lating again the rule of our Savior, that we use not vain repetitions as the heathen do. And especially the form which immediately follows the litany in the American Prayerbook, but in the English is incorporated with it, is liable to this objection. It is what is called in the Romish rituals, Kyrie eleison—“O Christ hear us, Lord have mercy upon us, Christ have mercy upon us, Lord have mercy upon us,' each repeated by the minister and the people. This we believe to be a most flagrant violation of Christian rules. It is too much like "O Baal, hear us," which was once, with frequent repetition, preferred to one who had no eye to pity, and

no arm to save.

Before we leave this part of our subject, it is proper to remark, that a portion of the Old and New Testaments is read every morning and afternoon, besides a portion of the gospels, a portion of an epistle, and a portion of the Psalms. This large infusion of scripture in the service is claimed as a great excellence. The late Bishop Hobart once said, that there is enough of scripture in the Prayer-book for salvation. And Bishop Eastburn, of Massachusetts, said at the last anniversary of the Massachusetts Bible Society, "that he loved his own church for many reasons, but chiefly for its professed reverence for the word of God; and that the Episcopal church in her daily service commanded more of the Holy Scriptures to be read than any other church in Christendom." This argument of the bishop goes upon the ground that the more scripture there is read in the public service of the church the better. Hence if the argument is good for any thing, it proves that nearly all the service should consist in reading the Scriptures. Now while we freely admit that our own ministers, being left to their own discretion, may read too little, we think that the Episcopal clergy actually read

too much. If the head of a family should read, every time he assem bles his household for domestic worship, five or six chapters in the Bible, he would not be thought to act judiciously. The minds of his audience would not be half so much impressed with scriptural truth as if a smaller portion were read. So it is in the public worship of God. If the Episcopal clergy would teach their hearers to read the Bible at home, while they should read only so much at church as to recognize its paramount authority and convey instruction and edification, a much better knowledge of the sacred oracles would be gained. As it is, the word of God makes no great impression, because there is so much read. We do not find that other devout Christians or other congregations are less acquainted with the Scriptures than Episcopalians. The service is made so long by this means and by the frequent repetitions in the prayers, that very little time is left for the sermon. Thus the ordinance of preaching, which, from the stress the Bible lays upon it, we infer is the first in the public worship of God, the Episcopal church thrusts away into a corner, and treats as a mere appendage to the rest. pleases God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. It is the truth, proclaimed by the liv ing voice, that God has chosen as the main instrument of conversion, sanctification, and salvation. It is this which the Holy Spirit uses to kindle and sway the living energies of man.

It

There are many other things which we deem objectionable in the ordinary service of the Episcopal church, such as bowing at the name of Jesus in the creed, as though that ceremony were required at that place more than at others, or as though it were required at all; the theatrical effect of changing the dress on the part of the clergy, and that too in the midst of the service,

when the people are engaged in singing the praises of God; the public proclamation which the minister makes of secret prayer, when on his return from the vestry he ascends the pulpit, folds up his gown and inclines his head in the face of the congregation, they all the while engaged in singing; the standing of the people when the gospel is read, and their sitting during the reading of the epistle, as though one were to be held in more reverence than the other. But these things, and some others which we forbear to mention, are of minor importance, and we have neither time nor inclination to dwell upon them.

We will now examine the communion service. The simplicity of this ordinance is entirely destroyed by loading it with so many forms and ceremonies. In the first place the idea of communion, which consists in fellowship expressed by the act, not only with the Lord but with one another, is wholly excluded. Instead of sitting down together or using the table posture, after the example of our divine Lord and the primitive disciples, the communicants kneel and receive a piece of bread and afterwards the wine from the hands of the minister, separately-each one having a form repeated to him, which, in the case of the bread, is the exact translation, with a little addition, of the form at the Popish mass. Here the prominent idea is receiving at the hands of the minister the body and blood of Christ, each in his separate capacity; but no reference is made to the disciples of Christ sitting and eating together the same bread and drinking the same cup, in token of union to the same Lord. It is doubtless a commemoration of the, death of Christ, though not agreeable to the original institution; but it is not the communion of saints. The latter idea is absent, as the separate participation by each individual, manifestly shows. In the next

place, the number of prayers appointed to be said, several of which have no particular bearing on the subject; the ten commandments, as if this gracious institution were not wholly different from the law; the formal exhortation repeated to every communicant; the absolution,—all these contribute to diminish the simplicity of the institution.

