years in purity and energy; and it is only by some heedless surrender on the part of its friends in this country, that it can receive auy fatal check in its rapid and enlightening progress to ultimate triumph in the world. Yours, with esteem,

A LAYMAN.

Letter of Mr. R. Peek.

SIR-I am happy to observe that the Committee of the Congregational Union invite discussion on the principle and expediency of such an association. This confirms the high opinion I have ever entertained of the gentlemen composing it. The assertion may appear paradoxical, but I conceive it to be correct, that the evils to be apprehended from such a combination of ecclesiastical power are considerably enhanced by the high reputation of the members of the Union; which may be supposed to lull all suspicion of any scheme dangerous to civil and religious liberty. I believe that nothing is further from their intentions than such an encroachment; and that no evil need be apprehended while the Union is under the controul of the gentlemen at present composing the Committee. It must not, however, be forgotten, that they are mortal, and that others will ere long occupy their sphere of action; and it is possible, nay, very probable, that under their management the organization now forming may be carried out to an extent never contemplated by its founders, and invested with powers which they never designed to assume. There is a melancholy uniformity in the result of all ecclesiastical combinations; and the history of the past should remind us that, while human nature is the same, similar evils must be anticipated, from the same mistaken principle, in future.*

to the Congregational church polity, is undoubted, and whose church, like every other Independent church of that country, is governed on principles which some English Independents would regard as extreme; he, in his beautiful sermon, entitled "The Scriptural Unity of the Churches of Christ, illustrated and recommended," has the following remarks, which we commend to the opponents of the Union. "To every attentive reader of the New Testament, there must forcibly present itself the idea of a union more extensive than that subsisting among the members of each Christian society;-even a union among all the churches: such a union, as rendered a member of one virtually a member of all; the whole of them, in Judea and Samaria, in Asia, and in Europe -'from Jerusalem round about into Illyricum,'-being linked together in one extensive and harmonious brotherhood;-independent societies, yet acknowledging one another as all one in Christ Jesus-separate flocks, each with its own appropriate pastors, but all the joint property, and the constant and equal care, of the good Shepherd, who gave his life for the sheep."

"The heart that is not cheered with such a view, cannot surely be in harmony with the spirit of the New Testament. To every mind that has been framed, under divine influence, upon the principles of the gospel of peace, and that is not warped and narrowed by unhappy prejudices, it cannot fail to appear unspeakably delightful, and supremely desirable :-every departure from it must be deeply lamented, and every approach to it must be hailed with more than satisfaction, and promoted with all the ardor of affectionate zeal. While, therefore, we plead, distinctly and decidedly, for the independence of the churches, as a fundamental principle in their primitive constitution, let us beware of running to an unscriptural extreme;- of so completely disuniting and insulating them from one another, as to present to view a number of Christian societies, each in itself thoroughly organized, but without any bond, or feeling, or act of mutual connexion:-so that, instead of the lovely harmony of reciprocal confidence and friendly intercourse, we should behold each church, like a separate fortress, surrounded with its walls and ramparts, with spies on the battlements, and sentinels at the gates, watching, with anxious jealousy, to prevent the entrance of intruders from the rest. If it be at all possible that any disciple of the Lord Jesus should relish such a state of things, or entertain a single wish for any thing resembling it, let him never mention his desire to see Christians returning to primitive simplicity and apostolic order: for, in truth, that to which his wishes are directed, is as unlike the condition of the churches in the times of the Apostles, as division is to unity, or hatred and hostility to affection and peace. His desire, were it gratified, would realize a scene which we cannot too devoutly deprecate; and to which it would not be our duty to submit- no, not for an hour.'"

After this, we cannot allow ourselves to be deprived of the testimony of our beloved brethren in Scotland by The Layman's" non sequitur.

Our sincere respect for the character of Mr. Peek will not permit us to charge him with writing about that of which he is really ignorant, but we do strongly suspect, that when this letter was penned, he had not read, assuredly not studied, The Plan of the Congregational Union. For his information, and that of other objectors, in similar circumstances, we transcribe the first article.

