ON DEVOTIONAL BEHAVIOUR IN PLACES OF PUBLIC WORSHIP. IT has been remarked by a much respected friend to the New Church and her institutions, (and I most sincerely agree with him,) that, in our solemn assemblies, prior to the commencement of the service, very little solemnity is observed; for too frequently there is a collection of persons in the vestry, who come from thence into the Church in the train of the minister and deacons, after a conference of longer or shorter duration; now this practice is calculated to interfere with the devotional feeling the minister must desire to experience on all those occasions when he is about to address himself to our heavenly Father, and to draw the minds of all present into the sphere of that sanctity which renders worship truly spiritual and free from merely worldly associations. For my own part, I consider the vestry, at least before the commencement of the service, as peculiarly belonging to the minister and his associate or deacon. Further, it is a common occurrence, that the parents and friends of a child about to be baptized, assemble in the vestry, when a conversation upon various topics takes place, which cannot be totally and suddenly dismissed from the thoughts either of the minister or friends, and at the same time there is a good deal of going in and out of the vestry, the effect of which is to draw the enquiring notice of the congregation in that direction: all this should, I conceive, be avoided in our solemn meetings, if we would wish to maintain their character for such, or if we would wish to be a people remarkable for the earnestness, spirituality, and truth of our devotional feelings: avoiding this, we should also be careful to observe the like spirit in the body of the Church itself, even as we are assembling for worship, instead of conversing with and greeting one another as if we were collecting together in a friend's drawing-room. To come into a Church for the sake of worshiping our Father in the heavens, is, I conceive, to come more immediately, as regards ourselves, into His Presence; and if we suffer ourselves to be diverted from the holy object we profess to have in view, we detract from the sincerity, as well as efficacy, of our worship, and substitute mere time-service and formality for singleness of eye, and devotedness of heart, to that one great and holy object of our profoundest adoration. Nor is this all that I have to observe upon our misdoings in public worship; a serious misdeed, in this respect, is our habitual late coming in to the solemn assembly; it amounts to a great deriliction of duty,—to a breach of our articles and conditions of Church-membership; it is, in fact, the commission of a great unkindness towards our minister, and to our better conducted brethren; it is unkind to the former, because he lacks the support and assistance in his public service which his congregation invited and appointed him to perform for them as the organ of their prayers, praises, and devotional feelings; it is unkind to our better conducted brethren, because it interrupts them in their devotional exercise, and dissolves the connexion subsisting between their thoughts and feelings and those of the minister, thereby destroying the very purpose for which they made themselves a part of the congregation. In every sense, indeed, in which this matter can be regarded, it is extremely culpable and deserving the severest censure and remonstrance. But the reverse of all this would be most delightful to behold, and its effects would be most encouraging and satisfactory, our common increase of mental health and strength would prove the ground of our mutual encouragement, and our attraction of new friends to our Societies would prove the ground of our satisfaction. These observations are rendered with no other view than to serve as a fresh rallying of our members together, in order to prevent any accusations being brought against us from without on these heads; for though our internal states of feeling and sentiment may be all-sufficient to ourselves, yet this sufficiency is our chiefest danger, for we may be assured that our internal states have no stability if they come short of outward expression and observance; they have no permanence unless they become the habits of our lives; if they acquire these conditions of existence, we shall not fear to speak with our enemy at the gates of our city, nor be unprepared for his assaults, come from what quarter or with what subtilty they may. The New Christian Church is advancing in the world; it will consequently attract more notice in proportion to its advance: for the sake therefore of this glorious, this heaven-descending Church, let us be mindful of our ways, and keep them all subservient to her ends, that thus she may become a refuge from the stormy wind and tempest to all such as feel themselves driven about from one doctrine to another; and a peaceful habitation to all such as are meek and lowly in heart, and who would observe the Lord's commandments to do them. Guilford-street. J. S. POETRY. MORNING HYMN. (From "The Retina," an American New Church periodical.) WITH the light of rising day, Waking birds from every tree, Praiseth THEE, thou God of Day. Gaily now each shining stream All day long, each fragrant flower Like the sunshine warm and bright, Wise and loving, LORD, like Thee. When the glorious stars arise, While the shaded silent hours A. B. LETTERS FROM AMERICA.-LETTER V. To the Editor of the Intel. Repository. Sir, It was my wish to give you, in the present letter, some particulars respecting the conjugial relation, which is believed by some in this country to exist between a pastor and his congregation. It seems necessary, however, now to confine myself to other matters. First, let me speak of the Western Convention. This body held its twelfth annual meeting in this city, from the 22nd to the 27th of May last. The members in attendance numbered about the same as the year before, and their deliberations embraced the usual subjects. One subject, however, engaged their especial attention, namely, the propriety of having a Convention of delegates. This led to animated discussions, because of the results to which it might lead. It was decided that a meeting of representatives should take place in November next, at Dayton, in this State, to consider the subject of forming a Convention of delegates for the Western Country. The Address from the English Conference was duly read in the Convention. It was read at a particular hour, in order that as many as possible might hear it. The kind sentiments expressed in it gave much pleasure to the members of the Convention, responding as they did to the feelings of sincere respect and affection, ever entertained by the Church here in the West, for their brethren in Great Britain. I may as well mention some of the reasons for and against a Convention of delegates. Our American brethren seem, in a former instance, to have estimated too highly their powers and duties when assembled as ministers and delegates in a Convention. I have shewn you, that they claim to stand to the Church at large in the relation of a mother to her children. It is thought that a Convention of receivers is a means of preventing such results, so that many are on this account disposed to prefer receivers to delegates. Viewing matters in the same light, expressed myself in favor of receivers, a twelvemonth ago. But this plan has inconveniences of a different nature, such as may be easily conceived. Under such circumstances, many feel N.S. No. 57.