further compassion is bestowed upon her. How different to the love of Christ! He loved us, not for what we could give him, but for our sakes; he who had the treasures of a God at his command became poor; the almighty King abased himself to the death of the cross, not that we should crown him with honour, but that he might be enabled to crown us with every blessing and honour. Oh the amazing love of Christ!

We live in eventful times; distress at home, and threatenings abroad, give warning of approaching trouble. Our statesmen may imagine that the evil is distant, and pride themselves on that talent they exhibit by keeping it so; but it is not their cunning nor their diplomatic shrewdness that thus keeps off the evil day, but because the hour is not come; it approaches rapidly, the seeds of

convulsion are sown, they have in many places taken root; shortly they will ripen, and then, let the unassisted talent and wisdom of man devise that which, shall keep off the evil now the time has come.

We conclude by observing, that it is our sincere prayer that the evil may be far off, but the signs are portentous; a kind of smothered calm seems to pervade the political atmosphere; each state appears to imagine evil of its neighbour, and to arm in its defence. We wait God's time; and whatever may be the issue, we are certain it will be found in accordance with that sure word of prophecy which God revealed to his holy prophets, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And to God's name, Father, Son and Spirit, be undivided glory for

ever.

IN touching on this most important subject, we apply ourselves to it with a degree of dread, lest we should be denominated scoffers at religion, which may God, of his infinite mercy, ever prevent us from becoming: but there are many who, without hesitation, would set us down as such from the very title of our article; to such we say read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the things herein contained and we are certain that whatever you may please to call us, that you will not accuse us of detracting from the honour and glory of our common faith in Christ as our God, our Saviour, our everlasting hope. On the contrary, it is out of respect to the glory of the great God, whose we are, and whom we serve, who has declared that his worship must be in spirit and in truth, that has induced us to take up the pen in the vindication of that honour, so insulted, by that tautological production, called the Book of Common Prayer; assuming, as it does, the high pre-eminence to rank with that word poured forth by the Holy Ghost, and thus, through this position, deluding and misleading men's souls, teaching them to look to the dead letter of prescribed prayer, instead of that holy fervour which can only be felt by those who address God according to the dictates of their love and reverence of his character as their God, Father, and Saviour, in the outpourings of undictated supplication.

For this cause, we throw down the gauntlet of defiance to that Church which, presuming in the infallibility of a self-asserted but unproven unfounded apostolical succession,

retains within her the seeds of Babylonish corruption and Papal superstition; whose ceremonies are clogged with the bowings, curtseyings, and kneelings of Roman worship, and whose clergy have evinced, in many quarters, violent yearnings after the dazzling fooleries of the Man of Sin.

As a member of the Church of Scotland, we glory in being free from such trammels and yokes, which are grievous to men's souls, bearing them down to the darkness of death. And our most earnest prayer to God is, that the Church of England may yet see the errors within her, and by casting off the Book of Common Prayer, and all the idle ceremonies enumerated therein, which so closely ally her with Rome, spiritualize her worship, doctrines, laws, and ceremonies, and thus, truly regenerated, give thanks to God, in having brought her from darkness into his marvellous light.

In commencing this subject, we would observe that the name and origin of the Prayer Book is from Rome, the English liturgy being the interpretation for Roman mass; and can we expect any good to come from such a quarter, can we hope to procure pure water from such a polluted fountain? Assuredly not. If we look to the Roman breviary, ritual, and mass book, we see the fountain from whence proceeds the Common Prayers, the services of the communion, baptism, matrimony, visitation of the sick, burial, collects, epistles, and gospels; and, such being the case, what is this Prayerbook, this English liturgy, but a humble imitation of Rome? In the mass book we

have doctrines, laws, and precepts, not to be found in the English Prayer-book; but in the latter there is little, if any thing, which the most rigid Papist may not subscribe to, with as hearty an Amen, as the most zealous member within the pale of episcopacy.