I. That the Union of Congregational Churches and Ministers throughout England and Wales, is founded on a full recognition of their own distinctive principle, namely, the scriptural right of every separate church to maintain perfect independence in the government and administration of its own particular affairs; and therefore that the Union shall not, in any case, assume legislative authority, or become a court of appeal!!

Before Mr. Peek's predictions can be realized, that first rule must be repealed by an anunal

While it is admitted that ecclesiastical power has always been injurious to religious liberty, it is urged, singularly enough, that the Congregational Union is to be an exception to the general rule. None perceive more clearly the baneful effects of Popish councils, spiritual courts, and even Presbyterian synods and Wesleyan conferences, than those who are so actively engaged in forming the Congregational Union; and yet it may be feared that the ultimate tendency of the latter may be equally fatal to religious liberty. It is true that at present the Union has none of the powers of an ecclesiastical court, but what is to prevent it, or to withhold its future committees from acquiring such powers? It is already a trading body, possessing the copywright of the Congregational Hymn Book, and of other valuable publications, which are likely to produce considerable revenues. Spiritual domination, under whatever form it exists, generally merges into political power; and we know not how long it may be ere the same Government that invested the ecclesiastical courts with such tremendous authority, may find a similar instrument of mischief in the Congregational Union. It appears to me as by no means unlikely that the Union may be made a corporate body and a court of appeal to decide exclusively on ecclesiastical matters pertaining to Dissenters. One of Her Majesty's Ministers asked me the other day whether Dissenters would consent to form a corporation in which all their chapels and trust property might be vested. This would never become extinct, and save the expense of trust deeds. Were Dissenters generally desirous of placing all their chapels, &c., under the control of a corporation, I have no doubt that the Congregational Union would soon procure a charter constituting themselves a corporation for this and other purposes. To possess such a control over all the independent chapels in the kingdom would be formidable enough, but there is no reason to suppose that the exercise of power would stop even here. Many unseemly disputes arise in our congregations, which the Union, if invested with sufficient power, would be well prepared to decide. Where can a body be found better fitted to adjudicate between minister and people, or to decide how far the varying shades of what is termed high or low doctrine comport with the generally received standard of orthodoxy? Of course none but strictly orthodox sentiments can be preached in chapels vested in the Congregational Union.†

Should the Union acquire that extensive influence at which it aims, no Government can refuse to invest it with any legal powers that may be deemed necessary for the further prosecution of its own objects. It is impossible to say to what extent these may proceed, in the course of time. All the power delegated to Popish Councils and Spiritual Courts was professedly for the good of religion.

Comparisons have been instituted between the Congregational Union and the British and Foreign Bible Society, or the London Missionary Society, the Tract Society, &c. It ought, however, to be placed in contrast with these noble instituassembly. Suppose that assembly be a large meeting of delegates, is it in the remotest degree possible that men, glorying in their independence, should unanimously renounce it? or, suppose there be only a few present, can a mere junta, without legal power, endanger the liberties of their brethren?

The only literary property possessed by the Union, is the copyright of the Congregational Hymn Book, which is held in trust by J. B. Brown, Esq. LL.D., J. R. Mills, Esq., Joshua Wilson, Esq., and Benjamin Hanbury, Esq., four gentlemen well known to Mr. Peck, as in no way likely to lend themselves to aid the fulfilment of his predictions.

