in short, whatever constitutes our corporeal and mental being, furnishes an immense variety from which a selection of topics for praise and thanksgiving may be taken. We shall then advert to the stupendous theme of redemption, and the recovery of fallen man; the amazing gift of a Divine and Almighty Saviour; the rich and ample communications of the Holy Spirit; the record of God's nature, providence, and will, contained in the sacred writings; the numberless deliverances from dangerous and trying difficulties that we have experienced; the communion of Christians; the promises of safe conduct amidst the weakness, darkness, and evil propensities of our hearts; the assurances that God's kingdom will finally triumph over all opposition; and the blessed hopes of "an inheritance, incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away." These all conspire to suggest to our thoughts themes for praise, and gratitude, and endless adoration.' pp. 122–4. The following passage deserves great attention; it is full of important suggestions and significant hints. I attach great importance to the propriety of making the order, selection, and variation of the subjects of prayer, an object of serious reflection and ANTECEDENT PREPARATION. There is reason to think, that, while great attention is paid to the study and composition of sermons, engagements in prayer are frequently commenced without any attentive premeditation. It is not my purpose to say how much of such preparation is requisite, but I would take the liberty of respectfully requesting my brethren, especially the younger of them, to consider, whether a due measure of it would not prove advantageous to the consistency of prayer; the consistency, I mean, of the regularity of proceeding through its several parts. Some prayers manifest no order, no distribution of parts, no particular or definite object, but all kinds of topics are heaped together in an incoherent and confused manner, which renders it exceedingly more difficult for the congregation to unite with them, than when a due attention is directed to such matters. Some such premeditation would conduce greatly to the avoidance of unseemly repetitions, than which scarcely any thing can be more injurious to the temper of devotion. An appearance is often made of being about to conclude the address, when some one or more of the subjects that have already been dwelt upon are introduced afresh, and by this means a prayer is made to include several commencements and several terminations. Attention to the topics that are now suggested would greatly tend to the variety of subject and expression, which it is extremely requisite to cultivate, not for the purpose of gratifying a most unseasonable vanity, either in the minister or the congregation, but to stimulate attention, and preserve it from flagging through the service. I shall terminate these remarks by a hint respecting the impropriety of a too minute specification of particulars in that part of prayer which consists of intercession. We sometimes hear this part of the service so conducted, as to wear the appearance of compliment to the parties who are referred to; of a wish to announce particulars of information respecting different persons; and sometimes to convey the semblance of a fear, lest the great Object of our worship should be inattentive to our requests, unless we introduced a minute specification of particulars; or as if we were actuated by a desire to inform him of some things of which he is ignorant. It must, I imagine, be obvious to every considerate person, that such a mode greatly differs from the simplicity, unaffectedness, and majestic solemnity which spread over devotional exercises their greatest charm, and most attractive influence.' One other extract must be introduced. pp. 201-4. It is not by any means an uncommon occurrence to hear various expressions used in prayer which manifestly show that the passages of Scripture which are cited in them, or made applicable to them, are not properly understood by those who use them. This is inflicting an injury upon the less-informed hearer, as he is thus led to form erroneous conceptions of many important portions of the Bible; while it reflects no small degree of discredit upon the industry and discernment of the person who uses such phraseology. Certainly no words should be introduced into prayer, no portions of Scripture quoted, no systematic or traditional forms of speech employed, of which the speaker has not a clear and precise understanding, as it is impossible for him to communicate to others what he himself does not possess. If he neglect this rule, he will incur the blame of "darkening counsel by words without knowledge." There is an employment of scriptural phraseology which becomes quaint, obscure, and scarcely intelligible, for want of attention to the rule now suggested. Technical phrases or scholastic expressions should, as much as possible, be excluded from devotional exercises, as they tend only to darken and mystify the sense, which might easily be conveyed by more intelligible