ing, even by the expressions in our prayers, to heighten and inflame the popular prejudices against them. All this is very possible, and in some cases we cannot but think it the natural and probable supposition. And yet what a want of serious and vital religion it indicates, thus to cloak our selfish intriguing arts under the solemn pretence of prayer. Be it remembered, it was of such prayers that our Saviour said, 'THEREFORE SHALL YE RECEIVE THE GREATER DAMNATION.'

There are circumstances, indeed, under which our prayers for one another must become not only useless but highly injurious and justly censurable. It is when instead of praying for one another we do in fact pray against one another--one individual praving against another individual, or, what is still more frequent, one sect praying against another sect. This, we are aware, is commonly done under a pretence of praying for their conversion, or for their deliverance from some fearful delusion; which seems at first sight but a reasonable and even a benevolent object. But we should be careful how far we are carried away by this plausible idea. We know that men were equally sincere in those days, when they would not only pray for those whom they chose to consider as deluded, but would even in the excess of their kindness burn them at the stake--for the good of their souls. If we are so anxious about the condition of others, we should," indeed, pray for them, but not in such a manner, and under such circumstances as must make it evident that the effect will be to lessen their influence and injure their reputation in the community; for this is not to pray for men but against them, and we are not required to pray against men under any pretence what

ever.

We should not under a pretence of praying for a sect, join in concert to pray it down, by the influence which such prayers may have--not upon God--but upon public opinion. Nay, for a man possessing no peculiar means of information, and affording no peculiar proofs of piety and virtue, to introduce into his devotions, under any circumstances, expressions of contempt, or pity, or honour for men wiser and better than himself, -we should not perhaps regard it as certain evidence that he was not sincere, nor that his general intentions were not goodbut we should infer that his humility and charity came at least in a questionable shape, and were in great danger of being entirely lost. The influence of such prayers upon the community and upon the general interests of religion must be still more detrimental.

Let one sect combine to pray against another, and the natural tendency of it must be to foster and influence those prejudices and dissentions ist he christian church, which every real friend to

religion must wish to see subsiding. It must increase the proud and overbearing spirit of those who pray; it must provoke and indeed authorize, to a certain degree, a feeling of injury and resentment on the part of those who are prayed against; and what is still worse, it must afford to the irreligious part of the community a subject of derision and triumph. It is to no purpose for those who thus pray, to pretend that such are not their intentions. Such must be the effects, and they must be strangely ignorant of human nature and the present state of society, not to know it. If our very prayers are to breathe a hostile spirit-if the people cannot listen to our devotions without having their prejudices and their animosities inflamed-if men are taught to bring their jealousies and competitions even to the altar-if those who call themselves the ministers of peace, instead of combining to promote the common cause, make use of all the means in their power to destroy each others influence, and even make this the subject and the object of their public devotions-what can we expect, but that religion will either be disregarded or dreadfully per

verted?

Besides; praying against one another in this way, seems to us to be an entire perversion of the object and end of prayer. We would hope, that amidst all our differences, there might still be one service at least, in which all christians might unite without having their feelings and convictions assailed or insulted. Let it be granted that all our dissentions must continue as they are, and that there must be on both sides just so much heat and bad feeling-we still would hope that the sanctity of prayer might never be profaned by sectarian jealousy and rancour. To take a service designed to humble men, and make it the occasion of self-exaltation-to take a service designed to bind men together in love, and to make it the means of fomenting discord and division--to take a service in which all our feelings, but those of devotion, should be subdued by an awful sense of the presence in which we stand, and to bring into it our earthly passions and interests and intriguing conspiracies-we know not how this may seem to other people, but to us, we confess, it seems like profanation.

We are aware that there may be many, who think us to be in a dangerous and perhaps, a fatal error, and who therefore may be perfectly sincere in praying for our conversion. But is it not enough that they deny us the christian name, that they refuse us all christian intercourse, that they make every effort in their power to lessen our influence and cause our piety and sincerity to be suspected? Not satisfied with this, must they go on to introduce this same exterminating spirit into their devotions, and insult and slander us before the mercy seat of God? We might have ex

(

pected that they would spare us this last injury, not perhaps from any regard to us, but from a regard to the peace of society, the general interests of religion, and the hallowed nature of the service. Is it said that they must pray for our conversion in order to be consistent? We can only say, in reply, that there are some things worse even than inconsistency; and that it argues no good for their system, if, in order to preserve a consistency with it, they must sacrifice their moral principles or their good feelings. If, however, they must pray for our conversion, it would seem to be a subject fit only for their private devotions, and not to be prayed for formally, publicly, and in concert ;unless indeed, the real object was not so much to procure our conversion, as to prejudice the public against us; in which case it is true the latter is the proper and natural course to be pursued.

