gregation, and health and happiness to its respected Minister," had been given by John Cooke, Esq., and "Thanks to the Sunday - school Teachers for their valuable exertions" had been moved by Rev. E. Kell, the Rev. W. James proposed, "That this meeting hails with satisfaction the success which has attended the efforts of the Sunday-School Association, cordially rejoices in the increase in the number of Sunday scholars exhibited in their last report, and humbly implores the Divine blessing on its future operations." Thomas Cooke, Esq., introduced the sentiment, "That this meeting recognizes the important benefits which have been rendered to the public by the Christian Tract Society, which for many years has furnished a series of publications admirably suited to the cottage and to Sunday - school instruction; fervently desires that it may be furnished with increased means to continue its useful labours; and begs to connect with the mention of this valuable institution the name of the Rev. Samuel Wood, of Lewes, for many years its Secretary, and at all times its able and zealous supporter." The Rev. S. Wood having dwelt on the advantages of this Society, and the reasons for its not having met with greater success, Abraham Clarke, Esq., moved, "That the meeting express its best wishes for the prosperity of the infant church at Southampton," and connected with it the name of the Rev. Thos. Cooper, which called forth from that gentleman some remarks on the efforts that had been made there, and on the future prospects of success. We have not space for an abstract of the many excellent observations that were offered at the meeting, but must content ourselves with saying, it was one of the most delightful and useful anniversaries that has been held in this place.

The "Evangelical Alliance."

In the Christian Reformer for last December (pp. 789 and 838), we gave a full account of the preliminaries (accompanying it with a free comment on them) for the formation of this much-paraded Association. On Wednesday, Aug. 19, the Aggregate London Meeting began its sittings for the formation of the Alliance, which were continued eight hours daily for nearly a fortnight, in Exeter Hall. The result is, that the "Evangelical Alliance" is now fully constituted; that it is in action, we must not say, as it seems not to be the design of the Alliance to act,

but simply to be, to seem and to show. People are asking on all hands what it is going to do, but that question is impertinent;-to exist is its sole purpose. And with no little difficulty has it struggled into existence, and no very genial atmosphere has it found even amid the sanctities of Exeter Hall. Dissensions within the Evangelical Alliance have already weakened the expectation without (where any such existed) of its influence upon the world.

We shall give a brief account of its proceedings- its business proceedings, as we must technically call them, however unbusiness-like and nugatory they may seem to the reader who expects the resolutions of a great meeting to be the record of something done, or the pledge for doing it. In detaching the resolutions thus from the speeches and devotional exercises, we are, indeed, subjecting the proceedings to a test which the friends of the Alliance will perhaps disclaim. As the purpose of the whole thing is not action, but scene, effect, an imposing demonstration, it may with propriety be said that the speeches, and not the resolutions, were the real thing. But then, unfortunately, the speeches were not allowed (at first at least) to be fully reported; and we of the world without can gain little knowledge of the proceedings beyond the report of the resolutions and re-resolutions, the things agreed upon and the agreements rescinded; and we are forced, therefore, to take our idea of the meeting from materials which, as being the usual documentary evidence for or against any public body, present this "Alliance" under a peculiarly unfortunate point of view.

The complexion of the Conference seems to have undergone a remarkable change since the preliminary meeting in Liverpool. On that occasion, there were present 9 Episcopalians, 73 Presbyterians (chiefly Scotch Dissenters, 12 being of the Free Church), 73 Congregationalists (Independents, Baptists, and one

66

Friend"), and 47 Methodists (34 being Wesleyans). But in London (according to the Patriot), the Wesleyan Methodists had the preponderance. The Free Church nearly equalled them. (This seems, however, to be a mistake.) The Episcopal Church sent no new men. The Dissenting English denominations were "barely represented in their various seetions." America sent sixty. France, Italy, Germany and Prussia, had their representatives.

