in the church, efforts to secure conversions take an external character, which is not proper to them. Accretion displaces growth. The church is gathered as a foundling hospital, and lest it should not be so, its own children are reduced to foundlings. Immediate repentance proclaimed, insisted on and realized in an abrupt change, proper only to those who are indeed aliens and enemies, is the only hope or inlet of the church. We can not understand how the spiritual nation should grow and populate and become powerful within itself;-nothing will serve but the immediate annexation of Texas.

Piety becomes inconstant, and revivals of religion take an exaggerated character from the same causes. If all Christian success is measured by the count of technical conversions from without, then it follows that nothing is done when conversions cease to be counted. The harvest closes not with feasting but with famine. Despair cuts off Christian motive. The tide is spent, let us anchor during the ebb. It is well indeed to live very piously in the families, still there is nothing depending on it. The children will be good subjects enough for conversion without. The piety of the church is thus made to be desultory and irregular by system. The idea of conquest displaces the idea of growth. Whereas, if it were understood that Christian education, or training in the families, is to be itself a process of domestic conversion, that as a child weeps under a frown and smiles at the command of a smile, so spiritual influences may be streaming into his being from the handling of the nursery and the whole manner and temperament of the house, producing what will ever after be fundamental impressions of his being; then the hearth, the table, the society and affections of the house, would all feel the presence of a practical re

ligious motive. The homes would be Christian homes, and life itself a stream of genial piety.

Here too is the greatest impediment to a true missionary spirit. The habit of conquest runs to dissipation and irregularity. It is as if a nation, forgetting its own internal resources, were scouring the seas, and trooping up and down the world, in pursuit of prize money and plunder, forsaking the loom and the plow, and all the regular growths of industry. Whereas, if the church were unfolding the riches of the covenant at her firesides and tables-if the children were identified with religion from the first, and grew up in a Christian love of man, the missionary spirit would not throw itself up in irregular jets, but would flow as a river. And so much is there in this, that we do not believe it possible to produce a steady, patient, practical spirit of missions, except through the education of childhood.

We ask then of every parent, that he will seriously review his impressions on this subject. Let him study the ductility of childhood to parental influence, and observe how easily religious impressions are excited, and all the prejudices of the soul turned on the side of religion. Let him try the conjecture, how far God has made, or will by his presence, make what is lovingly exhibited in his own life, commu. nicable or translatable to the child. ish mind. Dropping the idea of a technical experience, as proper to to older persons, let him see how far by the divine aid, really good and right dispositions toward God and man may be called into exercise. And if he has hitherto considered Christian education to be synonymous with lecturing and reproof, let him consider the text, Fa thers provoke not your children to wrath lest they be discouraged. Let family religion be a domestic miniature of heaven, not a dull for

mality. Let him be there, as the gardener among his opening flow ers, expecting their fragrance and beauty, not that they will all be thistles expecting it, because God hath promised, and the dews of his grace are perpetually felt.

But we must not leave our subject in words of reproof and correction. The truth we have endeavored to set forth is one of high promise to the church. To see its whole import at a glance, imagine the church of God to be a spiritual nation, founded or begun by a colony descended from the skies. It alights upon our globe as its chartered territory. Can this spiritual colony spread itself over the whole territory of the planet, and absorb all the human races in its dominion? You find that it can unfold more of wealth and talent, by far, than the present living races of inhabitIt has within itself a stronger

ants.

law of population, as well as a mighty power to win over and assimilate the nations. Its people have more beauty and weight of character, to exalt their predominance. They have great truths for their armor of assault and defense, which the world can not match or parry, and the superior wisdom of which they must ultimately yield to. And what is more than all, they are found to be all partakers of the divine nature, which they have brought down with them to be unfolded in their history and make it powerful. Having in itself elements of power and precedence like these, not to believe that the heavenly colony will finally overspread and fill the world, is to deny causes their effects and pronounce a sentence of futility on the laws of nature themselves. God too has testified in regard to this branch of his plantingTHEY SHALL INHERit the Land.

On reading this document for the first time, we were at a loss what to make of it. On the one hand it has the characteristic signature of "a Catholic Layman," and is dated in due form on "the Festival of St.

James, 1844." And yet it is hard to believe that a man could be so simple as to think that he could get anything but contempt for his "Holy Mother," by defending her in this way.

Was it written by a "dissenter" in the way of pleasant irony? This could hardly be. A man who would be bright enough to conceive such a thought, could hardly display

so much "greenness" in the execution of it. We are forced to the conclusion, that it must in very deed be the production of some devoted Episcopalian of Massachusetts. As we have been somewhat in doubt as to what is, and is to be the type of Massachusetts churchmanship,' we suppose it should receive a moment's attention.