It is not that we despise the prayers of our brethren. We ask them to pray for us; but not in the spirit of wrath, not in the spirit of jealousy and pride. Heaven has no ear for such prayers, nor can they have any other effect on earth but to exasperate and inflame the bad passions of men. We ask for their prayers, but we do not wish them to affect to pray for us, merely that they may have an opportunity to tell the people that we are blind leaders of the blind. We are very conscious that we need the prayers of all good men; and we ask our brethren of every name to pray for us, as we will endeavour to pray for them in return-in that spirit of charity, and humility, and singleness of heart, without which all our prayers, whether for ourselves or for others, must be in vain, or worse than in vain.

REVIEW.

ARTICLE X.

The Christian and Civic Economy of large towns. By THOMAS CHALMERS, D. D. Minister of St. John's Church, Glasgow, Scotland. No. 2. On the Influence of Locality in Towns. pp. 27. New York: E. Bliss and E. White.

THIS distinguished preacher is already well known in this country as the author of several popular works. We have had occasion to express our dissent from the arguments offered by him. Still, it cannot be denied that he is a preacher of great influence; an eloquent and powerful writer. In his own country he enjoys a high reputation as a theologian and philanthropist; and in this his works are eagerly and extensively read. His style is certainly diffuse and turgid. To use his own phrase, he often 'superficializes. But this is not its worst quality. It is artificial, gaudy, elaborated, involved, and like ancient portraits, wraps up the subject in almost impenetrable decoration.

Dr. Chalmers is publishing in quarterly numbers a series of essays under the title quoted above. Four of these periodical pamphlets have been received in this country, and number two has been re-published in New York, with a recommendation, by the board of managers of the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism. This number is on the influence of locality in towns, and to this our observations will be limited.

Dr. Chalmers became first known to the public as a philanthropist, by an article in the forty-sixth number of the Edinburgh Review, in which he strongly reprobated gratuitous charities, and satisfactorily proved that the time and money expended in attempts to diminish pauperism, by alleviating it, tend directly to its increase. This article attracted the attention of enlighted philanthropists, and opened the eyes of thousands of zealous, but less thinking, benevolent persons in Great Britain and the United States. It showed the ability of the author to discuss a subject of such vast importance, which entitles his opinion and reasonings in his later publications to candid and serious consideration.

The object of the pamphlet before us is to recommend a new mode of benevolent exertion on behalf of the ignorant and poor. Dr. Chalmers is decidedly opposed to the whole machinery of charitable societies, and prefers individual and local exertions. He objects to such societies for prevention or relief of poverty, ignorance, and vice, that they expatiate at large, and over the face of the entire territory of a town. Great things have been attempted, rather than to do small things thoroughly and well. In Sabbath schools the teachers are indiscriminately stationed in all parts of a city, and the pupils are as indiscriminately drawn from all parts. Only a superficial action can then be maintained. There is,' he observes, 'an impatience on the part of many a raw and sanguine philanthropist, for doing something great; and, akin to this, there is an impatience for doing that great thing speedily.

6

They spurn the condition of dwelling among littles; and unless there be a redeeming magnificence in the whole operation, of which they bear a part, there are some who could not be satisfied with a humble and detached allotment in the great vineyard of human usefulness."

The new scheme recommended by Dr. Chalmers is plausible, practicable, and simple. It is not a return to the old system of family charity, to the deserving applicants alone, whose condition is well known to the almoners. It does not wait to be supplicated, but seeks out and relieves the wretched. The plan is simply this; Let a small portion of a town, within certain defined geographical limits, be assigned to an individual. Let his place of benevolent exertion be within this locality, or as near as possible to its confines. Let him ascertain the physical, moral and religious wants of all the inhabitants within these limits. Let him restrain his attentions to these inhabitants, instituting a sabbath school in his district; encouraging the poor inhabitants to attend on church; circulating among them religious and moral publications, and tracts on domestic economy; promoting their temporal and spiritual welfare; inducing them to habits of cleanliness, sobriety, saving, and industry; acting as their counsellor, friend, overseer, and instructer.

Dr. Chalmers states that the system has succeeded in Scotland equal to the most sanguine expectations; that those who have tried it are charmed with the success of their labours, and think a general practice of the system would entirely change the state of things among the poor; that the visiting of the poor, by the rich, has a kindly influence; the readiest way of finding access to a man's heart being to go into his house. He states the advantages of this system to the visiter. Having a select and defined field of exertion, he feels himself more powerfully urged, than under the common arrangement, to undertake the renovation of the condition of the poorer classes; 'he will feel a kind of property in the families; he finds that he makes progress in his benevolent enterprise, unlike those who are members of societies which operate on a large scale, skimming over the surface of society. He can go over the families with far less waste of time, and more fully and frequently repeat his attentions; 'he will turn the vicinity he has chosen into a home-walk of many charities, and be recognised as its moral benefactor."

The advantages to the visited are great. A greater number will attend a sabbath school, for instance, if the instructions are given in their neighbourhood. The teacher's personal charac