public worship, began to think of calling another English preacher.

In anticipation of this emergency, Dr. Laidlie and some prominent members of the Church, who had become intimate friends of Mr. Livingston, during the winter he spent with them antecedently to his departure for Holland, had long been inclined towards him as a person possessing those excellent qualities desirable in a pastor, and the inclination being confirmed by the pleasing intelligence they had now and then received respecting him, they did not hesitate to express their predilection in favour of him. A number of the congregation would have been gratified, if a call had been immediately made out and forwarded, as his licensure was expected soon to take place; but there were some who wished to see or hear first an account of his pulpit talents, and others who thought it would be rather indiscreet to call him before he had returned,-not that they questioned his piety or ministerial gift; but because they considered it proper that they should have an opportunity of judging a little for themselves of his qualifications for so important a station, and chiefly because they apprehended that his voice would be too feeble to fill their large places of worship.

While the known weakness of his voice and delicacy of his health, were producing this diversity of sentiment in the congregation about the call, one or two of his most devoted friends felt considerable uneasiness on another account. They had lately discovered that he was averse to the observance of the holy days, as they were denominated, and knowing that the conduct of Dr. Laidlie with respect to them, had given offence,* while the discovery remained with them a profound secret, they could not forbear to transmit to him forthwith, some plain but friendly and affectionate counsel upon the subject. The one, † after a few remarks designed to show the duty and necessity of conforming to this usage of the Church, and made apparently in a proper spirit, reminds him of the Apostle Paul, who became all things to all men, that he might win some. The other uses more freedom, and says, in a letter dated Nov. 1768, " I cannot avoid telling you that we differ very much about them, and it gives me real inward concern to find that you stand affected to them in the manner you mention. Pray,

* Dr. Laidlie, it seems, had denied the obligation of these days, and though he usually preached upon them, would take other subjects than those selected for them by the Church of Holland.

† Mr. D. Brinckerhoff

Mr. Abraham Lott.

*

*

Let me

my dear Sir, are you, then, such a stranger to the people of the Dutch Church of this city, as to imagine that the sticklers for those days are only to be found among those who speak Dutch? Believe it, my friend, although a Paul was to attempt to shake them off, he would not succeed. advise you as a friend, who has a regard for you, who wishes you well, that you entirely stifle your sentiments about this matter, and never mention them again, especially if you have any thoughts of becoming (as I pray God you may) a minister among us." And in a letter of a later date, he endeavours to defend the observance of these days with some little zeal-"You say they are rather wicked or devilish days, than holy days;-very true but would the neglect of preaching on those days lessen the wickedness practised on them? I say no. For by leaving off preaching, the days would not be abolished (as this cannot be done without the intervention of the Legislature) but left more at large to practise vice *. This then being the case, it is undoubtedly best to preach as usual, as it certainly keeps a great many people who will not work, but come to church, out of the way of mischief. And, therefore, if you have any regard for yourself, for your Church, and for the advice of one who thinks himself your friend, conform to the established customs and rules of the

Church * ; and however much I approve of your consulting Mr. Laidlie about other matters, relating to the good of the Church, I can by no means approve of your advising with him in matters wherein he stands, in my opinion, wrong affected."

Mr. Livingston replied, to the full satisfaction of this gentleman.

As the Church was situated at the time, and while the laws of the colony, then under the British government, recognised these days as holy, to observe them in conformity to established custom, was not only prudent conduct, but truly a Christian duty; and Mr. Livingston, in yielding to the wishes of his friends, acted a very commendable part. It evinced a disposition to make any reasonable sacrifice for the sake of promoting the peace and prosperity of a Church, which had already suffered much from the violence of intestine disputes, and in which there were yet those who keenly watched the opportunity to excite some new controversy. It involved no abandonment or concession of principle, inasmuch as it was distinctly understood, that these days were not believed to be of Divine appointment, and would be observed simply to prevent evil and edify the congregation:

and for submitting to the prejudice of the times, therefore, in a matter of no essential moment, with a view to preserve peace and do good, he was deserving of more praise than he would have been, if, reckless of the consequences, he had determined pertinaciously and vigorously to oppose it. There was much sound practical wisdom in the submission. But though the moderation is to be commended, which, rather than insist upon the immediate abolition of these days while there was such a strong prepossession in their favour, and the Church was in such peculiar circumstances, tolerated and rectified the use of them, it is not a little surprising that, even at the present day, their observance should be continued in many congregations. The 67th explanatory article of the constitution of the Church expressly declares, "that the Reformed Church does not believe the days, usually called holy days, are of Divine institution, or by preaching on those days, intends any thing more than to prevent evil, and promote the edification of the people, is evident from the contents of the 53d article of the Synod of Dordrecht, held in the year 1574." This article is in these words :-"With regard to feasts days, upon which, besides the Lord's day, it has been customary to abstain from labour, and to assemble in the Church, it is resolved that we must be contented with the Lord's day alone. The