declaration as the following: "I, young and inexperienced, am a very inadequate judge of the suitableness of a minister for this situation, and therefore shall be pretty much guided, in my decis ion, by the opinion of others, older and wiser than myself." This is independency exercised in the spirit of the gospel.

All secret canvassing, and attempts to influence the minds of others, should be studiously avoided. To see the mean, petty arts of a contested election carried into the church of God, is dreadful.

It would be well for every church to have a standing rule, that no pastor should be chosen, but by the suffrages of two thirds, or three fourths, of the members present. This would preclude much of that cabal and intrigue, which are sometimes employed in cases where the matter is decided by a mere majority. Besides which, the choice of a pastor is a business of too much importance to be carried simply by a majority.

It would be well, if in every case the church could be unanimous; but this is more than can be looked for. It should certainly be sought for in the use of all proper means. The majority should exercise peculiar FORBEARANCE and AFFECTION towards those who are opposed to them, carefully avoiding to impute their objections to any improper motives; listening to their statements with patience; treating them with candour; reasoning with them in the spirit of love; and giving them time to have their difficulties removed. The happiest results have been often the issue of such kind and Christian conduct. If, however, instead of this, the dissentients are treated with harshness and intolerance; if their opposition be attributed to a factious and cavilling temper; if they are regarded

with contempt, as a despicable minority, of which no notice should be taken; and are left immediately to themselves, without any conciliatory measures being taken, while the majority proceeds immediately to decide, a schism is sure to be the consequence, as mischievous to the church as it is disgraceful to religion.

The party who wish a minister to be elected, should seriously reflect thus: "If we choose this man, we may give pain to the minds of a large body of our brethren, which we most anxiously deprecate, and cannot allow ourselves to do, but under the conviction that we are promoting the permanent welfare of the church at large." While the party opposing should say, "The general body appear to consider this minister as possessing the requisite qualification for their pastor, and this has been so satisfactorily ascertained, that it ought not to be with us a light matter to obstruct the general edification. Nothing but the good of the church shall lead us to set up our opinion in opposition to that of a large majority of its members." Such a lovely temper would generally lead to beneficial results.

It would be very advisable, in some cases, for even so large a majority as two thirds, or even three fourths, to give up the point, rather than carry it in opposition to a minority, which includes in it the deacons, and many of the most experienced and respectable members of the society. The majority, in such instances, have the right to decide; but it is a question whether they ought not, for the sake of peace, to waive the exercise of it.

Persons of property and influence should be very careful how they conduct themselves on these occasions. There are in many churches individuals whose

circumstances must necessarily give peculiar weight to their opinions. Let them, however, not assume the office of dictators. Let them not robe themselves in the dress of Diotrephes, nor display amongst the brethren the love of preeminence. The system of independency admits of influence, but not of patronage; men may lead, but not drive. Democracies are as liable to the control of a few leading individuals, probably more so, than any other system; but then these individuals should act, by causing the people to act for them. If such an application of the words of scripture were admissible, I would say, "they should render the people willing in the day of their power." An attempt to exert their influence, in opposition to the wishes of the people, is a most irrational, unscriptural assumption of powTo sacrifice the interests of the church for the gratification of their taste; to attempt to force upon a society a man not approved by it, or to reject one who is chosen by it, is the most disgusting exercise of the most disgusting tyranny.

er.

It unfortunately happens, that when one party has given up a minister in compliment to the other, they almost insensibly oppose an individual, who, in future, may be the favourite of their opponents. It is most sinful to allow the corrupt passions of our nature thus far to prevail in our hearts, as to turn aside our judgment in affairs so sacred and so important.

When a minister is at length brought in by a large majority, it then becomes a question, what ought to be the conduct of the minority. Should they separate, and form another religious society? Certainly not, except as a dernier resort. Let them consider the evils connected with such a state of things. What ill will is often produced between

the two societies; how much anti-christian feeling is excited; how it injures the spirit of both parties; what envies, and jealousies, and evil speakings, commence and continue, to the injury of religion, and the triumph of its enemies! Let them, before they separate, endeavour to lay aside their prejudice, and hear for a season, with as much impartiality as possible, the man to whom they object. On his part, much consummate prudence is necessary, and the most conciliatory conduct. All he does and says should have a healing tendency. Much depends upon himself. Great credit is due to that minister, WHO HAS CONCILIATED HIS OPPONENTS WITHOUT ALIENATING HIS FRIENDS, and who has become THE RECONCILING MEDIUM OF TWO PARTIES, ONCE AT VARIANCE ABOUT HIMSELF.

In some cases, a division is necessary. Where this is unavoidable, great efforts should be made to effect it in love. If the two parties cannot unite in peace, at least let them separate in peace. separation take place without alienation. that this should so rarely be the case!

Let the

Alas!

What we want, to preserve the peace of our churches unbroken, is a more distinct recognition and a more powerful influence of the principles of the gospel; more humility, more spirituality, more zeal for the divine glory. We carry into the sanctuary, and into the church, our pride, our self-will, our personal taste. That spirit of mutual submission,brotherly love, and surrender of our own gratification to the good of others which the word of God enjoins, and our profession avows, would keep the church always happy and harmonious, and enable it to pass in safety through the most critical circumstances in which it can be placed. Instead of seeking the good of the whole, the feeling of too many of our members may

be thus summarily expressed—“ I will have my way." Such a spirit is a source of all the evils to which our churches are ever exposed, and of which it must be confessed they are but too frequently the miserable victims.

On the Propriety of occasionally administering the Lord's Supper in private Houses, for the Sake of sick Persons who are incapable of attending the Solemnities of Public Worship.

I do not now allude to the practice, so common in the church of England, of administering the sacrament to dying persons, as a preparative for eternity; this custom, so unscriptural in its nature, and so delusory in its tendency, is unknown, I believe, amongst our churches, But instances have occurred, in which our ministers, for the sake of some of their members, who have been long confined to their own habitations by chronic diseases, without the prospect of ever going to the house of God again, have assembled a few others in the chamber of the afflicted person, and administered to them the Lord's supper. The infirm individual is supposed to be a real Christian, in church fellowship; the others, joining in the act, are also members of the same church, or Christians of undoubted piety; and the design of the act is not to countenance any pharisaic notions of human merit, which the sick person might have connected with the reception of the sacrament, but simply to give him an opportu nity of expressing his obedience, and gratifying his love to Christ, by an observance of our Lord's own institution. Is it right under these circumstances to gratify his request, and observe with