in the case of those who had been between that of the first Christian baptized in infancy in other com- Church and that of the New Church, munions.

Mr. Marsden, who had been baptized three times, contended for New Church baptism.

Rev. Mr. Barlow said that there was only one baptism, which is now the baptism of the New Church.

Mr. John Bragg could not follow the doctrinal element introduced into the debate. It was agreed on all hands that this was a non-essential, and by our present rule we converted a nonessential into an essential. If the principle of the rule was right, then we ought to insist on every licentiate, and indeed every member, being baptized into the New Church. He hoped this question would now be settled, and that it would never again disturb the peace and harmony of the Church. Though he had been rebaptized, and believed in the uses of such a course, he advocated the rule of freedom. He regarded the amendment as a New Conscience Clause of a very objectionable character.

that no distinction exists between them. Swedenborg asserts that the doctrine of three Gods is in the baptism of the first Christian Church, and if that doctrine is in it, its uses must be influenced thereby. Mr. Goldsack had quoted from Emanuel Swedenborg, where baptism is referred to as a mere sign, &c. Emanuel Swedenborg there speaks of that which bears the quality of the New Jerusalem; but we must not try to settle this matter by an isolated reference, for if it were merely an external sign, it could not be perceived in heaven. He objected to the amendment

as a compromise which was a shabby garment upon the Church. Admitting that we have no direct command on the subject in the Writings of the Church, he argued, at some length, that this is the only legitimate inference to be drawn from what is written on the subject.

Mr. Jonathan Robinson said the Conference was not the place to discuss Rev. Dr. Tafel said-We are told by disputed points of doctrine representathe movers of the resolution that this is tives should come intelligently ac a little matter. If so, why should they quainted with such subjects and prepared so strongly and persistently agitate the if necessary to vote upon them. Special Church on the question? He could not doctrines should be studied, not in imagine why members should object to parts of Swedenborg's writings where the matter being discussed doctrinally. they are not treated of, but in those We ought to consult the Writings upon chapters where they are expounded. every subject upon which they can For baptism, we should examine carethrow any light. Preceding speakers fully the chapter respecting it in the had quoted from T. C. R. on baptism, True Christian Religion. After clearing as if the baptism there spoken of was away some references which were wide the baptism of what was called the of the mark, the speaker went on to say universal Christian Church,-this, how that the letter of the Word remains, ever, was not the case, for the chapter however it be understood; and in like on baptism was a portion of 'The manner, the sign of baptism remains, Theology for the New Church.' Is the whatever notions men may have about Gospel of the Lord's New Advent taught its use. Baptism has an internal as anywhere than in the New Church? well as an external. The internal is Surely the meaning of the reference in the end or use of the sign. "Baptism T. C. R. 687 is that the baptism of the is an external, which, without an interNew Church is new and essentially nal, contributes nothing to salvation; different from that of the first Christian but it does contribute where the exterChurch. To adopt the motion is to say nal is conjoined with the internal. The that Conference recognizes that any internal of baptism is this, that by baptism whatever is as good as ours. truths from the Word, and a life accordThe "Christianity without a man ing to them from the Lord, evils and means the Church, or it means nothing falsities may be removed, and thus man at all. It does not follow that because may be regenerated" (A. E. 475), Emanuel Swedenborg specifically refers This passage had been twice quoted to the distinction between the baptism without the last sentence, and its meanof John and the baptism of the Lord, ing thus given incompletely. In the while he does not so plainly distinguish chapter on baptism in the True Christ

tian Religion, Swedenborg uses the pression rebaptism on the ground that terms "Christian" and "Christianity the New Church could not recognize in a general sense, embracing all be- any baptism but her own. If baptism lievers in the Bible. The expressions, is a safeguard against Mohamedan and occasionally, of "true Christianity," other false spirits, surely the Lord's "the Christian Church, such as it is in ordinance in the New Church would be itself," &c., prove this. Throughout equally protective against Solfidian and T. C. R. 678, we read of Christians as Papal spirits. He did not say that Old distinguished from Mohamedans, Jews, Church baptism was useless, but that and idolaters. The general question, New Church baptism was better. He therefore, may be thus stated: Is Bap- did not wish to compel any candidate tism a sign which has the same efficacy for the ministry to be baptized into the for all Christian churches; or is it a New Church against his convictions, specific quality impressed according to but that he should first get right the religious opinions prevalent in the convictions, and afterwards be baptized Church or community in which it is and ordained. administered, and also in the mind of the administrator? Compare the end of 680 T. C. R. with 678. "These instances may serve to illustrate this first use of baptism, which consists in its being a sign, in the spiritual world, that the person baptized is of a Chris. tian community; for in that world every one is inserted into societies and congregations according to the quality of Christianity either within him or without him.' Baptism is, therefore, the Christian sign for all Christians, not dividing, but uniting; the first universal gate through which all Christian brethren of every creed should enter the Church.

