the speaker had gained during the first half of his sermon.

Not a few are chargeable also with the same want of strength and distinctness of enunciaton, in the commencement of the solemn service of prayer. That it is right to commence all kinds of reading and speaking with a less volume of sound, than is demanded in the subsequent parts of the performance, there cannot be a question. But it is consistent with no rules of elocution, so to depress the voice in the introductory sentences, as to render them absolutely useless. The people of our congregations almost instinctively put themselves into a somewhat attentive frame of mind when the minister is about to open his lips, either in a prayer or a sermon and if, while they are in that gentle mood, he ungenerously compels them to go beyond this passive state, and toil after a knowledge of the words he employs, he must expect to awaken a degree of impatience or disgust, which many a loud note afterwards will scarcely be able to remove.

4. Using too frequently the name of the Supreme Being. There are ministers whose excessive use of the names appropriated to the Almighty, has induced some of their people to address them on the subject, and tenderly remonstrate against a practice so manifestly bordering on irreverence. My judgment is quite erroneous, if some of the sermons of the immortal Edwards are not exceptionable in this respect. But the fault is commonly more visible in prayer. In justification of the practice, I shall probably be referred to Da

"It ought to be remembered," says the excellent author of the Philosophy of Rhetoric, "that whatever application we must give to the words, is, in fact, so much deducted from what we owe to the sentiments. Besides, the effort that is exerted in a very close attention to the language, always weakens the effect which the thoughts were intended to produce on the mind."

vid and Daniel, who, in many of their supplications, repeated the name of God almost with every breath. But this seems always to have resulted from their intense importunity: and there was then no literary taste which could be offended by it. Were this familiar use of the divine names at the present day always prompted by manifest fervour, my objections to it would, in a great measure, cease. But if I mistake not, some are most chargeable with this impropriety when they have apparently the least engagedness in the duty. There are instances in which the name of God, invariably accompanied by perhaps the same interjectional prefix, is brought not only into almost every sentence of the prayer, but several times into the same sentence, as a convenient substitute for other expressions more indicative of thought and of devotional feeling. Scarcely any thing, however, in the public performance of a minister, can be more irreverential, or more chilling to devotion, than a habit of this kind, whether it result from inadvertence, or from barrenness of thought.*

5. Proclaiming too often the nature of the occasion. This practice is probably less common at present,

* At the famous Savoy Conference in the year 1661, when, on a deceitful pretence, commissioners appointed by Charles I. to amend the Book of Common Prayer, it was objected to the following form, "Lord have mercy upon us; Christ have mercy upon us; Lord have mercy upon us," that it "seemeth an affected tautologie, without any special cause or order here." And Mr. Baxter, a member of the conference, speaking of the "Collects," says, they are "generally ushered in with a repeated mention of the name and attributes of God, and presently concluding with the name and merits of Christ; whence are caused many unnecessary intercisions and abruptions, which when many petitions are to be of fered at the same time, are neither agreeable to scriptural examples, nor suited to the gravity and seriousness of that holy duty." Baxter's Life and Times. pp. 308,319.

than in the days of our venerable forefathers. And yet I have seldom attended an ordination, or any other religious solemnity of unfrequent occurrence, when most of the parts of the service were not prefaced with this sort of explanatory phraseology. The words employed are various, and variously combined. Sometimes we are reminded of the importance, at others of the solemnity, and at others of the importance and solemnity of the present eventful, or interesting, or affecting, or, as I have sometimes heard it expressed-of the present eventful, interesting, and affecting occasion. Indeed it would seem as if the arithmetical doctrine of permutation and combination had been expressly consulted, to aid the wished for variety in the collocation of these expletives. There are some who rarely enter the palpit on the sabbath without employing a part or all of these terms, for a similar purpose; as if the congregation must always be formally reminded of what they would probably be more sensible of, were there less iteration on the part of their minister. That a sparing use of the words is proper, I cannot doubt. But when they are employed every sabbath, or in nearly all the several parts of a more extraordinary service, they defeat their intended effect, by their commonness, and, like other kinds of cant, awaken disgust.