The effect which the prayer of consecration, as it is called, is supposed to have, we can not but regard as superstitious, and savoring not a little of Popery. The following direction is given: "And if any of the consecrated bread and wine remain after the communion, it shall not be carried out of the church; but the minister and other communicants shall, immediately after the blessing, reverently eat and drink the same." Who can fail to see here a trace of that spirit which regards the consecrated elements as the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ? True, this doctrine is not believed by the entire Episcopal church; but does not the direction here quoted look as if it had not wholly left the minds of those who compiled the book? Certainly the Prayer-book recognizes the bread and wine as something different after consecration from what it was before; for it must not be carried out of the church, but be eaten and drunk by the communicants. If there should happen to be a large quantity left, the duty prescribed must be no small burden; and the laws of temperance might possibly be infringed. What does this prescription imply, if not that the bread and wine have been changed by the act of consecration? And if they have been changed, what is the character which they sustain? Are they different in any respect from what they were before? If so, what is the evidence? And how does such an idea agree with the simplicity of the ordinance as it came from the hands of Christ? Why throw a

mystery over a plain subject? How far is this from the elevation of the host, or the recognition of a supernatural power in the priest, or in the words of consecration, of which the Bible says nothing? The ordinance as it came from the Lord Jesus Christ is perfectly simple and intelligible, and in this consists its practical value. It is the joint participation of bread and wine by the followers of Christ, without any formalities but such as decency and order require, in commemoration of his great sacrifice for sin. There is nothing efficacious in the mere ceremony it is the spiritual presence of Christ in the hearts of his people that gives it all its efficacy. What then can be the significancy of the minister's taking a few chosen companions and reverently eating and drinking after the service is over, unless it is a recognition of some mysterious sanctity in the elements themselves? And if this is admitted, how many steps further must we advance before we arrive at the doctrine of transubstantiation. For ourselves, we are desirous of celebrating the Lord's supper in all the simplicity of its original institution. And in this way only do the ideas which it is intended to impress upon the mind come up before us in their living reality. We want no talking during the celebration. We want no priest to pronounce over us any words, however solemn may be their import. We look upon the speaker as an intruder between us and the Lord. We would meditate in the stillness of private devotion upon the great things brought to view. The silence of human voices alone accords with the solemnity of

the scene.

Let us turn now to the public baptism of infants. This service is not only defective in many respects, but so decidedly unscriptural that we see not how an intelligently pious man can use it. We have of ten wondered that evangelical men

among the clergy of the Episcopal church can use this part of the liturgy, without such misgivings as to induce them to give up the whole. Holding principles totally opposite to those declared in the baptismal service, by what philosophy of language or of reasoning, can they satisfy their consciences? For ourselves we declare, without judging other men, that we could no more offer the prayer, beginning "We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption," than we could publicly declare an untruth under the sanction of an oath. And were there no other objection to the liturgy, this would forever bar us from adopting it. The whole service goes upon the principle, that regeneration is expected and is accomplished by baptism. It is in vain to say, as some have said, that regeneration is distinguished from renovation, and that the word is used in a different sense from that in which we employ it; for it is regeneration by the Holy Spirit which is declared to have taken place. If there is any other regeneration, renovation or change of heart, which fits us for heaven, we have never discovered it in the Scriptures. The doctrine of the prayer is the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. whole prayer takes it for a certainty that an inward spiritual renovation has accompanied the outward ceremony. Those writers in the church of England who maintain, in opposition to the evangelical clergy of that establishment, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration to be the doctrine of their church, clearly have the better of the argument. To talk of a change of heart not experienced in baptism, but when a person becomes convinced of his sins and turns from them to the wisdom of the Just, under the special influence of the Holy Spirit, as the

The

evangelical clergy of the Episcopal church do, is entirely at variance with the liturgy. One or the other, for consistency's sake, and for conscience' sake should be renounced. This service, connected with other parts of the Prayer-book, accounts for the looseness which prevails on the subject of regeneration in the Episcopal church. Where is the passage in the whole liturgy that plainly recognizes the doctrine that man as he is by nature needs a total change in his moral character to fit him for heaven? Where do we find recognized the Scriptural doctrine that all the moral acts of an impenitent person are sinful, and that his whole moral character needs to be changed? Where do we find any thing in harmony with a general state of awakening and seriousness like what is observed in a revival of religion? Where do we find any pleading of the promises, any ardent wrestling for the immediate effusions of the divine Spirit? Where are those deep and devout aspirations which are prompted by the presence of a multitude of immortal souls solemnly and earnestly inquiring the way to eternal life? It is all a dead form suited to the idea that in baptism the original stain of our nature is washed away, and the regenerating influences of the Spirit are enjoyed in such a measure that nothing farther is needed than the gradual cultivation of piety. We regard this defect of the liturgy on the subject of baptism as fundamental. It is evidently composed to meet the views of men who had just awaked from the sleep of Popery, and had not received fully the Protestant religion.

