idea is natural enough in the circumstances in which the liturgy was formed; but surely unscriptural, and perfectly ill-suited to a state of things so entirely different as that which exists in this more favored country.

To say nothing of the want of foundation in the Scriptures for the ceremony of confirmation; what does it do for the child but confirm him in error which may be fundamental in his estimate of himself, and therefore, an obstacle to his salvation? We know that there is some modification in the practice of evangelical clergymen of the Episcopal church in regard to the proper subjects of confirmation. And as the bishop confirms none but those who are presented by the parish minister, a check is in the hands of the latter which may be used to prevent unworthy subjects from being officially and solemnly pronounced regenerate by water and the Holy Ghost. But how difficult is it to use this check when the Prayer-book so manifestly authorizes every one to be brought to the bishop to be confirmed, "so soon as he can say the creed, the Lord's prayer, and the ten commandments, and is sufficiently instructed in the other parts of the church catechism, set forth for that purpose." Can the child intelligently make the promises demanded of him in this service, and can the bishop believe that they are of any avail when there is no more evidence of a moral change than the mere increase of years and of intellectual strength ?

What more than this is done by a person who fully and heartily conforms to the principles of the Redeemer's kingdom? And does not the putting of such promises into the mouth of one who has no spiritual feelings, no communion with God, tend to make a mockery of holy things? But if there were probable evidence of a change of heart in the persons confirmed, who Vol. I.

62

has given the bishop authority to assume the prerogative of God, and pronounce with certainty concern. ing it?

The burial of the dead. This is a beautiful ceremony, manifest. ing great judgment and taste in those who instituted it, and altogether unexceptionable, provided mankind were much better than they are. Could we have confi. dence that every baptized person who had not been excommunicated from the church, and had not laid violent hands on himself-for to every such person this form is appropriated by the rubric-is a saint, the service would be inimitably fine. But when we take it as a service to be performed indiscriminately, over all the dead included within the prescribed limitations, we are compelled to withhold our admira. tion. It is cheerfully confessed, that the American edition of the Prayer-book is less objectionable in this respect than the English. In the latter, we read, "Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God, of his great mercy, to take unto himself the soul of our deceased brother here departed, we therefore com. mit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. In the American Prayer-book less exceptionable language is used→→ language of a more general character, not pronouncing with certainty concerning the state of the dead. There is, however, the idea running through the whole that it is a saint who is buried. There is the recognition of the voice from heaven, declaring the blessedness of those who die in the Lord, and a thanksgiving "for the good examples of all those thy servants who having finished their course in faith, do now rest from their labors"

which is little to the purpose, unless the person buried is a saint.

All this also, taken in connexion with the direction at the commencement of the service, forbidding its being said over any who has not received the Prayer-book regeneration, seems to take it for granted, that the person buried is among those who rest from their labors. Inasmuch, however, as there is no direct declaration of this kind, and unlike the English Prayer-book, no confidence is expressed which definitely applies to the case of the deceased, we are not disposed to condemn this service. If read well, there may be a solemn and useful influence upon those who hear it. It is decidedly the best part of the Prayer-book, and the only part to which, as a whole, we should not take strong exceptions.

We had not intended to remark upon the marriage ceremony, lest we should appear to some stanch friends of the liturgy as rather captious; for the faults of this book are so numerous that we may expose ourselves to this charge. But we can not forbear to notice the illjudged particularity and bad taste in which the marriage ceremony is drawn up, especially when we consider that it is not in its original place among the cumbrous formalities of the British government, but under the plain institutions of republicanism. It is no small lesson which the bride and bridegroom must learn before they are qualified to be married. Since, however, it is a mere matter of taste and not of conscience which we have now in view, we are not disposed to dwell upon it, or to show the correctness of our opinion by an examination of particulars. If any choose to subject themselves to all this bondage of forms, we certainly have no objection. But there is one thing which appears to us to come under a different principle.

We

allude to the ceremony of the ring. This, in the circumstances of this country, is an unmeaning ceremony,

wholly unworthy of the dignity and solemnity with which an attempt is made to invest it by invoking the glorious name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The man is required to say to the woman, "With this ring I thee wed, and with all my worldly goods Í thee endow: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." We call this unmeaning, because the marriage is a legal ceremony. Marriage is an institution of God, but the manner of celebrating it is entirely of human device. It may be British law, that a man is married by a ring; but surely it is not American law. And the endowment of the bride with the wordly goods of the bridegroom by means of the ring is an absolute falsehood. The inheritance of property is not regulated by the kingdom of Christ, which in this country is separate from the state, but by the laws of the land. If the law says that by virtue of marriage a woman is entitled to all the "wordly goods" of her husband, then she has them. But if the law says that she shall have a third; or if the law recognizes a jointure which may have been agreed upon between the parties; then a man does not endow his wife with all his worldly goods. Now we consider this unmeaning ceremony, performed in the name of the holy Trinity, as approaching to profaneness. It looks too much like uttering a falsehood in the name of God. The authors of this ceremony have not only overstepped the bounds of good taste, but have rather trespassed upon the dominions of conscience.

