and Foreign School Society, to enlarge its resources and its operations; and that the liberal pecuniary support of it be recommended to the churches." It was then moved, seconded, and carried "That the secretaries be instructed, in forwarding the above resolutions to the British and Foreign School Society, to declare to the committee of that valuable institution, in the most unequivocal manner, that, in the judg ment of this Union, an entire and perfect freedom from all government interference whatever, but which can be legitimately enjoyed only in the absence of all pecuniary assistance on the part of government, is of the highest importance to the Society itself, while they are assured it is indispensable to the full confidence and cordial concurrence of the churches whom they represent." After giving these quotations from docu day. I do not know that they have revoked that resolution. If they are converted, I am glad to find that the work of conversion is going on so hopefully." This was received, it seems, with "cheers." Now we wish to say a few words that may raise the Baptist brethren in Mr. Blackburn's estimation, and relieve them from the apparent inconsistency with which he supposes them chargeable. We admit that they did not follow the leadings of the Congregationalists in affirming the principle. Certainly they did not, for two substantial reasons. They did not follow, first, because the Congregationalists did not affirm the principle at all. They guarded themselves against the supposition that they affirmed it. They passed a resolution beginning thus, "That without pronouncing a decided opinion on the propriety of government interference on the education of the people, this meeting entertains," &c. (See Con.ments which may be found in extenso in our Mag., 1843, page 842.) But there was a second reason why the Baptist Union did not follow the leadings of the Congregationalists, which was, that April did not follow October. In April, 1843, the annual meeting of the Baptist Union was held, and the following resolution was passed: -"That the Union feel it their duty to declare that they do not consider the education of the community to be the proper business of the State; they hold, on the contrary, that because it is beyond the just province of civil government, and because it cannot fail to influence religious opinions, popular education ought not be interfered with by the State in any way of direction or control; all such interference being inconsistent with the right of private judgment, and the permission of it affording an indirect sanction to the anti-Christian principle of ecclesiastical establishments." It is true, then, that the Baptist Union did not follow: it preceded. "But," adds Mr. Blackburn, "they put out a resolution that they would stand by the British and Foreign School Society, which is faking £700 or £800 per annum from government up to the present day. I do not know that they have revoked that resolution." The proceeding to which he evidently refers, was that of the annual meeting of the Baptist Union in April, 1844, at which it was resolved "That the Union emphatically affirm the two principles embodied in the resolutions of their late committee, maintaining on the one hand, the adequacy of popular energies to the work of general education, with the injury and danger to be apprehended from the interference of government with it in any form; and on the other, the decided preference due to the system of co-operation with the friends of scriptural education at large, over that of forming denominational schools. "That the Union rejoice in the recent effort made by the committee of the British VOL. X.-FOURTH SERIFS. own pages, it only remains that we should caution our friend Mr. Blackburn against carrying his admiration for baptist consistency and promptitude to excess. Though his bap tist brethren have acted so much better than he supposed, they are, after all, but fallible men; but lest he should err in his estimate, either by underrating or overrating their virtue, let him in future take care to ascertain its exact dimensions before he describes it in public. GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL PLAN. The divisions which took place in the House of Commons on the 22nd and 23rd of April, have annihilated all hope that the Legislature will pursue what we deem the right course in reference to popular education, and let it alone. In the course of the debates, the members who spoke showed generally, an amazing amount of ignorance of dissenters, dissenting principles, and the force of the objections urged by dissenters against government interference. The leading statesmen on both sides of the House showed themselves, indeed, to be better acquainted with our views than the inferior men, but not much more favourably disposed towards them. It will be, perhaps, interesting to our readers if we give them some of the remarks of the present and the late premier, at the close of the debate. Lord John Russell said, "The hon. gentleman, the member for Durham, (Mr. Bright) has declared very strongly against any interrerence on the part of this house with the education of the people; and he declared, in rather ominous words, towards the end of his speech, that certain other consequences would follow the adoption of this resolution by the house. That is the hon. gentleman's opinion, and the hon. gentleman argued it, as he always does, with great force and power, but I must 2 s England were indifferent in that cause, an example of zeal was set them by the nonconformists; and if I thought their objections to the minutes entitled to any weight, if I gave to the minutes any support, it would be a very reluctant and greatly qualified support. But, on the contrary, after maturely considering the objections of the dissenting body, I do not believe them to be founded in truth. I think the principle of aid is a perfectly fair one. The minutes do not overturn, they adopt, the voluntary principle. This is no state interference with the voluntary principle; the measure will establish schools by the intervention of the voluntary principle, which will become more effectual by the aid of the government. It is the opinion of the dissenters, that the measure will be to the advantage of the established church, and the dissenters complain of this as an act of injustice; but, if this propo except to the argument held in one part of | for when the members of the church of his speech. He said, with regard to church schools, that we admitted inspectors, who would be clergymen, to inquire into the religious faith and the progress in knowledge of the pupils; and he said, that if we had dared we should have proposed the same inspection for the dissenters' schools, and that we refrained from the proposal because no government durst make it. What, sir, has been my conduct which will justify the hon. gentleman in making such an