Christ has united to himself, and declares to be "of his flesh and of his bones." Is it not enough that the personal body of Christ was torn upon the cross by impious wretches; and shall his spiritual body be now torn afresh by our pride and our want of holy love?

II. There is ONE Spirit. This is the Holy Ghost; the life of the body. The apostle says not, There is a pope,-a primate,-a general synod, a venerable company, or a classis,- -a prince, or a stategovernment. But he says, There is one Spirit: the Spirit which dwells in all your brethren ;-which dwells within you. Ye are the temples of the same Spirit.

III. There is ONE hope. Little signifies it in what part of the world you were born, to what nation you belong, the fashion of your countenance, the colour of your skin, the government under which you live. It is one and the same heaven that will receive you all for ever. There is one hope.

IV. There is ONE Lord. We have "not many masters," James iii. 1. Whoever belongs to the sole and same Lord Jesus, who died and rose again, he belongs to us. What difference does it make that he worships in another building, with another prayer-book, or without any book of man? The thing important is, not that he follows with us, (as once an apostle questioned,) but that he follows the one Lord.

V. There is ONE faith. The matter is not about long creeds, multiplied articles. We do indeed like confessions of faith; but they are not what the apostle speaks of. His subject is what Luther calls "the inward and living thing," the faith wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, everywhere the same; "the like precious faith" which all the saints with us partake, and which unites even those whom articles of faith divide.

VI. There is ONE baptism, the baptism of regeneration by the renewing of the Holy Spirit. Where the graces are found of which water is the sign, where there is the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, there is unity. We shall allow of no separation for any difference in the outward rite, for the employment of much water or little, for the fact of administration at one age or at another. After having visited the churches in Rome, I passed through those of Milan; and while at Rome baptism is administered by sprinkling, I found that, in the ancient churches of St. Ambrose, it was by plunging the infants into water. These observable differences in the Ambrosian rite, are not regarded at Rome as breaking the unity. Shall we show more formalism, exclusiveness, bigotry, than even Rome herself?

VII. There is ONE God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Who can claim this God as their Father? All-all who have received the Spirit of adoption, the Spirit of his Son; all who say with a confidence truly filial, "Our Father who art in heaven." Yes, all,—ALL.

Then, let there be a grand UNITY in the whole family of Jesus Christ! Of this unity, the great principle is communion with the sole Head. I therefore conclude by saying to you, Christ is the true vine; ye are the branches. Abide in him, and he will abide in you; and ye shall be one in the truth, under one sole HEAD, one sole body.

ON THE MODES AND FORMS OF WORSHIP AMONG
CONGREGATIONAL DISSENTERS.

(Concluded from page 499.)

7. WE come now to the consideration of that part of public worship which consists in prayer. We were happy to see this subject, as far as relates to ministerial qualifications for the exercise, and to the due mental and spiritual preparation of the people to join in it, so ably discussed in recent numbers of this magazine; we shall confine our remarks, therefore, to its forms and modes.

As it respects public prayer, the church has been divided into two great parties. 1. Large sections approve of prescribed and set forms. only, and almost exclusively use them. 2. Other large sections reject such prepared forms, and allow only of free and extemporaneous prayer. A few bodies have endeavoured to combine the two. Most Congregationalists in theory, perhaps all in practice, adopt the second view.

On this subject we desire to be candid. We would not for a moment say that a form of prayer is sinful, or unlawful, or inconsistent with true devotion. With Dr. Redford, we are "far from despising forms of prayer, and most distant from calling in question the sincere and acceptable devotion of multitudes who use the liturgy;" yet we are sincere and unalterable in our conviction that free prayer, as a rule at least, is right in itself, scriptural in its authority, and most beneficial to the church.

