Or

"The upward turning of an eye,

The heaving of a sigh,

When none but God is nigh."

"The motion of a hidden fire,

Which trembles in the breast."

It calls that praise which flows from the grateful heart in tears of affection, in acts of thankful gratitude, in hymns of praise, and in deeds of love; free worship calls upon the soul to commune with its God and Friend with all the freedom and affection which results from filial love, with all the meek humility pardoned guilt and punishment removed can alone confer; with all the reverential joy grace possessed, righteousness imputed, and glory in reversion, can communicate to the enlightened soul of the sinner. In a word, free worship is the unrestricted communion of the soul of man with the omnipotent God; it is the putting off of the shoes of sense, the treading on holy ground, the full realization of that mystical burning bush in which the All-Father veils Himself from mortal eyes; it is a present participation of the joys of heaven.

Thus we see that Papal, Protestant, and the Free churches of Britain offer effective prayer and praise suited to the wants and capacities of their worshippers; collateral evidence of which is shown in the blessing which the Almighty God has conferred upon those churches, by the increase in numbers respectively, their active piety and benevolence-a condition altogether unparalleled in any other part of the world. Our argument is, the separate forms of worship are shown to be effective, therefore the sum of its parts must be effective also; the whole, being made up of the sum of its parts, partakes of all the properties and qualities of which the separate parts consist. To show this was our duty.

Reader, if thou dost wish to know the most effective of all forms of worship, earnestly strive thyself to feel the preciousness of a Saviour's dying love to thyself as a perishing sinner; then thou wilt have accomplished thy desire, and have found true happiness in the true Church, by whatever name it may be called.

ADAM BEDE.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

WE assume that by forms of worship we are to understand the modes in which worship is now conducted. Worship, we also assume, includes devotion and instruction. The question for discussion will, then, stand thus,-Do the modes in which devotional exercises are conducted, and in which instruction is imparted, in British places of worship, answer all, or defeat any, of the ends proposed by worship? We reply in the negative, and base our opinion in general on the demand in conforming churches for a revision of the liturgy, for curtailing the long service, for liberty to omit certain portions of it, and to substitute spontaneous effusions;

and on the growing desire in nonconforming churches for a modified and revised combination of liturgical and extempore prayer.

We shall assume that scriptural views of Christian places of worship, and the reverence due to them as sanctuaries, enter deeply into the question of the efficiency of the forms in use. The disposition and general demeanour should be the subject of frequent and habitual reflection. The Israelite entered the temple to "appear before God," and Christians should assemble in the sanctuary to realize the promised presence of their Redeemer. Into the various acts which constitute Divine service, the recollection of this solemn and delightful fact has to be carried by every worshipper," God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about Him." "I will be sanctified in all them that come nigh unto Me." "Be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord." It is here that we meet with the greatest defects-defects which vitiate every form designed to embody and express due reverence to God.

Adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication, and instruction, are distinct but inseparable elements of Christian worship. The right apportionment of time to each of these acts of homage is one particular requiring consideration. The degree in which they should respectively occupy the thoughts and engage the affections is of the highest moment. The manner which is suited to each exercise cannot be neglected without marring that " beauty of holiness" which should characterize our services. The forms of neither church nor chapel allow of a due adjustment of these parts of worship.

The devotional and the didactic are the two branches to which separate attention is required. Prayer and praise come under the former head; reading, exposition, and preaching come under the latter division. We shall in this article confine ourselves to the devotional element, and show how the prevalent forms of worship fail in effectiveness.

Prayer consists of adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication. To promote prayer is undoubtedly the design of the didactic element; since the necessity of instruction would cease, were the worshipper sufficiently informed and rightly disposed. The glimpses we have of heavenly worship disclose the altar, the censer, the throne, the footstool, and the harp; but Bibles and pulpits have no place in the heavenly symbols of the Apocalypse. In Anglican churches it is too much assumed that men are devout, and in Dissenting churches that men need mostly to be indoctrinated.