Rev. Mr. Potts remarked that the question of the Church lies behind this question of Baptism. The Old Church is not to be wholly condemned, nor yet converted to the New Church. This was shown by an exposition of the prophet Daniel's vision of the four beasts. The Church was represented by the Lion as to love, by the Bear as to literal truth, by the Leopard as to truth falsified, and by the Monster, the fourth beast, as to faith alone. The body of this beast was destroyed and given to the flame, to denote that the Church was destroyed as to faith alone. As to the rest, their lives were prolonged for a season and time. The Old Church thus remained, but in name only, and it was necessary that it should have its baptism and its association with the Old Church spirits. The true Christian Church is now commencing, and must have also its baptism and association with the New Heavens. The first Christian Church existed only in name, the real Christian Church is only now commencing. He objected to the ex

I

Mr. R. R. Rodgers (Birmingham) said: I have not come prepared with a speech cut and dried, for the reason that I am not a representative, and I did not know that the Conference would extend to me the right to take part in its deliberations. I highly appreciate this kindness, and as the action of the Conference on this question may disturb the serenity of my state of mind in the future, and force me into a position of unhappy submission to its decrees, I venture at the eleventh hour to offer a few thoughts on the side of a free, a liberal policy in regard to the question of rebaptism. I would assure the Conference that I am not in this matter a disorderly revolutionist. would not turn freedom into licence or contravene anything that is definitely stated by Swedenborg. I have read what has been written on this subject, both for and against it, and so far as I know there is not one passage which bears directly upon this question. For rebaptism all that can be said is a matter of inference, and I will be candid and say that against rebaptism we, who speak in opposition to it, have not one direct passage from Swedenborg to support our position. If our friends, who advocate rebaptism, can give one direct passage from Swedenborg which makes New Church baptism imperative, I am converted to their side and willingly submit to rebaptism. They have not done this, and I suppose it is because such a passage is not in existence. This question, in my mind, is not one of liking at all; it is a matter of authority. If it were capable of being settled by direct language, it would have been settled years ago, for it has been discussed and rediscussed for years without arriving at anything like a unanimons

Church, but higher in their interior relations to spiritual associations. Baptism still opens heaven, but is different in its degree when administered in the New Church and in the various sections of the Old Church.

judgment. It appears to me that we tion and organism, it must have its are almost equally divided, and it is not laws of order, its rites and ordinances, because one-half wish to abide by the which are not diverse from the Old direct words of Swedenborg, and the other half wish to evade them, but because Swedenborg has not settled the question for us. No one wishes to discuss the necessity of a good life of charity in our words and works; no one wishes to discuss whether the Scriptures Rev. Dr. Bayley regretted that so have or have not a spiritual sense, or the little doctrinal instruction had been necessity of faith or belief in the Lord, given in the debate. Our rule on this and it is because Swedenborg has placed subjection had been often called a nonthese subjects beyond dispute. The essential; it was a non-essential of Lord rules all the members of the human salvation, but it was very essential as a race as one aggregate man. Now, as a rule of Church order and organisation. means of entrance into this aggregate Of course there is room for differmanhood, the Lord has appointed the ence of opinion in the New Church, but sacrament of baptism, and having it is of supreme importance that we obeyed the Lord's divine command I should have proper regulations. We cannot yet see that I am still outside cannot have organisation without rules, the New Church in any sense of the and the one now under consideration word. However, I can only say that if was by no means an unreasonable one. it can be proved that I am a spiritual The present rule of Conference was the stranger to my rebaptised brethren, or natural outcome of the principles of the not in sympathy with their angels, I New Church. It was adopted in Engshall feel it to be my duty to submit to land (and later in America), without a third administration of the sacrament any dispute or wrangling by the of baptism. Such at present has not founders of our external organisation, been proved, and again I am sanguine who were well acquainted with the enough to believe that one half of Conference will not force upon the other half what is really at present an open question. I am proud to stand with my friend the Rev. J. F. Potts, who, in his pamphlet on baptism, concludes with the admission that after all we must remember that it is a non-essential. I stand with him in this belief, and when light comes, when the chapter and verse are given for rebaptism, I shall deem it a duty and a supreme delight to stand with those who now advocate it, and to submit to an ordinance which they now feel ought to be observed, but which they have failed to prove is a binding necessity.