And to prove the correctness of this: Popes Pius and Gregory XIII. offered to Queen Elizabeth to confirm the English liturgy, and this was declared by Dr. Abbot, then Arbhbishop of Canterbury. And when the pope issued his bull in interdict against Elizabeth, her secretary Walsingham procured two agents from Rome, and having shown them the services of the church, performed in all their splendour in London and Canterbury, they returned to Rome, and remonstrated with the pope on having interdicted a princess whose services and ceremonies so symbolised with his own and mark the result; the interdict was withdrawn. And further, it appears that, in the reign of Edward VI., there were serious meetings in Cornwall and Devonshire concerning the New Service Book, which induced the king's council to write to them; and the extract of the letter, as recorded in the Acts and Monuments, is this: "As for the service in the English tongue, it perchance seems to give a new service, and yet indeed it is no other than the old, the selfsame words in English that were in Latin, a few things taken out." Here then we have full testimony, even that of the framers and makers of the Prayer-book, that it is none other than the Roman mass book translated, a few things taken out; and this testimony cannot be disproved, seeing it is recorded in the Acts and Monuments of Edward's reign. And if we assert the Roman liturgy to be no divine service, but a mass of superstition, idolatry, and heresy, can we call that divine service which is merely the above mass book translated into English, a few things only being taken out?

The Rev. Mr. Gregg, of Dublin, calls the Roman church and service the church and service of the devil; and can that church or service be the church or service of God, when the service thereof is the same, word for word, with the service of the devil, a few things only being taken out? And further still, we have the great reformer Calvin's testimony to the truth of the foregoing statements; for in his letter to the church of Frankfort, who were then much persecuted on account of the unwarranted imposition of this service on their church, he calls the service last, "the reliques of the papal dregs." From this we see the opinion entertained of it, in the great days of the Reformation; we have the testimony of two popes, of Calvin, their stern opposer, and the testimony of the framers of the Book

themselves; what more then is necessary to convince us that it is of Rome, that it has sprung from the mother of abominations, and is marked with the number of the beast, it having sanctioned and approved the same? We are told, in Revelation, that none must buy or sell, but those having the number of the beast and his authority; the Prayer-book has been so numbered, so authorized; it has been established, and has waxed great in the blood of the saints. How many can it number amongst its slain, how many are now before the altar and throne of the Highest, who shed their blood in resisting the dragon which the beast had vomited! Scotland can bear testimony to the fact, for there the dragon raised its noxious head, and, supported with great power and authority, waged war with the saints of the Most High; but the blood it drank did surfeit it, and it Iwas slain whilst drunk with the blood of martyrs.

We are desired to look at the great authority it has from the primitive churches. But we defy any one to produce any such liturgy or form of prayer either among the Jews or Gentiles, till above three hundred years after Christ, when Antichrist began to show symptoms of that deadly power, afterwards to be the scourge of nations. have heard it whispered that the Jews had one, but not having heard such proved, it remains as before; yet, as there were idols, altars, and groves, amongst them, they might as well have added the liturgy, and thus made their apostacy from God complete.

We

The real truth is, that the first and purer times had no stinted liturgy, as appears from Tertullian, who says, "The Christians of those times prayed sine monitore quia de pectore, that is, without any prompter but their own hearts." Austin also tells us that, "It is free for us to ask the same things in the Lord's Prayer sometimes one way, and sometimes another." And Justin Martyr says, "He who instructed the people prayed according to his ability." And Constantine made forms of prayer himself for his soldiers, which he would not have done if there had been liturgies then in existence. Where, then, is the authority to be found for such a service? We find it not in God's word, we have it not from the early fathers or Christians. Where, then, we ask again, is the authority? They cannot reply: we answer, from Rome.

