the Gospel to win souls is not, I apprehend, to be inevitably stumbled upon in a College course. If it were, one might afford to prosecute any line of study one pleased. But, on the contrary, it requires the deepest and most prayerful search, and must be much more solemnly pondered than it is by the majority who spend all their strength in acquiring philosophical or classical fame, if they would become able ministers of the New Testament.

Lastly; I shall glance at what I deem a misjudgment touching the qualification of Tutors. It is usual, I believe, for Committees to secure for their chairs the most learned they can find in the Denomination, imagining that thus they will best succeed in both upholding their own good name and promoting the interests of the students. A strict survey of the working of our Colleges, however, will prove that it is not always the most profound talent or acquisition in the teacher that is most compatible with the real advancement of the learner. Without appearing personal, I think I may safely risk the assertion, that superior genius and extensive learning often (though not invariably or necessarily) interfere with the attention of the tutor to those minute details of official duty, the observance of which so materially contributes to the benefit of the disciple. By all means let us have learning in our chairs, but never apart from genuine evangelical earnestness. The latter must neither be substituted nor sacrificed for the former.

It does not require such prodigious intellect or so much learning to be an acceptable tutor as some people conceive. It is enough that he have a sufficiently accurate and comprehensive view of his subject to instruct, and a mind sufficiently well-balanced to guide those who, during their brief term under his tuition, cannot, by any possibility, go much beyond the threshold of the branch of literature or science he professes. Besides, we do not send our sons to the "schools of the prophets" so much that their heads may be stuffed with information, as to have their minds disciplined, and especially to catch a flame of holy fervour that shall animate them through life in their arduous work.

Tutors have taught with little success, and their pupils have studied to little purpose, if the latter enter on their "high calling" lacking the endowment last mentioned. Without it, their knowledge will be a dead weight; with it, that knowledge will nourish their activity,

and make them "burning and shining lights" in their Master's service.

If, then, tutors, in any case, be men void of the life-giving temper I have described, ignorant or forgetful of their solemn responsibilities, or living in an atmosphere above the churches and the students, we shall have, from those who pass from under their superintendence, it is true, sermons logical and rhetorical as to form, and orthodox as to matter, but while snow-like in purity, snow-like, alas! in coldness, too.

I trust that nothing which has dropped from my pen will leave on the minds of your readers the impression that I am querulous, or that I involve all the Colleges in any one particular error, or in all the errors combined that have been specified. I can point to Committees who are striving against the faults under notice, and to Professors (models in their way) who are at an infinite remove from any charge of laxity in duty. Still, I presume it will be allowed that these exceptions do not lessen the force of my remarks in the main.

Hoping that this letter will draw forth the counsels and efforts of the well-wishers of Christ's cause, I remain, Sir,

Yours truly, Birmingham, Feb., 1853. A LAYMAN.

SABBATH AFTERNOON SERVICES. SIR,-Permit me to offer some remarks on the letter of your Correspondent "J. B.," on the subject of Sabbath afternoon services, in your last WITNESS. Your Correspondent is evidently sincere and earnest; and his letter contains many things to which I can cordially say, Amen. But it appears to me that "J. B." has written under a too common fallacy, secretly harboured in the minds of many worthy Christian people, viz.: that a man's religion very much consists in luxuriously sitting, Sabbath after Sabbath, and listening to a preacher. How many who attend our chapels might sum up all the outward manifestations of their religion in this! Now what we want seems to me to be, on the part of ministers, not more, but better, preaching; and on the part of both pastor and people, more working, in ways which will tell far more effectually than the multiplication of chapel services.

If I might judge from " J. B.'s" letter, he is not a Sabbath-school teacher, nor has he studied the working of Sabbathsehools among us; if he had, I am pretty

sure he would not have ventured the recommendation "that Sabbath-school teachers, &c., should, whenever and wherever practicable, perform their labours of love in the intervals of public worship, and not during the afternoon service:"-" that deacons and their families should be present:"-and " that all the members and serious hearers, with their families, should attend, unless prevented by sickness, &c." It is certainly surprising that any one living in these days, in a large town, should have penned such recommendations as these.