What, we ask, has made " Popish Councils, Presbyterian Synods, and Spiritual Courts," mischievous? Assuredly their alliance with the secular power, else they would only possess a moral influence, the extent of which would depend on the personal excellence of their members, and the wisdom and rectitude of their decisions. Now in the ninth article of "The Principles of Church Order and Discipline," which the Congregational Union put forth in 1833, it is declare, that our churches "believe that the power of a Christian church is purely spiritual, and should in no way be corrupted by union with temporal or civil power." Here is another declaration to be revoked before Mr. Peck's anticipations can be realized. We own that "the Wesleyan Conference" is unfavourable to the liberty of the people, though not allied to the civil power. But how has it become so? Mainly by the legal expedient which has placed every pulpit in the connexion under the control of the Conference, while the trustees, and not that reverend body, are alone responsible for the debts on the chapel. The people cannot, therefore, either sell a chapel, or excinde the preachers, whom Conference, in its absolute anthority, may appoint, and being frequently entangled with debt, they yield to the yoke of the Conference, that they may obtain a little relief from their pecuniary embarrassments. Now the chapels of the Independent denomination are held by trustees for the respective churches, who have, in general, an absolute control over the property. Well may Mr. Peek say, "were Dissenters generally desirous of placing all their chapels, &c., under the control of a Corporation, &c." He knows, and his friend, the "Layman," much better, that is an impossible case. He might as well say, if all the elective bodies of England were desirous of giving up their franchise, then we might have an absolute monarchy! 5 Q

VOL. I. N. S.

tions, which are open to all denominations, while the "Union" is sectarian and exclusive. County Associations may be very useful in themselves, for the promotion of religion among the connected churches. National conventions, for promoting the interests of a party, whether in religion or politics, are quite another order of institutions. Whether the object be good or bad-whether professedly liberal or exclusive-whether the agents be Ribbonmen, Orangemen, or Congregational Dissenters-such combination is alike dangerous to civil and religious liberty. I would advise all County Associations to pause before they sacrifice their privileges to a centralised convention in London.*

The Union, it is true, is not at present exclusively clerical. Few deacons or lay members of churches, however, attend their meetings-especially few from the country. While the resources are limited, as at present, there may be policy in including deacons and others in the Union; but when funds are more ample, it may be easy and expedient to pass a resolution excusing them from the trouble of attendance, and thus leaving to the ministers the sole management of its affairs. The members of Independent churches will do well to avoid being entangled in such a yoke of bondage. We are happily delivered from the tyranny of Popery, and from the obnoxious penalties of the Test and Corporation Acts. There is some prospect of our escaping the domination of the Spiritual Courts of the Establishment; let us beware of instituting or sanctioning a Dissenting spiritual court, which may prove even more tyrannical and vexatious.

I am fully persuaded that the existence of any dominant sect, privileged by the especial sanction of the Legislature, is unnecessary for the good order of society, and injurious to religion. If, however, we must have a dominant sect, I prefer the Church of England to any other, as being more tolerant than either Roman Catholics or Dissenters, when invested with civil power. The dangers to be apprehended are not lessened by the fact, that all intention to abuse such power has been repeatedly disclaimed. The members of the spiritual courts sincerely intended to exercise their power for the protection of the Church, and the welfare of true religion. Most persecutions have originated in a similar principle; and it is the uniform testimony of history, that ecclesiastical and civil power have a tendency to unite with, and to corrupt, each other.

The "Union" changes the character of the bodies composing it from Congre gational to National. Congregationalism, in its simple and scriptural form, has worked well. Nationalism is the offspring of worldly policy; and its inevitable tendency is to invade the rights of individual churches, and of private judgment.

Once more, I beg that your readers will look back to the history of nationalised combination. In whatever sect it has been displayed, it has exerted an influence highly unfavourable to civil and religious liberty, by allying itself with political power. I sincerely trust that the good intentions of the excellent men connected with the Congregational Union will not lead any to suppose that themselves or their successors are to be protected, by some special interference, from the abuse of the powers they are likely to acquire.

Eastcheap, Oct. 4, 1837.

Yours, respectfully,

R. PEEK.

Mr. Peck here appeals to the jealousy which is supposed to exist in the provincial districts, against an undue metropolitan influence. But in this, as in other remarks, he shows how unnformed he is about the constitution of the Congregational Union. For its fourth rule provides, that "the annual meeting be held in London, or such other town or city as may from time to time be appointed." The majority of the next annual assembly will doubtless consist, as on former occa sions, of ministers and gentlemen from the "county associations." They are the best judges of their own convenience, and if they choose to appoint the succeeding meeting to be held at Manchester, Birmingham, or Bristol, we will venture to say, that their brethren in the metropolis will gladly meet them there.

