selves, which was the consequence of knowing that, like the first founders of our religion, we have every where been spoken against. The prejudices which we have had to contend with, are those which have been fostered from the first settlement of this country by the descendants of those who separated from their mother, the church of England; and also those which were excited in the minds of the politicians of our country, from the connexion of our church, before the revolution, with the civil government of England. The lapse of time is gradually destroying the arbitrary associations on which these prejudices have been founded. The prejudices themselves, therefore, are beginning to give way; and the increasing divisions of religious sects, springing inevitably from the principles of dissent, are beginning to open the eyes of reflecting and conscientious men to the danger with which these divisions threaten our common Chris tianity, and to the great value of religious unity. In the mean time our church has followed the undeviating tenour of her way, through evil report and good report; her clergy have become more numerous and more thoroughly united; her laity have recovered from the despondency occasioned by the causes which have been mentioned; and she is now able to count within her bosom some of the greatest names which have adorned, and which will hereafter adorn, the annals of our country. It is never to be forgotten, that the great and good Washington was, to the last moment of life, a firm adherent to our communion.

As to the wealth and intelligence of our laity, we can, in all the Atlantick states, south of New England, claim a larger share, in proportion to our num= bers, than any other denomination of professing Christians.

These circumstances considered, it seems as if we were now especially called upon to exert ourselves for the preservation and increase of the talent

which God hath intrusted to our care. We possess all the advantages which other Christians enjoy, and we have the advantage over them of possessing institutions of apostolical formation, and of greater stability. It is not for the purpose of boasting of these advantages that they are mentioned, but to show that our shame will be the greater, if we do not preserve and defend them. For this purpose, union is necessary; and to promote this union the several parts of the body must be brought to act in concert. Every individual parishioner should feel that he is related to his clergyman and to his bishop. Every congregation should feel, that it is a part of the diocese, so intimately connected with the rest, that the sufferings and the joys of every member may pervade the whole body. Every diocese is to consider itself as a portion only of the whole of our national church, acting always in unison, to promote the good of the whole. church, throughout the United States, is to look upon itself as a member of that catholick or universal church, of which Christ is the head and king. All Christians are our brethren, entitled to our sympathies and our benevolence, as far as our power extends, and to our esteem, in proportion to the purity with which they receive the faith once delivered to the saints, and the firmness with which they adhere to the order of apostolical practice. F.

Our

To the Editor of the Gospel Advocate. Ir being the object of your useful miscellany, not only to defend and inculcate the pure doctrines, but also to recommend and enforce the great duties of Christianity, I have thought it might be useful to call the attention of your readers to a subject, which has often occupied my thoughts, and as often awakened in my mind the most painful emotions. I allude to the frequent, and,

I fear, inexcusable neglect of the institution of publick worship, by many who profess and call themselves Christians. It is to be hoped there are few comparatively, in this highly favoured part of our country, who entirely forsake the assembling of themselves together for the pur. poses of publick devotion. This is a duty so reasonable in itself, and so beneficial in its consequences, considered even in a temporal point of view, that no man, who has any just regard for his own character, or for the welfare of the community, can consistently withhold from it his occasional countenance and support; much less will he, who views the publick worship of God in its aspect on a future world, as the best and only preparation for the worship of that temple not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, altogether forsake the worshipping assemblies of saints on earth. But whether we contemplate this ordinance with reference to its temporal or spiritual advantages, the same considerations which demand our occasional attendance in the house of prayer, urge us to the constant and uniform discharge of this duty. And, if we duly estimate our obligations and privileges in this respect, we shall suffer nothing, but the most urgent necessity, in any instance to detain us from the habitation of the Lord's house, the place where his honour dwelleth. As often as the doors of the sanc tuary are opened to us, we shall enter into its gates with thanksgiving, and into its courts with praise.