First, in my judgment, the more effectual working of our Sabbath-school system is far more likely to do permanent good than any increase of sermons or services. Who does not know that the most hopeful field of Christian enterprise is among the young; and that the appliances of the Sabbath-school are pre-eminently adapted to train them up for God? Does "J. B." not know that it is impossible for teachers to attend three chapel services on the Lord's day, and to discharge their duties with pleasure or profit? To such persons the old system was a source of constant annoyance. Having swallowed, not digested, a hasty meal, they hurried off to school, which, in some cases, was a mile or more distant. Scarcely had the devotional service been performed, and they had got their scholars interested in the lesson for the day, than the bell rang, and, after another devotional excercise, they were required to take their pupils into chapel. There some of the elder children might perhaps sit and listen with a degree of attention, but few will affirm, who have had any experience in the matter, that, generally speaking, scholars or teachers were any better for the hour, or hour and a half, spent in this way. How much more likely are they to receive or impart instruction in the school, where attention is kept alive by close and familiar methods, didactic or catechetical!

"J. B." recommends that "the deacons and their families," with "all the members and serious hearers," should attend the afternoon service. This is really amusing. "J. B." might as well have recommended at once everybody to attend. I wonder how many persons would be left, after "the deacons and their families, with all the members and serious hearers,' were subtracted from our ordinary congregations. But surely "J. B." forgets that our deacons are often our best superintendents and most efficient teachers;

and that our church members are, to a large extent, the bone and muscle, yea, the very life of our Sabbath-school agencies. In my humble opinion they are doing far more good, they are far more effectually serving God and man, by actively engaging in Sabbath-school work, than they could be by sitting idly in a chapel on a Sabbath afternoon, and trying to keep their scholars awake and in order.

"J. B." does not even exempt ministers and their families. But again I ask, where can they be better employed than in uniting their efforts with our Sabbathschool teachers, and showing sympathy with them in their noble work? "J.B." talks as if all ministers who did not preach in an afternoon, were therefore idle. He is very ignorant or very forgetful. If he does not know, he might know, that there are scores, yes, hundreds of our ministers, who do employ their time, and employ it well, in the way just referred to. The Rev. J. A. James, of Birmingham, stated at the Autumnal Meeting of the Union at Bradford, last October, that he made a point of visiting his schools every Lord's day; and this is what multitudes besides do.

"J. B." seems to think Dissenting ministers very idle. Among other things which are quite new to me, he affirms that they now never preach out of doors! Does not "J. B." know that there have been regular open-air services in our larger towns, at the proper season? And if he had taken the pains to inquire, he would have found that in the country, especially during the last two or three years, this practice has been revived; and, I venture to think, has often done more good than an afternoon service "under the covered roof of a chapel." The writer of this letter has made a point of preaching in the open air, at the proper season, in the lowest parts of the town where he resides, on the Lord's day afternoon, and can testify that he has never felt his spirit so stirred with yearning compassion, as when he has gathered round him a crowd or a group of wretched beings, who never could be reached by sticking to the old system of in-door chapel services.

I have not said a word respecting the physical exhaustion which ministers feel, as the result of three services; yet the fact cannot be denied, that the health and energies of many devoted men have been irreparably injured by the pressure to which their mental and bodily powers have been thus subjected. "J. B." surely is aware that Dissenting ministers are in

1

a very different position from clergymen. Can he point to any clergyman who preaches and reads prayers, three times every Sunday, in his own church? Yet "J. B." expects our ministers not only to preach three times, but also to conduct the devotional services in propria persona -a task which may perhaps be done in a fashion, but never as it ought to be. Two sermons, well thought out (they need not therefore be long ones,) are quite enough for a minister to prepare and preach, and for the people to remember. It is "the doing," as much as "the hearing" of the word, that we want. But J. B." recommends that, when needful, assistance should be obtained. I reply, that's all very well where practicable, but the cases are comparatively few where efficient help could be regularly secured; and when this was not done, according to the facts which "J. B." himself refers to, the congregation would soon dwindle

away.

