surprising, if he designed to meet the argument fairly. As the Lord's Supper was constantly celebrated by the primitive Christians on the Sabbath," I stated as proof, that the Christians met to celebrate the Lord's Supper at Troas on the evening following the first day of the week, which he left unnoticed. Did he suppose that it was the design of "Minimus to prove that the evening generally followed the day," but not always? Since writing my first essay, I have met with Vincent's explanation of the Catechism, "and have been agreeably surprised at the exact coincidence in the results to which we have arrived. This coincidence is a strong confirmation of their truth." Though I did not attempt to prove any change of the evening" of the Sabbath, but the contrary, yet I will now cheerfully submit it to the candid reader whether" the ground that Minimus has taken is absolutely indefensible." Whether Q. Q's. implied charge against those, who differ from him, of "a rage for innovation, tempori. zing and accommodating policy, accommodating the commencement of the Sabbath to the convenience of the worldly and irreligious, &c." is calculated to convince, or is consistent with that meekness and candor, which ought to guide all religious controversy, I leave to others to decide. I doubt not that the pious, who differ from me on this subject, are conscientious. And I should regret to wound their feelings. And if my cause cannot be supported by fair arguments, without casting reproach upon them, let it fall. MINIMUS. discussed the propriety of the common practice of performing two distinct religious services at meals. As his style seems to invite further discussion, perhaps the following remarks will not be wholly inappropriate. His objections to performing two services are five, viz; That two are not essential, nor conformable to the nature of the duty; that the second is a repetition of the first; that it is an unprofitable multiplication of religious services; is inconvenient; and not agreeable to the practice of Christ, and the ancient people of God. I shall attempt to show that none of these objections are valid. 1. That two services are not essential is admitted. But if we proceed on the principle of doing nothing which is not essential, we shall confine Christian practice within narrow limits. It is not essential that there be any service at the table. The whole of supplication and thanksgiving might be included in the morning prayer, and every service at meals, and also the evening sacrifice, might be omitted. Or the object might be effected in a different way. Whenever we make any considerable provision beforehand, of food or drink, we might give thanks to God for it, and, if such a request should be judged proper, might implore a blessing on its consumption. He who should conscientiously do either of these, would, no doubt, do all that is essential. No one could say that he had not a sense of his dependence on God, and of his obligation to him for life and all its enjoyments. We act on a different principle. But that two services are not conformable to the nature of the duty, is not admitted. We are not to be confined to the formulas* To the Editor of the Christian Spectator. of the Talmud, nor to the sentiSir, Your correspondent, Paterfamilias, has in your number for August, *Encyclopedia. "Blessed be thou, O Lord our God! forth this food from the earth," or, as the Sovereign of the universe! who bringest case might be," this wine from the grape.” A ments which they contain. 2. The second service is not ne- * David seems to have contemplated that which should have been for their ced him of the contrary, he has peculiar reasons for being grateful. All my observation has gone to prove, that any man of sincere piety and common ability, is capable of performing both services properly, and with all desirable distinctness. But if this conclusion should happen not to be true in every case, there can be no reasonable objection to supplying the defect by a form, which shall make the proper distinction. Such forms may be found in the devotional books which are more or less generally possessed by the members of the Episcopal church; and I have seen some by Dr. Watts, published, if I mistake not, in an edition of his Hymns for Infant Minds. 3. It does not make religious services too frequent. prayer is by some performed before, Morning by others, after the morning meal. In the latter case, the reading of the Scriptures, which ought to precede prayer, is a sufficient interposition; in the former, time enough commonly intervenes between the prayer and the asking of the blessing, to make the whole very profitable to one who hungers for spiritual food. In answer to the question, whether we are heard for our many times speaking, more than for our much speaking? I would say: Not for either of these are we heard, but for our much praying and our of mere lip-service is not a subject many times praying. The efficacy of discussion. 