Why then is the house of God so often forsaken by many who profess a reverence for his name and institutions? Why do our congregations so frequently vary in the numbers of their worshippers? Why are the ambassadors of Christ so often pained with the view of deserted walls and vacant seats? Why do the ways of Zion so frequently mourn that so few come to her solemn feasts ? Why are so many of our sabbaths lost to the high and holy purposes for which the sabbath was instituted?

If we examine the causes of the ne

glect of which we complain, we shall find them to be of a nature too trivial and groundless even to palliate, much less to justify it. They are, for the most part, such as are seldom, if ever, suffered to interfere with our worldly concerns, either of business or pleasure; such as we should blush to urge as a plea for deserting the interests or honour of an earthly friend or benefactor. Thousands, every sabbath, are kept from the house of God, some the whole, some, perhaps, but half of the day, by considerations, which never on other days keep the husbandman from his farm, the me. chanick from his shop, the merchant from his counting house, nor the man of pleasure froin his favourite indulgence. What guilt and presumption to neglect, on such slight pretences, a duty, enjoined by the dread Sovereign of the universe, and inseparably connected with our highest interests; a duty which, like godliness, of which it is an essential part, has the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come! How would such conduct be viewed in clergymen? What would their congregations think and say of them, were they, on account of the weather, their distance from church, a slight indisposition, or from a regard to their own ease and indulgence, frequently to absent themselves from publick worship, and leave the flocks committed to their charge to wander upon the mountains, like sheep without a shepherd? Would they not justly regard such negligence in their ministers, as deserving the severest reprehension ? But can any reason be given why it should not be viewed as equally reprehensible in themselves ? Are not the obligations of clergymen and laymen in this respect reciprocal ? If it be the duty of the former to preach; is it not equally the duty of the latter to hear?

It may be thought, perhaps, that the neglect, of which we are speaking, is of too trivial a nature to require or deserve serious animadversion. But a little reflection will convince us that it is far

otherwise; that nothing is trivial or unimportant, which is connected with re. ligion, which tends, in the remotest degree, to further or retard our progress in the knowledge and practice of Christianity, our preparation for a better world. That negligence in our temporal concerns is seldom crowned with success is proved by daily experience; and are we authorized to expect that the crown of life is to be won without exertion? On the contrary, do not the scriptures every where inculcate the necessity of the most strenuous and unremitting efforts in order to secure the promised possession? Besides the express precepts of scripture on this subject, are we not constantly referred to the examples of prophets, apostles, and martyrs, and to that of Christ himself, as patterns for our imitation? And do these examples afford any sanction to the indulgence of an indolent and slothful spirit? Do they give us the least encouragement to hope that the lukewarm, negligent Christian will follow them to the bright abodes which they now in habit?

Every instance of unnecessary neglect of publick worship is chargeable with the guilt of disobedience to the diyine authority. Publick worship is a divine institution. Not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together is an apostolick injunction. Whenever therefore we desert this institution without an adequate cause, we disobey an express command, and consequently incur the divine displeasure. The circumstance of the neglect being only occasional, alters not the nature of the offence. Were it to occur but once in the course of our lives, it would still be an omission of duty, and, as such, ought to penetrate our hearts with contrition, and carry us to the throne of grace for pardon.

This neglect is inconsistent with that reverence which is due to the sanctuary of God, and to the name which is there recorded. Does the high and lofty One, who inhabiteth eternity, conde, scend to dwell in temples made with

hands? Has He, who is the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person, promised, that, where two or three are gathered together in his name, there he will be in the midst of them? And can we esteem it a light thing to desert the place thus honoured by the special presence of the Deity? When invited to meet our King and Saviour in his earthly courts, shall we listen to the invitation with indifference, or in any instance, in which attendance is practicable, refuse to comply with it? To do this is to treat the Almighty with less ceremony or respect than we are accustomed to show to our superiours on earth; it is in truth to pour contempt on his character and institutions. And shall we think this no offence merely because we are not habitually guilty of it?

