the people; with what effect were are unable to say; but nothing more was heard of the immolation of human victims.

On the last day of the festival, the weather being favourable, the deluded people drew the car forward to the temple of Radhabullubh, though it was not customary to do it on the last day, and setting Juggernaunt in it, carried him back to his old residence.

FOR THE CHRISTIAN. JOURNAL,

An Essay on Religious Societies and Prayer Meetings: such as are herein defined.

WHEN there are so many forms in which men combine in societies, not only innocently but laudably, for different purposes of civil life; it must evidently be unchristian to interdict the instituting of them, with a view to religious information, and the excitement of religious affections. No such thing is here intended. The description of society to be objected to, is the bringing together of a select portion of a congregation, under the exercise of a mode of worship unknown in the institutions of the Church, to which such a religious party belong. The Church to which the subject will refer, is that known by the name of Protestant and Episcopal. There may be societies in which the said features are perceived, but not so conspicuously as will be here contemplated: And in proportion as this is the case, they come under the same censure. There may be others to which it does not apply, but which may be eminently laudable. These are put out of view, in the present essay: And especially it will be inisunderstood, if it should be thought adverse to any association, in which the tie of the members is personal attachment and confidence; and the object, is mutual improvement in religious knowledge.

The distinguishing property of the societies now contemplated, is the holding out of a profession, beyond that exacted by the Gospel. To confess Christ before men, is an indispensable duty; of which there will offer occasional opportunities, by the bear

ing of testimony to divine truth, and against error and licentiousness. In addition, there is the institution of divine worship, and especially of the Holy Communion, under a legitimate ministry. In the case in question, there is understood to be a grade of profession, beyond what is attached to the said appointed modes of manifesting it: in short, of a Church within a Church, under a discrimination not unlike to that of the worshippers within the temple, and those in the court of the Gentiles.

It may be alleged, that no such matter is intended by the parties. This is not to the purpose, if it be so understood by the Christian world in general. Besides, the allegation is not correct: it being not uncommon to hear the charge of unevangelical, or of a sinful conformity to the world, on such a profession of religion, or on such a clergyman; because of their non-compliance with the institution of their on this account-more godly brethren.

The objections to be here brought against the contemplated societies, are as follows.

1st. In the circumstance of a society's being expected to be composed of a select part only of an organized congregation, there is an endeavour to establish a Church, on principles alien from those on which a Church has been constructed by the Redeemer. He has announced of his, that it shall be like a field comprehending wheat and tares; and like a net, full of fishes, good and bad: Whereas in the other scheme, it is impliedly designed of the godly only.

Let there not be pleaded for so lax a discipline, as tolerates openly wicked livers within the pale of the Church. How far the exclusion of them is a duty, and by what rules it should be governed, is wide of the present subject. If the discipline be ever so wisely contrived, and ever so prudently executed, it will be impossible to extend the scrutiny to the heart. There will be tares among the wheat, and bad fish within the net.

Such is the Church instituted by divine wisdom. But as to the Church fabricated by human weakness, it is not expected to include any besides those of a grade of profession, beyond what is attached to an attendance on the stated occasions of public worship, and of the Holy Communion. Let the attendance, be ever so exact, and let the lives of the parties be ever so correct, they will not be esteemed as helping to constitute the number of the pious members of the congregation. In short, there is created a bond of union, which excludes some saints and some sinners; either of whom may be within the pale of Christ's visible Church, consistently with the rules to which he has subjected her.

In answer to what has been said, there is taken a distinction between the Church and a Society. But why should we suffer ourselves to be misled by names? The original word translated "Church," is applied in Scripture alike to sacred and to civil purposes. It may be considered as especially descriptive of persons, congregating for religious worship, whether they assemble in a house erected for the purpose, or in a school-room, or in a barn. Ecclesiastical custom uses it in such a manner, as to distinguish between a legitimate assembly and a schismatical one. In any to whom the former character applies, what is proper in one place, or at one hour of the twenty-four, is proper any where and at any hour. Contrariety of practice is proof, that there is affected something, diverse from what was ordained by the divine Author of our religion: And however the favourers of a society nay distinguish between the Christian Church and the work of their own hands; there is in reality no other difference between them, than what proves the latter to be derogatory to and impliedly a censure on the former. The constituent principles of the one or of the other, are wrong: And if so, there ought to be no doubt in the mind of any well informed Christian, to which species of Church he is to adhere.

2dly. The leading principle of the contemplated societies, is not only alien from any belonging to the Church founded by our Saviour; but is the

same with that of an association, which was the subject of the severest of his censures. The association alluded to, is that of the Pharisees; who, while they joined with the other members of the Jewish church in the public offices of the same religion, had among themselves the tie of the profession of extraordinary sanctity. From this circumstance they derived their name, which is synonomous with "Separatists;" and was designed to be expressive of something, distinguishing them from the mass of worshippers in the temple and in the synagogues.

