for more frequent and zealous association. We propose at present to take a single point, and consider the influence of Conventions and Conferences upon our spiritual welfare and denominational prosperity. That there is a demand for such assemblies must be obvious to all. The demand is easily accounted for, by the general spirit of association and excitement, the necessity of our own position, and that craving for external action, so natural in a denomination who have sometimes erred upon another extreme, and have attached too exclusive an importance to scholarship and meditation.

That we must in some way meet the new spirit of our people is evident, and already some steps have been taken, by clergy and laity, to guide it aright. The semi-annual Conventions, that have been so successfully held during the last three years, afford one among many examples of what has been done. Without making any minute division of our subject, or discussing separately the various modes of assembling for religious purposes, let us consider what devolves upon our ministers and people in order to give interest and effect to our Conventions and Conferences. Our remarks, however, will principally relate to the clergy.

Our clergy are placed in a peculiar position. As Congregationalists, they are not, of course, called together by established authority, like the hierarchies of the land. Nor, like Orthodox Congregationalists, do they commit affairs into the keeping of Associations and Consociations possessing authoritative powers over individual churches. They associate, indeed, by neighborhoods and affinities, but rarely, if ever, to exercise any authority beyond fraternal advice and influence. We are Independents. Each minister is responsible to his own people and to them alone. Voluntary associations of ministers approve candidates for the pulpit, and councils voluntarily called by the churches conduct the services of ordination. Our system has worked well, and needs only to be carried out faithfully to answer all the purposes of our people. We need no organic, but only a functional change in our modes of proceeding, to make them as efficient as any that can be devised for us. True to established usages, we may keep

our pulpits free from unworthy ministers, and promote harmony and cooperation among our brotherhood.

To bring our clergy together, we need no new institution. Our annual Ministerial Conference needs to be reformed and elevated, that it may exercise a strong influence upon the whole denomination. It should take the lead of affairs, and without infringing upon individual liberty, may be the occasion for discussing and regulating the chief interests of the Liberal clergy of the land. Instead of rambling discussions, its meetings should be given to the treatment of great practical questions. Its place should not be yielded to any other body. Our ministers have important rights and duties, and they need an opportunity for their full and free consideration. This opportunity is afforded by the annual Conference and the smaller local associations.

We will speak first of the duty of our clergy to these strictly clerical meetings, and then will pass on to notice the promiscuous assemblies in which laymen unite with them to further the interests of religion.

Ministers owe a particular debt to their profession and to the Church of Christ. Apart from their profession and the church, they could exert comparatively little influence, and instead of having the respectful attention of an audience convened by hallowed usage, they would be as stray lecturers without any permanent sphere of usefulness. Much as may be said against the clerical caste and the need of thinking more of the man than the minister, the clerical office is one of the divinely appointed agencies of society, and may be earnestly vindicated without any disparagement of the man. It would be amusing, were it not too sad, to hear preachers declaim against the continuance of a distinct clerical office with its established prerogative, who owe to their very office their only opportunity of venting their radicalism. We are ready to go as far as any persons in decrying clerical pretension and formalism. Let our preachers be men, but still let them be ministers.

Ministers may be expected to have associate duties and interests. To guard these and serve the Church of Christ, they should confer together. No class of men are more helped by mutual counsel than they, for in our parishes they are almost alone in sacred studies, and need the

sympathy and stimulus of brethren, who love what they love, and seek what they seek. Instances are not rare of young clergymen, who when left entirely alone fall into a monotonous life with little study and languid thought, but who have been roused and renovated by fit counsel and society from their brethren. Talk as much as we may about the soul's being sufficient for itself, it is not good to be always alone. The first preachers of the Gospel were much together, and we may not safely neglect the precedent. One effectual mode of being saved from two great dangers of the profession is to be found in judicious clerical association. They who associate for mutual study, and have standing obligations to aid mutual progress, cannot easily become plodding mopes or parish gossips.