Further, this remissness on the part of professingChristians, is unfriendly to the progress of the gospel. On the support of publick worship the very existence of religion in the world depends. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth. In the same degree in which the foundation is weakened or impaired, the stability of the superstructure is affected. Let the publick altars of religion be deserted, and religion itself must expire. Now it is obvious that those, who entirely withhold from the institution of publick worship their countenance and support, contribute, as far as their example and influence extend, to the destruction of the visible church, and consequently to the extinction of Christianity. And has not every instance of neglect the same tendency? As often as an individual absents himself from the publick assemblies of Christians, does be not virtually desert the banner of Christ, and swell the ranks of the enemies of his cross? Has not the Saviour said, he that is not with me, is against me? The effect of his absence may not be perceived at the time, but it does not therefore follow that it will not be felt; and were his example to bẹ generally followed, the consequences would be as visible as they are real;

of

To the Editor of the Gospel Advocate,

MR. WEBSTER'S DISCOURSE.

my last communication, I have given, I think, sufficient evidence, that the object of the puritans, in the reign queen Elizabeth, was not to obtain a toleration for the quiet enjoyment of their own tenets and modes of worship; but it was to subvert the existing establishment, and to erect their own system upon its ruins. So far from wishing for a toleration, they expressly disclaimed and refused one, when something of the kind seems to have been intended for them. There is a warm declaration of theirs, still extant, upon this point, directed to "those who labour to root out the weeds of popery." "As for you, dear brethren, whom God hath call'd into the brunte of the battle, the Lord keep you constant, that ye yield neither to TOLERATION, neither to any other subtil persuasions of dispensations, or licences, which were to fortify their Romish practices: But, as you fight the Lord's fight, be valiant. The matter is not so small as the world doth take it; it will appear, before all be ended, what an hard thing it is to cut off the rags of the hydra of Rome. Let us not make the heritage of God as a bird of any colours, holding of divers religions -but rather let us take away, if we can, the names, memories, and all monuments of popery." Part of a Register, p. 18. Who were meant by this description, in the year 1570, needs no explanation. The bishops and clergy of the church of England were then constantly represented as bearing the names, and supporting the monuments of popery. Agreeably to this exhortation, we see nothing in all their petitions, admonitions, supplications, &c. which looks like asking any indulgence or toleration only for themselves; but their single request or command, in what style soever they speak, is, to overthrow, entirely, the established government and worship, and introduce their own, with penalties, and even

sharp punishments, to be inflicted upon those who would not comply with it. To make the heritage of God, as a bird of many colours by holding of divers religions, was, in their estimation, a sin; and, accordingly, in one of the pieces written by Johnson, a leader of the Brownists, entitled "Antichristian abominations yet reteyned in England," the thirty-third abomination enumerated is TOLERATIONS. This curious document may be seen in the Biographia Britannica, article brown (Robert) note F.

The "HOLY DISCIPLINE," which the puritans laboured so hard to introduce, has been so often adverted to, that your readers will perhaps be curious to know something of its contents. It was originally drawn up in Latin by Mr. Travers, and printed at Geneva; it was then diligently revised, corrected, and perfected, by Mr. Cartwright, who translated it, and by other learned ministers at the puritan synods; and was finally published by authority in 1644, having been found in Mr. Cartwright's study after his death.

One of the first laws is as follows: "Let none be called" [to any ecclesiastical benefice] "but they who have first subscribed the confession of doc. trine and discipline; whereof let them be admonish'd to have copies with themselves.” This would at once have deprived all the episcopal clergy throughout the nation. But this subscription from every minister did not content them; for farther care must be taken to prevent his changing his mind. "Let him be demanded, whether he will be studious and careful to maintain and preserve wholesome doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline. Thus let the minister be examined, not only by one eldership, but also by some greater meeting and assembly." Nor was even this sufficient; for the same holy discipline went on to say, In the examination of ministers, the testimony of the place from whence they come is to be demanded, whereby it may be

66