But the word indifferent, is itself of equivocal import. If by being left indifferent, it is meant simply that the things alluded to, are not the subject of specific command, or of specific prohibition in the New Testament, there is an obvious fallacy in the application of the term; for, if the spirit of any command extends to their being performed, or to the mode of their performance, then, they are not left indifferent. We may go further and add, that if it is the private conviction of the individual, though that conviction may be erroneous, that they are virtually comprehended in any Apostolic direction, or if it be esteemed only probable that they are virtually commanded or forbidden, to the individual so judging, the matter is not left absolutely indifferent; nor can he be dis charged from the higher duty of yielding obedience to the divine authority on any degree of evidence, by the interposition of human authority declaring the matter to be indifferent, and founding on its indifference restrictive or positive enactments. With regard to things confessedly indifferent in themselves, which nevertheless, as respects the conscience of the individual, are not indifferent, we have the decision of an Apostle as to the positive guilt of compli ance; "He that doubteth is condemned if he eat." Can then compulsive enactments enforcing obedience in matters held to be doubtful, be clear from the charge of wilfully violating the spirit of the Apostolic law? When compliance is unlawful, can the command be otherwise than unjust? Further, if the matter be left absolutely indifferent in Scripture, yet, in respect to the reason of the thing, it does not appear to the individual to be indifferent, the conscience still claims an immunity from human obligations, as the necessary condition of religious actions; still resents the imposition of an arbitrary standard of such actions, which is not founded upon their intrinsic quality as acceptable or unacceptable to the Great Object of Worship,' pp. 336-339.

That there is no book of Leviticus in the New Testament, as some controvertists contend, we admit, but in a qualified sense. This language is used with an ill-grace by those who, if we have no book of Leviticus in the New Testament, appear to have themselves a book of Leviticus out of it. Theirs is indeed an apocryphal book, and therefore excluded from our canon; but it is as binding on the consciences of many Churchmen, as ever the Levitical law was on the Jews. For this, those who framed it must answer to Him who will demand, in regard to all additions to his instituted worship, "Who hath required these at your hand?" After some excellent reasonings on this topic, our Author justly remarks:

The proposition, that every thing relating to the worship of God which is not commanded, is forbidden, presents after all, when rightly understood, the only satisfactory conclusion on which we can rest. As those co-necessary natural circumstances which adhere to every action, are virtually comprehended in the precept which is the basis of the instituted duty, so, whatsoever

circumstances, considered strictly as means of discharging what is positively enjoined, conduce to the more decent and impressive performance of the duty, are strictly consonant with the Divine command; are permissively, although not specifically, involved in it. On the contrary, whatsoever does not partake of the strictly subordinate character of means, or, if the term may be allowed, does not come under the description of modal circumstances of obedience,-whatsoever is added as a moral or religious circumstance with the view of constituting the action either more efficient, or more acceptable to the Lord of worship, is to be condemned as superstition; it being that sort of addition to the commandments of God, which is expressly forbidden. The application of this axiom may, like that of every general principle, be a matter of some delicacy; for this very reason, the decision must ultimately be left with conscience; but thus much there is no room for hesitation in affirming, that all symbolical or ceremonial worship, not expressly instituted by God himself, borders on modal idolatry. These form a part of worship, therefore, they are worship, and worship uncommanded is forbidden,the analogy warrants the use of the metaphor,-it is strange fire. The ritual consecration of places and things, is clearly no part of the circumstantials of obedience; it has no relation to any positive commandment, and must be classed with those palpable corruptions of Christianity by human invention, which the Scriptures pointedly condemn. "It is not in the power of man," it has been well remarked, " to determine of any such religious or "holy place, because he can make none so." Here Protestants are called upon to make a stand, and to reiterate the famous declaration of Chillingworth in terms somewhat modified: the New Testament, the New Testament only is the religion of Christians. The relative holiness of any time, or place, or thing, is a religious circumstance which can originate in nothing short of the positive ordinance of God. True it is, that "there is no book of Leviticus in the New Testament,' for there is noTM thing Levitical in Christianity. Such things are not left indifferent; they are strictly analogous to those Judaical superstitions which the Apostle Paul combats in his Epistles, with all the force of inspired authority. As to many of them, their origin is by no means unequivocal. Christian Rome adopted them from Pagan Rome, grafting the religion of temples on the religion of Churches, thus producing the religion of Cathedrals,a religion of sacrifices, and altars, and vestments, and priests, and holy days, and holy ground. Protestant Episcopacy has unwittingly imported some of these Pagan antiquities, and having given them Christian baptism, would fain pass them off as decorous and edifying solemnities. But "what saith the Scripture ?" " pp. 348-351.