Mr. Sutton thought that persons who are weak and shakey may require rebaptism, but that strong persons, of whom he professed himself one, did not need these umbrellas to shelter them from the storm.

Mr. Bruce remarked on the statement that we should have liberty and breadth, that there are laws of liberty, and should be no breadth which truth does not create and measure. The New Church is not a section of the Old Church, but a new dispensation. As a separate institu

doctrines of the New Church. This ought to have some weight with us, more especially when we remember that in sixty years we had only had one case of serious difficulty. Again, it is a good principle of legislation that before the abrogation of a law is decided upon, it ought to be proved that some serious harm results from its operation. This had not been done in this case; nobody had attempted to argue that any harm had ever come to anybody from being rebaptized. It was an easy thing to rake up difficulties of a sentimental character, and thus to do great harm to the people induced to hold such views. Dr. Bayley then, from numerous parts of the Writings, went on to show that the uses of the Sacraments in the New Church differ from their uses in the Old, and that Emanuel Swedenborg's doctrine of baptism refers to the baptism of the Church "about to be established by the Lord." Referring to the prevalent idea that the mere words of the baptismal formula determined its influence, Dr. Bayley quoted A. E. 1097, to the effect that "thought, not words, connects man with heaven;" from this he argued that since infants themselves

have no thoughts at the time of their evening, and was attended by a nubaptism, if baptism associates them merous assembly of members of the with heaven, it must be by virtue of the Societies at Manchester and the surthoughts without him at the time of rounding district. At seven the chair the administration of the rite. The was taken by the President of the ConSacraments were instituted by the Lord ference, in the church in Peter Street, means of dispensing spiritual which was comfortably filled. strength to His children, and since we need all the helps we can get, we ought to be willing to place ourselves in the best possible position for receiving good influences and resisting evil influences.

as a

The chairman read a letter from the Rev. John Hyde, minister of Peter Street Chapel, expressing regret at his absence, through illness, and afterwards intro troduced the subject of the eveningMr. E. J. Broadfield reminded the "The relation of Religion to Life." He Conference that it was the opponents of said it was one of their principles that the present rule, and not its supporters, all religion had relation to life, and that who were responsible for the agitation the life of religion was to do good. and division in the Church, if anything That was an important matter to bear of the kind existed. He knew of no popery in mind in a day when it seemed to be and ritualism created, of no man's re- the doctrine of many people that reliligious liberty that had been interfered gion had nothing to do with life, and with. Of course, those who only associat- when some held that it was not necesed baptism with long frocks, could not be sary to obey God's commandments in expected to enter very deeply into this order to get to heaven. Even the trouble subject. No harm had occurred in the past of getting "to believe" was declared from the strict carrying out of the Rule by some to be a useless trouble. All of Conference, while many of the speakers that was necessary, in the opinion of had referred to the use rebaptism had some, was that a preacher should say, been to them. He must confess that he "I've got Jesus for you; all who want could not feel that this Rule interfered to have Him stand up.' Then people with anybody's liberty, and ridiculed stood up, and were told they had got Him, the idea of the existence of a clerical and then they were all right. However conspiracy in the New Church. He popular that might be, however trumbelieved the motion was quite unneces- peted by song, or by sermon, they of sary, and thought the amendment would the New Church resolutely held up be invidious in its operations. He their banner, and said it was not so. counselled a position of conciliatoriness Was it not, he asked, dangerous and on both sides of the question, and detrimental to society, to every soul in urged the Birmingham friends on the it, that there should be such fantasies one hand, and Dr. Tafel on the other proclaimed in the name of religion hand, to accept an amendment which amongst men and at this day? Though he was ready to propose, "That the this people to whom he had referred motion proposed should be carried, with called their religion, faith, what they got an addition, providing that a standing was not faith, it was fancy. They were recommendation be inserted in the Rules alarmed at any other idea, spoke of of Conference, to the effect that Confer- work-mongering and self-righteousness, ence recommends all candidates for and sang against what they called ordination to be, or to have been, "deadly doing;" although they had a baptized in the New Church."

This proposal was received with loud applause, which was continued when Dr. Tafel rose to second the proposition.

self-righteousness and their works also. Their works were running about their neighbours, to get them to fancy the same thing as they did. The good works of the Bible were explained in the After a short consultation, the text, "What doth the Lord require of amendment was withdrawn, and the thee but to do justly;" not to run about motion, with Mr. E. J. Broadfield's thy neighbours asking them if they addition, was carried without a dissen- know the gospel of doing nothing and tient. are ready to take it, but "to do justly." They were to let their light so shine before men in their vocation, and in whatever work they had to do, that

CONFERENCE TEA PARTY.-This annual meeting was held on the Thursday