ing for the conversion of sinners and the edification of believers. Some made him the object of their reproach; others of ridicule and scorn; but whether it were his lot to encounter the bold opposition of the world,-or the more secret, but not less bitter censures of false brethren, "none of these things moved him," while assured that he was doing his Master's work, and enjoying his Master's blessing. Never was there a stronger example given of a laborious and successful ministry. In addition to three full services in the church on the Lord's day, he was in the habit of holding two or more lectures in the week at school houses. He imitated those Apostles who " daily in the temple, and in every house, ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ."

It was about the year 1811, in the days of his boyhood, that the writer of this memoir was so favoured as to be introduced to the friendly regards of Dr. Moore. Gratefully do I remember the deep interest he manifested in my spiritual growth and welfare as a youthful disciple of Christ, and the paternal tenderness with which he cherished and encouraged my trembling desire to devote myself to the ministry of the Gospel. During my occasional visits to New York, previous to my ordination, it was my delight to be found among the worshippers who, on the Lord's day, crowded to St. Stephen's, to offer their devotions and hear the gospel preached in purity and power. On one occasion I accompanied my venerated friend to one of his week night services in a school-house; and what was my surprise to observe a large audience, under the power of truth, melted into tears! At the close of the service, many of them gathered around their beloved pastor to lay open the sorrows of their sin-stricken hearts, and inquire what they must do to be saved! Never shall I forget a remark he

made to me at that time in answer to an inquiry respecting the propriety and usefulness of such meetings, about which there was and is a diversity of opinion in our church. I shall never forget it, because it has had its influence upon the whole course of my ministry, and its wisdom and truth have been fully confirmed by my own experience. The remark was substantially as follows:-"I encounter much reproach and opposition from some of my brethren on account of these meetings. But they are neither inconsistent with the principles, nor prohibited by the canons, of the Church. And, although some condemn them as irregular and methodistical, I cannot, as a minister of Christ, desirous of the salvation of souls, give them up. For I know that God's blessing is upon them. They are the nurseries of my communion.”

How great the change which has taken place since that time! Now, in our cities and towns, a lecture room is thought to be almost a necessary appendage to a Church. The holding of weekly lectures may now be considered as the rule, the omission of them as the exception.

At the period of which we write there were very few of the Episcopal clergy in the United States who ever held any other services than the public worship of the Church on the Lord's day and some of the greater festivals. The few who held lectures and prayer-meetings in unconsecrated places, were viewed with an eye of suspicion, and were subject to evil report as being regardless of rubrics and canons, if not utterly disaffected towards the worship and principles of the Church at whose altars they served. So decided and strong was the opposition to the rector of St. Stephen's on this score, that "he was compelled to throw himself under the protection of Bishop Benjamin Moore,

G

then the acting Bishop of New York, and said to him, ' if you will take the responsibility of saying I shall have no prayermeetings, I will give them up.' The Bishop replied, Sir, I will do no such thing.' Then Sir,' said Dr. Moore, 'neither will I.' And from that time he continued his meet

ings with much less difficulty."* This interview was very similar, in its nature and result, to one which took place between the writer, soon after his appointment to the rectorship of St. Ann's Church, Brooklyn, and the late Bishop Hobart. The Bishop was well known to be unfavourable to what are called prayer-meetings, and fearing that there would be an attempt to force them into the congregation at Brooklyn, sought an interview with the Rector, in which he expressed his apprehensions on the subject. He was assured that no design was entertained to impose such extra services upon the people contrary to their wishes-and this question was proposed to him: "If any portion of the congregation shall desire voluntarily to meet during the week for prayer and other religious services, do you think it would be my duty, as a minister of Jesus Christ, to prohibit or discourage it?" To which the Bishop, in his emphatic manner replied, "God forbid!" Notwithstanding the diversity of opinion between them as to the utility of the extra services referred to, he always treated that young rector with the utmost courtesy and kindness, never found fault with his parochial arrangements, and, in the sermon preached when he admitted him to the priesthood, spoke in too flattering terms of his past ministry in the Church, not excepting his social lectures or prayer meetings.

That the opinions of Dr. Moore, in relation to the meet

*Rev. Dr. Tyng, in Christian Keepsake for 1840.

ings in question, underwent no important change after his elevation to the episcopate and removal to another sphere of duty, will be manifest from the following letter, addressed to one of his clergy in the year 1823.

TO THE REV. MR.

ON SOCIAL MEETINGS FOR PRAYER.

Richmond, Jan. 13th, 1823.

Rev. and Dear Sir,-The canons require that before all sermons and lectures the form of prayer should be used, but I do not recollect any statute against what you call prayer-meetings. Should ten, twenty, or fifty of your people choose to meet at a private house, and be disposed to sing a psalm, or hymn, and unite in extempore prayer, there is certainly no canon to forbid it. Is it not better that they should thus pass their time than to waste it in common conversation? Nay, if a clergyman knows that such is their disposition and desire, would it not be improper in him to oppose it? The church has ordained services to be used in public, but certainly the Church does not mean to prevent her members from praying without form in private. I have seen good effects to arise from such pious assemblies of neighbours, and, so far from opposing it, I would encourage it, especially if the people wish it. The only fear to be apprehended is enthusiasm, but, under the direction and control of a judicious minister, that evil may be avoided. If I was so situated as to be convinced of its utility in a country parish, I would keep the reins in my own hands, and give it my countenance. Prayer, if sincere, ought to be encouraged, and I think I can say with truth, that I have seen the greatest benefit flow from the practice. When I say that I would keep the reins in my

own hands, I mean that it should be done, if done at all, under my patronage. I would form the plan, and give it my support. The people thus seeing their minister disposed to afford them his countenance, instead of conceiving a dislike to our inimitable forms would become attached to them, and by an indulgence in private, would advocate them in public. When I lived at the North, my people were ardently attached to the service of the Church; an attachment which in many instances grew out of the indulgence I gave them in private. If the clergy are consistent in their publie duties, and adhere to the Rubric strictly; if they preserve their distinctive character, and yield no points in the discharge of their stated services, I think that there can be little fear of injuring the Church, by permitting their people to meet at each other's houses, and pray to God without a form. I have found it necessary to caution some upon this subject, because I have discovered that they have yielded every thing; even by leaving their congregations and services, and improperly exchanging with dissenters; nay, one person acknowledged that he had united in the sacrament and thought it right so to do. When I am writing to you, I consider myself as addressing a sound Churchman; I have, therefore, no fear that you will yield too much. I have the most perfect confidence in your judgment, and would wish you to do what you think is proper, guarding, however, your public duties, and thus evincing your attachment to the Liturgy.

Believe me, dear Sir,

Yours, &c. &c.

RICHARD CHANNING MOORE.

To the last year of his life Bishop Moore continued to participate in such services with a degree of zeal and enjoy.