When the Conference "proceeded to business," Sir Culling Eardley Smith, Bart., was called to the chair for the first

day. Sir Culling, it will be remembered, has been a vigorous abettor of the AntiState-Church movement; but, through zeal for the Evangelical Alliance, and the desire of conciliating Churchmen, he determined to withdraw from the Anti-StateChurch agitation, and recommended his coadjutors to suspend operations "for the year 1846, at least." His presidency (if expected beforehand, as no doubt it was) may explain the paucity of Episcopalian members of the Alliance. Whatever their love for the Evangelical Sir Culling of 1846, they must remember with awe his destructive principles of 1845, and anticipate with dread his resumption of them in 1847. To place Sir Culling in the chair, was blunder the first.

The next misadventure of the Alliance was on the question of admitting the reporters of the public press, the Editors of the Patriot having applied for the admission of their reporter. Dr. Massie moved their exclusion; Dr. Raffles seconded it; Dr. Cox, of London, moved an amendment for their admission, and Dr. Beaumont, the Wesleyan, seconded it. A warm discussion ensued, which Mr. J. Angell James endeavoured to pacify by saying that he thought the meeting was getting too excited. The motion for exclusion was carried: "That, in the judgment of the Conference, it is extremely undesirable for any report of their proceedings to be given to the public, except under their own direction; and they express their confidence that none of their own members will furnish materials for such a purpose to any newspaper whatever." Still, the Patriot and other papers found means of reporting; and in the course of a few days, the public reporters generally were invited, by advertisement, to attend the remaining meetings of the Conference.

Business arrangements ensued; then the "table d'hote," with hymns in French, German and English; and the evening sitting was occupied with hearing the statements of clergymen from abroad on the subject of "union."

Thursday morning, August 20, Sir Culling Eardley Smith in the chair. The first resolution very lengthily declared their purpose in meeting to be, "not to create unity, but to confess it." The next (lengthily too), “deplored the existing divisions" of the Christian Church, and wished for a better "state of mind and feeling." These two resolutions formed the business of the second morning. In the evening, the Conference resolved on the "desirableness of

forming a confederation on the basis of great Evangelical principles," "which may afford opportunity" of "cultivating brotherly love, enjoying Christian intercourse, and such other objects as they may hereafter agree to prosecute together; and they hereby proceed to form such a confederation, under the name of the Evangelical Alliance."" Sir Culling proposed that the Conference should rise and remain a few minutes in silence, before coming to a vote. This done, the motion was unanimously adopted, and the "Alliance" formed. Then the doxology was sung, the members shook hands over it, and the Conference adjourned.

Friday's business consisted in settling the articles of faith; and here a sad bone of Evangelical contention arose. To the eight articles provisionally agreed upon at Liverpool, (see Chris. Ref., Dec, 1845, p. 840,) a ninth appeared appended in the list now proposed for adoption. It is in these terms: "The immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the judgment of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ, with the eternal blessedness of the righteous, and the eternal punishment of the wicked." Strange, that immortality and judgment should have been omitted in the original Evangelical creed! The American orthodox brethren have the credit of having detected this omission. Being troubled in the United States with the heresy of universal restoration in a more palpable form than it wears in this country, the American brethren suggested this ninth article as a test to exclude Universalists. Dr. Birth, of Liverpool, moved the omission of this article, as well as the eighth, which declares the divine institution of the Christian Ministry, and the authority of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The questiou now was, whether Quakers, Plymouth Brethren and Universalists should be admitted or excluded by the Evangelical Alliance? The discussion, adjourned to the evening, resulted in the adoption of the ninth article and the postponement of the discussion on the eighth, which, however, was adopted the next day (Saturday). But the discussion was re-opened on Monday, with several curious amendments upon the ninth, which was, however, at last adopted unaltered. The Patriot wickedly observes "If these numerous proposals of verbal amendments imply any thing, they imply a considerable variety of opinion on points which have hitherto been thought more essential to Evangelical orthodoxy than even the obligation and perpetuity of the ordinances of Baptism and the Supper." So much for a doctri

nal unity on "evangelical," "essential" or "saving" opinions!