We have another objection to this baptismal service, which ranges it again under the head of Poperywe mean its total silence in regard to the foundation of infant baptism.. Not a hint is given that it is a covenant transaction-no reference is made to the unfailing promise, "I

will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee." Nothing is said of the true Scriptural ground of baptizing our children; and were there no better view of infant baptism than that presented in this ritual, we should find no decisive argument against our Baptist brethren. The child is brought forward simply on the ground that its godfather and godmother (a sort of people by the way unknown to the Bible) promise in its name that it shall "renounce the devil and all his works, and constantly believe God's holy word, and obediently keep his commandments." What a singular system of imputation! We have heard of the imputation of sin and righteousness, but never before of the imputation of moral agency. One intelligent being here promises for another, without the power of controlling the heart, that he shall obey the laws of God! The obligation which baptism imposes upon the infant is not that it belongs to the household of God, from which it must break away to walk in the paths of the wicked, but that some other person promises that it should do right! What is the penalty upon the godfather in case of disobedience on the part of the child? What becomes of the godfather if he can not make his child believe and do the things which he promises that the child shall believe and do?

The authors of this service have evidently taken the institution of infant baptism merely as an historical fact, without entering at all into the principles upon which it is founded. They have retained the Romish customs respecting it without correcting them by the Scriptures. If we understand it, baptism is beneficial to an infant not because of any inherent virtue in the water or the service, but chiefly because it is an appointment of God by the observance of which the parent recognizes his obligation to train up a child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Having recognized that obligation, he is more likely to perform the duty than if he had not, just as a professor of religion is more likely to feel his obligations as a Christian than a non-professor. We have taken great delight in the ordinance of infant baptism. It fills us with an admiring sense of God's wisdom and goodness. We esteem it a great privilege that our children may be recognized in the everlasting covenant of Abraham as entitled to the external privileges and therefore to the spiritual influence of the house hold of faith. And we do not doubt that the influence of this covenant carried out in its appropriate sign, and laying obligations both upon the parent and the child, is an important means of perpetuating the church from generation to generation. But in this ceremony of the Episcopal church there is a total mistake in regard to the true consolations and confidence which God intended to be had in the ordinance. There is a false doctrine declared, and that too in solemn supplication to Goda doctrine which we would hope few of the Episcopal men of the present day will be found willing to admit in all its grossness. Or if they admit it, we certainly do not. Nor do the Scriptures. "Neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." Neither baptism nor circumcision is set forth in the Scriptures as regeneration by the Holy Spirit, but merely as a sign, an external emblem of that inward change.

In full accordance with the baptismal service we find, "the order of confirmation, or laying on of hands upon those that are baptized, and come to years of discretion." The qualifications for this ceremony arc ability to say the creed, the Lord's prayer and the ten commandments, and "to answer such other questions as in the short catechism are contained." Of these persons it is affirmed in the prayer

prescribed for the occasion, that God has vouchsafed to regenerate them by water and the Holy Ghost, and has given them forgiveness of all their sins. And the request preferred in their behalf at the throne of grace is, that they may be strengthened, and "the manifold gifts of grace" be daily increased in them. Now admitting that in some instances the superior vigi lance and faithfulness of individ ual clergymen may see that other and greater qualifications be had, it is manifest that the door is here open to a great looseness; and that the effect of this ceremony on ignorant people must be bad, and bad only. Alas! it is too true, that men accounted intelligent in the things of the world are often sadly ignorant on the subject of religion. Such are necessarily led to suppose that they are reconciled to God, while they may be, for aught that the Prayer-book demands of them, in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity.

But does this qualify them for the communion? If the prayer which is solemnly uttered in the presence of God, and addressed to him who searches the heart, has any truth in it, they are now entitled to eat and drink at the Lord's table. And if they have no other qualifications than those specified, what is it but mockery to partake with the people of God of that supper which is designed for those whose spiritual eye can discern the Lord's body? This service, it will be observed, partakes of the same error as has already been noticed in regard to the con fession in the creed, that mere intellectual assent to truth is the service of the heart which the Scriptures mean by the term faith. It arises, in our opinion, from the idea never absent from the liturgy, that the church to which the individual comes is a national church, a polit ical authority to which external subjection is all that is necessary. This