long been fixed to those churches which are not merely Independent in their form of government, for most Baptist churches are such, most Unitarians are such, and they might as well complain against your omissions as Libertas; but it implies churches Congregational in government, Pædobaptist, and Calvinistic in doctrine, and Nonconformist in reference to forms and ceremonies of the Church of England; in fact, the nonconformity of these churches was the first principle of their formation. If such has been the undeniable use of the term Congregational and Independent, with what propriety could you have ventured to include in it another class of Christian societies, which, in so far as they conform, and that, in a point of very considerable importance, in the same proportion acknowledge a deviation from the principles and practices of the Congregational Nonconformists? But not only is your omission vindicated upon the ground of the practice of the whole body; but you were possibly aware of a fact which Libertas conceals, that the majority of such congregations would not wish to be considered Independents. The power of the church is acknowledged by very few of them. The body of such societies are neither Congregational, nor Independent, nor Nonconformist.

But the complaints of Libertas relate, secondly, to the admitted fact that hitherto such societies as use the Liturgy in their public worship, have not been included in the general body of Congregational Nonconformists. To support the complaint, he introduces the opinion of two ministers, whose "influence is deservedly great," and "whose attachment to Congregational principles admits not the shadow of a doubt," &c. With their reputation and their principles I have here no concern; I

restrict my attention to their reasoning, as quoted by Libertas, and said to have been delivered at a meeting of ministers. To prove that churches using the Liturgy ought to be accepted into the Congregational Union, these gentlemen are said to have used the following reasoning, which Libertas pronounces unanswerable. "Wemaintain the indisputable right of Christian churches to regulate their affairs independently of control by other ministers or churches; on what principle, consistent with this right, can we prescribe to any church the manner in which its worship shall be conducted? Has it not as undoubted a right to use a form of prayer as to use free prayer?" &c. &c. To this reasoning I fully subscribe, but its pertinency to the case in hand, I have, in vain, endeavoured to perceive. He that admits the right of every Christian church to manage its own affairs, cannot prescribe, without a viola-` tion of his own principles. But does this prove the obligation to admit all who accede to this reasoning into the Congregational body? or or does it show that Congregationalists must admit, as a part of themselves, every society that in this one particular symbolize with them? Is this all that is meant by being a Congregationalist-and a Congregational Church, the admission of the right of other churches to administer their own affairs without external controul? Are these gentlemen then prepared to admit into the Congregational Body, all societies. that are professedly, or by repute, Antinomian-all that are Unitarian? &c. &c. Do not all these maintain the principle referred to as strenuously as ourselves? Then, evidently, the term Congregational, as applied to a denomination of Christians-a united body of churches, must imply something more than it expresses. I would ask these gentlemen and Libertas,

does the Congregational Board of London interfere with the right of churches to regulate their own affairs, when it simply says, Congregationalism, strictly considered, cannot be the sole ground of union with us? We are Calvinists and Pædobaptists in doctrine, and in our mode of worship, nonconformists to the Church of England. Is such a sentiment a prescribing to other churches? It appears to me absurd to talk of prescribing, when definition and accuracy in mapping our section of the church, is all that is intended. Let us apply the reasoning of these gentlemen to other classes of Christians, as they and Libertas have applied it to the exclusion of the partial Conformists from the Congregational Body. Does the society of Friends prescribe to other churches how their worship shall be conducted, because they simply say, to be acknowledged as a Friend, you must admit our general faith, and conform to our practice? The Methodists-do they prescribe to other churches when they adopt a system of doctrine and discipline peculiar to themselves, and refuse to acknowledge other societies as Methodists who do not conform to their standard? The Baptist denomination-do they prescribe to other churches when they say, we cannot acknowledge any as Baptist churches who practise infant baptism? In fact it appears, by the application of the reasoning under review, that to prescribe to one's-self, is now construed into prescribing to others. The Congregational denomination has hitherto maintained an agreement within itself, that as a body, it is Calvinistic in its theology. Pædobaptist, independent in its church government-and Nonconformist in reference to the ceremonies and worship of the Church of England. But I cannot imagine how a restriction of the use of the term Congregational to these

societies, which agree in all these particulars, can be construed into a violation of our principles, or a prescribing to other societies. Surely these worthy gentlemen, whoever they may be, have, in this instance at least, mistaken their principles, forgotten their logic, and misled their admiring auditor Libertas.

With the propriety or impropriety of acknowledging the partial Conformists as a part of the Body of Congregational Nonconformists, I have not interfered. I would not, however, have it thought, that I am an opponent of the liberal views of the gentlemen alluded to, and of Libertas himself. I will yield to none of them in the exercise of Christian liberality; but my zeal for liberality makes me resist the censure they have passed on the Congregational Body; for I still maintain, that should that Body refuse to own as a part of itself those societies that conform to the public worship of the Established Church, in whole or in part, they violate no principle of charity or liberty-they prescribe nothing— they exclude no other from the privileges they assert for themselves-they do not refuse to acknowledge such as Christian churches, nor abstain from communion with them-they merely say, you are not Congregationalists, so far as that term includes Nonconformity, as well as other particulars.