6. Requesting the attention of the audience to a sermon. It will be divulging no secret to observe, that there are great numbers who, when they rise to announce their text, statedly prepare the way by something like the following formule:-"Your serious and prayerful attention is respectfully requested, to what may be spoken from words recorded, &c." Now all this is harmless, and well intended. But who will be the more inclined to give heed in consequence of a request always repeated, and gen

erally in the same words, if not with the same uninviting modulation of voice? It has in most instances, I am persuaded, rather a sedative or soporific, than an awakening effect. Every man bearing credentials from heaven ought to take it for granted that his message will at least be heard by his people, if he himself be wanting in none of the requisites of a faithful legate of the Most High. They will be most disposed to lend their attention, not when it is sought by formal soliciation, but when it is constrained by the matter and manner of the speaker.*

That

7. The standing of one or more in the pulpit, while the officiating minister is reading his text. there is no good reason for a ceremony so punctually observed by great numbers of my brethren, I will not affirm; for they probably have a more perfect insight than myself, into the nature and fitness of things. But I must be permitted to ask, do they rise in token of their approbation of the brother who is to speak; or of the text which he has chosen? If in approbation of the former, why should not the other clergymen, perchance in the pews below, rise also? If of the latter, then why are not the whole congregation on their feet?

I have always been nonplussed for an answer to the sly, and sometimes very honest questions which have been put to me in relation to this subject, by some of the laity. Indeed I have long been troubled to know how to regulate my own practice. Soon after my settle

*The practice here objected to is more gines. We apprehend it is not so much excusable perhaps than the writer imato secure attention, that these introductory forms are used, as to avoid the awkwardness of uttering the first word of by a whole assembly.-There is an aba public exercise loud enough to be heard ruptness in such a beginning, which, while it embarrasses the speaker, is not very pleasant to the hearers.-Ed.

ment, I rose when a brother officiating for me announced his text, and supposed that I was dutifully conforming to general usage. Af terwards, finding many totally regardless of the ceremony, for a number of years I followed their example, and kept my seat on such occasions. At a still later period, having preached in pulpits where this civility was paid either to me or my text, I returned to my original practice. At the present time, however, I must confess that I live in the constant neglect of it. And now, sir, would any of your correspondents shed but a gleam of light on this subject, as it respects either duty or expediency, they might help to fix, finally, the practice of one who would not wish to be always changing.

Finally Repeating the first two lines of a psalm after the whole of it has been read. This custom is useless. As it is common to designate the psalm twice before it is read, it can be no more needful to repeat the first lines afterwards, than at the close of a sermon again to rehearse the text to which, at the commencement, the congregation were twice distinctly referred. It is absurd. For the lines repeated do not always constitute an entire sentence. And there is no little awkwardness in uttering only a part of a sentence, which, let the voice be modulated as it may, necessarily conveys no meaning. This custom is a relic of a usage which was rendered necessary by the extreme ignorance of former times. During the dark ages, the mass of the people in almost every religious congregation in Europe were unable to read. Hence it became necessary after reading the psalm to repeat it to the choir in separate portions of one or two lines. All the sacred music of those ages was provided with medial and final cadences expressly for the purpose. The minister ordinarily repeated the first portion of the psalm; and

the clerk the remaining portions. But as none of our choirs are in such a deplorable state of ignorance, we can as well dispense with the repetition of the first lines by the minister, as with the repetition of the subsequent lines by a clerk.

Thus, sir, I have stated my views of certain usages which are more or less common in the sanctuary, and of which, some are mistimed, and calculated to hinder devotion; others, unmeaning; and the most, useless. Simplicity and appropriateness are among the cardinal requisites in conducting the public worship of God. No usage for which a sufficient reason cannot be readily perceived by people of ordinary understanding, ought to be retained in the Christian church, however consecrated it may be by its antiquity or prevalence. The church of Rome has been for centuries held fast in her corruptions, by a scrupulous reverence for rites to which, however absurd or foolish, she is blindly attached, on the ground of ancient prescription and extensive observance. There are other communions that possess her feelings, and urge her plea. And although I have no apprehension that the practices on which I have been animadverting, will, if prolonged, issue in shaking the pillars of our Zion; yet for the reasons which have been suggested, I think it would be well to discontinue them. Let it not be supposed, however, that I would rob religion of its proper ceremonial. It is only by a devout observance of certain forms, that it can be either cultivated or exhibited in an assembly. External modes are essential to the existence of public worship. All that is contended for is, that whatever is done in the sanctuary be explicitly prescribed in the word of God, or evidently promotive of the spiritual design of the institution. Hence every usage or habit which is mistimed, unmeaning, or of doubtful utility, ought to be con

scientiously laid aside by all who enter the courts of the Lord, and especially by the ministers of the gospel. "Let all things be done decently and in order," is an injunction that relates to the manner in which we are to conduct the public worship of God, no less than to our deportment on all other occasions. It is hardly to be expected, sir, that all my brethren will accord with the suggestions which I have ventured to offer, by way of gentle animadversion; and some of them, thinking the subject beneath their attention, may arraign my motives and my manner. All that I say for myself, however, is, Qui bene volait, bene fecit. X. Y.