On Monday evening, a supplement to the nine points was adopted, declaring that they are not to be taken as "a creed or confession," after all, nor their adoption as "an assumption of the right authoritatively to define the limits of Christian brotherhood;" and that" the selection of certain tenets, with the omission of others, is not to be held as implying that the former constitute the whole body of important truth, or that the latter are unimportant." Funny, this, that all the nine articles have left the distinction between important and unimportant truth undecided as at first. But so the Evangelical Alliance has decided and undecided. it decrees articles and protests against them. It was further whimsically resolved, as the final ordering of the articles-"That the ninth article be inserted between the sixth and seventh, as originally proposed."

So

Other resolutions filled the time to Tuesday night (Aug. 25), the cream of which was,

plishment of Christ's prayer, that they may all be one," &c. Three amendments were in vain attempted upon this resolution-illustrative of union!

We must shorten our account of the rest, or we shall tire the reader. The third "object" was declared to be, "to receive information respecting the progress of vital religion in all parts of the world, and to "maintain a correspondence." The fourth, to counteract Popery and other forms of superstition and infidelity, by gaining facts on (1) "the growth of Popery," (2) the "state of Infidelity,” (3) "the observance of the Lord's-day," (4) "the existing means of Christian education," and (5) on "Christian missions."

On Thursday, these five matters were discussed. It was agreed to strike out "Christian missions" as not within the sphere of the Alliance. It was proposed to insert, "facts relating to Slavery." But this was met by a threat of opposition from the American brethren, and withdrawn "for the present." Mr. Binney wished to amend the fourth article, following up a remark of Mr. James's, "that

That no compromise of any one's views is desired;

That no new ecclesiastical organization or church is designed;

That the members should abstain from uncharitable judgment of those who do not sanction, the Alliance ;-and,

That the members recommend each other, "particularly in their use of the press," to put away all bitterness and wrath and anger, &c.

On Wednesday, at last (after a week's sittings exactly), the Conference begin to discuss Objects." Now we look for something to be done. But in vain. It is still all talk. The first resolution proposed this day (wordy to excess), deplored "the many schisms that rend the Church of Christ," and declared that "it ought to form one chief object of the Alliance to extend" among Christians "a conviction of sin and short-coming in this respect," &c., &c. The clause about schisms was struck out, and the resolution (thus shorn of possible offence to sensitive Dissenters) was passed.

Then came the resolution of all the resolutions: "That the great object" (one chief object being already settled, we now have the great object)" of the Evangelical Alliance be, to aid in manifesting unity," to "promote union," to "discourage envyings," &c., "to impress upon Christians a deeper sense of the duty to love one another," and to "seek the full accom

mittee has sought to avoid in laying out the plan of future operations." "Some," said Mr. Binney, humorously, "wanted no action, and some much action. They had endeavoured to take a medium course. Act we must. But if we follow the visionary schemes which some would suggest, and make the Alliance the 'omnium gatherum' of all the benevolent societies, we shall have business enough on our hands, and come into collision at a thousand points." So the five points of action, reduced to four, were referred back to the Committee to re-consider. The next morning, accordingly, the Committee brought up a vaguer resolution still, touching upon "Evangelical Protestantism," "Infidelity," "Romanism," "Superstition," "Lord's-day," &c.; but leaving it to the "different branches of the Alliance to adopt such modes" of action as they choose, and avowing, in conclusion, that "the Alliance contemplates chiefly the stimulating of Christians to such efforts as the exigencies of the case may demand, by publishing its views in regard to them, rather than accomplishing these views by any general organization of its own."

