of Saints," entitled, "Of the Communion that one Church hath with another." In this he says: "From these few examples, compared with the former general duties of all Christians, may appear how Churches owe help, comfort, and refreshing to one another, as they have need and ability, yet avoiding both ambition and confusion. For although we may advise, exhort, warn, reprove, dc., so far as Christian love and power extendeth: yet find we no authority committed to one congregation over another for excommunicating the same, as every Church hath over its own members."

The next of the Independent Fathers whom we cite as the advocate of Communion and Interdependence among the Churches, is Mr. Jeremiah Burroughes. Shortly before his death he published his "Irenicum,” in which he states:

"Those in the Congregational way acknowledge,

“1. That they are bound in conscience to give account of their ways to Churches about them, or to any other who shall require it.

"2. They acknowledge that synods of other ministers and elders about them, are an ordinance of Jesus Christ for the helping the Church against errors, schisms, and scandals.

"3. That these synods may, from the power they have from Christ, admonish men and Churches in His name, when they see evils continuing

in, or growing upon the Church, and their admonitions carry with them the authority of Jesus Christ.

"4. As there shall be cause, they may declare men or Churches to be subverters of the faith, or otherwise, according to the nature of their offence, to shame them before all the Churches about them.

"5. They may, by a solemn act in the name of Jesus Christ, refuse any further communion with them till they repent.

"6. They may declare also in the name of Christ, that those erring people or Churches are not to be received into fellowship with any of the Churches of Christ, nor to have communion with any other in the ordinances of Christ.

"I do not in these deliver only my own judgment, but by what I know of the judgment of all those brethren with whom I have occasion to converse: yea, it has been their judgment and mine for divers years, even then when we never thought to have enjoyed our own land again.”

It will be admitted that no man is better able to instruct us in the real principles of Independency than Dr. Owen; and no one will dispute his right to be regarded as an authority among our fathers. Dr. Owen assures us that :

"No Church is infallible in their judgment absolutely in any case; and in many, their determinations may be so doubtful as not to affect the conscience of him who is censured. But such a person is not only a member of that particular Church, but by virtue thereof, of the Catholic Church also. It is necessary, therefore, that he should be heard and judged as unto his interest therein, if he do desire it. And this can no way be done but by such synods as we shall immediately describe." And "Synods,” he says, are the meetings of divers Churches by their messengers or delegates, to consult and determine of such things as are of common concern unto them all, by virtue of this communion which is exercised in them.” Further on, in reference to a Church that errs in doctrine or administration, he says: "Other Churches walking in communion therewith, by virtue of their common interest in the glory of Christ, and honour of the Gospel, after more private ways for its reduction, as opportunity and duty may suggest unto their elders, ought to assemble in a synod for advice, either as to the use of further means for the recovery of such a Church, or to withhold communion from it in case of obstinacy in its evil ways."

There is likewise a celebrated passage in his "True Nature of a Gospel Church," to the effect "that the Church that confines its duty unto the acts of its own assemblies, cuts itself off from the external communion of the Church Catholic: nor will it be safe for any man to commit the conduct of his soul to such a Church."

Another of these venerated names to which we may appeal is that of Dr. Chauncey, who, speaking of the things in which Churches may communicate, says: "There is communion in counsel and advice; and such there was between the Church of Jerusalem and that of Antioch."

66

The celebrated Independents who were called the "Dissenting Brethren" in the Westminster Assembly of Divines, presented to that body an 'Apologeticall Narration," in which they maintain the necessity of communion among the Churches, and exhibit the harmony of their practices with their creed.

An absolute Independency, or rather a complete isolation of their Churches from each other, they thus repudiate: "We could not therefore but judge it a safe and an allowed way to retaine the government of our severall congregations for matter of discipline, within themselves, to be exercised by their own elders, whereof we had (for the most part of the time we were abroad) three at least in each congregation, whom we are subject to yet not clayming to ourselves an independent power in every congregation, to give account or be subject to none others, but only a full and entire power compleat within ourselves, until we should be challenged to erre grossly; such as corporations enjoy, who have the power and priviledge to passe sentence for life and death within themselves, and yet are accountable to the State they live in." They also narrate very circumstantially a case in which they applied these principles in their Church administration. And the "narration" is signed by Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Sidrach Simpson, Jeremiah Burroughes, and William Bridge. We may therefore be confident that it harmonised with the judgment and practice of the very early Independent Churches. We may accordingly affirm, on the testimony of this "narrative," that from the earliest times of Independency in England, the Churches were closely associated for the purpose of advice, counsel, censure, and other "cases of concernement; and that there existed some engagement among them in which it was "publiquely professed" that in all cases of moment no action should be taken "without consulting their sister Churches." The testimony of these ancient Independents wholly supports the practice of Interdependence among our Churches.

Before leaving these Fathers, it may be mentioned that their definite "judgment" on this matter will be found in the "Papers for Accommodation, 1644, by a Sub-Committee of Divines of the Assembly and Dissenting Brethren." The following article was unanimously adopted :"For the associating of the Churches, let there be in every county of this kingdom, a certain number of select, godly, and able ministers of the Word within that county to hear and determine the causes and differences in every congregation within the same; and let there be a certain number of select Church governors assistant unto them."

The 26th Article of the Savoy Confession on the Church Order, practised in the Congregational Churches, affirms that:-" In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or in administrations, wherein either the Churches in general are concerned, or any one Church, in their peace, union, and edification, or any member or members of any Church are injured in or by any proceeding in censures, not agreeable tɔ