NEW CONGREGATIONALISM.* Ix the volume before us six Nonconformists, of

undoubted culture and undoubted candour, have endeavoured, first, to describe the religious system of Congregationalists, whether Baptist or Inde

pendent; and, secondly, to explain the basis of reason on which, in their opinion, Congregational Nonconformity rests. Such a book cannot fail to be interesting, though it may not be altogether satisfactory. The essays are all lucidly written, and on most points there is substantial agreement between them. The

subjects are "Congregational Polity," "The External Relations of Congregationalism," " The Congregationalist Character," "Congregationalism and s'Esthetics," "Congregationalism and Science," and "The Spirit of Nonconformity." No one can find fault with the choice of themes. The essays of course differ in merit. We shall speak of those that appear to us most note worthy.

Mr. Pattison, a Baptist minister at Newcastle-on-Tyne, dis

cusses the question of Congregationalism and /Esthetics with some liberality and with some evident appreciation of the arts that humanize and at the same time ennoble life, lie appears to admit that Congregationalism has not in the past done its share to encourage the Arts, but he pleads extenuating circumstances; his ground being that the influence of the Arta in the past has been too often opposed to the influence of religion. This he urges particularly with regard to painting. Ile dissents from Longfellow's theory that in the days of Albrecht Diirer "art was still religion"

—the line occurs in Nurewburg—and believes, on the contrary, that in those days "religion was art." Lutheranism, Protestantism,

Puritanism, Independency, were —says Mr. Pattison—all appeals to reason, against the sensuous. And he adds :—

"They were bound to make a dead set against the creed of the merely sensuous, which has been defined by one of its most accomplished and most forlorn exponents, in words worth our considering, Art is not, like fire or water, a good servant and bad muter; rather the reverse. She will help in nothing of her own knowledge or free-will; upon terms of service you will got worse than nothing out of her. Handmaid of religion, exponent of duty, servant of fact, pioneer of morality, she cannot in any way become. Her business is not to do good on other ground, but to be good on her own ; all is well with her while she sticks fast to that."

But this is a quotation from Mr. Swinburne, and to cite it in Mr. Pattison's way is utterly inappropriate, utterly wide of the mark ; since Mr. Swinburne is the very man who most of all would divorce art from religion—who most of all would differ with those whose Art the essayist is condemning. Did the great painters of the middle ages, did Purer, and John van Eyck, and Fra Angelico, and Raffaelle hold this view ? Was theirs "the creed of the merely sensuous " ? They held precisely the opposite, and nothing can be more absurd than to confuse their theories and their influence with the theories and influence of Mr. Swinburne. The author of Chastelard follows art, because, — if we understand him aright, — art must be beautiful, and because, to use the words of his favourite Mademoiselle de illaapin, "beauty is everything." But the great middle-age painters did not think that beauty in itself was everything, nor that all Art must be beautiful. They thought instead that allArt must teach the Truth—that it could be a "handmaid of religion," that it should be a "handmaid of religion." Therefore in judging them and their intention, it is most unjust to ignore their own view of the matter, for the sake of finally adopting a view exactly opposite—firing a shot at the influence of Art from the inappropriate shelter of Mr. Swinburne's trenches. We have said that Mr. Pattison discusses his subject with some liberality, and this is true ; but it is true not so much of the principles he claims to be guided by, as of the conclusions he personally arrives at. He would enjoy Art freely now, and he would have his brethren to do so too. We are glad of it. But before he can estimate it truly, it must be something more than an enjoyment to him.

Dr. Pye Smith's essay on "Congregationalism and Science" is very able, manly, and bold. It is certainly the moat remarkable contribution to the volume, though probably Mr. Mitchell Fawcett's paper on "Congregational Polity "—of which we are to speak presently—is the most generally instructive, and is, therefore, most in accordance with the aim of the work. Yet Dr. Pye Smith's has a peculiar interest ; since his view is, as far as we can discover, the view most commonly adopted by liberal theologians in the Church. It is only when he has done with the question of the reconciliation of science with the Bible,, and has established clearly enough that what is true had better be known, that we discover his view to be that of a Congregationalist—not of a Churchman. For he argues, at last, that the system of "Religious Republics" is that best adapted to admit and not to repress the spirit of free inquiry, both among ministers and people. Theoretically, it may be so ; but how it can be so as long as in all religious societies the few are educated and the many are halfeducated or ignorant, we are at a loss to imagine. But the fact that one dissents from the essayist's final conclusion should not prevent one from doing justice to the scope of his thought. Let 4113 quote :

