it did its work. And since they have been aroused their vigour and earnestness have never flagged down to the present time. But before the importance of Wesley's work was perceived by the Church of England he had been called away, and others were at the head of that body who had neither his power of control nor his care for unity. And little by little, without any formal exclusion, but merely as it seems from a want of timely comprehension, the followers of this man have become entirely separate; and though their writers and preachers still speak of themselves and their brethren as standing midway between Dissenters and Churchmen, their leaning has of late years confessedly been more towards Dissent than Conformity. It pertains not to my purpose to trace more than the origin of this great movement. At its commencement it supplied a religious need which nothing else seemed likely to supply. So far it speaks of want of efficiency in the Church of that time. From that we may perhaps learn, nay, I am bold to think that in some degree we have learnt, a lesson of which the whole religious world then stood in need and for which we ought to be thankful.

We have now reached a point in our retrospect at which it becomes somewhat more possible than it was at the outset to answer two questions which it was my object to ask. The first is this. From such an historical review of the causes and origin of Dissent, in what light can we expect that Churchmen are looked upon by Dissenters? This question should be answered, and each one of us should bear the answer in mind when we venture on the consideration of the further query: How should these men be treated when they come, as they seem soon about to come, into closer connection with ourselves?

Before entering upon this portion of my subject I would advert to one fact which to Churchmen must ever be gratifying. It is cheering to find amid so much difference that the disputes have rarely impugned the doctrinal teaching of our communion. The Presbyterian may attack our ecclesiastical system, the Independent level his bitterest shafts at our state-supported institutions, but both accept our Church's creed and find no fault with aught she sets forth in doctrine. Hear their testimony. In 1691, the Presbyterians and Independents drew up certain articles of agreement. They

E

lay down the principles on which these two bodies are at one. Their eighth Article treats of a Confession of faith and runs thus: "As to what appertains to soundness of judgement in matters of faith, we esteem it sufficient that a Church acknowledge the Scriptures to be the Word of God, the perfect and only rule of faith and practice, and own either the doctrinal part of those commonly called the Articles of the Church of England, or the Confession compiled by the Assembly at Westminster, or the Confession agreed on at Savoy to be agreeable to the said rule."*

The Wesleyan embraces our Liturgy and Articles, and at first only did us the good office to lift up his voice against a prevailing tendency to spiritual lethargy. It is with the Baptist alone that we have an issue joined in respect of one of the Sacraments. With many of that body, however, the question has become in modern times rather one of philological criticism than a test of communion. Let me quote from one of their greatest authorities. This town was the sphere of labour of one of their ministers, of whose powers as a preacher

* Marsden's History of the Christian Churches and Sects, vol. ii., p. 119.

and writer, and of whose fairness in argument not only they but all of us may be proud. I need hardly say I mean Robert Hall. In his day the question of the validity of Infant Baptism was warmly debated within their own Society. The question raised was not precisely the same as between them and the Church of England. It was whether those who admitted the sufficiency of baptism in infancy were fit persons to be admitted as members to their communion. Thus their preacher declares himself: Having shewn, we trust, to the satisfaction of the reader that Infant Baptism is not an error of such magnitude as to prevent the society which maintains it from being deemed a true Church, I proceed to observe that to repel the members of such a society from communion is the very essence of schism" And again: "What must be the sensation produced when a sect comparatively small and insignificant" (he is speaking of the stricter members of the Baptist body) " erects itself on a solitary eminence from whence it repels the approach of all other Christians?"+ And once more: "The most rigid Baptist will probably admit that however clear and irresistible the *Hall's Works, vol. ii., p. 109. +Ibid. iii., 448.

"

evidence of his sentiments may appear to himself, there are those whom it fails to convince, and some of them certainly illustrious examples of piety."*

These words were written, as I have said, at the time of a controversy among the members of their own body. In their form therefore they do not bear exactly on the question between Baptists and the Church of England. They are nevertheless enough for our purpose. They shew that in the mind of one of the ablest exponents of their opinions the question was not thought to be a matter of such serious difference as has generally been imagined.

This almost universal testimony to the soundness of the doctrines of the English Church is one of the most important as well as one of the most hopeful signs. It forbids us to despair of the future union of many who are outside her pale. Its importance consists in the fact that it is a testimony from our adversaries. Its hopefulness that it tells us of few differences in matters which they deem essential to salvation. We would fain hope, then, that a more intimate connection, such as the present course of legislation seems *Hall's Works, vol. iii., p. 421.