The preceding remarks are addressed to those who profess their readiness to join that form of worship, from which they can derive most benefit. And though, for my own part, I consider it most unfortunate that any person arrived at years of discretion should have such a question to decide, yet when this is the case, I am willing that it should be tried upon the principle which they have themselves adopted. I admit that the best devotional system is, that which confers most spiritual advantage, every man being judge in his own case. But if it is inferred from this, that a man is to go here and there, by way of experiment, and form his judgment from his own estimate of the effects produced in his own case, or even from a comparison of what he sees and hears, with his own preconceived opinions, then I maintain that the end is defeated by the very means that are taken to pursue it; that so distrustful a spirit can never be devout, so indocile a temper can never be instructed. That which is really submitted to his examination, and which alone, if he be sincere and reasonable, he will, in the first instance, seek to ascertain, is the authority of the different schemes. "Where can I put my trust ?" is the only question which he need ask, in the sure belief that in this way he will eventually receive, not only most consolation, but most light.

I say that I am willing to try the question on the ground of personal benefit, as a matter of fact, because all truth is ultimately coincident in whatever direction it may be approached: but with respect to the parties by whom it is proposed, how much better would it be, if every one were to lay aside this continual self-reference, this egotism of piety, if piety it can be called, where self, not God, is the ultimate object, and inquire at once,

“What is the will of heaven? what is the mind of Christ in this matter? Whatever He has appointed, whatever most fully represents His desire, most truly fulfils His purpose, must be the best for me."

Following up this thought in reference to the present subject, the Liturgy of the English Church, our first inquiry should be, by what body of believers is it used, and under what circumstances has it obtained? Does it carry with it any peculiar sanction, or is it merely a set of forms such as might be adopted by any other society? Who were its authors? Under what authority did they act? Have we any reason for believing that they had "the mind of the Spirit?" How did the family of Christ worship in earlier times? When did set forms first begin to be employed by Christians in their assemblies? Can this practice be referred to the primitive times? If so, can any of the forms now in use claim an apostolical origin?

To one really bred in the communion of the Church, all these questions have long ago received at least an implicit answer. The Liturgy speaks to him with authority; it has an antecedent claim to his respect, and he regards it with reverential feelings. He does not indeed look upon it as a divine and perfect work. He takes it on the whole as a human composition, but received by him under such circumstances as place it above the range of casual or ordinary criticism. If his opportunities lead him to examine the subject, he finds abundant reason for his prepossession; but he is not willingly disposed to submit its merit, either for approval or condemnation, to his private judgment. Whether it be too legal or too spiritual in its nature, too general or too exclusive in its application, whether too much or too little attention has

been paid to ceremonial worship and outward ritual, whether it bears the mark of unlicensed innovation or of a slavish submission to precedent, are points which he does not pretend to discuss as a disinterested party. He regards them as already decided, at least to a certain extent and though he is far from believing improvement impossible, yet he limits this to partial modifications, and considers an entire change as out of the question. In a word, he would be a candid, but he cannot be an indifferent reasoner. Such is the inevitable result of his position and if the view taken in this discourse be correct, it does not make him a worse, but a far better judge of the matter. It is in this way that all knowledge is really attained: all moral, all religious, all revealed knowledge. It is first believed, then examined, then explicitly known. It would not be difficult to extend the principle yet further, if the discussion belonged to this place. Even in the world of sensible experience, we arrive at knowledge through the gate of faith.

E

50

SERMON IV.

COMMON PRAYER.

PART II. ON THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ENGLISH

LITURGY.

2 TIMOTHY i. 13.

Hold fast the form of sound words.

FROM what has been said it will be concluded, that we cannot do justice to the Liturgy, without first considering the character and pretensions of the Church from which it emanates, not as a national institution, but as a witness of Christian truth. We must come to the question as churchmen, with our minds made up on a variety of other matters. Yet as it is the first characteristic that greets the unsettled religionist, when he turns his eyes towards the Church, placing it in direct contrast to every scheme of social worship in which it is not professedly adopted, as it creates a first impression, by which the entire system is not unfrequently judged, it may be useful to take a rapid view of its leading features, as an appendix former discourses, and an introduction to those which follow.

to my

Let us suppose the case of an intelligent person, possessed of a general acquaintance with the subject, who should enter, for the first time, a church of the Establishment, during divine service. Or rather, let us make the case our own. Let us endeavour to recall those first emotions, which early habit has, in fact, anticipated, but

which we may reproduce in ourselves by an effort of the imagination; and having thus regained that susceptibility of feeling, without which the surest observation is uncertain, dim, and partial, let us follow out the train of thought suggested by the circumstances. The building itself, both externally and internally, has already struck us as peculiar. We can hardly mistake the character of the place: so marked is the distinction which it exhibits to all other edifices, even to those dedicated, under a different sanction, to the purposes of religion. Comparing it with every other Church that we have seen, of whatever age, or country, we recognise a general uniformity of plan, dating from the most ancient times, and communicating an air of solemnity, alike indescribable, and inimitable.

If we analyze our feelings, we shall be at no loss as to the cause of this impression. We still discern the operation of a common will, raised above the control, not only of individual men, but of a particular age. We perceive a sameness, which no diversity of circumstances, no variety of modification, has been able to disturb. It has evidently not resulted from the prevalence of fashion, because it has come down in independent lines. These we naturally seek to trace to a common origin; and although at length we lose sight of them, in the most remote antiquity, we have ascertained their convergence, and the point to which they seem to conduct us, is the centre of Christianity itself. Yet the agency of man must have been everywhere employed. Say that a tacit convention has existed from the beginning on this point. How did it arise? how has it been preserved? How has it maintained itself against the caprices of individuals, the opposing interests of parties