forms of speech. A continual attention to such subjects, which are not by any means trivial, or unworthy the notice of those who are most conversant with public prayer, will amply repay the labour expended upon it, by an augmented capacity of performing this duty with pleasure and utility, accompanied by the consciousness of having neglected no means of contributing both to the piety and intelligence of those over whom, and for whose benefit, the pastoral office was appointed.' pp. 230-2. Mr. Walford has laid the rising Dissenting ministry, and, indeed, the whole denomination, under lasting obligations to him, by the publication of this volume. It contains, in small compass, a large fund of judicious counsel, wise and weighty remark, the results of extensive observation and much reflection, clothed in language beautifully simple, and pervaded by the spirit of faithfulness, gentleness, and charity. It is the work of one who wishes to correct and to reform, and who aims to do so in a manner distinguished by the "meekness of wisdom." It is no mere bundle of complaints,-the querulous effusion of a spirit delighting to find fault, unsettling everything, but settling nothing. It is full of specific cautions, directions, and rules, which, if universally regarded and followed, would improve the character of Dissenting worship almost incalculably. If ministers could be persuaded to attend to this subject, to make it an object of thought and care;-if they could bring themselves to think that it really is not a sin to aim at doing their best, not only as to the matter of prayer, but as to the manner', including in that term, arrangement, variety, language, the management of the voice, distinct enunciation, and everything, however minute, that contributes to perfection,-to the people going along with them, and to their feeling and perceiving that it is a part of the service regarded as important;-if this were to become common among them, we believe it would have an immense effect, not only in increasing our pleasure in public worship, but in augmenting and elevating piety too. The devotional talent, if we may so speak, is neither appreciated nor improved, in comparison with the preaching talent. This is a great and sore evil: it affects the character of our personal religion; it injures it; and it is high time that it were considered and corrected. There is no novelty in this complaint. Ministers, in general, will acquiesce in its justice; and yet, from the force of habit, the fear of innovation, or other causes, they still persist in attaching, we do not say too much importance to preaching, but too little to the worship of the church; and hence, they do nothing to improve, elevate, or enrich it. We fervently pray that Mr. Walford's Publication may have some good effect in this quarter. It ought to be mentioned, that the Work is beautifully printed. Art. V. The Book of the Denominations: or the Churches and Sects of Christendom in the Nineteenth Century. 12mo, pp. 692. London, 1835. HE Christian world,' remarks John Evans, LL.D., 'is divided into denominations, each of which is discriminated by sentiments peculiar to itself. With this profound remark, commences that "Sketch of all Religions" which may be pronounced the finest specimen extant of the art of jumbling. That such a book, shallow, flimsy, blundering, flippant, and in its tendency most pernicious, should have made its way through more than fifteen editions, is unaccountable on any other ground, than that a work of the kind was wanted to meet 'the curiosity ' of Turk, Jew, Infidel, and Christian.' The design of the Author was, he tells us, to make the existing variety of religious ' opinions a ground for the exercise of moderation.' The worthy man meant well, but he mistook the matter altogether. What he means by moderation, is not very evident; but, if mutual forbearance was the lesson designed to be inculcated, we question VOL. XV.-1 6 CC 6 whether either Turk, Jew, Infidel, or Christian, whose curiosity may have led him to read the Work, was ever rendered one whit more kindly disposed to men of a creed different from his own, by this motley exhibition of opinions. The Infidel and the Papist, however, have each drawn from the premises thus furnished, his own conclusion; the former, that Religious Truth is a mere matter of opinion without any basis in certainty; the latter, that the Authority of the Church is the only remedy for a bewildering scepticism. The Author of the Sketch dreamed that he was taking the best way to promote candour, and tolerance, and good will, when he was in reality furnishing the ecclesiastical bigot with the most plausible argument for the necessity of a living umpire to determine controversies of faith, and of an authorized standard of orthodoxy. Evans's "Sketch of all Religions" is still cited for this insidious purpose; but the sale of the book has pretty well gone by. Several attempts have been made to supply a better work. One of the best is the Rev. Robert Adams's "Religious World Displayed,” in two volumes 