tians as to warrant us in asserting that their polities are identical; but if they are, or very nearly approaching it, we should be glad to see those communities merged into one organization, provided that event were desired by a majority of their members, and arose out of a thorough understanding of, and respect for, each other's history and peculiar tendencies. But the goal of amalgamation must be approached with becoming calmness and caution. If it should be reached, we hope that the consenting people will become one, at least as much as is apparent in the union of the Association and Reformers. It is tolerably certain that should such an organic union take place, as the gradual growth of an intelligent understanding on the part of the two denominations, many practical helps and advantages would be found towards the attainment of the end for which Christian churches exist. When it is perceived by the two bodies that in their theory and working there is a ground of common agreement which, accepted, would economise time, strength, and money, and enable them together to preach the Gospel more effectively, we have no doubt they will deal so wisely with difficulties that are of a social or institutional kind, that these shall not be sufficient to keep them any longer apart. As the Bible Christians at home have the strongest hold in the south-western, and the New Connexion in the midland and northern counties, the conditions of union in this respect might be favourable and helpful; while no difficulty, but rather support, would be presented by their several mission enterprises abroad. There are, moreover, other and important considerations which are suggested as we meditate on this project, but on which, at this stage, it would be premature to dilate. We can only wait, and pray for the right steps to be taken, and the right end gained.

Meanwhile, in the absence of one visible organic union of Methodist bodies, there must be between the present sectional divisions a continuance of cordial relations and an exchange of brotherly offices. The amendment on the resolution to which we have already referred, was, we believe, framed in sympathy with these objects, and we cannot do better than quote it,

"That this Conference, having considered the returns from the circuits on the subject of Methodistic Union, deems it inexpedient that any manifesto, such as was propounded at the last Conference, should be adopted with a view to the amalgamation of the several sections of the great Methodist family. At the same time the Conference would urge all our ministers and people to cultivate and manifest, in all suitable modes, the essential oneness of Christ's mystical body."

With all our differences in church government and discipline, there is a remarkable and gratifying agreement among the millions of Methodists on Christian faith and practice; one theological standard is acknowledged by all; the doctrines of the New Testament, as expounded and promulgated by John Wesley, are accepted as a creed by all the branches of the Methodist family. On this account, as well as on the score of our common Christianity, we are impelled to a sympathy, love, and succour one toward another, begotten of one Spirit, which do not need resolutions either to create or proclaim. We are supposed and bound to love one another, and thus "keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace," though all Methodists are not included in one ecclesiastical organization. It is very questionable if the unity would be helped either in spirit or effect, if such an organization existed, or could be formed; facts and experience suggest the possibility of the "bond of peace" becoming a little frayed and weakened by the strain imposed in attempting to maintain a uniformity to which the human mind is not adapted, and for which, therefore, it is not intended. That there be a substantial, spiritual unity among all Methodists, as among all Christians holding the Head, is not an object of desire or pursuit, but is an acknowledged principle of our religion: that all Methodists should accept one church polity is a point on which, for reasons obvious to all, much difference of opinion will exist, and is a condition which must be determined by signs and elements that men cannot of themselves produce or control. In Methodism as it now is, we maintain there is that blessed state in which our Saviour prayed His disciples might remain―" that they all may be one; we do not consider it at all necessary for the fulfilment of that prayer and the enjoyment of that state, that they should have, and exhibit to the world, one visible organic ecclesiastical system; though, in the course of divine providence, it may be found desirable, expedient and practicable to secure such a cognizable union, as the result of a willing agreement. Whether the New Connexion and Bible Christians visibly join together or not, does not affect their spiritual unity; that is independent of such an event, and the latter is to be desired and sought with reference simply to the character and issues of Christian enterprise.

If their fusion into one organization cannot be attained, their true Christian union may be manifested by official visits and interviews, as it already is by their respective evangelistic efforts. In like manner, also, between all sections of Methodism there may, and doubtless will, be an outward