Let us not confound the two ideas of the sanctity of the professed religion, and the profession of personal sanctity. The law of Moses enjoined "the loving of God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourself." The same is only expressed in other words, by the Christian precept of "living soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world." To add to these, is impossible. To derogate from them, must be either licentious or profane. While we make a full acknowledgment of their obligation, it may be without the exhibition of self, in a pre-eminently righteous point of view. But in the self-constituted societies under the Gospel, as in that which we read of under the law, there is a profession beyond what is required by the dispensations respectively. It is gratuitous; and therefore not only unnecessary, but ostentatious.

Have we forgotten what our Lord said of those who sounded a trumpet before them? of their praying at the corners of the streets? and of the display of their phylacteries-that is, of select passages of Scripture on the borders of their garments? Or do we suppose that under the censure of these things, there was not intended to be included whatever is the result of the same inward character of the person ? It may be worth while, to consider seriously the import of that memorable saying of our Saviour-" Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." Did he design to brand the whole body spoken of, with the charge of their being intentionally, and in the highest sense of the wordhypocrites? This would be inconsistent with what St. Paul, after having been so long a Pharisee, has said of himself "I have lived in all good conscience before God, until this day." The supposition is also inconsistent with what Josephus has said, of the reputation maintained by this sect among the people. But to have a right understanding of the passage in question, it should be remembered, that hypocrisy, like other properties, has its degrees; and that it may work insensibly, in a needless exhibition of self. Even in this case, it extends its vitiating influence over the whole character, as leaven spreads itself through a mass of meal. And this is probably the whole of what is intended in the place quoted.

The last remark is made in order to guard against the supposition, that it is designed to load the attendants on the contemplated societies, with the odium of hypocrisy in the grossest sense of the word. Without going to this length, it is conceived, and held to be confirmed by experience of the world, that a very common trait of character among such persons, is the affecting of sanctimonious appearances in every branch of the ordinary conduct and conversation even in such as are independent on all question of innocence or guilt. Now, although it is an essential duty to own Christ before men; yet since he has appointed the ordinances in which this should be done, and subjected the manner of them to the discretion of ecclesiastical discipline, the going beyond this sphere, and the multiplying of appoint ed channels of the profession, savours of the spirit which gave birth to pharisaism, and subjects to the recited animadversion of our Saviour. Among its unhappy effects, there is that of its leading of conscience astray; and the inducing of the measuring of Christian character, by a test very different froin that of the conquest of passion, and the " adorning of the doctrine of our God and Saviour in all things."

-3dly. Every such society, in the principle of its constitution, possesses the seed of its dissolution. In the city VOL. III.

wherein this is written, and within the memory of him who writes, there have been many such associations; not one of which, known to him, has continued for a considerable length of time. The reason appears to him to have been this: Some persons of consistent character have been partners in the design; who, after a while, have perceived in the characters of some of their associates, failures from which there. arose scandal on themselves. What is now principally spoken of, are not gross vices, but such deficiences in Christian character, as cannot be made the subjects of ecclesiastical discipline. No man, and no woman, conceives of him or herself as disgraced by the inconsistences of those, with whom they show their faces in an organized Christian church. But when a society has been established on the presumption, that the piety of the members of it is of a higher grade than that of the members of the communion generally, the former are responsible in character for one another. From making a profession of our religion in the way appointed by the Divine Author of it, we are not excused by the circumstance, that certain persons make the same profession, without its due effect on their tempers, and on the discharge of their social duties. But in the case of a gratuitous profession, the known want of a truly Christian character in any one of the party, is countenanced by every individual of it, who continues of the number. Such an intermixture of goats with the sheep, the writer of this had rather leave to be a subject of the future observation of others, than exhibit on the ground of past knowledge of his own: which, however, has been sufficient to account to him satisfactorily, for the short duration of every such society within the reach of his notice. The sentiment has had an efficient, although sometimes an unperceived operation, on the minds of the more respectable members of it.

4thly. Such societies have been, and for ever will be a mean of seducing from the worship of the communion of the Episcopal Church. She supposes that her use of a form of prayer, in

36

preference to that which is extempore, is countenanced by our Saviour and his Apostles, and by the practice of primitive times. If the opinion be erroneous, it should be abandoned; not only in the school-room and in the barn, but in the house set apart for divine worship. If the opinion be correct; to undermine it insidiously, must be contrary not only to true religion, but to moral honesty. It is evident, that for the accomplishing of the object, the following device is likely to be efficient. A minister may officiate in the public offices; his doing so being essential to the holding of his station, and the qualifying of himself to make a schism. But at the same time he may provide a retreat, to which he will withdraw a portion of his flock, in order to join with him in the effu sions of a devotion, emancipated from the appointed forms. Whatever piety or the appearance of it he may possess, it is evidently made use of to the injury of the Church, of which he calls himself a minister. We know, that this was the beginning of the separation of the Methodists. And ever since that event, there has been a similar issue in various neighbourhoods of the United States.