The Rev. Dr. Stebbing, in his "Notes on the Common Prayer," has the following, which bears strong testimony to what has been advanced. On the word "liturgy," he says, "The word liturgy is generally considered to mean a form of prayer for deliverance from present or dreaded evils. It was employed in this sense by the heathen;

For

and when the Christians began to use set forms of supplication in times of trouble, which they did as early as the fourth century, they adopted it as a fit and expressive title for their services thus introduced. several centuries it was the custom of the church to ordain solemn processions in times of calamity, and it was in these processions that the litanies were solemnly repeated. Gregory the Great, at the beginning of the sixth century, undertook, among his other reforms, the compilation of a new litany; and it is on this, to some extent, that our own is founded."

So here we have the authority of an eminent Episcopalian clergyman, to the effect that, the English litany is founded on the Roman Catholic litany of Gregory the Great; and that it was the fourth century, a century when many corruptions entered the church, that the litany was first formed; and even then, it appears, that it was used only on certain occasions, not in the service of the church, as at present, but in processions. So much for the antiquity of litanies.

The

In the Scriptures we have commandments against the imposition of the ordinances, traditions, and rudiments of men, in room of God's word or in his worship. Common Prayer-book is after the ordinances, traditions, and rudiments of men, and is therefore not only unauthorized, but legally condemned by the divine statutes.

If it be answered that the forms and modes of worship are left to the determination of men, we answer, that allowing such to be the case, we must consider whether the form proposed to be adopted, is to God's honour and glory, the welfare of his people, and in strict accordance with his written word, before such be declared the worship of Him who alone is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth.

And it follows, that as the Prayer-book is unauthorized by God in his word, that book is and must be accounted a vain thing, after the fashion of men. And as that only which is requisite in God's word is to be used, it follows that the Prayer-book, being unnecessary, is unlawful, and ought not to form part of God's worship, or be intruded therein. And as the Scriptures are a sufficient directory and rubric to the church of God, and to make the man of God perfect in every good work; and as the primitive churches, who, as it has been shown, had no liturgy, did thrive and prosper more than after such was imposed, it clearly proves that the Prayer-book is unnecessary, and a great hinderance towards the prosperity of the churches in which such is used. And even granting that Scripture does not declare against such a work, but is silent on the subject, (which is not the case,) infallibility

alone could warrant the framing of such a work, a power which the makers did not possess; and therefore it is destitute of authority from God, or any thing higher than the fallible mind of man; which latter does presume on the graciousness of God, in making laws and doctrines, and instituting ceremonies in his church, which ought to be under the express control of his word, and that word only.

As we have stated that the Prayer-book is not fitted for the spiritual worship of God, it may be asked, can men not pray in the Spirit, and use a form too? We answer that they may do so; but as praying in the spirit is the proper work of the Spirit, why need they use stinted forms; or how can they tie themselves so strictly to those forms, without limiting, stinting, and quenching the Spirit?

If the Lord's Prayer be brought forward as an example of a set form, we answer, it is not. Christ did not say, repeat this always five times in the morning service, and so many in the evening, day by day, week by week, and year by year, for ever; but after this manner, pray ye; that is, in a similar manner frame your petitions; after this manner pray ye; not, say ye as I repeat. And that our notion on this point is a correct one, we quote again that passage of Austin, who says, "It is free for us to ask the same things in the Lord's Prayer sometimes one way, and sometimes another;" so that we see, from this quotation, that the Christian Church did not regard that prayer as a set form, and that they merely considered it as a prayer after which manner their own prayers were to be formed, the things in that prayer being asked sometimes in one set of language, and sometimes in another; so that it is a vain and foolish attempt, on the part of the venerators of apostolic and primitive church authority, thus to fly in the face of such, and assert the contrary. And that the Lord's Prayer could never have been given by Christ as the future prayer of his people, is evident from the fact that there is nothing therein which the sinner most requires; there is no supplication for the aid of God's grace and the influence of his Spirit; no pleadings for mercy and pardon, through the infinite love of the blessed Saviour. These, and other chief objects in every Christian's prayer, are not to be found here, so that the use made of it in the Episcopalian church is anti-scriptural, and opposed to the doctrines of the primitive church, and at the same time is converted into a mere apparatus of empty nothings.