imputation, that it is only through fear that we have abstained from encouraging interference with the religious convictions of the dissenters? Sir, I have taken part with others in freeing the dissenters from the disabilities under which they formerly laboured. When I found them oppressed and restrained by the disabilities imposed by the Test and Corporation Acts, I proposed, and we succeeded, against an adverse government, in repealing the act which created those disabilities; and when, after-sition had been made ten years since, what wards, the dissenters found themselves obliged to solemnize their marriages in church, though they objected to the form of service, it was a hardship, as we considered, upon their consciences, and we came down to both houses of Parliament, and we passed a measure to free them from this objection, and to enable them to contract marriages in a manner which their consciences admitted. I ask, what has the hon. gentleman, the member for Durham, done for the dissenters to outweigh these measures? What right has he to make the imputation that it is our wish to interfere with the religious convictions and religious freedom of the dissenters?... I think the proposition of the hon. and learned (member for Bath, that education should be entirely secular, with whatever ability he may support it, is so completely against the opinion of this, or of any house of Parliament, that I cannot believe that there will be any success of that proposition; and I do not think that the future minister, whom the hon. and learned gentleman imagines as exceeding the present government in liberality, however he may so exceed them, is likely to have a very long tenure of power, if vote for education without religion' should be placed on his banner, and that schools entirely secular should be established by the state.' · Sir Robert Peel said, "I deeply regret that this measure has met with the opposition of a part of the Nonconformist body. I entertain great respect for the Nonconformist body, and I trust I have shown my sentiments towards them on former occasions, and in advocating the Dissenters' Chapels Bill; and, attached as I am to the established church of England, I should be sorry to give to that church any advantage by means of this education vote, if I thought it unjust to the dissenters. We should be thereby forgetful of the past services of the dissenting body in the cause of education; would have been thought of it then by the I think government aid or the government grants that is giving the church increased influence; for the church would be powerful, as powerful without this government aid as it is with it. In what manner does the government increase the power of the church, in any district where she is more numerous than the friends of dissent! Why has it that power over the education of the people? It is-and I say it not invidiously towards dissenters, for I have given my full amount of praise to the dissenters-it is because the church is becoming aware of the necessity, both for temporal and spiritual objects, of attending to the education of the people; it is because her conduct is guided by that necessity that this influence has been gained; and that legitimate influence on the part of the church will not be diminished by the principle acted upon in these minutes, which is one of perfect equality. On these grounds, sir, I shall give my support to the proposal of the noble lord." CORRESPONDENCE. PERSECUTION OF BAPTISTS IN FRANCE. To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine. MY DEAR BROTHER,-In your last number you called the attention of your readers to some extraordinary proceedings in France, in which brethren of our own denomination are suffering severe persecution from the authorities, who seem determined to suppress our principles, and to obliterate our very name from their country. This you did by inserting an extract, in which the facts referred to are inentioned, from the French correspondent of Evangelical Christendom. In the last communication which I have received from my correspondent, he gives me further information on the subject. I am unwilling that a month should elapse, after it has been given to the public, before it appears in your pages, and I therefore send it that you may give it an immediate place, as I am sure you will agree with me in thinking that it demands the thoughtful attention of our denomination especially, but not of our denomination only, but of all the friends of religious liberty The information is as follows: "I must return to facts of painful interest. I have twice called your attention to the actions entered against the Baptists of France. The affair has been discussed afresh before the Royal Court of Amiens. M. Odillon Barrot, one of our most illustrious statesmen, promised, as I wrote you in my last letter, to In a subsequent communication which appears in that periodical for April, it is stated, that M. Lepoix and his two friends were sentenced to pay a fine of 300 francs (£12 10s.) each. "These members of the baptist communion," continues the writer, "have suffered severely, and I have received very distressing intelligence respecting them. One of these respectable men, having been surprised while reading the Bible with some of his brethren, was dragged to Laon in the company of robbers. He was fastened to the same chain as though he had committed some infamous offence. Is it then a crime in France to meet a few friends, in order to recrime word of God? In the judgment delivered against M. Lepoix, it is set forth that he is guilty of having associated with others in the name of a new religion called the religion of the protestant baptists. It would seem that the judges, who are not very learned in religious matters, have never heard before of the baptists, and suppose that M. Lepoix has invented a new religion! The affair is to be argued afresh before the Royal Court of Amiens, and an illustrious erator, M. Odillon-Barrot, has consented to plead the cause of the defendants." plead the cause of the defendants. Unhappily he was detained in Paris by his parliamentary duties. Another distinguished advocate, M. de Brouard, took his place. M. Henry Lutteroth also lent the baptists his kind assistance. Both maintained that it is contrary to the principles of religious liberty, and to the express provisions of the charter, to forbid these Christians to celebrate their worship. M. de Brouard briefly traced the history of the baptists. He said that they have existed as a body for a very considerable period; and that they are very numerous, as well as highly respected, both in England and in the United States. His speech, dictated by sincere piety, was well fitted to impress the minds of the judges. Vain effort! Deplorable power of prejudice! The baptists were condemned by the Royal Court of Amiens, as they had been by the inferior tribunals. "The reasons assigned for this