There is a going for the whole in this pamphlet which is very pleasant. The reader is left in no doubtful state as to what his author thinks of baptism, the eucharist, dissenters and his Holy Mother, as he so devoutly calls her. He calls things by their right names, and has the twofold merit of being consistent enough to take all the consequences of his system, and honest enough to avow them. He reminds us of a very

66

worthy Episcopalian of whom we have heard, as living in the valley of the Housatonic during and after the war of the Revolution. He was a staunch high churchman and as staunch a tory, and retained his reverence for the king, long after there had ceased to be any king over these colonies. He was a simple and harmless man, though none the less devout in his allegiance to church and throne. His brethren at the bar, used Occasionally to test the strength of his principles of passive obedience by teasing questions. Suppose my dear sir, that your dread sovereign, his majesty the king, should issue his royal mandate, duly signed and sealed, commanding and requiring that on the reception of the order, you should fall upon your knees before his representative the royal officer, and suffer him to take your head from your shoulderswhat would you say to it?" "Impossible!" was the reply, "the supposition itself is dishonorable to the king's most excellent majesty." "But let us for a moment suppose the case, what would you reply?" "Why if the supposition is to be tolerated, of course I should say, Let his majesty's gracious will be done." Even so it is with our author. He talks and writes like a "John Bull in America," like some third or fourth rate English traveler, who sees no beauty in our scenery because it is not modeled after the grounds of the nearest lord of the manor, and dogmatizes of our manners because they are not after those of his provincial circle.

But to the letter. It is a running criticism on the sermon of Mr. P. in the order of its several heads. Of the first head, he says-" Under the first head of your discourse, I am arrested by your distinctions and differences, your limits and bounds for cleric and laic, and I have to confess that in listening to your words, as those of a Congregationalist, they sound strangely, and

scarce suffer interpretation." And why? Because according to Congregationalism any set of godly men may elect a pastor, and yet you Prof. Park "acknowledge and go on to demonstrate the unfitness of the very men who themselves are judges of the soundness of your doctrines and the correctness of your views of things, which are all-important-of soul-saving efficacy." Now what did Mr. P. say? Simply this, that the laity are competent to decide on the doctrinal truths of theology, but not on its philosoph ical theories. Our Layman quotes his very words-" that our private Christians are well disciplined in practical theology," "that they must not imagine that they are as competent to pronounce a decision on the philosophical theories as on the doctrinal truths of theology," and yet on the same page records before and after his strange conclusions. We acquit such a man entirely of "deliberate perversion." He can be capable only of "unconscious stupidity." We should think that there might be the very best of rea sons why such a man should think and say, "There are many questions which our priests alone should deal with, and which should never be referred to the laity for jurisdiction. For my own part, I wish that I had been born in a better and happier age, when I might have left the questions so often forced upon us to those whose education and office entitles them to authority."

We pass the second head, on conditions of church fellowship. Here too there would be reason to rebuke disingenuousness were there not more manifest occasion to be pa tient with simplicity. Mr. P.'s words and reasoning both speak of fundamental truth as essential to fellowship. Layman reasons as if he had said the contrary; and what is more preposterous, sets his own church as the only reliable defender of the faith.

The third head is of unnecessary government in the church. Of this he says "Your theory may serve for yourself, but your brethren have often practically felt the inconvenience of such a system of government, and have rued the want of one a little more suited to the necessities of the times,' more suited to the increase of reliance upon private opinion, and of the usurpations of ten-penny intellects, magnified in these days of self-glorification into acute thinkers, profound theologians." So again under the head of "simplicity in the mode of divine worship," he says, "For my own church, did I feel that she wanted a defense upon this point, I should appeal not to the host of writers within her pale, but to your own familiar friends and brethren, and point to the sly innovations and furtive liturgettes that they are endeavoring to introduce into their religious exercises." Who and where are these brethren? If there are such, Mr. Park's sermon may be as well fitted, and possibly may have been as much designed, to meet their case, as to inflict sarcasms on the Holy Mother of our Layman. To quote the opinion of such brethren, if such there are, against an argument so well fitted to rebuke them, is no very strong rejoinder.

On page 12, Layman waxes grave. "There is one passage which I regret exceedingly. I regret any thing that lessens my esteem for a fellow Christian-that increases the debit side of the awful account against poor humanity." "Repent, my dear sir, and pray for forgiveness for having spoken words so unworthy you, as professor in your institution-so derogatory to you as a Christian." And for what great sin? "I allude to your mention of the circumstance of the visit of sixty clergymen to Bishop Onderdonk, and their kneeling down in bodily presence' before him." And why is this a sin? Because it is false? Oh no, but be

cause Mr. P. did not also say, when a man of his standing could not be ignorant, "that we of the church do at the end of every service kneel down and receive the blessing of the priest!" O, rare simplicity!