4. There is no such inconveniobjectionable. The practice of a ence in the practice as to make it few, not of all, boarding houses, is not a pattern for the vastly greater numbers of well regulated families, In some of them there is irregularity, some boarders coming and departing earlier than others. How far this disorder admits of cure, is worthy of consideration; but if it is an argument against the second service, in what relation does it stand to the first? As to those public dinners at which there is no place found for decency and order for the second service;" it is only necessary to say that a spiritual Christian will not be so often found at them, as to render expedient a total change in the habits of the religious public for his accommodation. The example of Christ, and his ancient people, and of many of the excellent of the earth in his own generation, seems to weigh much with Paterfamilias. This argument is worthy of notice. 1. There is some difficulty in ascertaining what was the practice of Christ and his apostles, in this respect. According to Jahn, it was, in the days of Christ's personal residence on earth, the custom at meals, that the head of the family pronounced a blessing or gave thanks, according to the kind of food or drink, --both before and after the meal. That Christ did not customarily do the same at his meals though no specific mention is made of it, I should be afraid to affirm: for in the account of more than one meal at which he was present, no mention is made of either blessing or giving thanks. Luke vii. 36. John xii. 2. 2. Supposing, however, that Christ and his apostles ordinarily performed but one service, it does not appear to me that this fact need hinder a conscientious man from performing two. We do not think of doing in every respect as Christ and his apostles did. It is plain that he did many things because they were customarily done by others, and would have done differently, if the general custom had been different. What is the evidence on which we rest in our conclusions respecting the practice of our Saviour, in the case under consideration? Does it not largely consist in the known custom of his countrymen and cotemporaries? and do not these conclusions de pend on the assumed principle that he must have conformed to those customs? It happens, moreover, that a religious service at the table was, at that period, performed, not by the Jews only, but also by the heathen. If Paterfamilias thinks that the example of Christ and his ancient people, admitting it to be ascertained, obliges or authorizes him to omit the second service, he will, in consistency, do well to inquire, whether the same example, on a point which is ascertained, does not oblige or authorize him to take two meals in a day, to eat in a recumbent posture, and to dip his hand in the dish. Such minutiae are remote from the genius of Christianity. No one was ever farther than Christ from limiting devotion to times and seasons. He has admonished us to avoid ostentation and vain repetition of words in prayer; to pray with a spirit of forgiveness and charity; has commanded us to pray always, and warned us not to faint: but a hint of the danger of praying or giving thanks unseasonably, is not recorded by any of the evangelists. His plan seems to have been, to state the duty and all its importance; and leave his people to show, by the frequency and the manner of their performance of it, how they estimate it. But there is one part of his example, the propriety of imitating which, will not be disputed. A principle on which he uniformly acted, was, in performing the public duties of religion, not to depar from the usages of prous people, without an important reason. For doing likewise, we have a motive which he had not. It is easier to do as others do than to do differently. Whoever, on any point, deliberately varies from the universal practice of good men, must, other things being equal, be either better or worse than they. We need all the influence of usage and custom to en force conformity to our principles. Whoever foregoes this influence, exposes his conscience to the danger of frequent wounds-a danger which will not be safely encountered, without an uncommon degree of moral firmness. There is on this subject an existing practice, which, whether it was introduced before or after, the appearing of Christ, is of too long and too universal standing to be called an innovation. A departure from it would be rightly so called. I am aware that some professing Christians omit the second service; how many, is to me unknown. Certainly, however, the omission is not general, at least in the northern and eastern parts of our country. Very rare are the instances in which it has fallen under my observation, excepting in those places of transient and way-faring entertainment, where the second, and also the first service, are, for the most part, un known, and where, of course, he who is devout must often eat, and in silence give God thanks. In one instance in which I enjoyed the hospitality of a clergyman, a blessing was devoutly implored, but having eaten, each went his way, and, if he had gratitude, had it to himself. I cannot deny that, on this occasion, my moral sensibility suffered a qualm, which it would require some habitude to subdue. Whatever others may do, there are, it is believed, some, who will prefer to do as they have been accustomed. Unless the reasons for a change are stronger than any I have yet seen, there are, I hope, many who will persevere in the present practice, till it shall be ascertained to have gone quite out of use. Some of my reasons for thus wishing are the following: 1. There is a propriety in beginning and ending every thing of importance with prayer or religious exercises of some kind. It is agreeable to the common sense of manVOL. I.