pronounce any judgment that shall free the candidate from responsibility, from feeling that it is chiefly a matter between himself and God. If he is satisfied that he has undergone a great change, and is in sympathy with Christ, we have no right to close the door against him."

The Rev. Edward Jukes said, that "The great difficulty surrounding the question under discussion arose from the endeavour to compass two objects -the maintenance of the rights of individuals and of the claims of the Church. While on the one hand there ought to be no unnecessary impediment to the introduction of any one possessing spiritual life, care should be taken that the Churches were preserved in their purity, on which their vigour as spiritual organisations so largely depended. To meet this difficulty was the grand trial of every Christian pastor. It was not possible to lay down any definite rule for the admission of Church members. Each case should be determined upon its own merits. In some cases spiritual life presented itself with such clearness, that there was no difficulty in allowing the case to rest with the recommendation of the pastor; but there were instances in which that life did not exhibit itself so fully or unequivocally, yet the pastor would not like to assume the responsibility of saying that the candidate ought not to be admitted. There must be the power of judging somewhere, and the pastor should have associated with him persons on whose judgment he could rely."

Mr. John Glover, of Highbury, said:"Participation in the Lord's Supper was formerly regarded as mainly a profession of faith. We used to speak of it, and sometimes do now, as 'making a profession.' But I think we have come to regard the Lord's Supper as our Master's supreme means of grace for all weak, sinful souls; and we are very anxious that souls that have very little to profess should not be debarred by the fright of having to profess that

which they do not feel. Formerly, Churches were thought to be select communities of saints, holy persons who held the same views, theological and ecclesiastical. Now no such uniformity is needed. The prime element is, that those who come into Church life should have some Christ hunger in their hearts, and be greatly anxious to obtain a greater degree of likeness to Him. These are changes that, I think, we should rejoice in, and they put upon us the necessity of re-enacting the terms of Church membership. I think that Church members should be persons who, being twenty-one years of age and upwards, are communicants, and have occupied seats for a given period-say twelve months. The terms of communion I would abolish altogether, and I would write over the Lord's table, 'Whosoever will, let him come.' It should be assumed, that all who desire to come to the Lord's table feel their need, and all the obligations which are involved."

The Rev. D. E. Ford said:"If what we have just heard is thoroughly correct, my closing days lead me to mourn over the altered condition of affairs. I thought that we regarded ourselves as Puritans, or at least as their successors; and if Puritanism does not mean purity of Church membership, I know not what it can mean."

The Rev. Robert Bruce said:" It seems to me that Mr. Beazley has regarded the design of Church member ship in too limited a way, as ministering to spiritual life. The Church is not only a body for spiritual purposes, but it is a very important social power; and it behoves every one connected with it to be extremely careful as to the persons who are admitted to a position of equality. The power of the Church for good depends more upon the quality than upon the quantity of its members. I trust that nothing will be done by this Union that would have the effect of deteriorating the quality of our

Church members. Whilst we are all anxious for purity of communion, I think there must be some simple steps taken in order to see that that purity is maintained. We cannot lay down any absolute universal rule; but some conditions there should be. Surely if there are persons burning with a desire to go to the Lord's table, their zeal ought to enable them to overcome the little difficulty that stands in the way."

The Rev. Samuel Martin:-"I have listened with great interest to this discussion. It is a question that has occupied me very much, especially of late. I feel, however, that throughout the discussion we have had what the logicians call an ambiguous middle.' Is the question with us a Church existence, or no Church at all? Or, is the question the wisdom or folly of par. ticular modes of admission? I have never kept anybody from the Lord's table who came to me and said, 'I know, and trust, and love our Saviour, and I wish to commemorate His death in that institution.' Moreover, I have always thrown the responsibility of coming to the Lord's table, and that of joining the Church, upon the applicant. I invariably say, 'I cannot search your heart; I do not know whether you do believe in the Saviour. But, remember, this is the only Christian ordinance that is fenced round with cautions. You may and drink unworthily;' and if you do, you eat and drink to your injury. Do you think there is any danger of that? If you think there is no danger, come. It is the Lord's table, not ours. modes of admission have two objects: first, the keeping out of improper persons; and, secondly, the helping those. who are fit to come in. The tendency of some of our modes is in one direction only-that of shutting the door against persons who ought not to come in. Jesus Christ leaves us in perfect freedom as to the mode we adopt. May I say a word as to the question of

'eat

Our

belief? I cannot go with our friend Mr. Glover, no, not an inch, in the direction of that statement. Why, brethren, look here. We have a definite Gospel sent down to us from the skies. The Gospel is particular news, certain glad tidings. It is most distinctly said, 'He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned.' If anything is clear in the New Testament it is that, that a man is held responsible for the position he takes with reference to that particular revelation. Now, suppose a man says to me, 'I don't believe all that about the Prophet of Galilee being the Son of God, about his having died for sin. All that belongs to bygone times.' If a man asked of me admission to the Church, being thus infidel towards the specific revelation, I should feel bound, as a duty to myself, as well as to the Church itself, to say to him. 'No, my friend, your place is not amongst us, for we are believers.""