+ Is it necessary to show the absurdity of this sopposition! The fourth rule requires, "if practi cable, an equal number of ministers and laymen to attend as delegates, &c." Now, as the minis ters of our churches are not the stipendiaries of the state, but are supported by the contributions of the laity, is it probable, that they would seek to alter this rule, and thus needlessly offend the very parties by whom they are supported? Perhaps, however, Mr. Peek supposes that the profits of the Hymn Book will make up all deficiences!

"The Church of England more tolerant than either Roman Catholics or Dissenters, when invested with civil power!" How little can Mr. Peek know of the history of the Toleration Act itself, not to name other proceedings of the Established Church, to allow himself to write thus I

Rev. A. Wells's Second Reply.

SIR,-Your two respected correspondents who have favoured the public, through your colums, with statements of their views of the Congregational Union, have pursued each a course exactly opposite to the other. The "Layman" derives his objections from the past; Mr. Peek's alarms spring from the future. What the Union has done seems to incur strong disapprobation; and it is apprehended that hereafter its course will be in a high degree ambitious, criminal, and injurious. You will allow me space for a few remarks in reference to these unfavourable representations, both of what has been done and what may be done.

It is not probable that a lengthened discussion of details and particulars would be interesting to your readers, or conduct to a satisfactory conclusion on the real question at issue; which is, whether a union of Congregational Churches to promote their own prosperity, principles, and increase, can be practicable, safe, and beneficial. Indeed the "Layman" intimates that his own reference to particular proceedings of the friends of the Union was made rather for the purpose of illustrating their views, than on account of any intrinsic importance in the facts themselves thus brought under discussion. I shall be quite satisfied to proceed on this ground, and to pass under hasty review some of those measures which, though they appear so objectionable to the Layman," are not merely capable of a more favourable construction; but when candidly represented and considered, will be found highly honourable to the Union and its zealous supporters.

The "Layman" expresses strong objections to various matters connected with the formation and management of the Union. He seems to suppose that the associations which have joined the Union, have, in so doing, exceeded their powers; and intimates that the ultimate constituents of each association should have been specially summoned to consider the plan of the Union, before their connexion with it was formed. In reply to this I observe, that a Union grounded on such proccedings would have been indeed formidable, and justly liable to grave objections. It would have called on churches to commit themselves in so formal and specific a manner; it would have rendered tests and definitions so indispensable; it would have required such a uniformity in the rules and objects of all the combined associations; it would have so evidently tended to build up the kind of combination, against which the objections of the "Layman" would really have force, that I cannot but think the founders of the Union took just views of what is suited to the free genius of our churches, when they built it upon existing associations to avoid the necessity of any test; invited associations to unite according to their existing constitutions and powers, whatever they might be; and made no attempt to force churches into the bonds and terms of a connexion needlessly and injuriously strict, for they desired no such Union, and contemplated no objects that could not be obtained by a genuine and brotherly fellowship for common objects. Let it be observed, that no association or church is required to surrender, in order to fraternize with the Union, one single particle of right, power, or liberty; or to submit to any imaginable interference in its affairs by any parties,-no more than a subscriber to the Bible Society, by joining that institution, surrenders his personal liberty, or becomes liable to the intrusion of its officers in the management of his private and domestic affairs. The founders of the Union laid down strict rules, both negative and positive, to limit the objects which, as an as-ociated body, it could legitimately pursue; provided a constituency that might be a safe and sure guarantee for the liberties of the united churches; and instead of grasping at power for the intended body, were at pains to confine its functions, and divest it of authority, that it might be beneficial without being formidable. But in respect of the associations and churches who might join the Union, they were left to free and voluntary measures. They might adopt their own mode of adhesion to the general body; form their own judgment of its proceedings; and regulate the manner and degree of support they would afford to each proposal according to their own convictions. It is surmised, but not asserted, that associations have exceeded their powers in joining the Union. As I am unable either to confirm or deny this vague conjecture, I must leave it in the same uncertainty in which I find it.