In the Second Chapter of this Book, On the nature of 'public Ordinances,' we are, with much satisfaction, carried through the controversy on forms of prayer, preaching, and

the sacraments. The common arguments in support of prescribed human forms of devotion, are candidly stated, and are met with replies which, in our opinion, more than invalidate them. With most of those replies our readers are probably already familiar; but the following historical remarks on the Prayer-book, deserve attention for the candour and liberality which they display.

At no period, however, could the use of the Prayer-book have been generally dispensed with in the Establishment. Had the imposition only been less rigorous and unconditional, had free prayer been still allowed to those who stood not in need of a form, little controversy would have arisen as to the general expedience of the enactment, while the excellence of the compilation, in connexion with the habits of the clergy, would have effectually secured its adoption. From the Reformation to the Commonwealth, a very large proportion of the Churches were supplied by mere readers, whose utter incompetency either to preach or to pray, rendered the expedient of a prescribed form absolutely necessary. Many of the benefices remained in the hands of concealed papists, and the general character of the clergy was so low, both in respect to moral and intellectual qualifications, that when, in the reign of Elizabeth, a survey was made by royal authority, of the state of the parishes throughout the kingdom, there did not appear, on the face of the returns, to be one minister in ten tolerably qualified for the office. To be able to read, was, in those times, a distinguishing attainment, and even the parish-clerk was not unfrequently in holy orders. Sermons were for the most part, in the country cures, out of the question, and it was literally true, no Common Prayer-book, no Common Prayer. The value of such a compilation as the English Liturgy, at that period, considered simply as a means of instruction, must not be lightly appreciated. Richard Baxter, who describes the state of the parochial clergy as being, when he was young, deplorable in the extreme, in point of both ignorance and immorality, yet frankly testifies that he joined in the Liturgy, then, with as hearty fervency as afterward he did with other prayers. "As long as I had no prejudice against it, I had no stop in my devotions from any of its imperfections." So true is it that the spirit of piety is often found in combination with the humblest degrees of religious knowledge! Let this simple-hearted statement have all the weight which it can claim: it is certainly adapted to repress any doubt, (if such doubts are entertained,) as to the efficiency of the written service for the purposes of devotion; it may teach Dissenters to unite with a just preference of their own mode, a respectful and candid appreciation of the ritual of the Episcopal church. It is the spirit of imposition which is to be deprecated, as the source of al! the unhallowed feelings which have mingled in this controversy,-the impious attempt to prescribe to men in what way alone they shall be suffered to unite in prayer to their Maker.' pp. 399–401.

This is only one of the many instances which might be brought to shew that Dissenters have never been backward to