The Rev. J. G. Rogers said, "There was no difference between them in relation to the purity of the Church of Christ. They were all equally anxious about it. The simple difficulty was as to the means by which it was to be secured. There was a confusion which sometimes arose in the minds of people about joining the Church, and about coming to the communion, as though these were the same things. Now, there were many who attended the Churches, who would like to come to the Lord's table, sincere Christian people, of whose Christianity there could be no doubt, who were not in perfect harmony with them in relation to points of ecclesiastical polity. What were they to say to these people? They did not object to be members, but they objected to pass through the kind of ordeal which was still in a great measure preserved. Independents had very little conception of the aspect in which the present state of

things presented itself to those who had grown up outside of Congregationalism. Habit had accustomed Congregationalists to things which to other persons were exceedingly painful and repulsive. What was it, then, which they wanted? They wanted the Church of Christ to consist of Christian people. But who was to decide whether the people were Christian or not? On the present system, however, they might repudiate it; they seemed to assume the responsibility of determining that question for those who came to be admitted. However much they pressed upon such persons the sense of personal responsibility, the fact that the Church had heard their confessions of faith and had pronounced them Christians on the strength of it, did, in an immense number of cases, serve to weaken their own sense of responsibility.

"Are

The Rev. T. W. Davids said, Church membership and admission to the Lord's Supper identical? If so, on what grounds? A man cannot honestly pray unless he is a spiritual man; a man cannot honestly join in the better part of the hymns we sing at our worship unless he is a spiritual man. Very good; we do not tell anybody not to pray, or to join in any of those psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs until he has undergone an examination; we invite him to join in prayer; we invite him to join in the act of praise; we leave the responsibility with him. Nay, we know, too, that the consciousness of his attempting to unite in a service which is higher than his tone of mind, higher than his own state of feeling, is often one of the holiest means of grace that the Holy Ghost is pleased to make use of for the man's conversion, and certainly for the man's subsequent growth in grace. Well, then, I should like to hear it boldly and broadly stated, and clearly and definitely maintained, what difference there was between these forms of worship and

means of grace so far, and the Lord's table. If I have no right to forbid a man from joining with me in earnest and devout prayer, in devout and holy praise, I want to know what right I have to forbid a man from joining with me in the commemoration of the great source of all our light, and joy, and hope, and faith. It appears to me that it is from the feeling that we are fencing the Lord's table round about as we ought not to fence it; it is from that feeling unconsciously our people are sliding away into loose thoughts about Church membership and Church fellowship, and what Church membership and Church fellowship are designed to subserve."

The Rev. Dr. Fraser said, "In regard to Church fellowship, every Church was a society, and every society must be governed by its own rules, and every society must possess harmony of opinion on all great points, or there could be no harmony within, and no usefulness without. Now, how could we expect for a moment, to have unanimity of thought and feeling and action, if there was not unanimity of doctrinal sentiment in the great truths of the Gospel? They would be giving up all for which the Church has been established. And not only was it necessary that there should be unanimity in regard to the fundamental doctrines of grace, such as the atonement of Christ, but as a Church having an ecclesiastical polity, they were bound to oneness of ecclesiastical sentiment. They were a voluntary society based on certain principles, and they invited all who held those principles to come and join them; and when they passed the judgment of fidelity upon all who applied for admission, they only did at the commencement of their connection with them, what they were bound to do day-by-day afterwards in maintaining purity of communion."

The Rev. Josiah Miller said 66 He wished to remind the assembly, that

6

the particular methods which had been proposed this morning in place of the usual methods, were such as were in actual operation in religious communities around them. One gentleman had said, 'If there be a desire on the part of the person to be a Christian, and he communicates that to the minister, that will suffice.' In reading the writings of John Wesley, it would be found that he says: If a person desires to be a Christian, he is to be received as a member.' Then another speaker proposed another method-viz., that they should write up over the Lord's table, 'Welcome to all.' Now there was a great community which said that. Therefore, the two methods had been tried. Congregationalists had a dif ferent plan, and they considered that if a man was a Christian, he was not merely one who desired to be so, but who had believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. They thought the purity of their communion was of the highest importance; and that being the case, regarding the Church as everything, inasmuch as the Church chose the minister and sustained the minister, and was the ultimate appeal, let them not hide their Congregationalism, or put it in the background, but say, 'Other systems have been at work around us, but, after all, we think our own is in accordance with the New Testament, and we will hold to it.""