What would be thought of the minister of an anti-episcopal congregation, who should provide a similar retreat for a portion of his flock, in which they might join with him in a prescrib. ed form of prayer; and with one another, in responses like those in the service of the Episcopal Church? Could he give more unequivocal evidence, that his heart were in this species of devotion, and that he practised the other, merely in submission to authority? In the two cases, the inconsistency is the same; and there is a similar conflict of inclination with publie duty.

(To be continued.)

To the Editor of the Christian Journal, SIR,

I HAVE always thought that the rubrics clearly enjoined the reading of the decalogue, epistle, and gospel up.

on Sundays and other holy days, even if there be no communion. But having recently understood that a contrary opinion was entertained by some persons, whose judgment is much to be respected, I was induced to give the subject a serious re-consideration; the result of which has confirmed my first impressions, and excited no little astonishment that any doubt should ever have been suggested upon the subject.

With the humble hope of leading to a correct understanding of this subject, and to a consistent and uniform practice in this respect, I send you, for publication, the following observations.

1

The first part of the rubric at the end of the communion office-with respect to the construction of which, the chief difficulty exists is in these words:

"Upon the Sundays and other holy days (if there be no sermon or communion) shall be said all that is appointed at the communion, unto the end of the gospel, concluding with the blessing."

The difficulty of understanding this rubric lies in the parenthitical clause, (if there be no sermon or communion.) Is this to be taken in the disjunctive or in the conjunctive? If in the former, then the absence either of sermon or communion will insure the operation of the rubric, which provides that in certain cases only part of the communion office is to be used, viz. " unto the end of the gospel." But this cannot be a correct construction; because, in that case, if there be no sermon, but communion, the provisions of the rubric would attachwhereas, it is beyond all doubt, that, upon every occasion of communion, it is required to use the whole of the office. This, therefore, cannot be the sense of the rubric. It must then be taken conjunctively as if it were thus expressed, " in the absence both of sermon and communion shall be said," &c.

If this were the only rubric relating to the subject, it would seem that where there is a sermon, but no communion, the decalogue, epistle, and gospel, (which we shall in the sequel denote by the familiar phrase antecommunion service) are not required to be used.

But there is another rubric clearly requiring their use, whenever there is a sermon; and as we cannot suppose that the two rubrics are repugnant, one to the other, such an interpretation ought to be given to both, as will reconcile and harmonize them.

The rubric referred to, is that immediately preceding the offertory" Then shall follow the sermon; after which, the minister, when there is a communion, shall return to the Lord's table," &c. Is it not the clear implication of this rubric, that when there is no communion, but a sermon, every part of the office is to be used, that is appointed to be said before the minister returns " to the Lord's table." If the ante-communion service, like the succeeding parts of the office, is to be used only on communion occasions, where would be the propriety of directing that the part which follows the sermon should be used when "there is a communion?" This phraseology can be justified only by supposing that the preceding parts of the office are to be used when there is no communion. This rubric, then, most plainly makes provision for the case of a sermon, but no communion; but is silent in relation to the case of no sermon and no communion. In order to supply this omission, the final rubric in the communion office provides, that "On Sundays and other holy days (if there be no sermon or communion," i.e. ac cording to the construction here given to these words, and which is thought to be the only admissible one-in the absence both of sermon and communion) " shall be said all that is appointed in the communion, unto the end of the gospel," &c. Hence it appears, that on Sundays and other holy days, when there is no communion, but a sermon, the ante-communion service is to be used; and when there is neither sermon nor communion, it is also to be used.

This construction of the rubrics is corroborated by the following considerations.

1. The Church has provided a collect, epistle, and gospel, for every

Sunday in the year, and the portions of scripture are generally the most intesting of the sacred volume; and are, mereover, most judiciously adapted to the different subjects celebrated by the Church, at different seasons. The obvious presumption, therefore, is, that these were intended to be used. It cannot be, with any colour of reason, supposed, that so large and so interesting a portion of the Prayer Book should be, for the most part, neglected. And yet, according to the construction here thought erroneous, not more than one fifth part of the epistles and gospels would be used in any church-it being supposed that the communion Sundays in any church, do not, in the average, exceed that proportion of the whole number of Sundays in the year. Can it be reasonably conceived that the Church has made so liberal a provision for the edification of her members, without intending that it should have been used?

2. There are several occasions on which the Church commemorates the most important events in the wonderful scheme of redemption-such as the birth, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension of the Saviour, the descent of the Holy Ghost, &c. On these occasions, if there be a sermon, but no communion-which is not enjoined the propriety of reading the appropriate epistles and gospels, which relate to the respective events celebrated, must be so obvious, and the duty so plain, that neither, I am confident, will be questioned by those whose views are here opposed. But what reason or argument, induces to the use of the epistle and gospel, upon these occasions, that does not equally operate upon all other Sundays and holy days? If it be said that these are appropriate to the events celebrated on those days-we answer, that every Sunday and holy day has its appropriate epistle and gospel, which must, therefore, by parity of reason, be always used.

Perhaps it may be said, that the different phraseology of the American and English Prayer Book, in the rubrics upon this subject, is an argument in favour of the construction here opposed. But, upon examination,