On page 15, notice is taken of the objection to the Episcopal services as not making "the doctrines of the Gospel prominent above every thing else." Mr. P. did not object thus to them, but that being stereotyped, general and heterogeneous, they must be equally suited to all doctrines, and therefore specially suited to no one above another. But what is Layman's answer to the charge as he understands it? "This seems a strange charge against a ritual that appeals oftener to Scripture than that of any other sect; that it embraces whole chapters of it in every science, besides embodying scriptural language and sentences, in every part of its liturgy." Then follows the enumeration of the order of daily morning service. But what has all this to do with doctrinal preaching or making the services to be full of one specific doctrine? We have heard sermons and prayers too that were very full of "Scripture," in which there was but very little doctrine; sermons and prayers, which reminded us of the punctuation of Mr. Dexter's Biography, in which all "the stops and marks," were printed at the end of the volume, that the readers might distribute for themselves. Under this head, the doctrinal merits of the liturgy, he quotes the testimony of two celebrated divines whom he has the grace to call John Calvin and Mr. Robert Hall, the last of whom he tells us "speaks very decidedly in favor of our admirable liturgy," but what their testimony has to do with the point in question, we are at a loss to see. But again he tells us in italics-"The churchman that follows the course of reading his Holy Mother has appointed him, reads the book of Psalms through every

month, the Old Testament through every year, the Gospels twice a year, the Epistles three times. And will you tell me that with this allowance prominence is not given to doctrine.'"

"Now for the Michaelmases, St. Stephen's days, &c. Do you object to celebrating the Fourth of July ?" &c. "But alas! why should I talk thus to you, when we ourselves care as little for these things as you do? We kept last year two St. Marcus' days, (not of Arethusa,) and this year one St. George's day, (of Massachusetts,) because a proclamation of the governor of the commonwealth appointed these days to be kept; whilst the voice of the church, the governor of Christendom, is utterly disregarded, and some of our children do not even know what Lent is." The unlearned reader will doubtless be glad to be informed that saints thus enigmatically alluded to, we have at length discovered to be none other than Marcus Morton and George N. Briggs, "the lawful governors" of Massachusetts, and that "the lawful governor of Christendom" has as yet succeeded in reducing to her allegiance but about a score of thousands of the citizens of the Bay State.

a

Our author is very hard upon the church architecture of this country, first upon that of the "Protestants,' and then upon that of "the Reformed Catholics." A church of the one, as he represents the case, is " large weather-boarded, white painted house," with seven windows on a side. "On the basement floor on one side is a fashionable hat store, on the other a confectionary. Rum, tobacco and black pepper, is stored in the cellar." A church of the other species is Gothic, with a granite front, but the sides are of brick. "To leave no doubt of the Gothicity of the edifice, most probably every style of arch ever used is introduced." "A drip-stone, of course, must be placed over each door and

window, but by way of novelty it may be upon the inside," &c. &c. "Such is the church in which we Catholics may have to worship." The private judgment of every read. er will decide how well this corres ponds with the facts. On the whole, we esteem it the most sensible passage in the pamphlet.

But mark the sublime conclusion. "I have taken my shoes from my feet to enter the Moslem's mosque; I have stood in a monolithic temple of India, and gazed upon the colos sal beauty of the Hindoo Trimurti; amidst a thousand Chinese, I have breathed the incense offered at the dazzling shrine of Fo; I have seen pious Armenians in a land of hea thenism, gathering around the frag ments of their once pure faith, and amidst the worship of a hundred idols chaunting forth the praises of the one true God. Wherever I have been, amongst civilized or savage, ! have found the temple dedicated to the worship of God inviolably sa cred to it alone," &c. Mark you, dear reader, the astounding fact contained in these words. Catholic Layman is a traveled gentleman; yes, he has traveled.

It will be remembered that Prof. Park, in his sermon, dreamed a dream. As it was somewhat ominous, Layman too has tried to dream. Inasmuch as we gave our readers the first dream, it is no more than fair that we should give them the other also.

"By day and by night I have ever before me the holy catholic church. Founded upon the Rock of Ages, she rears her awful form, crested with the moss and mould of eighteen centuries. In earnest piety each massive block was hewn by chosen apostles of old; a martyr's blood cements each firm-knit seam. Unnumbered saints, with prayerful hearts, but oft with aching limbs and bleeding hands, have built her mighty walls and piled her solid buttresses. Her tapering pinnacles, stretching heavenward, proclaim the Christian's hope, the Christian's aim. Her lofty spire, raised like a warning finger to the guilty world, holds on high the symbol of that death by which we all