"If the theory of Natural Selection be true,—and let those who would judge of the Darwinian hypothesis judge of it from the works of its author,—it would admirably explain both the beneficent adaptation and the harmonious unity of the creation ; but assuredly it would not diminish our estimate either of the one or of the other. Both must have been present to the Divine foreknowledge from the beginning, and if this was the method by which His will has been and is now being accomplished, no Christian ought to feel anything but thankfulness for

such increased knowledge of the working of infinite wisdom In the Now Testament reason is always appealed to ; argument and persuasion are everywhere employed; and if authority is claimed, it is only because the fullest investigation is invited, nay, demanded, into the foundation of that authority. The highest praise is awarded to those who did not take the new teaching on trust, but searched to see if it were true or not. Calm and dispassionate judgment is again and again enjoined, and the attainment of truth is everywhere represented as the highest blessing to man For such a religion to oppose itself to science would be to deny its origin and repudiate its best claim to respect. We are never told that Christianity was intended to be a powerful system of government ; we are told that the truth will make men free. It was only among those of open and candid mind, who could east off prejudice and timid reverence for authority, that the Christian religion was at first accepted, and it is to such that it still appeals."

In his essay on "Congregational Polity "—to which we now turn—Mr. Mitchell Fawcett does not enter on the question as to whether the Congregational form of Church government has or has not the sanction of divine authority ; he wishes merely "to consider whether it is expedient." With a view to deciding this, he says much that is favourable and much that is unfavourable to the cause he eventually espouses. He thinks well in some respects of the check on heresy imposed by the system of chapel trusts. He rejoices at the same time in the fact that Congregationalists are fixed to no creed. But, it may be asked, if the trust-deed of a chapel is of any value, does not its value consist in the fact that it is in some sort a creed ?—a creed which if the members are not bound to say, they are at all events bound to hold. To which we

understand Mr. Fawcett to reply that the trust-deed is not enforced so long as the congregation is united, but is merely appealed to when there is difference of opinion. And this difference of opinion seldom occurs. "Why does it seldom occur" asks the inquirer. Here is Mr. Fawcett's answer :—

"The members of the church, it is to be remembered, are generally drawn from the congregation, and have all their lives been accustomed to hear one set of doctrines, and to observe one form of worship. It is not surprising that when they feel it their duty to join some Christian society, they should rather take for granted than seriously examine the tenets of the church towards which all their associations and feelings tend. No assent to any formal creed is required from the member on his admission ; and the counsels of the pastor, after that event, are directed more towards his growth in 'grace' than in theological knowledge Perhaps, therefore, the general unity of doctrine and practice observable among Congregational churches may be to some extent more passive than active, and due rather to absence of theological discussion, than to intelligent preference for any particular order of faith or discipline."

In a spirit equally judicial, the writer takes up the subject of the election of pastors, dwelling on the evils of what he calls "ecclesiastical competitive examinations," but remarking also on the counteracting influences attached to these evils. We gather that he considers the minister's insecure tenure of office to be a disadvantage to the minister, but an advantage to the people. The seclusion of the pastor's training is unfavourably dwelt on; Mr. Fawcett urging that ministers should know the world, and learn from human nature as well as from books of theology. Or, in the words of that young priest in the new great poem,

"Priests Should study passion: how else serve mankind, Who come for help in passionate extremes ?"

Finally, the writer urges that when Congregational Churches shall be less exclusively recruited from one section of the community, "many evils, now deemed necessary accompaniments of their form of ecclesiastical polity, may be expected to disappear and in the present, as well as in the future, he sees much cause for satisfaction. It is perhaps not difficult to understand how Mr. Fawcett, though stating with frankness both the advantages and disadvantages of Congregationalism, believes that the second are outweighed by the first. But the general reader cannot expect to be so convinced, because he cannot deal and should not deal—as the writer of this essay does—with the faults and merits of Congregationalism only. He has to think of the merits and defects of systems other than this one. The Churchman, for example, cannot consider the question tamed when he has weighed, as Mr. Fawcett has, the advantages and disadvantages of one form of Dissent—however popular, however estimable, that form may be. He, and the impartial observer, too, must of necessity recognize the qualities as well as the faults of the English Church,—remembering the ennobling breadth of her teaching, the supreme beauty of her liturgy. It is well, indeed, that the characteristics of a diferent Christian polity should be brought before us, doubly well that they should be brought before us with the candour and good taste which mark the essays, some of which we have now briefly noticed. But their presentation can scarcely affect the relative position of Dissent and Church. In stating that among Englishmen of liberal thought and culture it is still the few, and not the many, who desire to exchange the system now dominant for an extension of religious republics, we are not so much expressing the opinion of a journal as recording an established fact. But the book is not the less welcome on that account.