join with their fellow-christians in celebrating the birth of Christ on the 25th of December.

I grant that it cannot be proved that Jesus was born on ' that precise day, and that some strong objections may be made to it as the true time of the Nativity. But this is of little moment. Speaking chronologically, the keeping of the exact time of an event is an impossibility with regard to all people and to distant ages. That, however, is to al practical purposes an anniversary which all persons whos it interests agree to consider as such. If the New Ye opens on a Sunday, persons are accustomed to celebra the opening the next day, many hours after it has rei opened. To make the observance of times morally m all that is needed is, that they shall come before us natu associated with particular ideas. Christmas Day has doubtedly the benefit of this association; for there is no Dissenter, however rigid, who can keep his thoughts on that day from recurring to the event which throughout Christendom it commemorates.

Why should he wish to keep his thoughts from the interesting, delightful subject? The birth of Christ was an unspeakable blessing to mankind. It cannot be too often or deeply contemplated; and if it be a proper meditation for every day, it cannot surely be out of place on that day when the mass of Christians agree to make it the theme of discourse and the occasion of pious rejoicing.

The day has been and is abused. What day is not? Do we not all complain of the abuse of the Lord's Day, both by the superstitious and the profane?

When honest John Bunyan lay in Bedford jail for conscience' sake, the Mayor (I think it was) of that town, by way of taunting the Nonconformist's known prejudices with regard to Christmas, sent him a Christmas pye, expecting of course that it would not be received. The humourous prisoner, however, accepted the present and sent this message by the bearer: "Thank thy master for me, and tell him that John Bunyan can distinguish between Christmas and pye, and like the one though he dislike the other."

He is not very wise who cannot separate the superstition from the agreeable and rational and inoral and religious use of Christmas tide.

A divine service on the day is the best of all opportunities of exposing and protesting against whatever errors have grown in the course of time around the subject of the

birth of Christ. It also allows many persons who are tied to their own places of worship on the Sunday, to step in and hear what are the principles of Dissenters and Unitarians.

I confess when I have heard the bells on a Christmas morning with their cheerful sounds summoning Christians to the God and

Father of Christ, and have seen the
Meeting-houses fast closed, I have.

to attend the altar with their thers of Dissenting

there is some

thing unsocial and sullen in our opinions and customs. What do the vulgar conclude when they observe Unitarian Chapels shut on this anniversary, but that their usual worshipers own or no interest in the event which the rest of the world are celebrating with so much gladness? The conclusion is erroneous; b but why should we countenance it by our conduct?

As a religious question, the observation of Christmas and of other church festivals is referred by the apostle Paul to every one's sense of right. He that regardeth the day, to the Lord he regardeth it: he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. Let all have full liberty. But in a matter left indifferent by the founders of our faith, I for one prefer uniting with my fellow-christians to differing from them; especially as my faith may be confirmed and my devotional feelings quickened by a conformity, within the bounds of conscience, to a custom nearly universal and of unquestioned antiquity.

Seeing no probable evil but much certain good in a Christmas service amongst Dissenters, and particularly Unitarian Dissenters, I cannot help hoping that you, Sir, Christian Reformer as you are and I am persuaded ever will be, will permit me to lay these thoughts before your readers and to invite their candid attention to my recommendation.

AN UNITARIAN MINISTER.

INTELLIGENCE.

Commencement of Unitarian Worship at Hulme.

A place of Unitarian Worship was opened for Sunday Evening worship on Sunday evening, October 1st, at Hulme, near Manchester, when a Sermon was preached by the Rev. J. G. Robberds, of Manchester, from the words of our Saviour, "I and my Father are one." Unitarianism had never before been preached in this populous township. The preaching is to be

Opening of the New Parliament.