-No. XI. 73 kind; and our general practice is arranged accordingly. On the Lord's day we have service in the morning, and service in the evening or afternoon. Some request the prayers of the congregation before going to sea; and on their safe return offer public thanks-a custom, which, though not general, I have never heard rebuked. In general it may be assumed that where it is proper to begin with prayer, it is proper to end with thanksgiving. Our salvation will cost us many a prayer, and its final completion will be celebrated with unceasing praises. Why should not something like this happen at the beginning and end of every important temporal concern? But of such concerns there is none so important as eating and drinking. 2. A specific expression of thankfulness at the end of meals is peculiarly appropriate. I will not here dwell on the fact that, much occasion as we have to pray, we have much more occasion to give thanks. This will not be disputed, and it has a pertinent application to the case before us. I do not know of any time in which a truly good man will be more willing to give thanks to God, than when he has eaten what is enough for nature, and not too much for the mind. Surely the effect of food, thus taken, upon a healthy body, and a healthy soul, will make thanksgiving no inconvenient task. Such a soul, if by custom it were debarred from a public and united expression of its gratitude, would, no doubt, take the earliest opportunity of pouring it out in secret. It may be here remarked that it is entirely agreeable to the word of God. I do not assert that we have any positive directions when and where to ask a blessing and give thanks. This seems to have been beneath a writer of the New Testament; or, after directing us to give thanks in every thing, it may have been thought superfluous to give 66 particular directions in so plain a case. But the following passage, if it does not directly refer, is capable of an easy accommodation, to the existing general practice. Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." 3. The effect which it has upon social order is not to be disregard ed. Every thing is done with more composure and order, and is better done, for being attended with religious services. Our legislatures and courts of justice begin the day with one; and this not merely from deference to public opinion, but from experience of its beneficial effects. But the benefits of ending with it are quite as great as those of of beginning. Where it is expected at the end of a meal, men will not tarry long at the wine, nor give much occasion for the charge of gluttony or of levity. For this reason it would seem important that public dinners, which, perhaps, offer peculiar temptations to these faults, should be uniformly closed by a religious service. I will not extend the subject further than to remark, that in the judgment of enlightened and penetrating observers, a person is known by the manner in which he eats. If he does it with a sober and devout cheerfulness, his general character is cheerful, sober, and devout. If he does it otherwise, his general character is otherwise. As it has been shown, if I do not deceive myself, that religious services, properly performed, at the beginning and end of meals, both suppose and tend to produce, proper feeling and behaviour in this respect, it follows that they have a beneficial influence on our whole character. Taking every thing into view, it may fairly be concluded, that the sin, with which, at the final day, we shall, in relation to this subject, be found chargeable, is a sin of omission, rather than of commission. CONVICTOR. MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS. DEFECTS OF ACADEMICAL EDUCATION, AS THEY APPLY TO THE EXISTENCE AND GROWTII OF PIETY IN STUDENTS. WHAT are the reasons, that the Christian ministry of the present age, and of our own country, falls so far below the apostolic character in purity and zeal, in an unqualified and disinterested devotion to their Master's service? Is it to be taken for granted, that such character was peculiar to the exigencies of the time, and is never to be expect ed again? Excepting the power of working miracles, I am by no means prepared to admit, that there was any thing of purity and efficiency, of exalted and disinterested devotion, in the apostolic character, which cannot, and which ought not to be the character of the Christian ministry in every age. Human nature, it must be admitted, is the same. And I will venture to affirm, there were no constitutional features of character, in the whole list of apostles and primitive evangelists, which cannot now be found in any considerable Christian community, and which, brought under the influence of the same moral causes, would not produce equal effects of the same character. It would |