From these considerations, therefore, we conclude that the Lord's Prayer was for the use of his followers until his triumph on

Next, the gross reverence which Episcopalians pay to the Prayer-book, is not the least evil to be complained of in this Roman image. Is it not insulting to God to see such reverence paid to the rudiments and traditions of men, whilst his own blessed volume contains all things necessary for our salvation? Are not they guilty of gross sin who encourage this spirit, and who cannot have the Bible in their lips, but it must be coupled with that of the Prayer-book? this is indeed a serious and lamentable effect of the Prayer-book, annulling, as it does, the high authority of God's unrivalled word, by placing alongside of it the drivelling idiotisms of men.

Is such then to be continued? Are we to lie grovelling in the mud, when we have the pure fountain of all truth open for our reception? Surely not. Let us then make most diligent inquiry after this important matter; let it be sifted thoroughly; and, by God's blessing, and the influence of his wisdom, we shall soon have the eyes of Episcopacy opened, and the dawning of a new light breaking in upon us.

We shall now take a regular review of the matter contained in the Prayer-book. First, we have an enumeration of vigils, fasts, holydays, and certain solemn days. From what part of Scripture is such taken ? where have we a word concerning the observance of these certain solemn days? We have, it would appear, four very solemn days, though in what their solemnity consists, it would be hard to define. Here they are. First, the Gunpowder Plot, an affair not nearly so solemn or so much to be remembered with heartfelt joy and gladness, as the death of Claverhouse, the wholesale murderer of the members of the Presbyterian church, the demon Viscount Dundee. It is also a thing rather remarkable, that such an affair as the Gunpowder Plot should be remembered, when the hundreds of massacres perpetrated through the machinations of papal villany, in which millions suffered, should be left to die from the memory, the very thoughts of which would make Protestants shudder at the name of Rome. But because the Gunpowder Plot was a scheme to blow up a few of our nobility, it must of course be accounted a very miraculous event that saved their precious lives! But why are not such massacres as Bartholomew remembered as a

Our next solemn day, is that kept in memory of the blessed death of Charles I., of infamous memory, a monarch who proved throughout a traitor to his crown and people, a wholesale breaker of oaths, a persecutor in every sense of the word: for this man's memory, then, we have a very solemn day. But the farce in calling him a martyr is rather too great a stretch of the ridiculous. Why, at this rate, Mary, the beautiful, lovely, and accomplished Queen of Scots, was a martyr, for she was deprived of her crown and life in reality for her religion, murdered by the she-fiend (Elizabeth) who then sat on the English throne. She was truly a martyr; but Charles died for his crimes against his country and his God. But not content with calling him a martyr, he is saintified and dignified with the appellation of Blessed; a name certainly most inapplicable to a man who was a persecutor, traitor, vile profligate, and breaker of oaths: and this, coupled with the calling of his blood sacred and innocent! Out upon such absurdities, such solemn mockeries of the truth! All we request of those who doubt the character we have given of this perfidious monarch, is, that they would read the history of this blessed martyr's reign by some impartial historian, and follow this up, by reading the service in the Prayer-book as appointed there to be read; and if they be not thoroughly disgusted with the fulsomeness of such service, we are much mistaken: it will exhibit, in true and legible characters, the nature of that book, which admits within its columns such despicable subserviency to earthly power and majesty, a subserviency more loathsome and to be despised, seeing its most daring opposition to all that is true.

The next solemn day is in memory of the birth and return of Charles II., one of the most profligate and licentious monarchs that ever filled the English throne. But during his most blessed absence from this country, episcopacy was at a discount, and Prayerbooks, of course, not at a premium, so that we need not be at all astonished at his return, which restored Prayer-books and all vileness to a premium, and was hailed with joy by those whose incomes and lives depended on such things.

The fourth solemn day, is the accession to the throne of the particular monarch in succession to the crown, be he good, bad, or indifferent, it is all the same; for he is the

defender of the faith, that is, the episcopal faith, and sworn head of the English church; he is a man who is a great sinner, but whom episcopacy, in its wisdom, pronounces immaculate. So much then for these very solemn days, the solemnity of which is not discernible, whilst the ridiculous is remark. ably so.