It is not necessary here to refute the very feeble argument for formularies of prayer, derived from the Lord's prayer; nor to enter into the philosophical reasons which lie against them, and in favour of free prayer. It is enough for us to know "that liturgies," to quote again the language of Dr. Redford, "are wholly unknown to the New Testament; that there is not a vestige to be found in Scripture, of any used, prepared, or imposed by Christ, or his apostles, or any of their successors, in the purest and most devotional ages of Christianity."*

* This statement appears to us to require some explanation. Much confusion and misunderstanding have arisen from using the word liturgy in an indefinite and varying sense and the boldest conclusions have been drawn from the most unsatisfactory premises. The advocates of liturgies, as Bingham, their champion, of the last

Tertullian informs us, that in his days they prayed "looking up to heaven, with hands stretched out, because they were innocent and without a monitor, because they prayed from the heart." And again, in his "De Oratione," he says, "Having premised the Lord's prayer, we may offer up accidental requests and petitions." To translate the phrase, "sine monitore quia de pectore," from memory, or sincerely and without compulsion, may be a shrewd gloss, but we wonder what scholar would allow it. Prayers, then, were certainly offered in his time not precomposed; indeed, we know not how in such an attitude they could well be read. No form, we think we may say, no single prayer, has come down to us which can with certainty be traced back to the third century. Persons may imagine and conjec

century; and Palmer, their principal defender of our times, aim to prove that the Scriptures were invariably read in some order in the ancient worship; that certain passages of the word of God, or of human composition, whether prose or poetry, were regularly sung; that the Lord's prayer was constantly used, and also uniformly employed in baptism; that before prayer the deacon was accustomed to say 'Oploì σтwμEν Kaλs; that responses were used, as when the minister on certain occasions said "The Lord be with you," the people replied-" And with thy spirit." That the doxologies of the New Testament were regular parts of their service, &c. &c. from which, they not only conclude in favour of liturgies, but also seem themselves to infer, and certainly wish us to infer, that there was no free prayer in the early church; but that all direct addresses to God also were precomposed and written formularies. This is certainly jumping to a conclusion; and we are apt to think, that notwithstanding all this, one-half of the Divine service of the church might still consist of extemporaneous prayer; whilst we affirm unhesitatingly, that no proof can be given that free prayer was not used. The opponents of liturgies, on the other hand, establish the fact that free prayer was used; and show it to be in the highest degree probable, that no written forms of prayer, in the proper sense of the phrase, were employed, and then, as inconsiderately affirm that the ancient services of the church were in no sense liturgical. But if that office of Divine worship, which includes the reading of the word of God in order, and the singing of precomposed words, and the use of Scripture phrases, whether copious or sparing, though its direct addresses to God may be extempore compositions :—I say, if such office may be called a liturgy, and it certainly may, why, then, not only did the ancients use liturgies, but we ourselves employ them with the utmost regularity. The real question then is, not between liturgies and no liturgies, but between free prayers and precomposed prayers, as parts of such liturgies. If Dr. Redford includes in the term, the whole of the devotional offices of the apostolical churches, and intends to deny that the Scriptures read, and the hymns or other passages sung, were regulated by any law, we do not think he could establish his position; but if he means that part of their services which consisted in prayers and supplications, we think it would not be easy to disprove his assertion. For we confess that had we no other authority than Bingham and Palmer, though we would not positively deny all use of forms of prayer in the first and second century of the church, we should yet be compelled to conclude that free, or extempore prayer, entered largely into its worship, and constituted the rule, and that liturgies never prevailed till the spirit of piety declined, and its ministers became incompetent to offer it in an edifying manner.

ture, as Palmer does, that this prayer or that was composed by some apostle, or some contemporary of the apostles, but guesses prove nothing; and if certain prayers could be traced to certain authors, and be shown to have been used in public, it would be no argument for the exclusion of free prayer; whilst, if no such liturgies as are now contended for were drawn up by those who alone could have framed them without error, (and if there had been, they must have come down to us) surely we may be excused for declining to adopt them. We hold free prayer to be one of the choicest gifts of the great Head of the church. We believe that if it were generally abandoned, and unvarying liturgies substituted, the spirit of devotion would soon be extinguished, and the whole church be brought to a state of formalism. We think it was designed to be a principal means of perpetuating and maturing our piety on earth; and that history confirms our views. Whilst, then, we condemn not those who conscientiously differ from us, and profess ourselves able occasionally to join in their devotions with profit and pleasure, we yet feel that we should seriously err and greatly sin if we did not contend for free prayer as the rule in the church of God, and as vital to its spiritual welfare.