In our large towns it is certainly desirable, where there are three or four chapels, that one of them, at least, should be, open on a Sabbath afternoon. This might be accomplished by having a rotating service, in which each minister, in his turn, might take part. The case is different in a small town and a small congregation, when the whole burden is thrown upon one man, and where there is enough to do to raise his often small salary. It is simply Utopian, under such eircumstances, to talk of procuring regularly efficient assistance.

A favourite argument with the advocates of afternoon services is, that they give opportunity to mothers and servants to attend Divine worship. But with proper domestic management, both mothers and servants may attend at least once, and often both morning and evening; and how much often more profitably than in the afternoon! Let there be a frugal repast; not a (hot) dinner that needs half a day's cooking; and, excepting where there are infants, or very young children, what need is there for a servant to remain at home in the morning?* I have often thought that a servants' class, in a private room, or a quiet vestry, conducted by an intelligent and pious lady, on a Sabbath afternoon, is far more likely to be interesting and useful than an ordinary public service. When such persons come to chapel, wearied already with household

* I have put "hot" in a parenthesis, because I know a family who, with their servant, never miss a service from January to December, and yet have a" warm dinner" every Sabbath.

work, and having just eaten their dinner, what wonder is it if, notwithstanding all the efforts of the preacher, he should see one and another "nid, nid, nodding," while he just enables the rest, by dint of his unwearied ingenuity and rhetoric, to keep awake? Nay, I don't know that, in this respect, servants are worse than others. I take it, it would be useless arguing with any one who would seriously maintain that the afternoon is at all comparable to the morning or evening, as a season for thought and reflection.

I fear Congregationalist ministers will hardly recognize the spiritual advantages which, "J. B." thinks, accrue to them from having to conduct three services on the Lord's day. They will hear with much surprise from "J. B.'s" lips, that an interval of a few hours, between the morning and evening services, lessens "that life and vivacity which is the very soul of preaching. My own experience

as a minister, gives this dictum of "J.B." a positive denial. I have felt nothing so refreshing as a change of employment, say from the pulpit to the class in the school, and, now and then, a quiet hour or two in my own study. I cannot think "J. B." is a minister, otherwise he would know that the more private spiritual exercises of the closet are the very best preparation for public engagements. If we, as ministers, held more frequent secret communion with God and with God s truth, we should realize much more than we now do, our "open reward," in the success of our ministrations.

"J. B." advocates shorter sermons and

shorter prayers. I agree with him. It is the quality of our sermons that wants altering, not the quantity; and, in order to this, there must be more conscientious and careful preparation. We need more of that holy skill that can adapt and apply the truth, by the power of God's Holy Spirit. It is not that we want more machinery, but we want what we have better worked.

But I feel that I have already trespassed too long on your valuable space. I may, with your permission, resume the subject on a future occasion. Meanwhile, may God help both ministers and people, like the children of Issachar, "to understand the times, that we may know what Israel ought to do."

I am yours truly,
Bridgnorth, Feb. 4, 1853.

S. C.

* I am not surprised at "J. B.'s" comparison of a minister to a steam-engine, since it is evident he has the notion of a "cast-iron parson" in his head, not one of ordinary flesh and blood.

FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, AND INDEPENDENCY,

OUR readers need not be told of our friendly feeling towards the Free Church of Scotland, to whom we have never lost an opportunity of doing a kindness. Few eyes are more intently and constantly fixed upon their marvellous movements, and few hearts more sincerely rejoice in their noble achievements for the cause of truth and righteousness, both at home and abroad. It is, therefore, with some uneasiness 'that we have read a notice of a work by the Rev. William Marshall, a Free Church Minister in Leith, on what he calls "Popery in the Full Corn, the Ear, and the Blade; or, The Doctrine of Baptism in the Popish, Episcopalian, and Congregational Churches." In our own columns a glance was given at this production some months ago, in which, to use a mild term, we referred to the misapprehension of the author. We could have borne with the blunder had it been confined to Mr. Marshall's book; but we deeply regret to see it in the respectable pages of the Free Church Magazine-a publication which, from the first, we have read and admired, and frequently had pleasure in quoting, as one of the most valuable and best conducted publications of the day. The Magazine, in its notice, speaks of Mr. Marshall's leading object as being to develope the connection between the erroneous views of the parties above mentioned on the subject of Baptism, and their "unsoundness on theological subjects generally, especially the support they have commonly given to the errors of universal grace and universal atonement." Now, we are at a loss what to make of this language. We know of no Independent who holds by this doctrine of "universal grace;" and, moreover, there are not a few Independents who are the staunch advocates of a limited atonement, and even those that go for the universality-if it may be so expressed -of the atonement, contend for nothing more than an atonement sufficient for all, but only efficient to them that believe -as a general remedy for a general evil, admitting of a special application, according to the pleasure and purpose of God. Our Contemporary must know the views which obtain in Scotland among the Congregationalists; he is not unacquainted with the works of Dr. Wardlaw, although we are aware he does not, in all points, exactly see with that eminent Divine. The Reviewer expresses dissent from the statements of Mr. Marshall on some minor

matters, adding, nevertheless, "We are much pleased with his refutation of the doctrine of Dr. Halley concerning Baptism, said to be now prevalent among the English Congregationalists." Where the character of a great community is concerned, it is scarcely safe to act upon a "said." We would not thus serve our brethren of the Free Church. We are not here required to deal with the views of Dr. Halley concerning Baptism. This we have done before; but we must, with all respect for that learned and distinguished man, utterly deny that the views of Baptism which he holds are prevalent among the English Congregationalists." We appeal to the literature of English Congregationalism for its views. on the subject of Baptism. By these views the bulk of the Denomination still steadily abide; and it will be found that the views entertained by the Free Church and the English Congregationalists are substantially the same.

66

Why

Again; we think we have reason to complain of a want of candour on the part of both Mr. Marshall and the Free Church Magazine, in dealing with suspicions at a distance, to the neglect and exclusion of realities at home. cross the Border in search of the opinions of the Independents on the subject of "universal grace," atonement, and Baptism? What Scottish Independent has ever written a line in support of an atonement at variance with the Scriptural views of the sovereignty of God? What Scottish Independent has ever contended for "promiscuous Baptism?" Is it not a fact that the Scotch Independents are vastly more tight-laced than the Scottish Free Church, on the subject of Baptism? Is it not a fact, that, we believe without an exception, the Scottish Independents dispense the ordinance of Baptism to no child, one or both of whose parents is not a member of the church? Is it not a fact, that Dr. Wardlaw, in his Treatise on Baptism, intimates that the utmost length he could go would be, in the case of those not members, to baptize only where he has confidence in the Christian character of one or other of the parents? While advocates of fair dealing, we are also advocates for truth. We do not consider the state of the question as to Baptism altogether satisfactory in England. We think there is too much of a tendency towards promiscuous Baptism, which we deeply deplore, since that tendency is undoubtedly to destroy the distinction between the Church and the world.

THE IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTING THE YOUTH OF OUR CHURCH AND CONGREGATION IN OUR OWN DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES.* BELIEVING, as we do, that our form of church government is the most scriptural, the most calculated to maintain the purity of Christianity, the efficiency of the ministry, the freedom of the Church from the dominance of worldly ambition, and for promoting generally the spread of vital godliness, we cannot deny the importance of giving to our successors a correct estimate of principles which we so highly value.

