to use language fit only for their elders. Let it never be forgotten that in the time of Oliver Cromwell, there was more constant talk about religion joined to more hypocrisy than at almost any other period.

I have said that harmony generally prevails amongst the different denominations. I happened to call at a house at Norfolk in Virginia with an introductory letter to a clergyman, at a time when he was immediately able to give me an opportunity of witnessing something of it in that town. Several of his clerical brethren of different denominations, had met at his house to discuss some missionary proposals. They gave their views of them in a manner testifying much cordiality. I observed that they generally used the appellation of brother in addressing each other. After listening some time to the discussion, I requested to give my opinion. Though quite at variance with theirs, they heard it without showing any of that impatience so characteristic of bigoted minds. I was favourably impressed with their zeal and charity, two virtues often widely separate. The only instances of hostility to others that came under my notice, were to the Universalists, Unitarians and Jews. But then it is to be considered that the other sects.

look upon them, as the inculcators of doctrines adverse to the well-being of any Christian community. But except hearing them branded as Deists, an appellation assignable to those only who deny that God has ever revealed his will, I noticed little in the language used respecting them inconsistent with Gospel charity. Doctrines and principles may be condemned in strong terms, without asperity to the teachers of them. Protestants generally proclaim the adoration of the elements by Catholics as idolatrous and damnable, yet there are few, it is presumable, who would dispute the piety of such men as Fenelon, Sir Thomas More, or even that doughty champion Bellarmin.

When I was at Washington a Unitarian clergyman preached before Congress in the House of Representatives, in which worship is regularly performed every week during the session, the minister for the day being chosen by the Speaker. The following week an Episcopal clergyman in his own Church, denounced the Divine vengeance on the nation for allowing its legislative body to be corrupted by Unitarian doctrines. This, and another fact I am going to mention, may show that bigotry sometimes rears its head; for bad as Unitarianism may be

thought (and to me it appears irreconcileable with the Gospel covenant), surely the circumstance of a single sermon being preached before Congress, is insufficient to call for such terms as were used by the Episcopalian. And what is to be said in defence of a Presbyterian clergyman in New York, who published a sermon entitled, "The Pestilence a punishment for public sins," when amongst the causes assigned by him for the city's being wisited by yellow fever, we find one to be, that the citizens had elected a Jew to serve the office of sheriff? Just as if God should be more offended with the people during a Jew's shrievalty, than at any other time. A Jew is as competent to have the custody of prisons, as to transact merchandise; and who would think it wrong to employ a Jew to act as agent or broker?

The affairs of most of the churches are regulated by annual conferences. I attended a sitting of that of the coloured Methodists, being admitted by special favour. The discussions were maintained orderly. Great care was taken in the appointment of deacons to exclude unfit persons. I was also present at the General Assembly of the Presbyterians, the doors of which were wide open. There seemed to be more ora

torical display than evangelical humility. The Moderator made one remark during my presence of very questionable soundness. "It is better," said he, "to decide amiss, than not to decide at all." I believe that the Presbyterians pray for divine assistance in the settlement of their affairs. If so, is it not something akin to mockery to decide so hastily as to endanger justice? Yet this remark of the Moderator passed without comment.

Before dismissing the general subject of religion, it is proper to state that in the remote settlements, little or no public worship takes place at stated times. But when an itinerant preacher or a missionary, chances to be at one of them, he generally collects the inhabitants and worship is performed. After a time, some one amongst them, if no regular minister be present, reads prayers and gives out a hymn at a stated place and time, and thus by degrees a congregation is formed, sufficiently large to build a church. It may here be proper to mention that Deism has been so far abandoned by some English Deists who emigrated to Illinois, that they have established weekly worship under the Christian name, from a conviction of its salutary influence on the welfare of their settlement. How forcibly does this demonstrate the excellence of Christianity!

CHAPTER XIII.

THE EPISCOPALIANS.

THE Protestant Episcopal Church in America is a scion of the Church of England. It extends into most parts of the country, and has nine or ten dioceses. As it has in several respects deviated from its mother-church, and as its present state must be interesting to Englishmen, I propose to give a few particulars concerning it.

A Convention of each diocese is held annually, the Bishop presiding as chairman, and having a casting vote; and a general Convention of the whole church is held triennially. The latter consists of two houses, the Bishops forming the upper one, and clerical and lay delegates the lower. Perhaps this assembly would be more appropriately called a Conclave, as all its proceedings are with closed doors. Like the Church of England, this Church is divided into two parties, one giving an Arminian, the other a Calvinistic interpretation to its obscure articles. I apprehend that these parties are much more nearly balanced in America than in England,