It is painful that in so solemn and interesting a transaction as marriage-on which every thing in the welfare of the parties depends, so much account should be made of ceremony and so little of prayer. The Lord's prayer, which is introduced on all occasions in the lit

urgy, as though nothing could be done without it, and one 'short, very short and general, prayer, is all that we find of invoking the divine blessing in God's own appointed way! No opportunity is afforded to allude to particular circumstances of interest, and no solemn appeal is made to heaven in behalf of the newly married couple, as subject to the trials, temptations, and vicissitudes of life; but a mere formal petition of the most general and unimpressive kind imaginable!

Such is the liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal church. It is radically defective in regard to Protestantism, being committed to many of the saints' days, and other feasts and fasts of the Romish heresy; wearing distinctly a Popish garment throughout; and showing that its origin was in a dark age, unfit to dictate the devotions of this day of light. It is radically defective in its prescriptions for the ordinary worship of God on the Sabbath. It is likewise defective in its provision for the communion and for baptism. It endorses errors which have long ago been exploded. It obscures truths which it is the happiness and the duty of every one to see with the clearest eye. And it occupies such a space on the Sabbath, as to throw into the background the great ordinance of preaching the gospel, which, accompanied by the Holy Spirit, is the power of God unto salvation. With these great defects before us, we can not agree with its admirers, in calling it," The excellent liturgy." Whatever may be the feelings of others, we could not conform to this liturgy without an entire sacrifice of conscience. Accustomed as we are to a simpler

The na

and more evangelical mode of approaching our Maker, we could not submit to be bound to a set form, and to a tacit endorsement of so many dangerous errors. tional church of England, whose influence every where appears in the Prayer-book, we do not admire, though we acknowledge it has embosomed, and still embosoms, many great and good men. The shadow of the British establishment, extending to our own shores, we can not sit under with delight. We had rather identify ourselves with our Puritan ancestors, of whom the world was not worthy, being members of those churches which they founded in the primitive order and simplicity of apostolical example, unincumbered with the trappings of England and Róme. Such is the universal abhorrence of Popery among these churches, that the suspension of pictures of Christ on the cross, such as are now seen in many Episcopal churches, would not be tolerated. The Oxford movement has no affinity with them. No semi-papistical influence has been exerted upon them in the use of a defective liturgy, by which the way is prepared for such a system. No disposition to exhume old errors and bring them into the reformed church of God, has been cherished among them. The Bible is in their hands. And this is the record of their faith. They care not what the liturgy, or the creed, or any other paper teaches: the Bible, the Bible only, is their standard of faith and practice. The churches of our Pilgrim fathers-the blessing of the Lord be on them! For our brethren and companions' sake we will now say, peace be within them!

helped by his pen to establish the constitution under which we live, as he was one of the first, if not the very first to make a proposition for its formation, which he did in 1785, in his "Sketches of American Policy;" knew what were the purposes and sentiments of those distinguished men who shaped its details; lived through two generations of men far into the third, sixty-seven years from the declaration of independence, and fifty-five from the adoption of the constitution; was brought closely in contact with the mind of the nation, "millions of whom he had taught to read, but not one to sin." Such a man has a right to speak. He ought to speak, and men should gather round him to listen, as he throws the collected light of the past on the events of the present. And now, though he sleeps in his grave with the blessings of his countrymen resting upon him, he still, being dead, yet speaketh, to instruct us in the lessons of wisdom hallowed by the sepulcher.

The letter above mentioned, published first in 1837, and recently in his COLLECTION OF PAPERS, is an analytical examination of certain political principles, avowed by many of our countrymen in their writings, their speeches, or their conduct, as a sound basis of theory or of action. Though in their opinion these principles may be as evident as the mathematical axiom, the whole is greater than a part; or as profitable as the "scoundrel maxim, a penny saved is a penny got," the author, with philological accuracy, either proves them to be false, or shows in what sense only they can be true. Having lived through more than one quarter of the period mentioned above, during which his friend Dr. Franklin was willing to slumber in unconsciousness, waiting the developments of time, he was able, from seeing the practical operation of these principles, as well as their elementary relations, to judge of their

correctness.

"To the Honorable Daniel Webster: SIR-In your public addresses or speeches, and in those of other gentlemen of high political distinction, I have often seen an opinion expressed like this-That intelligence and virtue are the basis of a republican government, or that intelligence and virtue in the people are necessary to the preservation and support of a republican government. These words, intelligence and virtue, are very comprehensive in their uses or application, and perhaps too indefinite to furnish the premises for the inference deduced from them. Men may be very intelligent in some departments of literature, arts and science; but very ignorant of branches of learning in other departments. By intelligence, as applicable to political affairs, it may be presumed that those who use the term, intend it to imply a correct knowledge of the constitution and laws of the country, and of the several rights and duties of the citizens.

"But, sir, the opinion that intelligence in the people of a country will preserve a republican government, must depend, for its accuracy, on the fact of an intimate or necessary connection between knowledge and principle. It must suppose that men who know what is right, will do what is right for if this is not the general fact, then intelligence will not preserve a just administration, nor maintain the constitution and laws. But from what evidence can we infer that men who know what is right will do what is right? In what history of mankind, political or ecclesiastical, are the facts recorded, which authorize the presumption, much less the belief, that correct action will proceed from correct knowledge? Such an effect would imply the absence of all depravity in the hearts of men; a supposition which not only revelation, but all history forbids us to admit.

"Let me ask, sir, whether the Greeks, and particularly the Athe