WINTER is coming with brow severe
To watch o'er the grave of the waning year,
The birds are hushed in excess of grief,
Less warm the sun, and the days more brief,
The purling stream has refused to flow,
And all seems wrapt in the garb of woe.

Winter is coming, I hear his sound,
In the blustering winds like a fiend unbound,
To stalk abroad with destructive power
And make all nature before him cower,
On th' affrighted air he flaps his wing
Incens'd, like the rod of a giant king.
Winter is coming, I see his tread
In the lace-like rime o'er creation spread,
And hung fantastic on leafless trees
As if with artistic skill to please,
And make e'en his hoar austerity seem
Like the fairy land of a poet's dream.

Winter is coming, I feel his breath
In the frosty air, like the touch of death
When the shrouded corpse in the coffin sleeps,
And the tread is soft, and affection weeps;
Cold torpor in all the fair scenery lies,
As struck 'neath the gaze of a Gorgon's eyes.
Winter is coming, the flowers of spring
Are falling fast 'neath his sharp-edged wing,
And man the moral of life discerns
When the once green leafage all yellow turns,
And the drifted heaps in disorder lie,
As preaching to mortals, Ye thus must die.
Oh, there is a winter of life for all,
When the winding-sheet and the funeral pall
Shall the symbols be of its dismal reign,
And the life-stream ceases in heart and vein ;
But flowers solstitial arise from the tomb,
For our Saviour hath breathed on its darkest gloom.

The Church Member's Manual of Ecclesiastical Principles, Doctrine, and Discipline: presenting a Systematic View of the Structure, Polity, Doctrines, and Practices of Christian Churches, as taught in the Scriptures. By WILLIAM CROWELL. With an Introductory Essay by Henry J. Ripley, D.D., Professor of Sacred Rhetoric and Pastoral Duties in the Newton Theological Institution. Boston, (U.S.): Gould, Kendall, and Lincoln. 12mo. pp. 276. The Scriptural Doctrine of the Church sketched by J. WENGER. Calcutta: 12mo. pp. xi., 247.

THERE is not in our denomination any standard work on the subject discussed in these volumes. "So far as I know," says the author of one of them, "this is the first attempt to exhibit the Baptist Church Polity in systematic order." This supposition is not quite correct the attempt has been made both in the last and in the present generation; but the productions of the esteemed ministers who have undertaken the task have not given their brethren great satisfaction, or become very popular. The opinion prevails very generally among baptists, that the church polity instituted by Christ is exceedingly simple, and may be drawn easily from the inspired pages. They cherish the habit of appealing on all such subjects, in a direct manner, to the New Testament itself. They maintain that our Lord has not left with his church any legislative authority, but that all that either individuals or bodies of Christians have to do in his service is, to execute such laws and conform themselves to such precedents as they find in the holy scriptures. Many of them go further, and believe that where general regulations are not laid down by Christ or his apostles, general regulations cannot be made advantageously; that where uniformity is not clearly deducible from the sacred book, uniformity is not desirable; that what is not prescribed by inspiration ought not to be prescribed at all, but that it should be left to the discretion of the churches, which are bound

to apply to every case as it arises, the principles and directions given respecting it by the only infallible authority.

Participating as we do in these views, we are yet prepared to receive with reSpect the suggestions of experience, and the illustrations of scriptural instruction which any are inclined to offer who have been diligent students of the inspired directory. We are not at all surprised that Gangá Nárayan Sil, a late assistant of our brethren at Calcutta in the work of training the native churches among the Hindoos, should have made the request which issued in the preparation of Mr. Wenger's treatise; or that a company of earnest candidates for the ministry at the Newton Theological Institution should have expressed the wish for a treatise on church order and discipline, for the use of young ministers and church members, which gave rise to Mr. Crowell's publication. An amiable diffidence and a desire to be taught the way of the Lord more perfectly prompted the suggestion, it is probable, in both cases; though it is quite conceivable that some of those who would be most forward to desire the same thing among ourselves might be influenced by an indolent love of thinking by proxy, and studying the scriptures by proxy, combined with a craving for some rules more definite than God has seen fit to furnish. If we thought that there was any probability that works of this kind would become very popular and influential in the churches, we should invite a serious inquiry whether the advantages they would yield would not be counterbalanced by attendant disadvantages. The habit of appealing to scripture on all such subjects is of inestimable value: the habit of appealing to a human rule is adapted to engender formality and heartlessness. In the perplexing cases that arise under the ever-varying phases of human affairs, we should not have so much confidence in decisions made in accordance with the most judiciously contrived code of regulations that uninspired teachers could furnish, as in those of a prayerful, affectionate, earnestminded people, who feeling their need of heavenly teaching and invoking the