-VOL. V. rather embarrassed how to act. The Allow me, in the next place, to notice an article in the May number of the Boston N. J. Mag. (see Repos. for Aug. p. 293.) professing to point out an error in a letter of mine which appears in your Repos, for March. I am said to have given an unfair and partial quotation from a resolution of the Eastern Convention, making that body appear to claim control or dominion, when it actually disclaims it. Read, Sir, that resolution without this editor's explanation, and you must construe it as I and others here have done, viz., that it maintained such a claim, while it only disclaimed actual coercion. It arose out of the following language addressed by the Western Church to the Eastern Convention:-"We believe that no Convention ought to have or to exercise ex-cathedra authority in the Church; that the only legitimate object of any Convention is consentient deliberation, or combined action for the attainment of ends which are common to distinct, free, and rational constituent parts; that no collective body has the right to dictate to a receiver of the doctrines, what he shall do, or what he shall believe; that forms of faith and rules of practice are to be derived solely from the Lord in His Word, as illustrated by those writings which He caused to be written for His Church; and that each receiver Y y is accountable directly to the Lord, and to Him only, for his belief and conduct, except so far as he, acting in freedom according to reason, intentionally binds himself by the decisions of any collective body which he helps to constitute." Can you suppose that the Western Convention would have held such language without necessity? Whether the Eastern Convention did really claim such "excathedra authority," may be known from their official Address, in the Boston Mag. for September, 1840, wherein we read :"The Church is the immediate mother to men." (p. 25.) "The general Church is to apply the precepts of the Word, as understood by the aid of the revelations made for the use of the New Church, to all the associations or societies composing this general Church; that is, it is to decide what its heavenly Father and spiritual Mother commands it to do. Thus a general Church or Convention is to decide those things which equally concern all the Societies of which it is composed-those general principles by which each component part or member is to govern itself those modes of action, which are common to all within its precinct." (p. 21.) "The general Church is to decide how these precepts (of truth) are to be understood, and what they require all the parts of the Church to shun or to do. And just so far as these decisions are in reality the precepts of the Father and Mother brought down so as to apply particularly to this general Church, so far are they as the commands of a mother to the associations," &c. (p. 26.) "It is left to every individual member of the Church, every Church in its least form, obeying the decisions of the Church in all its larger forms, further to apply the truth," &c. (p. 26.) "The imperfection of the Church furnishes no more an excuse for treating its decisions with disrespect or disobedience, than the circumstance of a natural mother's not being fully regenerated, furnishes a justification for the rebellion of her child." (p. 26.) Is there not evidence here that the Western Church had reason to hold the language above quoted, against undue authority? Moreover, I find the Rev. M. M. Carll saying, in an official report to the Western Convention in 1839, respecting the Eastern Convention, on its adoption of the delegate system, "From this period, it assumed a legislative cha racter." You read, in the Journal of the Eastern Convention, for 1842, in an official letter from its president to a Society, relative to a minister administering the Sacrament to it, "There is no legal difficulty in the way." At this rate, its decisions are held to be as laws. They are officially called prescriptions and commands. In 1838, this Convention resolved, that the Societies then its members, which should not in a twelvemonth, organize according to its rules, ought not to regard themselves, or be regarded as members of it. From the above, we see authority both claimed and exercised. When, therefore, I saw it simply and plainly said in a resolution, that no reason could be seen for denying to that Convention the right to exercise control or dominion, how was I to understand it, in the face of the above testimony? Why just as it read, and in a way which harmonized with the above official claims. To construe it otherwise would be to contradict the above solemnly-asserted claims. How can there be a mother's authority, and also prescriptions, commands, laws, and obedience to them, without "dominion or control?" To say that coercion is disclaimed, is just to say nothing, because there cannot be religious coercion in this country. To leave out, therefore, for the sake of brevity, words which literally meant nothing, was not to act at all unfairly. The "control or dominion" there mentioned, is just that of a mother over children,— orderly children who need no coercion, children who choose to obey her, and are therefore free. But their willingness and freedom in obedience do not take away from her right to command. This right is what that Convention claims, and what the Western Church will not submit to: they will not, because it is a question of principle. The above resolution speaks of liberty and seems to favor it, but then it is only "that liberty which the Church gives." And do not these words also involve the claim of power or authority for a Convention? Without it, how can we say that the Church has any liberty either to give or take away? With respect to the last resolution, which seems to favor the Western proposition for a new General Convention, let me say, that the Eastern Convention resolved in 1842, that " in its opinion the time for attempting to form a general |