The admissibility of all the officers of churches in connexion with the Union to attend and vote at its meetings, much displeases the "Layman." Can any thing be more obvious than the intention of this arrangement? It rests on the same grounds on which, in our great religious institutions, subscribing ministers, and minis

ters whose congregations statedly contribute, are admitted to attend at meetings of the committees,-namely, to give all possible security against usurpation or abuse of power; to confirm and extend confidence by fairness and openness of procedure. A public meeting of the Union is to be constituted. Each united association, or church, as they please, is requested to send delegates, (not to govern them,)private members of churches, if they are preferred-and, in addition to the deputed brethren, every officer of an associated church, minister, or deacon, is entitled, equally with the delegates, to attend and vote. Surely this is not usurpation, not an artful plan for future usurpation.

Then the proposal to move the generosity and public spirit of our denomination to a united effort for the discharge of chapel debts, is also placed among the delinquencies of the Union. Not that the payment of these debts would be thought in itself objectionable; but that in some way, hereafter to be explained, it would be wrong and dangerous for the Union to undertake this good work. I have nothing more to say on this matter than that the proposal in the question, indicated, on the part of those who felt deep anxiety to see it carried into effect, the same lively interest in the welfare of our denomination that has animated the proceedings of the Union from the commencement, and is one of the many instances in which may be seen how necessary a Union of our churches is, and how many valuable objects it may be instrumental of accomplishing for their benefit. And an effort to relieve Christian churches from the bondage of debt, does not wear the appearance of a design on their liberties in any form.

Concerning the Colonial Mission I have no more to add, except some remarks in explanation of the reasons why the Society was formed on a denominational, and not on a catholic basis. The "Layman" seems desirous to raise this question. In his first letter he spoke of "present expediency" as requiring the opposite course; and in his second communication he says, that "the key to explain the scope and object of his former letter, is the allusion which is made in the address to a supposed objection on the part of some to any plan for the spread of the Gospel, in our own or other countries, in connection with our distinctive views of Divine truth and church order." The catholic and the denominational principles have each its appropriate application for the spread of divine truth; and faithful Christians have a duty to perform in regard to each of a somewhat different aspect, but of no real contrariety, or clashing inconsistency. The union of Christians in a catholic effort for the spread of the Gospel presents to view, in a most engaging manner, their common attachment to grave truths, and their delight in love and harmony. The efforts of Christians to spread the Gospel in connection with the opinions and forms of their own denomination, show also their love of sacred truth, when it is manifest that they are desirous to see its spread connected with the administration they deem most favourable to its interests, and most conservative of its purity. The state of society, of its opinions and institutions, its controversies and interests, in some nations, and at some periods, may be such as to require, in order to fidelity to Christ and truth, that a zeal should be manifested for modes of church-government, disproportionate indeed to their intrinsic importance, but not therefore excessive, because of the immediate, powerful, and obvious influence of these subordinate matters, at the supposed juncture, on all the interests of the most sacred truths. So judged our fathers, who fought out the hard struggle of our liberties, and of our saving evangelical doctrine, in a controversy, at first apparently connected only with apparel and ceremonies, and afterwards but with the rivalries of an Episcopal or a Presbyterian form of church-government; but as they perceived, and we yet more clearly, involving, in fact, the entire liberty of the church, purity of doctrine, and spirit, and power of godliness. The advocates of the Congregational Colonial Mission may, therefore, to the full measure attained by any of their brethren, delight, I will even say, luxuriate, in the blessed amenities of the Catholic principle as displayed in the Bible, or Tract, or London Missionary Societies. In the two former-mentioned societies, a catholic object requires and consecrates a catholic constitution. In the third, carrying the Gospel to regions where our controversies, our parties, our politics, are unknown, we can feel it as safe as it is delightful to make known to the benighted heathen, in the first instance, the unincumbered saving truth of God; and leave them to learn, when better prepared, soon enough, however late, our differing opinions and jarring interests on subordinate matters. But wherever British society, and the British empire extends, we are on different ground, and are called to another line