THE New Parliament, which was convened some days previous for the sake of swearing in the members of the House of Commons, was opened for business by the KING in person, on Tuesday, the 21st instant. Complaints were made by the Opposition in both Houses of the deficiencies of the Speech from the Throne. The address was moved in the Lords by the Earl CORNWALLIS and seconded by Lord COLVILLE; in the Commons it was moved by the Honourable Mr. LIDDELL, member for Northumberland, and seconded by the Honourable G. WIN, member for Maldon.

There was nothing in the debate which belongs to the Christian Reformer, excepting what was said relating to the religious grievances of Ireland. On this topic, Mr. BROUGHAM said it struck him as a most extraordinary circumstance, that at a time when in the minds of all men there was but one prevailing opinion as to the aspect of public affairs, and that next to what relates to the good of the people, and in some minds even before the good of the people, an urgent demand was felt by every one that the affairs of Ireland should be earnestly and speedily, though maturely considered, yet that, in the King's Speech, the name of Ireland should never once be mentioned. He hoped there was nothing ominous in it, but it must be confessed that it was in the last degree surprising. It was a singular fact that just before the breaking out of the American war, at a time

when all men's eyes were pointed towards America, and when America was the word which hung upon the quivering lip of every man who thought or felt at all, neither mention nor allusion was made to it in the speech from the throne. In a time of scarcely less anxiety, Ireland was omitted in the speech which had just been read to the house. So far was that omission from being expected in America, that (as he had been just reminded) it was treated as a bitter calumny and satire, both upon the mother country and the colonies, and the printer who first published a copy of the King's Speech was thrown into prison. No inan living could believe, knowing what had been doing in Ireland for the last six months, what was doing there now, and what ought to be done here, that the King's Speech contained no mention whatever of the condition of that country. He protested against the omission. The most satisfactory proposition that his Majesty's Government could make would be some measure of sound and enlightened policy which should do justice to Ireland, and save that country from the combined horrors of civil and RELIGIOUS WARFARE.

Mr. DAWSON, the new member for the county of Louth, deplored, as an Irish member, the omission in the speech from the throne of mention of the present state of Ireland. He had just seen accounts in the Irish newspapers of the different parties being anxious to come to open war. He contended that the discontents of Ireland ought to undergo investigation. By conciliating that country the charge and disgrace of a standing army of 15,000 troops might be got rid of. The honourable member then directed the attention of the House to foreign countries, the condition of which should prompt Parliament to make immediate inquiry into the religious grievances of Ireland. How had other nations disposed of their religious disputes? There had been quarreling on religious grounds in the Netherlands, though it had never proceeded to the length of murder, firing and assassination, as in Ireland; but the quarrels had been appeased by every man being recently placed upon an equality as to political rights. The speaker then referred to the religious liberty enjoyed in America, which had proved so beneficial, and which he could not but think was applicable to every country under Heaven. At the present moment, he said, there were no religious disputes in France, because there was no distinction in the admission of persons to civil offices founded on a difference of creeds. France had done more for religious toleration; she had provided for the maintenance of the Protestant Clergy: what became then of the argument from Catholic illiberality? It had been said (in the speech of the Seconder), that further concessions to the Irish Catholics would destroy the establishment in Church and State. If the Church were founded upon the rock of truth, how could it be injured? But the temporalities of the Church might be injured! The Catholics did not

-19, at Portsea, aged 60, Mr. JOHN BRENT, a member of the Unitarian Baptist Church at Portsmouth, and for some years a preacher in that Connexion. He printed, in 1814, a Discourse in vindication of the General Baptists from some aspersions cast upon them by Mr. Ivimey; and more latterly he published a Lecture preached in reference to some reflections cast upon the Church to which he belonged at a Missionary Meeting. He was a decided Unitarian, a zealous Baptist and a warm friend of universal liberty, civil and religious. "For him," says a correspondent, "Death had no terrors: he did not indeed boast of raptures, but expressed a grateful sense of the kind attentions of his friends, spoke of his approaching dissolution, gave his dying admonition, and took his last fare. well with calmness."