knees shall one day bow; but the body of christians, however ceremonially divided, unite in this last solemn act.

Still it is that rite in which none but the truly faithful-Christians indeed!-ought to join. Solicitous to enforce attendance upon this communion, Dr. Andrewes seemed too much in haste to remove the sacramental land-marks. What even some latter divines thought of those marks, which of old preserved the boundaries of the faith, unalienable and unviolated, we may learn from the ensuing passage of the Spiritual Experience' of Augustus Toplady, to whom I have frequently made reference in the course of my work. Read prayers, preached, and administered the Holy Sacrament here, at Fen-Ottery, in the morning;' Friday, December the 25th, Christmas Day, 1767. 'Farmer T-e,' subjoins this Divine, whom I happened to meet at Milktam, no longer ago than last Wednesday evening, so drunk that he could hardly sit on his horse, presented himself, at the Lord's table, with the rest of the communicants: but, I passed him by; not daring to administer the symbols of the Saviour's body and blood to one who had lately crucified him afresh, and had given no proof of repentance! He appeared surprised, and abashed.'

1

Communicating unworthily,' we do nothing else,' asseverates our Liturgy, but increase damnation.' Now, that we may know what it is unworthily to partake of the Holy Sacrament, if any of you,' says the church, "be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of his word; an adulterer; or be in malice, or envy, or in any other grievous crime;' if these things be, then are such souls' guilty of the body and blood of Christ our Saviour,' and eat and drink' their own damnation.' It is indeed an awful thing thus to fall into the hands of the living God!

While commenting on this portion of the Liturgy, there was occasionally discoverable in Dr. Andrewes something of latent liking for the ecclesiastical observances of past times. He spoke of the respect once paid to the altar of the church; and, I thought, rather regretted that it was no longer paid. It was the old if not the best way.

way,

Having now attended GERRARD ANDREWES, step by step, with unwearied zeal, through his Lectures on the Liturgy of the church of England, civility tells me to bid him farewell., These lectures, seven in number, were mostly on chosen heads; and were successfully delivered by him, week after week, during the Lent of 1809, to crowded congregations, in his own church.

Y

If they were not altogether such as might have been expected from his mind, still they were of some worth, and did more good. Where he failed most, was when he aimed at too much; but, granting these failures, his Lectures on the Liturgy will not lessen the former reputation attached to his name.

Respecting the book of Common-Prayer' itself, particularly its style of composition, perhaps it will be allowed, as Gerrard Andrewes said, that it ranks inferior only to inspiration. Many have thought of it quite as highly. Blessed be God!' exclaims Toplady, 'the Clergy are forced to read it, and to administer the Lord's Supper, and other offices, according to its admirable and animating form of sound words.'

ROBERT HAWKER, D. D.

IMMEDIATELY after the first appearance of the account of Dr. Hawker, the following letter, corroborative of one fact as told by Onesimus, came to hand.- At• tended as he is by his numerous admirers, and though nurtured in the bosom of our church, he has been denied admission into the national pulpits.' See p. 53.

• SIR,

• The first thing that now engages my atten< tion, on reading the National Register, is the article under the head "Popular Preachers." I have an aversion to flat

tery, or any thing that resembles it; therefore shall say nothing to Onesimus, but that I admire his impartiality. I read with pleasure the criticism on Dr. Hawker: it excited

my curiosity to hear that gentleman; especially when it

was mentioned that he had been refused admission into

⚫ some of our pulpits. I have made enquiry, and found your • statement correct. I have also made it my business to hear * the rev. gentleman; and really, sir, I am at a loss to know

the cause of the refusal.

Does not the rev. gentleman

preach the doctrines of the established church? or, does he preach something more than mere morality? or, is it a • crime to preach extempore? Sir, the Ministry of the Gos"pel is a high and sacred office! It appears to me, that the

sermons of the doctor are too evangelical for some of our pulpits.-Good God!-Is it possible? If we believe in the Redeemer, can we say, or hear, too much of him? Can a • minister view the Son of God expiring on the cross, and offer up the form of prayer of the established church, and con'clude nearly every prayer with "through the merits of thy dear Son;" and yet refuse a minister the use of the pulpit because he says too much of the Saviour? Sir, if this should be the cause of the refusal, what may be the effect? My mind has been occupied with considering (I do not decide), whether, at the day of judgment, they may not have

.

८

to answer for it.-Sir, the Clergy complain of preaching to

empty pews; but they never will preach to full ones till

they make great improvement in their preaching.