judgment sect,' say the judges, has separated itself are singular, and almost extravagant. This from the state, and the state does not recognise this division of the protestant church. The ministers of this sect have not received from the state any kind of licence, nor from the consistories any commission. The baptists, therefore, are deficient in that which legally constitutes a recognized form of worship."" To this statement my correspondent adds the following just and spirited reflections, which are all the more worthy of notice, and do him the greater honour, as he is a clergyman of the established protestant church of France. "As many bad reasons as words. What! do the judicial authorities assert that the state should not recognise the different divisions of protestantism? And by what right, on what principle, does the civil government constitute itself the judge in matters of controversy? Has it the necessary aptitude for determining theological questions? Imagine ministers of state deciding whether baptists are or are not justified in forming a distinct communion. This perfectly absurd. The temporal authorities would, according to this reasoning, exercise the powers of the papacy. And then what folly (I ask pardon for making use of the term) to censure baptist ministers for, not having received a commission from national consistories! What have consistories to do with the matter? Why should they interfere in the affairs of a dissenting communion? It would be as reasonable to require our pastors to accept their commission from bishops! The Royal Court of Amiens evidently does not understand these questions; and this furnishes us with another reason why the tribunals should never be called to decide in such disputes. "The point which claims our chief attention in this discussion is, that the government seems to intend granting religious liberty only to three or four recognised denominations. There will be in France Roman catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Jews, but no others. Does your conscience not allow you to enter one of these official communions? So much the worse for you. The limits are traced, the barriers are erected, the walls are built, according to law. You have no right to be a Wesleyan, baptist, independent, or Moravian; or, at least, you shall be compelled to shut yourself up within the bosom of your family. If you hold a meeting of more than twenty persons you shall be fined; and if you recommence them, you shall be imprisoned! Such is the system of jurisprudence which they are now attempting to establish. One would think that we were still living in the evil days of Romish intolerance." The Court of Amiens, while it confirmed the judgment of the Laon magistrates, reduced the fine to fifty francs (£2 18s.) each. These persecuted brethren seem to have been ably defended, notwithstanding the adverse decision. M. de Brouard, and M. H. Lutteroth, their counsel, are men of well-known ability, and did not fail to do justice to their clients. While the former showed, as already intimated, that the sentiments of the baptists are no novelty, and that baptists themselves, though comparatively few in France, are a large body in other countries; the latter replied to the king's counsel, and demonstrated that the application of the law on associations is a manifest violation of the charter, according to which "every one professes his religion with equal freedom, and obtains for his worship the same protection." The matter will not be suffered to rest till the highest court of judicature has pronounced upon it. "The baptists," says my correspondent in cinclusion, by the advice of their friends, have appealed to the Royal Court of Casention. The case will then be argued afresh, before the supreme tribunal of the kingdom. But I have little hope of a favourable issue. The judges of the Court of Cassation have shown, on several occasions, that they are far from being disposed to favour religious liberty. However, the baptists have acted wisely. Let them first exhaust all the appliances which the law presents, by eliciting a judgment from courts of every degree; and if they are condemned on their final appeal, it will be for them to inquire whether it is not better to obey God rather than man." There is, I fear, but too much reason to apprehend an unfavourable result. The government of France is, at the present time, little friendly to protestantism under any of its forms, and would rather crush than cherish the spirit of liberty, whether civil or religious. Louis Philippe shows more disposition to ingratiate himself with Romish ecclesiastics than to confide in the loyalty of his subjects, and to build up his throne by the influence of a powerful and ancient hierarchy, than to establish it on the principles of rectitude and freedom. Engaged at this moment in seeking to win over the legitimate bishops and priests to acknowledge his dynasty, this prosecution is only one of a series of cases in which he, and his ministers, filch from the liberties of the people, and the chartered rights of the protestants, in order to bribe the Romish clergy into a more cordial support of his family and government. But is there nothing for the baptists of England to do in this case? Does it not present an occasion on which it becomes them to move? Let every pastor who peruses this letter read it, or state the circumstances, to his flock at their weekly prayer-meeting. Let sympathy with the persecuted be excited; and let them be presented to God in prayer. This, as a first movement, is good, is indispensable. But Christian wisdom will, I trust, devise some mode by which, under the divine blessing, we may render assistance to our French brethren, in their struggle for liberty to worship God after the dictates of their conscience. It seems to me to be a subject proper to be taken up by the Baptist Union at our approaching annual meeting, and the committee, in the meantime, might examine into it, with a view to advise the course which may be adopted with the greatest probability of a beneficial result. I am, my dear brother, Yours most truly, EDWARD STEANE. Camberwell, April 22, 1847. P.S. While engaged in writing this letter information has reached me, through the me-dium of a continental journal, of another instance of persecution in Germany, in which baptists are the victims. It is thus stated, "Article 30 of the constitution of the Electorate of Hesse, guarantees to every inhabitant complete liberty of conscience and of worship. The baptists of Marburg have, nevertheless, received from the police repeated intimations prohibiting them from celebrating their worship. They appealed to the superior tribunal of the city, but the government having opposed this course, the case has been carried to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The minister of justice has given orders that the affair shall be speedily terminated." |