Then we have days of fasting:-First, forty days in Lent, in which we discern nothing but the mask of Roman superstition, and which few amongst even the most rigid Episcopalians take any notice, the Bishop of London alone excepted.

Secondly, we have the ember days. What they are, no one knows. And Dr. Stebbing, in his "Notes on the Prayer-book," very candidly admits that the church is rather at a loss what to make of them, the meaning not being known. We suppose, therefore, there will be some tradition connected with them, and the church, out of respect to the feelings of her ancestors, feels herself obliged to recognise their observance, even though the utility and meaning of such be not understood.

Thirdly, we have the rogation days; and, lastly, every Friday in the week: things altogether from Rome. Every one must have heard of Friday being the Roman catholic Friday or fast day; the meaning of which, holy mother Rome has informed her children, is, that they may eat their full of fish instead of flesh, she not considering fish-eating to be breaking a fast. But she goes on to say, should Christmas day fall on a Friday, then, my beloved children, you may cut roast goose or roast beef if you can get it; Mother Church granting this indulgence in the plenitude of her love for the bodies as well as the souls of her children. We have no doubt but that she would find many who would not object to fast all the year round, if they got plenty of fish and its requisite accompaniments; how many good catholics there would turn up!

After this, we come to feasts and fasts so numerous, that we are fain to cry out, unlike Macbeth, "Hold, enough;" for to glance at them is sufficient. All the saints in the calendar are there, virgins and saintesses to boot. O Rome, stretch forth your hand, and acknowledge with kindness your firstborn child, episcopacy!

We come now to the forms observed by the priest he kneels at one prayer, and stands at another. Is it on account of the fatiguing posture of kneeling that he is forced to stand up, or are there prayers more holy in their character than others, that they require different attitudes ? We should much like the information, seeing we have not been so fortunate as to procure such.

And next, why is he told to speak in a loud voice? For our parts, we never heard a priest speak in a loud voice and a low one, which the above command would teach us to expect, except his voice happened to have several notes and keys, vulgarly called a cracked voice. And then certainly we have had additional keys without number, far more than the Prayer-book commands, it only allowing two, a high and low one. We should rather suppose that the fallible framers of the Prayer-book have made a slight blunder, and applied to the priest what was meant for the clerk; as we generally find that that very important functionary is selected for a crack voice, (a good character and first-rate testimonials and references, of course-who doubts ?—it really indispensable,) the variations of whose notes, however, are any thing but the sweetest. We should therefore advise that a very solemn day be appointed, for the assembling of divines; that in this grave and solemn conclave, it may be decided as to the alteration, in due form; and that it be stated therein, precisely at what particular times the clerk is to make his variations, and to state very precisely as to whether they are to be sounded in a high or low key, a loud voice or a whisper.

Then we have, "Let us pray ;" and this is repeated several times in the liturgy. This repetition would lead one to suppose that they were about to begin prayer; but they are actually doing so, just the moment before such is repeated. We must therefore crave of the conclave a little alteration here too.

And further, we have the priest actually stopping the worship of God, to salute the congregation with "The Lord be with you," causing them, as a matter of politeness, to return the compliment by saying, “And with thy spirit," following this interruption, made for no purpose, with "Let us pray." This is certainly trifling with God's worship, and ought by all means to be prevented, whatever may be a Puseyite's reverence for Roman tradition, seeing it is derogatory to that solemnity so requisite in the worship of a pure and holy God.

We now come to the creed. We have no fault to find with it, being, so far as it goes, a very good confession of our belief; but there are three observations thereon which we have to make. First, why repeat this creed every Sunday, or rather every day, in the morning service? The worshippers of Christ must surely be believers in the Scriptures, and if so, they of course believe all things in the creed, and why therefore repeat it every Sunday, thus making it a useless formality and repetition. But not content, apparently, with this creed, Episcopalians must have another, and therefore they follow