exhibition of friendliness that will be of great spiritual benefit. Possibly neither the Wesleyan Conference not the Free Church Assembly would be indisposed to appoint a minister to express its fraternal love to the New Connexion in the Conference of that body, or to receive from the latter a deputation empowered officially to reciprocate the sentiment. And although the existence of such regard is implied in their mutual creed, yet its public announcement would have a gracious influence on the members of those communities, and doubtless would lessen some difficulties that now stand in the way of dealing with the question of amalgamation. But as these denominations are now constituted it seems idle to talk of "organic union." The New Connexion appears to us to occupy a position midway between the Wesleyan and Free Church systems. Notwithstanding the Conference of the former has adopted some measures which the founders of the New Connexion advocated, and has, also, taken into its counsels numbers of influential laymen, yet it has not accepted the principle of lay representation; actually the Conference is the Legal Hundred, the ministers composing it are elected by their brethren, and their decisions are final. Now, as it was for the purpose of admitting the laity to a share in legislation equally with the ministry, that Kilham and his co-adjutors commenced the "New Itinerancy," it is clear that the New Connexion could not, without proclaiming that its existence had been a blunder and an impertinence, return to the "old body" so long as this clerical ascendancy is maintained. Nor will the Wesleyans blame their brethren of the New Connexion for this, seeing that they exercise the same right themselves in judging what is consistent with their principles when dealing with plans devised to facilitate their return to the Anglican Church. On the other hand, the Free Church holds certain principles of government which the New Connexion is equally unable to accept, such as circuit independence, and the right of free, unofficial representation to the Assembly. The New Connexion frankly accepts and respects a confederacy; and it further maintains that the minister who is appointed by Conference to superintend a circuit should have, with that responsibility, the right to a seat in the Conference, along with a lay brother from the same circuit. That right, in the Free Church system, is left to every circuit to accord or withhold. For any rule that exists to the contrary, we believe the Annual Assembly might be composed entirely of laymen. Inasmuch as in this and other ways proper honour is not paid to the ministry, but it is

regarded as having no higher function and right than belong to Christians generally, the New Connexion, we apprehend, will still look rather dubiously on amalgamation proposals, as meaning simply that it shall lower the status of its ministers. In the so-called concessions we are aware that the rights of the ministry are upheld, but that in no wise aids amalgamation, as the right of free representation is in the foundation deed of the Free Church, and that is unalterable except by special Act of Parliament. Accepting the doctrine of human fallibility, the New Connexion inserted in its Model Deed a clause permitting, on certain specified conditions, alterations to be made in the polity of the denomination every seven years, thus enabling it to adapt itself to exigences as they might arise. But from some unascertainable motive the Free Church tied its hands behind its back, and it cannot take up and examine with a view to any modification, the "foundation deed," which is the charter of its liberties, and must never have been supposed to require any amendment. Indeed we are not hinting that it does; we are simply contrasting the two systems for the purpose of showing the impracticability of amalgamation, from the two facts-that the New Connexion will not surrender what it deems the rights of its ministers, and that the Free Church cannot alter its Foundation Deed, which does not respect such rights.

While these difficulties remain in the way, it is useless to dwell on some others which would be found further on in pursuit of this object. We can only add that if they could all be honourably and satisfactorily removed so that the two bodies should be really one, and not be merely tied together by an ecclesiastical cord, we should rejoice and thank God, believing that much good might be gained. Still we have not the confidence in " large denominations" that some seem to have. Their characteristics and results are of such a kind as to give rise to very opposite emotions when they are contemplated. Nor are we sure that the existence of so many sects is so great an evil as some good people think. Indeed we confess to a contrary opinion, and if this were the place, we think that we could supply proof of its correctness. But of one thing we are firmly persuaded, that these numerous sects, with their individual peculiarities and points of repulsion, require to approach one another more frequently, and, through frank intercourse, so increase in mutual respect and love that co-operation may be secured in general evangelistic labours. All surely will sympathise with this "visible union," and, except the blinded and bigoted, will hail with unfeigned

delight an assembly like that at Cheshunt College awhile ago, as presenting a spectacle which the Saviour would approve. In helping on this movement all Christians may do much, though many have a great deal to unlearn ere they can be very serviceable. Yet on that account we must not despair of success. The one God, the God of peace, is with His people, and if they will trust and honour Him, He will bless them with unity, peace and power.

ART. V.-CHURCH POLICY.

Essays on Church Policy. Edited by the REV. W. L. CLAY, M.A., Incumbent of Rainhill, Lancashire. London: Macmillan & Co. 1868.

CONTENTS :-Essay I., "The Church and the Working Classes," by the Rev. T. W. Fowle, M.A. --Essay II., The Voluntary Principle, by the Rev. J. L. Davies, M.A.-Essay III., On Clerical Liberty of Thought and Speech, by the Editor.-Essay IV., The Church and the Universities, by the Rev. W. Berkeley, M.A.Essay V., The Church and the Congregation, by the Rev. E. A. Abbott, M.A.-Essay VI., The Church and the Education of the People, by the Editor.-Essay VII., The Church in the Colonies, by John Westlake, M.A., Barrister.-Essay VIII., The Church as a Teacher of Morality, by J. R. Seeley, M.A.

"THE purpose of the volume," says the editor," is to discuss, with special reference to the circumstances of the present time, the principles upon which the Church of England may be sustained as a National Church, and the modes of action by which her national character may be further developed." That the circumstances of the present time fully justify such discussions, everyone will be prepared to admit. If there be any principles upon which the Church of England may be sustained as a National Church, the sooner they are made known the better; for, of a truth, things begin to wear a very threatening aspect towards her. One half of the people of this United Kingdom are against, and of the other half a large proportion are not for the Establishment; and those who are against are the very people by whom all great political changes are for the most