It is the custom of many, if not of most, of the places of worship to begin with prayer. It is true that in Episcopalian places a brief and solemn address precedes prayer; but this is simply an exhortation to enter upon worship in a becoming spirit, rather than the first act of the worship itself. In other communions praise opens the service, either on all occasions or one of them. This order is countenanced by the Psalmist :-"O come, let us sing unto the Lord:

let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation. Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving." Then follows the exhortation to "worship and bow down, to kneel before the Lord our maker." There appears, however, to be no such committing us to any par ticular order as to the precedence of prayer to praise, or of praise to prayer.

Prayer is the most solemn act of which man is capable. In it he approaches God and invokes His presence. The almighty and thrice holy God draws near to His creatures without destroying the infinite distance which exists between the self-existent and the dependent being. The gulf remains bridged over by grace and condescension in God, but is instantly widened by presumption and irreverence in man.

Prayer is an address which God deigns to hear. Rudeness in relation to equals is insolence to superiors, is impiety to God. In praying we commune with God. The grace which permits it is wonderful. Nature shrinks from it:-"Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord." The Spirit of adoption gives boldness to enter into this fellowship with the Father," without dispensing with filial awe and godly fear.

Absolute dependence is the necessary condition of all save One, in whom all others live, and move, and have their being. Moral dependence is the sense and recognition of that absolute dependence, and characterizes the spiritual worshipper. Prayer is the avowal of need, and an expression of confidence in Divine all-sufficiency and willingness to grant "exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think." To abase self and to exalt God is to realize what man, and to appreciate what God, is. But Christian prayer is more than this. To natural dependence is added a sense of demerit. Contrition mingles with humility. Conscious of impurity, the suppliant stands in awe of Divine holiness. From Beneficence he seeks mercy. As a creature he prays; as a sinner he prays for "Christ's sake." Indigence and guilt unite to supplicate "Goodness and Mercy."

66

In some places prayer is turned into information. Many an address of this sort is delivered at heaven's gate in our Congregational churches. The Father addressed does not seem to "know what things we have need of before we ask Him." No one is heard for much speaking," is a text erased practically from the Bibles of Congregational pulpits. If we enter a Methodist chapel, we hear prayer based upon persuasion. God does not yield, for who can so influence the Almighty? Man should importune, but not under the blasphemous idea of wearying God. The widowed mother importuned Christ, but did our Lord relieve her to relieve himself? In describing the character of the unjust judge, did Christ portray the features of our Father in heaven? "Before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear;" is language practically forgotten where men set up "wrestling Jacobs" for models. The "spirit of supplication" is itself His gift; "Good, and ready to forgive, and plenteous in mercy," God needs not

66

importuning. "Effectual prayer" is "fervent prayer;" because fervour in us is a receptive condition. The effect is upon us, not upon God. We implore the Almighty on the ground that a good unasked is not appreciated. God complies, because, in praying, we comply with conditions wisely and graciously imposed. It is not God who yields; He answers, because we have yielded. We have been as grieved to hear God informed by men who know not what to pray for as they ought," as we have been shocked to see others act as if heaven would be stormed by Methodism in prayer. If we turn into a Church, we have to pray on the tacit assumption that men need no Spirit "helping our infirmities;" for forms devised, or rather revised, three centuries ago offer all the assistance we ought to need. "Lord, teach us to pray," with a formula before us, is a mockery. Then we cannot "ask, and receive not," since, with a divinely inspired Liturgy before us, who can "ask amiss"?

Other elements enter into social prayer. With community of interests sympathy is awakened. We reciprocate good; we borrow influences one of another. We impress and are affected unconsciously, but not mysteriously. Each one in a congregation is an example and a lesson; the one is given, the other is learned in social worship. Hence, to "neglect the assembling of ourselves E together," is to inflict and to suffer a loss. But this is not all. Solitary worship is adoration; but to "glorify God," something more is required. The many can alone worship "with one heart, and with one mouth.' Worship, to be homage, must be seen, though not shown. To pray to be seen of men has its miserable reward; but our light must shine to be of use.

