repeatedly been proposed to me, how may the greatest number of that part of the population of a large city, for which this ministry is intended, be most efficiently brought within the influence of its instruction and care? Is it desirable to have chapels or churches built for the poor? And should this ministry be made an instrument, through the poor who can be gathered by it into congregations, for forming new religious societies and new churches in our cities? I can do little more, in the space which I have, than simply to express an opinion on these subjects.

'How, then,' it may be asked, 'may the greatest number of that part of the population of a large city, for which this ministry is intended, be most efficiently brought within the influence of its instruction and care? Should each minister, for this purpose, consider a whole city as before him, in every part of which he is to seek out those whom he may connect with the religious denomination to which he belongs; or, should he take a single district, within which he will confine his objects and his labors?' I do not hesitate to reply, that if it shall be the great design of a minister of the poor to collect the largest number, who will profess themselves to be of his own denomination of Christians, he may very probably be most successful by rejecting all limits to the field of his ministry. But if he shall have the infinitely higher purpose, to aid the largest number which he may in becoming practical Christians, he will mark out for himself bounds, which will comprehend as many as he can faithfully serve as a christian friend; and to each individual of these will endeavor to commend himself, — not as an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, or Con

gregationalist, or as Orthodox or Unitarian, but simplyas a follower and minister of Christ. I fear, indeed, for this ministry, from nothing so much, as from its exposure to the narrowness and bigotry of party spirit in its instruments. Surely we have seen enough of the influence of this spirit, to admonish us, in any new enterprise for the advancement of the spirit of Christ, to shun and escape it, as, in any other enterprise, we would be warned against the circumstances which have brought disappointment, and perhaps failure to those who embarked in it. Here, in truth, is a call for men who acknowledge no master but Christ; who hold themselvesamenable to no human authority for their judgments upon questions regarding religious doctrines; and who, making Christ their model, and Christ their teacher, go to their work, 'in Christ's stead to beseech men to be reconciled to God.' Let such men, within as narrow a space as they can, each find three hundred families, to whom in every practicable way of usefulness, they will from day to day, minister, and not only will they find within this circle sufficient employment for every hour which they can give to their work, but they will save much time which must otherwise be wasted in passing over the long distances which will be between the objects of their charge; and they will show also the respect which is due to others, who would devote themselves to the same ministry. Nor have I a doubt that a far greater good would thus be attained, than could be by traversing a much larger field, and by doubling or tripling the number to whom the visits of a minister might be extended.

Again. It is asked, 'Should we build churches or

chapels for the poor? I answer, that while I think this mode of operation to be secondary in its claims, and to promise little in comparison with a daily and hourly ministration from house to house, yet as considerable numbers, even of the very poor, may be brought together on the evenings of Sunday, for social worship and instruction, and a few may be collected for a service in the day, it is therefore well to have small and unexpensive chapels for these services. But if a commodious hall may be obtained, near the centre of the neighborhood of a large number of the poor, I should not advise the erection of a chapel. A very large proportion of the poor, it is to be remembered, frequently change their place of habitation; and the parts of the city to which they remove are often far apart from one another. It will often, therefore, be inconvenient, or impracticable, to continue their connexion with a particular chapel or hall of worship. Many, too, who will go, and be glad to go to an evening service, cannot leave their homes during the day, either because they have young children who demand their care, or because they have not the attire in which they are willing to go abroad. I venture indeed to say, that far less than half of those for whom this ministry is most important, can be gathered for anything like a constant attendance upon the services of a mission-house or chapel. They are, therefore, to be ministered to at home. And as far as any can be induced and enabled regularly to give their attendance upon the religious services of a church on Sunday, it seems to me very desirable that they should be persuaded, as far as may be, to connect themselves with the existing congregations, or religious societies,

in the city; while, if it shall be thought best, they may still be in the charge of the minister of the poor who has brought them into this connexion. I would say also, that not more than one public service in the day time should be required of a minister at large on Sunday; because half of the day may be far more profitably appropriated to visiting those who cannot be brought together for public worship, and who are then to be found at home under circumstances the most favorable for religious and moral influence. He may, however, preach on other days, in any room of those whom he visits; and he may have a regular Sunday evening service in his hall or chapel. But, I repeat, let the poor, as far as it can be done, be brought into the congregations of the rich; and there, as our Lord and master intended that they should, let them worship together. There let them send up the mingled incense of united adoration and thanksgivings, of penitential acknowledgments and fervent supplications; and there let them open their hearts to a sense at once of their relation to each other, through their common relation to God, and of their great common interests; of their reciprocal duties, and of the common and infinitely glorious inheritance to which God is calling them. Many may thus be united with our churches, who otherwise would have lived and died unconnected with any of them. Still, however, after all that can be done to bring them into this connexion, there will be many, to whom, if the gospel is to be preached, it must and can be only in the family circle; many, therefore, who will be without the pale

of the christian ministry, unless there shall be a ministry exclusively for them.

My reply to the third query, Should this ministry be made an instrument for the formation of new religious societies?' is plainly to be inferred from what I have said in my reply to the second. If, indeed, a chapel, or a mission-house for the poor, shall become a centre in which those who can build and support a new house of worship shall be disposed to form themselves into a new religious society, and to unite themselves with the poor who are collected there, it is well. Let a new religious society then be formed there. But most earnestly should I deprecate any measures, which should have for their end the establishment of congregations, or of religious societies, exclusively of the poor. It is a very important purpose of the ministry for which I plead, to bring the classes of society into a new, and christian union with each other; and it is greatly to be regretted, that our religious societies are constituted as they now are, in respect to the accommodation of any but proprietors in their places of public worship. The poor, who would gladly unite with them, but who cannot pay for the privilege, in the largest number of our places of worship have at best a very narrow space appropriated for them; and there they must sit apart, as 'the class of the poor.' This is a practice not less inconsistent with our political principles, than it is with the spirit of Christianity. Under other governments, where distinctions of rank and of rights are universally recognised, the poor feel themselves to be, and revolt not at being treated, both politically and religiously, as a caste. But far otherwise is it under our institutions, for the preservation of which, religious as well as political, no means is more important, than the excitement and maintenance