because of the mischiefs which follow its abuse, but by a wise adjustment of the modes and forms of worship, to the real nature and character of man.

Has Nonconformity found what they have missed? When, at the Reformation, the Puritans of England, and the Presbyterians of Scotland, were called upon to model anew the worship of the sanctuary, did they hit upon the true scheme? We believe that the modes they adopted approximate much nearer to the truth than the modes they abandoned; but we are not sure they did not fall into the opposite error. Justly indignant at the corruption that prevailed, and shocked at the wrongs done to the rational and spiritual nature of man, by the multitude of pompous and imposing ceremonials and superstitious rites; they, perhaps, were carried by the heat of strife, and the determination to clear away the evil for ever, to the other extreme; led to err by defect, and to despise some great and important aids to devotion.

And how has the system worked? has it, from time to time, received improvement, and are its present modes and forms thoroughly effective? Assuredly, we must not boast. It has produced, and does produce much piety, and nourished many a noble spirit. It has sent forth, from the earliest times of Nonconformity, a number of disciples as great and good as the world ever saw; and wherever it is carried still it has its converts of divinest mould. But might it not have done more? Admitting that many powerful causes have conspired to check the progress of Dissent, is not one very powerful cause to be found in this defect? Are we not too cold and spiritless? Is there not a baldness and meagreness of character in our worship? Are not our ordinary services lacking in the power to interest; and though they may be instructive, are they not comparatively unimpressive? If so, is the only reason of the failure in the ministry; or would it be sufficient to allege, if it were a fact, our superior spirituality and intelligence? Have we not forgotten that "religion is a passion as well as a principle," and that most men must be made to feel, in order to be made devout? Of the three great classes into which the human family may be divided, and consequently the church, the reverential, the thoughtful, the ardent, we think there are two, we do not by any means fully reach. There is nothing tender enough, or impressive enough, to captivate the first, who want to be inspired with awe, when they come to worship. There is nothing potent and stirring enough to arrest the last, whose rude and tumultuous spirit cannot be tamed and softened by philosophy and logic. The one class says, they are shocked to find so little in our external arrangements, that brings over their spirit the solemn and vivid consciousness that God is there; the other, though dwelling among us, and around us, is scarcely made conscious of our existence, or brought to feel our religious power; and both are repelled by the cold proprieties of our worship. It is on the

other class we chiefly act,-the sturdy and reflecting. But though it is not to our dishonour that a goodly number of such enter into our ranks, it must be remembered that they form but a minority of any people; and that the others, without neglecting these, ought to be and may be reached; and it is worthy of our most serious consideration, whether we have not overlooked, in our modes and forms of worship, some great elements of human nature, and made but little provision to touch some powerful springs of devout emotion and sentiment, which reside in the breast of the masses of mankind.

return.

If this be so, assuredly it need not be. If any body has the power of self-regeneration and re-adjustment, it is our own. We have no authoritative and unchanging human forms to bind us. No mortal names stand in our calendar, holding us to implicit obedience and slavish imitation. The Bible is our only acknowledged statute-book, to which, when we have departed from it, we are always at liberty to We are aware that it is a critical moment to moot the question, and a delicate matter to propose reform. We fear, that in such exciting times, even if wrong, the timid amongst us will lack the courage to stir, lest we should be hurried into error, and will counsel us to wait till the storm has subsided: whilst the stern and passionless, disgusted by the fooleries that are elsewhere being enacted, and filled with a morbid dread of seeming to approach to Rome, will be driven to the antipodes, and led to contend for a severity without tenderness, and a simplicity without life. But we venture to say, that we have been slumbering too long, and that the subject must be considered. For ourselves, we are no believers in the Divine right of the exact modes and form of Congregationalism, as they are now practised, any more than in those of Episcopacy. It is absurd to imagine that the order of our worship is precisely that which was adopted at Ephesus, or at Corinth. It is not uniform even among ourselves; and might be further modified in its details, without any departure from its principles or spirit. If we are right, if we are free from defect, if our system is perfect, let us remain as we are. We think, however, that improvement is possible, and that much must be done if we would advance or even hold our place; and it does not become us to be deterred from the inquiry into truth, by the fear of falling into error; or frightened from our propriety, by any cry, should the necessity for amendment be made out. Had we been wise,-had this subject and several others, been considered a quarter of a century since,-we are firmly persuaded that, to a large extent, the multitudes would have gone with us, and that our position among the religious communities of the land, honourable as it is, would have been far more commanding. Our enemies would like to see us quiet; and on the slightest movement on our part be ready to taunt us with taking a leaf out of their book. But if they

are up and doing, why should we hold back? And surely their taunts we need not heed. And they are in vigorous action. The Roman Catholics are modifying their worship to the English taste and conscience, and telling the people, in order to stimulate their zeal, that "very many not yet of the household of faith, are avowedly anxious to escape from a gloomy cold puritanism, and to refresh their souls in the genial light and warmth of Catholic liturgic and ritual observances." There is another body not less active, proceeding on such views of human nature, as is sure to give them large success; and, without caring to enlighten the mind, earnestly adapting the worship of the English church to the religious instincts and cravings of man; we know it is superstition they will bring back, and not a sound scriptural piety; we are aware it is a mystic and sentimental devotion they will revive, and not the free enlightened service of the children of God. But the more need for our activity. And what shall we do? Shall we remain lifeless and inactive spectators; or by a wise and vigorous movement endeavour to recover lost ground? Persuaded that others are energetically leading men wrong, shall we not boldly step in and attempt to lead them right?

We would now enter upon a consideration of the details of our worship, with the view of ascertaining what defects may exist, and what improvements may be practicable and desirable.