8vo, (1823,) which, though ill arranged and faulty in other respects, merits the praise of impartiality, and embodies a large mass of valuable information. Its bulk, however, would of itself have precluded its obtaining a wide circulation. Williams's "Dictionary of all Religions," founded on the work of Hannah Adams, is useful for reference, but the alphabetic arrangement is the very worst that could be adopted for the purpose of giving an intelligible view of the world of opinions: it is no better than a dissected map. The work before us is, at all events, a vast improvement upon these. To compare it with Evans's, would be an insult to the Author. Comprising three times the quantity of matter, it is, in point of arrangement, correctness of information, and every quality of composition, immeasurably superior. If, therefore, it does not in all respects answer to our idea of the Work that was still wanted, we can have no hesitation in admitting it to be the best that has hitherto appeared. Having said thus much-and less than this we could not say in justice-we shall, after giving an analysis of its contents, freely express our opinion as to the proper method of treating the subject of Religious and Ecclesiastical Distinc tions. We have been much pleased with the Preliminary Essay appropriately prefixed to the work, in which it is shewn, that the diversity of opinion among Christians, and their persecution of each other, furnish no argument against the Divine character of the Gospel. A notion,' it is remarked, has very generally prevailed, that a revelation from heaven ought to be so clear, distinct, and luminous, as to render uniformity of sentiment on 'the subject of its discoveries the almost necessary consequence ' of its promulgation.' This notion has served as an excuse for infidelity on the one hand, and for intolerance on the other. The sceptic waits for the perfect agreement of all Christians, before he will admit their religion to be divine;-the bigot contends that among true Christians this agreement is indispensable, that the most trifling departure from his own opinions, which are of course the only opinions founded in truth, is a mark of heresy ; in the suppression of which, he suffers himself to be hurried into all the extravagances of remorseless persecution. The favourite position of both is, that diversity of sentiment regarding the contents of an alleged divine revelation is fatal to its pretensions; perhaps the only point in which the infidel and the zealot are agreed; the practical influence of which is, to make one the enemy of himself, and the other the enemy of all mankind. As a subtle and dangerous fallacy it deserves exposure; and for this, a very little sagacity will suffice: those who maintain it, are perhaps hardly aware of its legitimate consequences, any more than they are prepared to detect the sophism on which it is founded. It has not probably occurred to them, that this, their strongest argument for two of the worst things in the world, infidelity and bigotry, is subversive not only of revealed, but of natural religion. If every thing assuming the character of a revelation from heaven is to be rejected simply on the ground of the differences, and contrarieties of opinion, which may prevail among its advocates, then there is nothing true, nothing divine, in the universe. For what is there in the whole range of philosophy, that has not occasioned disputation, and divided the most acute and sagacious reasoners? formity is, and ever has been, confined within the narrow limits of self-evident truths and mathematical demonstrations. There are no duplicates in human nature, no classes where individuals possess an exact resemblance. It is not therefore possible, unless the capacities of different minds could be equalized, and their circumstances rendered precisely similar, that they should entertain identical opinions, and contemplate under the same aspects, and with the same convictions, the doctrines which they believe to be true. Universal concert and perfect agreement are utterly unknown in this world of ignorance, prejudice, and passion, where a thousand influences conspire to obscure the most glorious truths, and to diminish the force of the most powerful argu ments. Uni If indeed the modern unbeliever maintains, that he is justified in withholding his assent to the truth of Christianity on account of the diversified creeds, which have broken its churches into various and sometimes opposing communions, what is this, but saying that uniformity of belief is indispensable to establish its divinity, and that the absence of this alone stamps it with the character of imposture. A conclusion so monstrous, that it transfers truth from the only foundation on which it can ever rest, its own evidence, to the ignorance, caprice, and folly of mankind; rendering valueless every legitimate species of proof, which can be presented to the individual human mind, and suspending his belief on the absurd condition of his first obtaining universal concurrence to the doctrines and the facts sub |