To the Editor of the Christian Spectator. YOUR number for January contains an article on "the curse upon the ground," on which I wish to offer a few remarks. The doctrine of the writer, if I understand him, is, that the curse has been removed, and that the earth furnishes us no more evidence of God's displeasure now, than when Adam dwelt in paradise. But let him speak for himself.

In page 10, he observes, "we may then conclude that the earth was substantially the same before the fall as it is now." And in page 12, "shall we then conclude that the historian was mistaken, and that God never denounced a curse upon the earth? By no means. We may suppose that this curse was fulfilled and terminated by the flood; and that we live in a renovated world, restored to its pristine excellence and beauty."

This is his position. How does he support it? The passage of scripture on which he chiefly relies, is found in the 5th chapter of Genesis, 29th verse. "And he (Lamech) called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of VOL. VII. No. 6.

38

our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed." This is construed into a prophecy that through Noah's instrumentality, the curse should be removed from the ground. But is there any thing in the passage that will warrant such a construction? I have heretofore attached no other meaning to it, than that the birth of Noah was an event calculated to comfort his friends amidst the sorrows occasioned by the curse which God had pronounced upon the earth. But if it be a prediction, the most, as it appears to me, that can be made of it, is that Noah should be the means (perhaps by the invention of some instrument or machine whereby manual labour would be greatly diminished) of lightening the burden of the husbandman.

But what evidence is there that the curse upon the ground was more severely felt by the inhabitants who lived before the flood, than by those who have lived since that event? This, the writer takes for granted. "The full import of such a curse," says he,

seems to be nothing less than such a derangement of the course of nature, such a barrenness and perverseness of the soil, as should impose continual wearisome toil; so that man should be compelled to snatch a hasty morsel in the midst of his labour, and literally eat his bread in the sweat of his brow." According to this representation, the condition of man after the fall and before the flood was not unlike to that of a person shipwrecked on the coast of Africa, wandering about from place to place, half clad and half starved, in that barren and inhospitable portion of the globebut was this the fact? Were Cain and Abel in such straitened and distressed circumstances? The one was a keeper of sheep; the other a tiller of the ground. They had, we may presume, more than enough of this world's goods for their comfort; for each of

them brought an offering unto the Lord. But we have more direct and convincing evidence that the ground at this time was fruitful. It was said to Cain, as one part of the curse that was denounced against him for killing his brother, "When thou tillest the gronnd, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength." What inference unavoidably results from this declaration? What, but that before the murder of his brother the ground did yield her strength, or brought forth plentifully? Neither did this curse light upon any man's land but that of Cain,-consequently, instead of barrenness, the earth yielded, with this exception, her increase to those who tilled it. Nor is there any evidence that the antediluvians had less of earthly riches than those who come after them. From our Saviour's representation, they were "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage," enjoying all the pleasures which those experience who riot upon the bounties of Providence.

We re

From what has already been remarked, it is obvious that V. T. has no very exalted idea of paradise as a state of felicity. We have his views more expressly to this point. "Our ideas of paradise are drawn from the representations of the great poet. gard it as a kind of Arcadian vale; where life is a mere course of uninterrupted enjoyment," &c. And again he says, "We have no sort of evidence that the ground brought forth its fruits spontaneously, or that thorns and thistles and the other hindrances to agriculture, were created after the fall on purpose to plague the earth." I have always supposed that all the pains and afflictions which we suffer in this life are the fruit of sin; and that if we had never sinned, we should never be called to suffer. I have never supposed that God, consistent with his justice, could

inflict punishment upon an innocent subject of his moral government. But V. T. is of a different opinion. Adam might have been thrown into a thorn hedge, and been lacerated from head to foot, or he might have fallen from a tree or a precipice and broken his limbs, and still have been in paradise according to the views which he entertains of it.-Or if an untimely frost had been sent to blast all his crops; or a tornado had been raised and prostrated all his fruit-trees, or there had been an eruption of the earth which had converted the beautiful spot where God had placed him into a sulphureous lake, it would have furnished no evidence of God's indignation; nor been inconsistent with the happiness with which God had blessed him-"These occurrences are merely incidental, probably necessary incidents;"" the necessary results of that system of divine operations called the general laws of nature;" which system is " essential to human happiness." But let us examine the scripture in relation to the curse which was denounced upon the ground. “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also, and thistles shall it bring forth to thee." Who would suppose on reading this declaration that briers and thorns were as thick before the fall as now? Indeed, is it not implied that there were none before? As well might it be said, that the serpent crawled upon his belly and eat dust before he was cursed, as that the ground brought forth briars and thorns, before God's curse rested upon it.

I have always supposed that Adam's situation was more favourable to happiness than it could have