The question of establishing a periodical to advocate the views of the Alliance, was discussed and (strange to say) negatived. One would have supposed a periodical talk and manifestation would have been the best mode of carrying out "objects" so misty as those resolved upon

by this "great glorification meeting," as one of its speakers hypothetically, but too truly, called it. "Facts, reports and other papers," are to be published at such times as the Alliance may see fit.

It was on this day (Friday) that the stormy discussion upon Slavery, once before adjourned, took place; threatening, as it still threatens, to break up the Alliance. The question was regularly opened in connection with that of membership. On the motion, "That the Alliance shall consist of those persons, in all parts of the world, who shall concur in the principles and objects adopted by the Conference," it was proposed to insert the words, 66 not being Slave-holders." The debate grew hot. Dr. Wardlaw suggested a compromise, expressing "abhorrence of the system," but not making it a "test of admission." The discussion was adjourned, and (the reporters say) the American delegates retired to pray, while the other members dined. Are we hence to infer that the subsequent zeal of the diners against Slavery was that of the carnal mind, and the defence of Slavery by the Americans the dictate of the spirit of prayer? This is the "Evangelical" inference-not ours, by any means. But how such little incidents serve to discredit religious extravagances! In the after-dinner sitting, when the excitement began to grow intense, and both parties were evidently determined not to yield, the amendment was by consent withdrawn, and a Committee of Americans, English and Europeans appointed to endeavour to frame a resolution which should be satisfactory. After immense difficulty on the part of this Committee, they at last produced a resolution commending the subjects of the profanation of the Lord's-day, duelling, intemperance and the sin of Slavery, "to the consideration of the branches," but "expressing their confidence that no branch will admit to membership Slaveholders who BY THEIR OWN FAULT continue in that position, retaining their fellow-men in slavery from regard to their own interests." This resolution was carried against a decided opposition, but seems to have been far from satisfactory to any parties. The Anti-Slavery members of the Conference especially felt that it was, in fact, the relinquishment of their lately adopted principle (in the AntiSlavery League) of holding no kindly communication whatever with Slave-hold

But the matter did not rest even thus. The Americans would not accept the resolution, even qualified by the words,

66

BY THEIR OWN FAULT." So the Saturday's discussion was re-opened on the Monday; and "the supposed happy settlement, or rather evasion, of the difficulty," which (in the words of the Nonconformist) "was regarded as the triumph of sagacity, and a special answer to the prayer for Divine direction," was all undone. The resolution was referred back to a large Committee; and, on their recommendation, after protracted discussion of the question, the clause about Slavery was rescinded. Thus the subject

of admission of members now stands over to a future meeting of the Alliance, each branch being, meanwhile, at liberty to admit or to exclude Slave-holders, as they may please, equally with duellists, drunkards and others, against whom no exception had been attempted. The remaining meetings of the Conference (which was dissolved on Wednesday, Sept. 2) presented absolutely nothing of general interest, consisting altogether of speeches and wordy resolutions like those before passed, the only one of which implying any thing approaching to "action," is that which recommends "that the week beginning with the first Lord's-day in January each year, be observed by the members and friends of the Alliance throughout the world, as a season for concert in prayer on behalf of the great objects contemplated by the Alliance."

But the Slavery question is not yet done with. The Alliance had stifled it in-doors for the present. But the AntiSlavery League, with the help of Loyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass and George Thompson, have lost no time in denouncing the Evangelical Alliance to the world. We quote from the report of their meeting held on Monday, Sept. 14, the following curious passage of a speech by the Rev. John Preston, in direct reference to the debates of the "Alliance :" "The Americans disapproved of the first report because it condemned Slavery at all; the British, because it condemned it so lightly. But he had himself been much astonished at the result. He considered that the Alliance had stultified itself. They had allowed the American members to overpower them. After all, the Americans had fallen into a trap, for it was still on record that no Slave-owner should be admitted a member of the Alliance, until the whole of the districts of the Alliance were consulted." With all our care in following the resolutions and re-resolutions, the motions and counter-motions of