We proceed, then, to consider in detail, the worship of Congregational Dissenters; to inquire what defects may attach to it, and what improvements it may admit of. We wish to do it with diffidence and candour. A censorious spirit we utterly disclaim; and in the outset would assure those who may honour our remarks with a perusal, that we make them inquisitively, not dogmatically; and that our chief aim is, far less to obtrude any opinions of our own, than to invite to the discussion, the venerable and the wise among us. We do not know that we shall introduce anything new. The principle we desire to adopt is, to draw from the Scriptures all the information we can. It will be incumbent on us, however, to distinguish between those things which are permanent and essential, and those which are unessential and temporary or local. For example, the commemoration of the death of Christ, we regard as continually binding; the reclining posture or the unleavened bread, as accidental or local. Baptism with water, as of perpetual obligation; baptism in a house, or at a stream, indifferent. It is the province of a sound mind to distinguish in such cases; and, whilst it never departs from the spirit and genius of the Gospel, to avoid being enslaved by the letter that killeth. We shall not deem ourselves obliged, however, to maintain that all we do is lawful and right, because it is done by us; nor that every principle and practice which obtains among others and not among us, is, on that account, unscriptural and wrong. We shall

hold ourselves at liberty to be somewhat eclectic; our motto will be Μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος σκοποῦντες ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἑτέρωνεκαστοι.

As we would not be blind to the faults of the body with which we are connected, lest they should silently work to our grievous injury; so we will not allow ourselves to despise or depreciate whatever is excellent and good in others whoever they may be; for we might lose pearls of great price. Such, at all times, is a short-sighted policy; it stands in the way of improvement; it renders impossible the attainment of that perfection which sincerity and candour would place within our reach; and in its stead perpetuates emulation, and variance, and strife. Our search is after truth; and it becomes us to seek it and follow it at any cost.

We shall begin with the less important matters; and,

1. Make a few remarks on our places for worship. The propriety of appropriating places to public worship is, we suppose, generally felt. There is a law of association in our nature, by which the thought that this is God's house tends to excite devout feeling; which is not to be slighted because it may be abused. If I saw Drury Lane theatre crowded with immortal beings, I might enter it and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, with as much energy and power as in any other place; but I should not choose to alternate the use of it with the patrons of the drama, and should prefer to meet God's people for purposes of devotion elsewhere. Some may tell me this is superstition, and ought to be overcome. I deny it; and affirm that they, in cherishing a state of mind which renders them superior (?) to the influence of sacred associations, are overruling salutary tendencies, which God himself has implanted in our breasts.

We believe that the character of our buildings for public worship, is not altogether unimportant; and that an edifice chaste in its architecture, and commodious in all its arrangements, will be found most conducive to the interests of religion. Our fathers, we know, assembled in the woods under cover of night, or met in barns scarcely sheltered from the beating winds; and then, when permitted to erect sanctuaries, were often regardless alike of situation, of structure, or of convenience; and yet a purer worship was never presented than by them, nor a more exalted piety exhibited. But we are not speaking of what may suffice in cases of extremity. If in this they are to be imitated at all, they should be imitated exactly; but no one would be found eccentric enough to advocate the shutting up of our places of worship, for the luxury of meeting in the fields at the midnight hour. While we should be laughed to scorn by sensible men, God himself would soon rebuke us for our ingratitude and folly. We are speaking of what sort of places men should build, when permitted freely to meet for Divine worship. We cannot think it right, under the plea that God

regards not place, that the house where He is to be worshipped should be mean and incommodious; the cheapest that can be built. Neither are we going to recommend gorgeous, massive, and costly structures, whether they are made to resemble the saloon or drawing-room, all mirrored and gilt, with carpets of Tyrian dye, and cushions that invite repose, proclaiming the wealth of the worshippers, and harmonising with the fashion of the world; or, whether they are conformed to pagan Christianity, as the temples of the East were to pagan idolatry. It is true there is something imposing in the venerable piles that popery reared, and which the popery of protestantism would now revive; but we believe that the state of mind they tend to produce, is quite as remote from the spirituality of gospel worship, as that is which results from a total disregard of all propriety; and, if we avoid what tends to cold indifferentism, so would we shun what promotes a mere superstitious reverence or sentimental piety. Such buildings should be worthy of God; the best the people who are to use them can honestly rear; free, on the one hand, from every thing calculated to excite spurious religious feeling; or, on the other, to induce discomfort and discomposure. They should be chaste, commodious, and convenient; adapted, both in appearance and arrangement, to aid poor, frail creatures, whilst in the body, to worship God in spirit and in truth.

Our next remark will probably startle some. We would abolish pews, totally and for ever. This was our wish years before Puseyism suggested it, and therefore we do not hesitate now to record it. They had no existence in the Jewish synagogues. To this day they are unknown on the Continent. We believe they are of English invention, and of modern date. Advantages they have none; but they have several evils. They serve to keep up injurious distinctions, in one of those few places on earth, where the rich and the poor should meet together. Instead of inviting the multitudes to join our worship, we believe they have the effect, to an incalculable extent, of repelling them from us. At least, the subject deserves to be well considered. For ourselves, we have no doubt that the place of worship commodiously seated, but not pewed, and properly warmed, would soon be greatly preferred by our congregations, and draw large numbers to God's house who now stay away; whilst it would be as easy for families to sit together as it is now.

We would call our places for worship, churches. This is their proper designation. Their ancient Greek name was кupiakov, meaning the Lord's house-the noun understood-whence the German kirche, the Scotch kirk, the English church. Applied first to the building, it soon came to designate the persons who assembled in it; and now properly denotes either. Chapel is altogether inappropriate, and subjects us to the charge of aping our neighbours. Meeting, or conventicle, is the