And while we are earnest in this matter, we should, on the admission of forms of prayer, be still more earnest against one uniform liturgy, or against its imposition in any way. Even when introduced into the early church, the same liturgies were not used by all; nor till the year 506 was any attempt made to enforce them. Bingham himself has a section to prove that "every bishop was at liberty, in the first ages, to order the form of Divine service in his own church, which privilege," he says, "they retained for several ages." There can be little doubt, we apprehend, that he used prayers composed by himself or by another, or prayed extempore at his pleasure. We could not consent to the abridgment of this liberty; and must regard the total or nearly total exclusion of free prayer, and the substitution of prescribed forms, as a most perilous usurpation of the authority of Christ.

If any should say they agree with us in the main, but think that there are some general and necessary topics of public prayer that might advantageously be reduced to forms, while free prayer is still the rule, and that with respect to this matter dissenters are too strict, and ought to be left at greater liberty, we shall not contest the point. We are commanded, e. g., to pray for kings, &c., to make supplications for all men, somewhat after the manner of the Litany in the English Prayer Book; it is exceedingly difficult to select, time after time, varied and suitable expressions, and to render interesting such parts of extempore prayer. We admit it and feel it; and we confess we see no objection to any minister of Jesus Christ compiling or preparing for himself a number of forms on such topics, and using them as his discretion may

suggest; or to a volume being prepared and put into the hands of our people to be so used, in congregations that desire it; we only stipulate that the practice be so limited as neither to injure the gift of free prayer, nor to take the place of what we believe to have been the prevailing law of the primitive churches, of praying "sine monitore quia de pectore," without a prompter because from the heart.

One word more on this topic, lest we should be misunderstood. By free prayer we do not mean unprepared or unpremeditated prayer. It does not preclude the use of written prayers, or the introduction of petitions taken from the writings of others. The man of prayer, when suddenly called upon, will frequently be able, without any previous thought, to address God in language as connected and excellent as though he had prepared his prayer; but we condemn ex imo pectore offering to God that which costs us nothing; and should be as backward as the most devoted liturgists to sanction those crude bursts and undigested effusions which they profess so much to dread. But such could not be presented among us, if those whose office it is to speak to God would take those necessary pains to fit themselves for the exercise, so powerfully advocated in the September number of this magazine.

Referring our readers to that paper for what relates to the necessary mental and spiritual preparation for public prayer, we proceed to notice some of those matters which come more immediately within our province; and,

1. The attitude and manner of the minister praying are of some importance. He may stand or kneel, as he pleases; but we would suggest that, if he stand, Scripture example seems in favour of the outstretched hands and uplifted eyes; if he kneel, of the closed eye and inclined head. The whole manner and appearance, we apprehend, should be that of the child addressing an affectionate and venerated Father. The most impressive example we ever saw of the proper outward manner of public prayer was that of the late venerable Robert Hall. To look upon him in that exercise to us was truly touching and sublime : his countenance and attitude expressed the abasement of the sinner, and the confidence of the child, together with the dignity of the son; whilst his language was calculated to enkindle the tenderness and fervor of devotion in every heart. Those movements of the head, that action of the hand, and distortion of the features we sometimes see, both distract the mind and offend against all good taste. In our closet we use no rhetorical action in prayer; we should feel it to be an outrage on all propriety; we are natural then, without an effort to be so. How strange that as soon as we appear in the church we should become as unnatural as possible! To duly modulate the voice, and present our petitions in suitable tones, requires especial care. Evenness without monotony, solemnity without dulness, seriousness without whining, should be aimed at; whilst the most fervent and impassioned