acknowledge the usefulness and excellence of the Church prayers. Such acknowledgements, however, have been very rarely returned. Dissenting compliments to the Liturgy, are supposed by Churchmen to be extorted from secret and perhaps smothered convictions, that nothing at all equal to them is ever heard in a conventicle, and are viewed merely as unwilling tributes of discovered homage to the unrivalled superiority of their venerable service-book. The prayers of Dissenters, instead of being treated with respect or civility, are too often most wantonly reproached and insulted as compounds of every thing fanatical, monstrous, and even blasphemous. We can forgive such reproaches, but we cannot allow Churchmen to be properly qualified judges in the affair. We have the means of judging as correctly as Churchmen, of the nature and merits of their prayers, but none but Dissenters are qualified to speak of the prayers usually presented in our churches. That individual among the Dissenters who has paid the most eloquent tribute to the Liturgy it has perhaps ever received, (a tribute gladly seized by Churchmen, and used in a manner the Author never could have designed) is in the daily practice of producing unpremeditated devotional addresses equal in simplicity and patios, to the sublimest strains of Liturgical composition that the world has ever seen. But in conducting this part of our sacred service, we do not consider an eminent individual as raised to an unapproachable altitude above his brethren. Had it not been for his eulogy on the Liturgy, we should not now have thus referred specially to him. We have many others, men of far inferior powers of pulpit eloquence, men without a name in the annals of literature, or the records of science, but whose language in leading the devotions of Sion, it is a privilege to hear. We will not go so far as a northern journalist, who some time ago asserted that the worst prayer he ever heard in the church of Scotland, was at least equal to any in the English prayer-book; but we will assert, on grounds on which we cannot be met by Churchmen, that the prayers generally offered up by the regular Dissenting Ministers, for comprehension of the state and circumstances of their audience, for propriety and scriptural expression, and for fitness to produce ardent and elevated devotional feeling, will not only bear the most rigid comparison with the established forms, but would be found considerably superior.

In treating of the ordinance of preaching, our Author examines the strange language in which Conformists have frequently contrasted prayer and public teaching, with the evident design of lessening the importance of the latter. If all comparisons are odious, those which relate to the practical importance of ordinances confessedly equally divine, are detestVol. XII. N. S. 2 X

able. To speak lightly of that institution which Inspiration pronounces to be the power and the wisdom of God for saving the guilty, is a degree of presumptive temerity which neither rank nor age ought to shelter from reprobation. It is employed from a consciousness that is ill concealed, that in preaching-solid, effective preaching, the Church will not bear a comparison with the Dissenters. Of late years, we frankly and gladly acknowledge, that some of the best and most useful preachers in the country, are clergymen; but, as our Author justly remarks,

At one period, the importance of preaching, as the grand business of the Evangelical ministry, might strictly have been termed a tenet of Nonconformity; for notwithstanding some exceptions similar to the above passage, in the writings of Episcopal divines, the sentiment itself has been generally regarded as Puritanical, and an evident anxiety has been betrayed by the established clergy in general, not to symbolize, in this respect, with the Calvinistic Dissenters. What has powerfully tended to exasperate the opponent parties into the extremes of opinion, has been the obviousness of the fact, that the Episcopal Church has been on this point exceedingly vulnerable, in consequence of the clergy being for the most part incompetent, as well as indisposed, to the task of preaching, and the churches being filled with mere readers of hired sermons. Hence it has been felt as imperative on the advocates of the Establishment, to attempt to demonstrate, first, that sermons are not a principal-are, in fact, a subordinate and dispensable part of the public service; and secondly, that reading is preaching. Preaching is styled by Hooker-" The blessed ordinance of God;" but then, the bare reading of the Scripture lessons of the Liturgy, he would fain have us regard as an efficient discharge of this part of the Christian ministry. The same sophistical apology for the deficiencies of the preacher, is still frequently adduced by members of the Establishment. "There are the Prayers and the lessons of the Liturgy; if these do not avail, what would sermons effect?" How urgent must be the necessity which drives good men into such subterfuges of reasoning! Vain, vain, as experience amply testifies, are all the formalities of the desk, if the pulpit be lifeless." pp. 406-408.

All the statements respecting the preaching of the Dissenters are very important, especially viewed as the testimony of well informed and candid laymen, whose opportunities of judging are known to be peculiarly favourable. The public at large, indeed, and high Churchmen themselves, can, without contracting the pollution of unconsecrated walls, more easily judge of the qualities of the sermons of Dissenting Ministers, from the multitude continually published, than of the nature of their prayers, which are rarely exhibited from the press. But as we have so many more preachers than writers, it is desirable to hear the estimate which is formed by a judicious person, of the general discourses which are delivered from our

t

L