Looking around our churches, we cannot but regret to see how many of the more intellectual youth, nourished in our midst, have cast aside our profession, and turned away from those tenets which their fathers have held and matured, amidst opposition and contempt, as a precious treasure.

Looking into our churches, we must still more regret that many amongst us can give no definite expression to the principles which they represent, or offer any better reason for their being members of this particular denomination than that their fathers were Independents, and so they are Independents, as a matter of course.

That such a state of things should have existed for so long a time, in such a large and influential Body as we are, is, indeed, a disgrace. We believe that in this we stand alone; for whenever we meet with members of other denominations of Christians, we find them ready to offer a defence, more or less forcible, of their particular sect. Now, had the practice which we are advocating been adopted, we should not have formed so inglorious an exception. That such a practice has not been carried out may, in many cases, be owing to a laudable wish not to favour or inculcate bigotry; but in the mass, it is traceable rather to indifference to, and a want of a due appreciation of, these principles. For persons of any intelligence can find no serious difficulty in holding and teaching principles which they believe to be true and just, without uncharitableness; on the contrary, the better we understand them, the more tolerant shall we be towards those who differ from us, and the more willing to explain and defend them impassionately.

If, however, we are mere blind followers of leaders in whose train circumstances have cast us, we are a disgrace to the Body of which we form a part, as we should have been to any other community which might have happened to be burdened with our association. We should have made just as stupid Musselmen, or obsequious Jesuits, as we are bigoted Independents.

In order to make others fully understand the exact position we hold among the Christian churches, it is necessary that we should know what others hold, as well as ourselves, or how can we make the comparison and show the difference? Do we fear the result of such an examination and comparison? Then we are unmanly and superstitious.

A Paper read before the Congregational Church assembling at Belgrave Chapel, Leeds, under the pastoral care of the Rev. G. W. Conder, by Arthur Oliver.

Especially we should know fully the doc trines and polity of that Church which has been so long established in our country, through which we have received our existence as a religious community, and from which our fathers seceded. Since the government and constitution of that Body has been developed in the growth and rise of our nation, of which we are justly proud, we ought to be able to show that our separation from it commenced and is continued only because we have good reason for believing that it has left the simplicity which was bequeathed as the inalienable characteristic of the Church by its Founder, and that our aim is not to set up a counter institution or a vexatious rival, but to continue in that straight and simple course which alone is right, and in harmony with the Christian religion. Again; as many other sections have been formed, some remaining nearer in polity and practice to that Body, and some far more divergent than ourselves, we should be able to account for our not having combined with the one class or accompanied the other-why we have seceded thus far, and have here stopped.

Now the reasons of our separateness from the Church which claims precedence in this land, are:

First, Its unscriptural constitution: by which expression we refer to its government by men assuming priestly functions, which functions were for ever destroyed when the last great Sacrifice was offered on Calvary, when every man was invited to worship God through the mediation of the great Highpriest, even Jesus Christ; also to its connection with, dependence upon, and subserviency to, the political State, which result is the second reason of our dissension, viz.:

Its worldly character. This is manifest in the scope given to ambition in its offices of opulence and ease, to which preferment is obtained, not by the consent, desire, or approval of the church, properly so called, but by the recommendation of some person whose political position gives his recommendation the force of law. It is further displayed in the enormous incomes of many of the Bishops and others, who sometimes hold several livings in various parts of the country, over which they cannot possibly exercise minis. terial functions, yet for which they receive large contributions. Again; it does not provide against the necessity of employing worldly-minded men even in its most sacred offices: the tests for admission to its pulpits are intellectual rather than religious, and the few which partake of the latter character are formal, not spiritual.

Another cause of our alienation is its tyranny. Calling itself the Church of England, it seeks to compel all members of the community to act according to its rules, to conform to its practices, to own its authority, and to say that they believe its creeds, whether they do so or not. To enforce these things it has used persecutions, physical and political, and religious denunciation, declaring that unless a man believe that which it has selected as essential doctrine, he must perish everlastingly.

Lastly; we dissent from the formality