venture to use. It shews a mind unshackled by any outward formula, adhering to the simplicity of its convictious.

Although John taught repentance, and accepted it from the people," confessing their sins," yet it was as a servant he did this, and not as the Lord who forgave sins. He preached forgiveness of sins by the Lamb of God, who had to take them upon himself, and to make satisfaction for them. Although he baptized the people in Jordan, yet he did not regenerate by his baptism, did not enlighten, did not sanctify: this is not the work of the fore-runner, but of the Redeemer, whose baptism is not with water, but with the Holy Spirit. The work of the fore-runner, both in his teaching and baptism, was to prepare the people for redemption: but to accomplish this is not his work, but the work of the Saviour-performed not with water, but with the Holy Spirit. Hence John, the forerunner of Christ, when the people were doubtful whether he was the Christ, and whether he could forgive their sins and sanctify them, addressed them thus; "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." He it is who shall quicken, enlighten, sanctify you'...... The baptism of John, the baptism with water, was not that baptism by which sin was to be expiated; it had not that power which quickens, and enlightens, and sanctifies; brings men into a state of adoption as sons of God, and makes them heirs of his kingdom; but it is merely outward, consisting of the washing of the body, and only representing the inward baptism of Christ, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the baptism which gives light, enlightens, saves: the former only prepares men for this-does not accomplish it.' pp. 21-23..

The third discourse is written much in the spirit of our English Homilies. We have seldom met with a clearer or a more forcible and yet simple exposition of the doctrine of Justification by Faith. It contains the most explicit and uncompromising assertion of the natural depravity of the heart of man, and the moral inability of the sinner to do any thing that is good.

All that carnal, unregenerate man attempts or performs, although in appearance good, yet when judged according to the principle of the action, is not good. Nothing that he does is done from faith, but from "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, or the pride of life." He acts either from ambition or self-love, or to please the flesh, and not from faith; but whatever flows not from faith is sin. The carnal man can do nothing but sin; consequently it is not possible for him to merit salvation by his own works: "not of works," is human salvation, "lest any man should boast." A carnal man, that is a dead man, not only cannot do what is good; he cannot even will it. He is entirely destitute of spiritual life; he seès not the great beauty of the kingdom of God, he hears not the pleasantness of the celestial harmony, he tastes not the sweetness of Paradise, he touches not the goodness of Eden, he knows not true holiness, and hence wishes not for such blessings: he is guided by sense, and attached only to delusive,

pernicious pleasures. Hence, the very desire of salvation must be excited in man by the power of God, and it can be excited by nothing else p. 32, 3.

Having shewn that the faith which saves us, is the gift of "God,' he then proceeds to shew, that it belongs to the very nature of this faith, to be productive of good works; as it is the 'property of life to act."

It is faith that gives the ability to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit ; peace, joy, love, long suffering, gentleness, continence, chastity, purity, &c. But since faith yields good works, since they are the effects of faith, then it is clear that they do not save us, but that we are saved by faith which produces them.' p. 36.

This is well put; and the whole discourse, indeed, is an admirable specimen of scriptural reasoning. The importance of good works is rested on their necessity as an evidence of faith, and as a debt of gratitude. We must be persuaded,' he says, 'that the 'kingdom of God is not the wages of a hireling, but the gift of God: a generous, gratuitous grant flowing from the love of "God, "of grace," for the sake of Christ. But our love, and other good works are a debt, and not deserving of any recompense.'

The most striking of these discourses, however, is the fourth. The exordium may fairly lay claim, we think, to the character of a chaste and sober eloquence: it is, at least, touching and impressive.

As joy and consolation, hope and confidence are breathed in the prayer which our Lord offered up to his Father in heaven, immediately before his voluntary suffering-immediately before that time, when it was expedient for him to go away from the world, and leave in it the disciples he had gathered together: so that prayer also expresses grief and anguish, consternation and fear. Upon hearing it men may rejoice, but they have also cause to be sad. It is pleasant, it is delightful, to see the Lord, the Son of God, bending with his knees upon the ground, and his eyes raised towards heaven, mediating between God and man: it is joyful and consoling to hear him praying to his Father, thus" Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee." But in reference to what does he pray that he may be glorified? He prays that that end might be accomplished for which he was sent he prays that men might be rendered happy: he prays that they might receive light be sanctified and made one with himself: : a union in which consists the highest perfection of man: he says, "Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name, and now I come to thee; now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world; sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out

of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil; that the love wherewith thou hast loved them may be in them, and in them." It is joyful and consoling to hear him thus pleading with his Father-" As thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me may be with me where I am, that they may behold the glory which thou hast given me." But, on the other hand, great sorrow, anguish, and consternation ought to fill the hearts of men, as he excluded very many from his prayer, and to this effect prayed to his Father:-" I pray, O Father; but I pray not for all the world-I pray for these :" that is, the apostles, and those who shall believe on me through their word, by means of their preaching. With strong hope and confidence of soul men turn towards these last expressions of Christ, or rather his last testament uttered by his own mouth, and sealed by his own blood "And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth." What can be more sweet to the heartmore delightful to the soul-more consoling to the mind of man, than to hear the Son of God, the Saviour of the world, saying, "Father, I give myself in sacrifice to thee, only that thou mayest have mercy on these poor friends: I submit to the cross-to death-that they may be forgiven and delivered from death, and receive life: for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified and be one with us." But what can be more terrible or more fitted to fill our minds with despondency than the concluding clause? "I pray not for all "the world;❞ not for all I sanctify myself; not for all I intercede. Truly the exclusion is worthy of being lamented, and calls for sorrow and condolence. The loss of reconciliation to God-the loss of redemption through Christ- the loss of his mediation-exclusion from the spiritual supper-from the kingdom of God-from communion with the three-one God.' pp. 43-46.