guidance of the divine Spirit, should proceed to apply New Testament principles according to the wisdom given to them. Still, we admit that systematic treatises like those before us, used with discretion, may yield valuable assistance in the investigation of some points connected with Christian faith and practice. The claims of these works derived from their parentage are strong. Mr. Crowell is a man of enlightened mind and respectable learning, and, being editor of one of the leading baptist periodicals in the United States, he has opportunities for extensive observation of what passes in the churches. His manuscript was submitted before it went to the printer to Professors Ripley and Sears, to Dr. Sharp of Boston, and to Dr. Baron Stow, the last of whom also read the proof sheets as they passed through the press. The performance may be taken therefore as expressive of opinions which have the general concurrence of some of the most eminent baptist ministers of Massachusetts. Mr. Wenger is a native of Berne in Switzerland, who, having received the love of the truth about fourteen years ago, was brought to perceive first the evils of the ecclesiastical establishment to which he belonged, and then their connexion with pædobaptism; and afterwards visiting this country, was led to devote himself to the work of Christ among the heathen at Calcutta, where he diligently labours in the translation of the scriptures and in other useful occupations, as an agent of the Baptist Missionary Society. Having groped his way out of the darkness of an erroneous system, and been necessitated to study closely the doctrine of scripture in reference to ecclesiastical polity, without having much acquaintance with the practical working of English baptist churches, he brings to the investigation an independence and freedom from bias which add to the value of his conclusions.

In reference to the great principles which distinguish our churches from those of the episcopalians, the presbyterians, and other pædobaptists, Mr. Crowell and Mr. Wenger agree perfectly, and in illustrating and defending these they show great ability. Page after page we have read with much pleasure, rejoicing in the effect they are adapted to produce on candid inquirers who do not belong to our body. Mr. Crowell,

VOL. X.-FOURTH SERIES.

from whose views on some points we feel bound to express our dissent, writes on these fundamental principles admirably. There may be one or two sentiments in the following summary in which our readers will not coincide, but they will all acknowledge that it indicates the hand of a master.

"First, then, the system of church order embraced by baptists, differs from all national or state religious establishments, as they exist in Italy, Germany, Denmark, and England; and generally throughout Europe and the East; in maintaining that churches should not be incorporated with the state, that civil magistrates have no right to control religious opinions, rites, or forms of worship; and that the pecuniary expenses of churches should be sustained by voluntary contribution, not by compulsory taxation.

"Second, it differs from all systems of ecclesiastical catholicism, papal, episcopal, and presbyterial; in maintaining that the only organized church is an assembly of baptized believers, who meet in one place for worship, for administering ordinances, and the trial of offenders. It allows of the existence of no such body as a universal, national, or provincial church, nor of any form of extensive aggregation or con

centration of church power.

"Third, it differs from papacy, and from every form of prelacy, whether ancient like the modern like the Wesleyan, by the principle, Oriental; more recent as the English; or that all church officers are selected and chosen by the Christian people, that ministers are all of equal rank, and that they have no official authority except in the particular church which

elects them to office.

"Fourth, it is distinguished from these systems by the principle that all church power is in the church as a body, not in its ministers; that it comes to each church directly from the

Lord Jesus Christ by virtue of the union of its

members in the church relation, and is not transmitted by succession from any previously existing body; and that it is the right and the duty of each church to interpret and apply the laws of Christ for itself to its own members, and to them only.

"Fifth, by the principle that churches are strictly executive, and not legislative bodies; that they have no right to adopt any terms of membership except those laid down in the scriptures, nor to change the form or the sub jects of church ordinances.

"Sixth, it differs from all these systems in maintaining that no person can be born into a Christian church, nor be made a member by

4 U

any act of parents in infancy, but that to become a member in any church must be a personal, voluntary act on the part of each individual; that the new birth, or personal piety, is the qualification for membership; and hat the whole assembled church is the divinely appointed organ of expressing Christ's will in the reception of members into a visible church. "Seventhly, it differs from all pædobaptist systems, papal, episcopal, Lutheran, Moravian, presbyterian, methodist, and congregational, in admitting no persons except professed and credible believers to either of the ordinances of the church, of which baptism, in the scriptural meaning of the term, is always to precede admission to the Lord's table; by distinguishing between spiritual and natural or political relationships; by recognizing no church relation to the children of believers any more than of others till they give evidence of piety, and at their own desire are baptized into the fellowship of the church."-Pp. 115, 116.

All these opinions, if we mistake not, are in accordance with those held by Mr. Wenger. Respecting the independence of the churches he writes fully, defining that independence as its right to ascertain for itself what are its duties, according to the will of Christ, and to exercise all the power required for the discharge of those duties.

"To enter more into detail, the independence of a church consists in its acting upon the following principles:

"1. That every church is responsible to Christ, and to him alone, for its conduct, and that no church can be exempted from this responsibility by transferring it to a proxy.

"2. That the bible contains all the instructions which God has given to man respecting all matters of faith and practice, and that these instructions include all the duties which devolve upon churches.

"3. That these instructions are sufficiently plain to be ascertained and acted upon by every church for itself, so that there is no occasion for the interference of other churches or of persons without the church.

"4. That such interference is altogether unnecessary in a church which is scripturally constituted, because it consists of persons who are taught of God, who have received the spirit of Christ, who shall hereafter take a part in judging the world and the fallen angels, and who therefore are fully competent, especially in their united capacity, to ascertain the revealed will of Christ.

"5. That as every church is responsible for

the fulfilment of certain duties, it must also possess the right to fulfil those duties.