Should the General Congregational Union be formed, and the views of these excellent gentlemen prevail, so as to exclude from the principles of association any regard to Liturgies, or forms in the several societies associated, and the Body at large agree to admit, without discrimination, all Congregational, Pædobaptist Calvinists, still they could not admit the partial Conformists as a body. It could only be done by

individual application, and by a certification that they were Congregational as well as Pædobaptist and Calvinistic; because the principal societies of partial Conformists are not Congregational. The minister, or trustee, or manager, is the supreme authority. In most instances, the communicants are admitted, not by the society, but by the officiating or residing minister. There is, in fact, with them no church. They disclaim Congregational church government, and are regulated by a junta of managers and the minister. As a body, therefore, such churches can never be recognized as Congregational, because they are Anti-congregational. The majority of instances must form the rule-the cases of those for whom Libertas pleads are the exception. The principles of the body of partial Conformists are as repugnant to Congregational principles as those of the Presbyterians, or the Wesleyan Methodists. I hope Libertas and his two ministerial friends will not take these remarks as unkind, or intended in the slightest degree to oppose the admission of the partial Conformists, who may seek it, into the Congregational Body, provided they agree with that Body in all other particulars, except in the use of free prayer. The question has not yet been debated, much less decided. I may, therefore, reserve my opinion; but not without reminding Libertas, that his complaints, on both the points to which they refer, appear to me unjust, and very much to resemble the complaint of a man who wears a blue coat, against another who wears a black one, because the latter would not acknowledge, that both their coats were of one colour.

REMARKS ON THE PRESENT NUMBER OF DISSENTING THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS.

(To the Editors.) GENTLEMEN,-I am amongst the number of your readers, who were gratified by the completion of the list of Congregational Churches, as published in your last Supplement, and which I esteem very valuable, as furnishing important data for some much-needed practical inquiries, respecting the movements of our wide-spread denomination.

As the reputation of our body and the peace of our churches are closely connected with the number and respectability of our ministers, allow me to suggest the inquiry, from the documents you have furnished, whether at the present time the supply of candidates for the ministry amongst us is not greater than the wants of our churches will justify? The following list of our theological seminaries presents what I conceive to be an average return of the number educated by all our English collegiate establishments in four years:

I remain, Gentlemen,

Your's, &c.

WORKS ON THE SABBATH. 1. The Christian Sabbath; or an Inquiry into the Religious Obligation of keeping Holy one Day in Seven. By the Rev. George Holden, A. M. 8vo. pp. 515.

2. Remarks on the Different Sentiments entertained in Christendom relative to the Weekly Sabbath. By Robert Burnside, A. M. 12mo. pp. 354.

3. The Authority of Jehovah asserted; or a Scriptural Plea for the Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath, &c. &c. By J. B. Shenston. 8vo. pp. 48.

THE mode in which the Sabbath is observed, may justly be considered as the pulse of religion, or the index which shows whether it is in a healthy or diseased state. This remark will apply both to individuals and communities. It will be found to consist with general experience, that as the duties and privileges of this sacred day are conscientiously or carelessly regarded, true religion will prosper or decline. On this account some historical notices of the sentiments which have been entertained respecting the obligation of a day of religious rest, and of the practices resulting from those sentiments, may assist our inquiry.

That very high importance was attached to the sanctification of the seventh day, under the Old Testament, it is not necessary to prove. The solemn injunction of the fourth commandment, the threatenings denounced on the Sabbath-breaker, and the encouragements presented to the devout observer of the Sabbatical laws, all show how the institution was viewed by God; while it is evident that the progress and decline of religion in the Jewish church gene

rally kept pace with the observance or the profanation of the Sabbath.

It could not be otherwise; for

the Sabbath was not an isolated or independent institution, which might be observed or neglected without affecting other things. Its very nature involved almost every other part of personal and social religion.

If this was true of Judaism, it would be difficult to show that it

will not equally apply to Christianity. Christians require rest as well as Jews; abstraction from the business of the world, and the pursuits of time, are no less necessary to us than to the disciples of Moses. A time for public worship, and for other holy exercises of a private and social nature, is as essential to the existence and prosperity of religion now as it was during the continuance of the Levitical institute.

It is somewhat remarkable, though we shall afterwards endeavour to account for it, that very little is said in the New Testament respecting the obligation or manner of observing the first day of the week. The circumstances of the early Christians must have rendered it very diffiult for many of them to consecrate the whole of that day to religious services. The Jews were already in possession of the seventh day, the observance of which they rigorously enforced, not only in Judea, but wherever they had a synagogue. Of the abrogation of that day as a part of the Mosaic system, even the disciples were not in general convinced. The apostles themselves always attended the synagogueservices on the Sabbath as long as they were permitted; while they met with their Christian brethren also on the first day of the week.