A man who should preach in this strain in England, would infallibly be set down for a Calvinist. We do not know whether they have yet invented such convenient party designations in Russia. It is gratifying to be informed, that the venerable metropolitan continues to deliver his weekly instructions in the monastery of St. Alexander Nevski; they are, for the most part, unwritten; and his simple illustrations of Divine truth in the language understood by all, attract,' we are told, a great multitude, not only of the common people, but of persons of the 'highest rank. Nor is he the only pastor in the Greek Church who thus publishes pure evangelical truth. Into how debased a state of corruption and ignorance, however, must that Church have fallen, in which such preaching is a phenomenon! Yet, we believe that in the darkest times of the most corrupt Church, God has not left himself without a witness in a remnant who have not bowed to Baal; and that some of the most illustrious specimens, not only of elevated piety, but of enlightened purity and simplicity of faith, have existed as a testimony to the truth in the midst of communities involved in idolatrous error.

The

present volume is itself a striking illustration of the doctrine of the first discourse, that amid all the diversities of language, national character, and ecclesiastical discipline, there is an essential oneness which characterises and unites the true worshippers; "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

'Art. V. On the Comparative Advantages of Prescribed Forms and of Free Prayer in Public Worship; a Discourse delivered at a Monthly Association of Protestant Dissenting Ministers, on Feb. 8, 1821. By John Pye Smith, D.D. Svo. pp. 44. Price 1s. 6d. London. 1821.

ALMOST the only chance which subjects of this class have

of gaining the attention of the majority of persons, is afforded by occasional sermons or tracts bearing the sanction of a respected name. We can never, therefore, regard as either unseasonable or superfluous, the publication of such discourses as the present very temperate and judicious statement of the point in question between the advocates of liturgies and the apologists for free prayer. Although the subject itself is unsusceptible of novelty, it is more than probable, that by far the greater number of Dr. Smith's hearers, as well as of his readers, were either uninformed, or but imperfectly informed, as to the real state and merits of the question. Very many persons imagine that Dissenters have doubts as to the lawfulness of liturgies. A large proportion have no other idea of the difference between churchmen and meetingers, than that the worship at church is conducted by means of the Prayer-book, while the service of the conventicle is extemporary. It is sufficient to reconcile such persons to an attendance at a chapel, whether it be established or only licensed, that the Church service is performed there. And it has been thought right in certain connexions, to take advantage of this prejudice, in order to bring within reach of the licensed pulpit, a crowd of persons who would start back with horror from the designation of Dissenters. To object to the use of the liturgy, is regarded by a large section of those who avail themselves of the Toleration Act, as an old-fashioned, narrow-minded prejudice, which has nothing solid to rest upon. In some situations, the preaching of the Established clergyman of the place, presents such attractions-is so decidedly preferable, in the view of many persons, to that of the Dissenting minister, that the only consideration which embarrasses their decision in attaching themselves to the former, contrary to their educational prejudices, is, the use of the Liturgy. Under such circumstances, it is not long that the Prayer-Book will remain a stumbling-block; and ignorant, possibly, of the real state of the argument, the individual finishes by looking upon the objections of Dissenters to the Church, as very unreasonable; and surely he

may say so who was born and bred a Dissenter,' Dr. Doddridge's prediction has been very extensively verified; that if the Established clergy and the Dissenting ministers in 'general were mutually to exchange their strain of preaching, and their manner of living,' although there should be no alteration in the constitution and discipline of the Church of England, it would tend to the ruin of the Dissenting cause. Where this exchange has been in effect made, we are not such thorough-paced schismatics ourselves, as to deem the PrayerBook an insurmountable obstacle, were it the only one, to even a stated attendance on the more effective ministry.

In our view, the difference between conformity and nonconformity does not lie in quite so narrow a compass as that of the use or rejection of a liturgy. It is, indeed, a point of primary and fundamental importance, as regards a Christian minister, whether he can conscientiously take the oath of unqualified assent and consent to every thing in the English Prayer-Book, which is required of the candidate for holy orders. But, as regards lay conformity, the question is comparatively of minor interest. The individual has not, on the one hand, to plead the prospect of usefulness' as a sedative to his scruples, nor has he, on the other, the same ground as the minister for any scruples relative to the use of the prescribed form. It will naturally be in his mind, therefore, a very insufficient reason for persisting in dissent. Now, believing, as we do, that Protestant Dissent rests its justification on other and sufficient reasons, we cannot but be anxious that it should, in the mind of every individual, have a substantial basis; to which, nothing can inore powerfully contribute than an intelligent apprehension of its principles.

One of these principles is, not the unlawfulness of liturgies, but the superior advantages of free prayer in public worship. If it be asked, why Dissenters do not adopt the liturgy of the Established Church, it is a sufficient answer, Because they are not bound or compelled to do so, and, not being compelled, see no other reason why they should, Did not the compulsive obligation lic on the clergy universally, we cannot but believe that the preferableness of free prayer would find its advocates within the pale of the Establishment. Dissenters have, and can have, no other reason for adhering to their practice of extemporary worship, than their experience of its advantages.

The antiquity of liturgies does not appear to us to be a point worth adverting to: it is not wanted to establish their lawfulness, and it wholly fails to establish either their obligation or their present expediency. In matters both of faith and practice, precedents of a later date than the apostolic era, have no force as law, and are of very equivocal value as an example. Ancient