this most religious Conference, we cannot quite make out whether such a trap as is here boasted was laid for the Americans by their Evangelical English brethren in the act of seemingly entire concession; but it is a pretty subject of self-congratulation, whether real or imaginary. This Anti-Slavery League meeting concluded with passing the following resolution: "That the conduct of the Evangelical Alliance, recently held in this city, first in adopting a declaration that persons may be Slave-holders without any fault of their own and from disinterested motives, and thus be entitled to Christian fellowship and membership in this body; and finally, to propitiate the pro-Slavery spirit of American delegates, in erasing from their proceedings all reference to the subject of Slavery, in order to prevent an open rupture, deserves the condemna. tion of every uncompromising friend of the rights of humanity, as an abandonment of the cause of the Slave and a virtual approval of the acts of his oppressor."

It needs no great power of prophecy to foretel that the fate of the Alliance will be like that of Acteon of old,—to be torn in pieces by its own dogs. Those who can be hounded on to an Evangelical erusade against Popery, Infidelity and Sunday recreation, will worry each other with equal earnestness as soon as they light upon points of conscience not com. mon to them all. We pretend not now to settle the merits of the Abolition question. But it is a characteristic of essen. tially "Evangelical" zeal (so called), of that zeal which practically assumes its own infallibility and denies the possibility of honest dissent from its views and plans, to test the Anti-Slavery principles of other people by their assent to its prescribed mode of action, and to excommunicate all who differ. If the Abolitionists of the Anti-Slavery League are right in theory, they are, we think, wrong in temper. And it seems to us that the bitterness of the Slavery dispute within the walls of the Evangelical Alliance, is the true counterpart to the exclusiveness and intolerance of Evangelical zeal against other forms of religion. There is no real mutual respect for the rights of the mind among this class of religionists. They may make nine articles of belief on which they agree bitterly to condemn those who differ; and when on the tenth (be it Slavery or something else) they come to differ among themselves, they condemn each other as bitterly as they condemned the world before; and yet, after straining their differences into points of conscience, they compromise the whole thing, and one side

boasts of having let the other into a trap!

If it is asked, What the Evangelical Alliance has done by its fortnight's grave deliberations, we must answer, We know not. We cannot find any one that does know. But we find some even religious journals not hesitating to speak of the whole affair far more disrespectfully than we have done. We have analyzed its proceedings and found them indeed, in homely phrase, "all cry and little wool." But severer strictures have been made by many others. Some of these strictures we had marked for extract, but our available space is exhausted, and if we use them at all it must be next month.

The Derby Election.

We were somewhat startled, on opening our Nonconformist of September 2, to find that the town of Derby was suddenly fixed on as a field on which those singular and amusing gentlemen, the Anti-State-Church Society, had resolved to exercise themselves and display their peculiar tactics. The occasion of this unexpected outbreak of Anti-State-Church zeal was Mr. Strutt's presenting himself for re-election on being appointed Chairman of the Railway Commission. (This is one of many very judicious appointments in the present Administration, which we believe contains a larger amount of administrative talent than has been possessed by any Government within our memory.) Now, without possessing any local knowledge of the state of parties, we should, if asked to select a Member in the present House of Commons who might prudently calculate on re-election without a struggle, have probably named Mr. Strutt. Unflinching service in the Liberal cause for sixteen years, and the possession of considerable influence in the House, the fruit not of a brilliant display of talent, but of public consistency and assiduous attention to public business, were the foundation of our confidence. In addition, we should have thought the memory of his uncle, the late Joseph Strutt, Esq., the munificent donor to the town of their beautiful Arboretum, would have helped to prevent a needless opposition to any good man bearing the name of Strutt. Greatly, then, were we astonished on reading in the Nonconformist that Mr. Strutt's seat was endangered by a violent opposition, and that in his hour of supposed danger the Protestant Dissenters of Derby