But our concern is now with the more general form of association. May not our clergy do much more than they have done by uniting their strength in a general Conference? Very true it is, that we are various in tastes and opinions. But cooperation will be all the better for that variety. Differ as we may, we never quarrel; and without strife difference is often profitable. Besides, we have never discussed any question, however exciting, without finding the harmony increase as the discussion continued. There are many practical topics upon which we are called to decide, and we need very often the weight of general opinion to give sanction to our measures. This sanction we could undoubtedly have, if it were properly sought. Upon matters of Church order, worship, modes of instructing the young, meeting opposition, vindicating the Gospel and its institutions against radicalism and bigotry, we could not seriously confer without much unanimity and recommending methods of action that would carry with them great influence among the people. We need a better understanding of ministerial rights and of parochial order. Without claiming any apostolic prerogative or setting up any new systems, we need to call attention to the simple. principles of Church polity which we recognise, and save our religious institutions from drifting down the tide of accident or caprice.

As we write this article, our attention falls upon a notice of some recent clerical conferences in Germany. They deserve our regard, as they indicate the tendencies of the

clergy in a land where speculation has taken a much wider range than with us, and all opinions can be freely expressed. We were hardly prepared for the high ecclesiastical ground which most of these pastors assume. At Eothen indeed a Rationalist meeting of ministers has been held, where the most radical doctrines were declared. But their proceedings created great excitement and opposition. The other assemblies whose proceedings are recorded took a very different turn.

On the seventeenth of April, the Central Pastoral Union of the Prussian Province of Gnadau held a meeting, at which they discussed such subjects as the improvement of the congregational Hymn-books, the Liturgy, the Temperance question, the office of Deaconesses. The debate on the liturgy was quite stormy. Professor Schmiedler of Wittenberg advocated the weekly celebration of the Communion and the abridgment of the morning sermons, in order that the devotional services might be lengthened. The discussion was adjourned to the September meeting. The Pastoral Union of the March of Brandenburg met May 19, and discussed the need of urging the rite of Baptism on the people, and of devising some mode of interesting the laity in aid of the clergy. A great Pastoral Conference was held at Berlin, June 5, and continued three days. This Conference grew out of a missionary meeting in 1841, and has now become a regular annual association. The last meeting was attended by 236 persons, all but ten of the members being ministers, Professors, or candidates in theology. It is evident that Prussia has its rising Puseyism. A High Chancellor strenuously discussed the doctrine of the keys, and urged the restoration of private confession and declaratory absolution. The assembly seemed to agree upon this, although they spoke variously upon the principle of apostolical succession. The famous Professor Twesten made an address upon the history of German theology for the last forty or fifty years, in which he spoke of the decline of rationalism and the rise of biblical faith and its connection with true church principles. The second day, Professor Arndt proposed a question upon the need among Evangelical Christians of better understanding their advantages over Roman Catholics, and the importance of waking up to their duty. He allowed that there had been

great laxity in the Protestant Church, and Romanists had been far more faithful to their ecclesiastical interests. The next question referred to modes of quickening the devo-, tional element among the people. The opinion was, that too exclusive regard was paid to the sermon, that the sacraments were too much neglected, that churches should be opened an hour before service, that more instruction should be given by Bible classes. The third question concerned the instruction of candidates for confirmation, and closed the second day's proceedings. The third day was given to a discussion of the relation of the Evangelical Church to the Lutheran and Reformed creeds or symbolical books. The general desire was for the adoption of some more definite standard than was at present maintained.

Thus it seems that there is quite an earnest church zeal springing up in Germany. While we of course cannot go with these pastors in all their measures, we must by no means attach the offensive ideas to their statements, which their words might indicate. We must not judge German language by the English standard, nor believe that the Oxford doctrines in their exclusiveness are maintained in Prussia. With some of the views advocated in their meetings we can fully agree, and so far as the need of more devotional life and more lay action are concerned, their discussions resemble those of our own recent assemblies. But however that may be, we may at least take a hint from our German brethren and be up and doing for our profession and our Church.

We need, we repeat, to elevate the character of our Ministerial Conference. We need a more general attendance at its meetings, greater care in providing subjects for its deliberations, more method in its proceedings. Fidelity to its claims may do much in support of the Church and Ministry, and in keeping off the day when our altars shall be desecrated and our clergy dishonored. In striving for the dignity of the profession, we are striving for the good of the people and for the advance of that Gospel whose preachers have high authority for magnifying their office. New England has done much for her clergy. They are recreants if they forget the obligation, or yield their important trusts to the threats of the disorganizer or the assumptions of the bigot. Many who may smile at our present