Such we conceive to be the ideal of prayer, understood and felt by those who "exercise themselves unto godliness." When true to its design, it is the soul of piety, and the life of the church. But of those who assemble themselves together, how many meet to pray? The church of old had a "house of prayer,' "but for centuries it was without public places of religious instruction. The forms in vogue now well nigh dispense with the house of prayer, and have converted sanctuaries into schools of popular divinity. Hence our services lack devotion, and, undevotional instruction lacks power. When formality has not absolutely taken the place of sincerity, prayer is feeble and not fervent. Enter an Episcopal chapel, and you hear prayers, which are rather read than offered. Enter a Dissenting chapel, and you find people are enduring "the long prayer." The minister performs the service, and the congregation get through it. An Episcopalian gathers a fashionable audience, literally and truly. He is a good reader, the congregation are good judges. A Dissenting minister gathers a congregation who come to hear, rather than to pray. He has a good voice, is a good preacher, and the people are good critics.

If the prevalence of such a spirit in church and chapel is to end, the whole question of the forms of worship should be solemnly and

earnestly discussed. Neither a liturgical service, nor extemporaneous effusions, have proved effective. Both forms of worship should be dispassionately reviewed. Partisanship and prejudice should be discarded. Earnest minds on both sides have their preferences; but how much these preferences are owing to habit, and training, and sectarian antagonism, ought to be freely and fearlessly discussed. To extol the Anglican liturgy as inspired, and to contemn it as a Popish relic, is equally insensate. Oral and written prayer are both human. If forms are fixed, extemporaneous effusions are stereotyped. If the formulæ become threadbare by inflexible reiteration, the so-called extempore phrases are hackneyed and meaningless through repetition. Set phrases, misquotations of Scripture, sometimes quaint, at other times ludicrous, misapplications of sacred texts, are handed down from generation to generation. Men wanting in words enter "holy orders," where liturgies supply natural deficiencies; men wanting in ideas and feelings are ordained to serve, where declamatory power is allowed to atone for the absence of the gift of public prayer.

66

The chief fault of the Anglican liturgy is its exclusiveness and inflexibility. This is not the defect of the liturgy as such, but be cause the Rubric insists upon inflexibility. To make it a canonical offence to drop or alter a word, or to vary the forms according to circumstances and a limited discretionary power, is the great mistake. Liberty to pray, and freedom to resort to formulæ, should go hand in hand. If Episcopalians had not to defend the Prayer-book, their fondness for it would lose all its superstition. Had the Church not made a liturgical service compulsory, dissenting opposition would never have acquired its rancour. The Jews had a liturgy, to which, there is reason to suppose, our Lord conformed. But Christ restricted neither himself nor his disciples to its use. Many abuses were exposed, but, among these, forms were not enumerated by our Lord. The length of prayer was objected to; not because it was long, but because lengthened for a pretence." Solomon's long prayer was not condemned by Him who alone, of all we read of in Old and New Testament, spent whole nights in prayer. Hypocrisy was exposed with withering censures, ostentation was denounced; but a formula was composed by Christ, is abused by Episcopalians by absurd repetitions, and neglected by Dissenters. In the syn agogue the Jews used a liturgy, in the temple the Jews prayed as the heart prompted. Solomon's prayer was spontaneous. Hannah prayed; the publican ejaculated; the apostles and Stephen contrived to pray as the Spirit helped their infirmities. The more liberal and devout advocates of liturgies confess that forms alone are not flexible enough to meet varying exigencies; and the more candid adherents of extemporaneous effusions admit, that in the variations of temper and feeling, a resort to forms, composed under more favourable and soul-inspiring circumstances, would avoid deadening the conscience. Quenching the spirit of prayer is the lamentable result of inflexi bility in either form of worship. It is exclusiveness from which