"6. That as it is bound to hear the voice of Christ only, it is not at liberty to acknowledge the authority of any uninspired man or body of men. For they will either speak according to the will of Christ, or not. In the latter case their voice ought not to be heard at all; and in the former case it is not their voice, but that of Christ that ought to be obeyed. But the important question, what is and what is not in accordance with the will of Christ, must be settled by each church for itself.

"7. That any man or body of men assuming authority over a church in matters of doctrine or practice, or discipline, and expecting that such authority shall be obeyed on other grounds than that of acknowledged accordance with the bible, thereby insults either the church, as unfit to judge or to act independently; or else the bible, as being incomplete or obscure. The assumption of such authority is the essence of popery."-Pp. 149, 150.

Respecting the connexion between baptism and reception into a church, Mr. Wenger writes thus :—

"The connexion is this: No unbaptized person can be received into a church; but not every person that is baptized is thereby received into a local church.

"The question, who is, and who is not an

unbaptized person, must be settled by every church, according to its own rules. The example of the Ethiopian eunuch shows that baptism is not necessarily equivalent with reception into a local church. Baptism may be character of an evangelist (and every pastor is administered by every one who sustains the in one sense also an evangelist) irrespectively of This reception is the prerogative of the church, the candidate's reception into a local church. and no church is bound to receive all persons that have been baptized, but only those respecting whom it is satisfied that they are fit cha

racters.

"In baptist churches, the baptism of a candidate and his reception into a church, are, in the great majority of cases, closely connected with each other; just as was the case in the churches formed by the apostles."—P. 168.

Mr. Crowell also maintains the independence of the churches explicitly, teaching that "as each church is directly and separately accountable to the Lord Jesus for the correctness with which it interprets, and the spirit and manner in which it executes his laws, it must receive them directly from him; that is,

from the scriptures as understood by itself;"—that "the independence of the churches should be scrupulously respected and vigilantly guarded, as the bulwark of religious liberty and doctrinal purity;" -that "all interference with the terms of church fellowship by conventions, either of ministers or laymen, is unscriptural and dangerous; "-that "it has been supposed that an aggregation of churches by their representatives in an association, consociation, synod, conference, presbytery, convention, or general assembly, has more power than a single church;" but that "instead of this such an assembly has no church power at all;"-that "no such body has any right to receive a single member to, or expel one from, any church, nor to dictate in the least degree in respect to the doctrine, discipline, or fellowship of any church." We have been the more gratified with these statements, by reason of a previous persuasion that in America associations did practically interfere with the independence of the churches in a far greater degree than in England. The impression left on our minds by the perusal of the proceedings of some transatlantic associations is indeed so strong, that even now we are apprehensive that Mr. Crowell and his coadjutors are to be regarded as men in advance of their connexions, and that he is expressing in this case the convictions of only the more enlightened portion of the American baptist churches.

in

home, as this,-The American baptists do not understand religious liberty. They have no notion of the right of private judgment. Their associations control their churches, and their churches control their members, in ways that impede the progress of truth, and interfere with the free discharge of duties arising from our responsibility to the One Master. Such have been our thoughts; and now we find Mr. Crowell laying down the principle formally, that every church is "the authoritative interpreter of the laws of Christ for its own members." "The system of church government taught in the New Testament, and exemplified, substantially, the practice of baptist churches," he declares, "inasmuch as it makes each church its own and its only authoritative interpreter of Christ's laws, readily admits some variety in ecclesiastical practice." He does not merely say, speaking of the churches, "Each one is at liberty to interpret the laws of Christ for itself, and to govern itself according to that interpretation," but, "Each church is the only authoritative interpreter of the laws of Christ for its own members." "Every church member enters into a sacred and special covenant with all the members of the church to which he unites himself. He adopts its creed, assents to its practices, submits himself to its watch and discipline," &c. Now this authoritative interpretation seems to us to be a most dangerous prerogative to be entrusted to any fallible community, whether large or small, and one to which no community of Christians can establish any claim. The argument for the independence of churches seems to us to be applicable to the case of individuals. Mr. Crowell says,

Mr. Crowell, however, entertains some opinions that seem to us to be not only inconsistent with his own argument just quoted, but perfectly unscriptural, and practically oppressive. His views of church authority," appear to us to be congenial with those which are. deemed orthodox at Rome; and in these we fear that he is orthodox among his own brethren. If we are mistaken in any degree we shall be glad to be corrected -delighted to find that what we have often grieved over in reference to the land which has so much to attract and interest our affections, is but a fancy, not a fact. When the thought has occurred to us of the possibility of being compelled like so many others to seek a refuge from persecution here in some of the northern states of America-to the southern we could not go for other reasons-no consideration has made us so unwilling to contemplate for ourselves and our children an American

"As

"As

each church" we say likewise, each" disciple "is directly and separately accountable to the Lord Jesus for the correctness with which" he "interprets, and the spirit and manner in which' he observes "his laws," he "must receive them directly from him; that is, from the scriptures as understood by" himself. Chillingworth says rightly, "He that would usurp an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people, need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disannulling the laws made to maintain the common liberty; for he may frustrate their intent, and compass his own design as well, if he can get the power and au