is, that it does not form a homogeneous and perfect whole. It is cut into an endless number of bits and shreds, The collects and offices, which are so numerous, mar the due order and connexion, and prevent the worshippers from entering particularly into adoration, confession, petition, intercession, and thanksgiving, which ought peculiarly to characterize a liturgy. Some things are mentioned again and again other things of equal importance not at all.

The repetitions are numberless. When the litany is read, the Lord's prayer is repeated four times in the course of the service in the desk, and once in the pulpit. Surely this cannot be for edification. In other parts, the same petitions occur several times. In short, it may be safely affirmed, that though the prayers of dissenters are usually charged with the fault of irksome repetition, there is no place of worship in England in which extemporary prayer is used, though the minister should have the poorest abilities, where there are so many repetitions as in the morning service of the church of England. Extend the remark to all the protestant places of worship of every kind, from the Land's end to the Tweed, and it will be found that there are a hundred times more repetitions in prayer within the established church than without it: and we know who has said, "when ye pray, use not vain repetitions."

The reading of the Apocrypha in the public service I likewise exceedingly disapprove. That there are many things false in its history, erroneous in its doctrine, and ridiculous in its narrations, nothing would be more easy than to demonstrate. Who will deny that Tobit and his dog, Tobias and the angel, and

Bell and the dragon, are fitter to amuse children in a chimney-corner in a winter's evening, than to be read in the solemn worship of a church of Christ. The very highest part of it is merely human wisdom: yet from these books, to the exclusion of the canonical Scriptures, the divines who framed the liturgy have prescribed above a hundred lessons in the course of the year. The homilies in one place call the Apocrypha the word of God; but the articles contradict them, and say that it is only the word of man.

Nor am I pleased with the mode of reading the psalms, by dividing the verses alternately between the clergyman and the congregation. What rational

apology can be offered for such a practice, it is difficult to divine. His verse is easily understood: but the people's is a confused mumbling of sounds, not calculated for edification. There may be no statute nor canon in its favour: but it is an universal custom: if the matter, however, be calmly considered there certainly can be nothing but custom pleaded in its defence. Perhaps in the whole history of the Christian church, both in ancient and modern times, the practice of alternate reading is no where to be found but in the church of England'.

The preference of an old translation of the Psalms, not from the original Hebrew, but from the Septuagint, and different from that which is in the English Bible, may be justly complained of on account of its imperfections. The liturgic version of the psalms is a translation from a translation: and the Greek transla

i The odd appearance which it makes, and the ludicrous ideas excited in the mind by this alternate reading, will be seen by looking at Psalm 1. 16. &c. and cii. 4. &c. and considering the clergyman as repeating one verse, and the people another.

tion, from which that English one is taken, has so many faults, that it is strange to think, that a learned church as that established in England is, if she will not receive into her rubric the Psalms from our common Bible, should not go to the fountain, the Hebrew Scriptures, and translate them into English at once. In one place the old and new translation flatly contradict each other. The old version in the psalter says (Ps. cv. 28.), "And they were not obedient to his word." The new one in our Bibles makes the sense to be," and they rebelled not against his word." As the clergy have solemnly professed their unfeigned assent and consent to every thing in the Book of Common Prayer, and have likewise declared their assent to the Scriptures, as in the common translation, how do they reconcile these things to each other, and to themselves?

To the length of the morning service I have a serious objection, as I consider it to be injurious to the edification of the people. The preaching of the Gospel should have a sufficient portion of time reserved for it in the public service. Recollect what is said on the subject in the gospels and epistles of the New Testament; and you must be convinced that the preaching of the Gospel was an essential part of the ministry of Christ, and his apostles; and if the ignorance of a great part of every congregation be considered, and how much the rest need to have divine truth brought anew to their remembrance, the necessity of preaching will evidently appear. But the tediousness of the morning service has almost exhausted the strength of the preacher, and the attention of the hearers, before the sermon begins. It may be in consequence of this, that it frequently

lasts not above.ten, fifteen, or twenty minutes. This is all the instruction from the living teacher which numerous congregations receive. But what science will a man learn by twenty minutes teaching in a week? To the stated inconvenience of so tedious a service I should not choose to submit. I prefer a public service where preaching occupies a larger part of the time than it does in thousands of the churches in England.

I object to the creeds which the church of England has adopted into her liturgy, and uses in her worship. The article in the apostle's creed, that "Christ descended into hell," is interpreted by bishop Pearson according to the letter of the words; but bishop Burnet conceived it to mean that the soul of the Redeemer was in heaven during the period between his death and resurrection. If this exposition be allowed, it is the doctrine commonly received in the protestant churches. The Nicene creed speculates on the Trinity, and gives a human explanation, which multitudes, who receive the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity will not admit. Christ is there called "God of God, light of light, very God of very God." But what idea do these words of man's device convey? That they are consistent with the Son's equality with the Father, will be with many a matter of doubt.

In the Athanasian creed, there is a still more subtle and metaphysical representation of the Trinity; and a variety of human definitions and distinctions, far beyond the simplicity of the sacred Scriptures in its declaration of the doctrine. After the manner of the age in which this creed was composed, there are anathemas guarding it in the van, and in the rear, and

fired from their spiritual artillery against all who do not believe every iota which it contains: they are excluded from heaven, they are shut up in hell.

There was a schism between the Greek and Latin church respecting the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. The Latin church asserted that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This the Greek church would not allow, but maintained that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and receives of the Son. Both were in an error, for they apply to the nature or essence of the Holy Spirit, words which evidently relate to the execution of his office in the economy of redemption. The Athanasian creed takes the Latin side of the question, and in this it is supported by the Nicene, and both condemn the doctrine of the Greek church. But the Athanasian more fierce than his fellows, casts all members of that communion into the bottomless pit, and shuts them up for ever. When the sacred Spirit in the Scriptures proclaims aloud, go preach the Gospel: he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned," I bow with reverence and faith to the word of God; but when I hear a man repeat a multitude of the most metaphysical distinctions, and human additions, and add his furious anathema against those who will not receive every word which comes out of his mouth, I am filled with horror.

66

There is something more, respecting these creeds, which is exceedingly awkward. It is asserted in the Nicene creed, that the Son is of the same hypostasis, or substance, with the Father. The Athanasian contradicts the assertion, and in its bolder strain affirms that there is one hypostasis of the Father, and another