The Rev. W. Thomas said, "One of the speakers said, 'We must fence round the Church, but why should we fence round the Lord's table?' My answer to that is, We have distinct Scripture authority for fencing round the Lord's table, and if we do not make use of that distinct Christian commandment, I do not see how we are to fence about the Church. As to the Church being fenced about, we have, as one of the speakers intimated, clear indications given to us by the inspired writers that certain persons are unfit for Church membership, and if a Church

is to have the power of excluding the unworthy, the Church ought to have the right of deciding beforehand who shall be admitted and who not."

The Rev. G. W. Conder said, "I believe Mr. Beazley has been misrepresented in one or two points this morning. Now, here is the main point must the communion at the Lord's table be necessarily co-extensive with Church membership? You have got a difficulty on the one side quite as great as on the other. If every person you admit to the Lord's table is thereby a member of the Church, you must allow a large number of incompetent, ill-educated persons, and very young persons, to come in and take a share in the choice of a pastor, in the settlement of the gravest matters; sometimes to mingle in Church squabbles, a large number of most excitable and least

self-governed persons. I think that is very undesirable. It seems to me that you may preach the two things very easily, that you may accord all the liberty that has been accorded by Mr. Beazley, or even by Mr. Glover, at the Lord's table, in throwing the responsibility of communion upon the persons applying for it; exercising, of course, the judgment that every sensible man would exercise, that if you know him to be unfit you tell him at once, "The Lord's table is for those who have some love for the Lord Jesus and some desire for the Christian life. You don't show that; therefore it is not for you.' But in the absence of that known disqualification in the person seeking communion, you should throw a responsibility upon him. But, as I conceive, you can have Church membership separate from that. I think the most radical of us is agreed upon this, that if you have a society, there must be a basis of agreement; and you must ask every person who is to take part in the exercise of the control of that Church, to be agreed with you upon that basis. There can be no real action in a

society unless there is agreement in the members."

After this discussion the Rev. W. Roberts read a paper on "The Relation of Children to the Church," of which we regret that we cannot at present furnish a report.

THE ANNUAL MEETING

Was held in the evening in East Parade Chapel, under the presidency of Mr. Edward Baines, M.P. The chapel was densely crowded by attentive listeners, the great majority of

whom were men, many of them of the working classes. The meeting was addressed by the Rev. Joshua C. Harrison, on "The Importance of a Firm Adherence to true Protestant Principles;" by Rev. R. W. Dale, on "Congregationalism in Relation to National Life;" and by the Rev. Dr. Parker, "Christian Simplicity in Religious Work and Worship."

on

For an abstract of the proceedings of Wednesday and Thursday we shall make room in our next.

By the Reb. George

THE world is full of things with which we are very familiar, and which serve to remind us of other things which we are very apt to forget. I sometimes think that this great world is like a looking-glass. If you look into a mirror you see images of other things in your room, and if you break a looking-glass and take up one of the broken pieces you may still see in that piece an image of something else. So if you look at some natural object it may remind you of some great truth. The vine, for example, will easily remind you of Jesus, who said, "I am the True Vine;" as if He had said, " God made the common vine on purpose to remind men of Methe True Vine." Look at the flowers. You are fond of flowers, as all children are. Well, the little daisy, the buttercup, and the rose remind you of God's care for His children; for if He cares for little flowers which so soon wither and die, how much more will He care for you whom He has made so much greater than the flowers, and to whom He has given souls that are to live for ever? You put a seed into your little garden; you bury it in the dark, dirty ground. By-and-bye God

makes the thing that is sown in the garden to spring forth." It pushes its

Stewart, Newcastle.

way upward to the light; the soft bud expands into the stalk or stem, the branch sprouts, the leaf unfolds, and the blossom puts forth its delicate petals. Beautiful flower! It reminds me that God, who loves what is beautiful, and made that grow up so pure a thing out of the dark and dirty ground, can make, and loves to make our character-all our life beautiful too. And so, dear children, there is scarcely anything that you look upon that may not serve to call to mind some great truth which you would be both better and happier for thinking of. I know some children who, sometimes when they sit in the house, and sometimes when they go out together for a walk, ask each other as they look at an object, "What does that remind us of?" Many useful hours they spend in this way, training their minds to think, and drawing useful lessons from what they see. Perhaps some brothers and sisters who read this paper will try to improve their minds in the same

manner.

I dare say when you have been sitting before the fire, "between the dark and the day-light," you have looked into it till you almost fancied you could see all sorts of things-castles, rocks, caves, and