and Unitarians. Pope has a prayer of this comprehensive cast ready prepared to our hands.

Father of all! in every age,

In every clime adored,

By saint, by savage, or by sage,

Jehovah, Jove, or Lord, &c.

But we will give the Reviewer the credit of our belief, that he would stop much short of this point. He wishes, we will suppose, such prayer as will contain nothing offensive to believers in the gospel. Admitting the principle, would he be able to prepare, extemporaneously, as his thoughts roll on, a prayer so critically correct as to leave no room for objections on this score? If so, he must have a mind unusually well disciplined, and remarkably free from the recollection of his private studies. But the principle is a fallacious one. We have produced an instance or two above. We will now adduce another. There is a sect of Christians called Friends, who, quiet and unobtrusive, make but few claims to the notice of society at large; who, whatever may be the errors of their system, are not justly chargeable with that fundamental one of "denying the Lord that bought them ;" and who openly worship God after their own manner. And yet we believe that the Reviewer would find not a little difficulty in accommodating his very accommodating plan to their principles, even in such a degree only as to make them willing to be hearers of his prayers. On the other hand, we do not suppose, that he would be willing to modify his own scheme so far as to adopt their method. We should suppose that it required only plain common sense to perceive that it is literally impracticable in the

present state of the Christian world to adopt such a method of worship as should be perfectly unexceptionable to all who call themselves Christians. The scheme is perfectly Utopian; it seems however to answer very well to ring the changes of liberality upon. After all, there is perhaps no system in which persons of various shades of belief could meet to so much advantage as in the Episcopal church; her doctrines are substantially the doctrines of the far greater portion of Christendom; and the worshipper may select before hand the prayers to which his mind does not assent, thus precluding embarrassment. We, for our own part, admire the wisdom which wrought THE DOCTRINES OF THE CROSS into the service of her altars, "like raiment of needle work," and we bless God that he has preserved to us, our Liturgy, when, like the ark, it was surrounded by Philistine hosts; and in other, and later times, when Uzzahs would stretch forth their feeble hands to better its condition.

1. The first instance of false doctrine is, that the Trinity is supposed in several places in the Liturgy.*

* With regard to the truth or falsity of this doctrine let us notice the opinion of a JEW ;'of course an unbiassed witness. Mr. Levi, in his published correspondence with Dr. Priestley, quoted in Adam's Religious World displayed (vol. ii. p. 204) says, that "the divinity of Christ, his pre-existence and power to abrogate the ceremonial part of the law; as also the miraculous conception are all taught in the gospels; and the ceremony just mentioned [baptism] points out the essential qualification of a Christian: consequently he that does not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, cannot be a Christian, if the Gospels be true."-Letters to Dr. Priestley, 1789, p. 24. To the same effect is the opinion of a learned DEIST as given by Bishop Burnet [History of his own Times, vol.

Doubtless: it is not only supposed, but is plainly asserted, in more than one place. The Liturgy too requires worship to be addressed to our Saviour, "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world." In these respects the Episcopal church throughout the world is not alone. Almost universally, wherever the name of Christ is known, prayer is made ever unto him, and daily is he praised. Even Trinitarians are not singular in this last respect. The "most judicious" Arians in former, and later times, if not their entire body, have deemed themselves required by the scriptures to worship Christ. These points are common to almost all

ii. p. 212.] "When in 1698, one Firmin undertook to distribute tracts against the doctrine of the Trinity (which, Smollet says, abounded at this time, and took their rise from the licentiousness and profligacy of the times) many undertook to write in this controversy, some of whom were not fitted for handling so nice a subject. A learned Deist made a severe remark on the progress of this dispute ;-He said he was sure the divines would be too hard for the Socinians in proving their doctrines out of scripture; but if the doctrine could once be laughed at, and rejected as absurd, then its being proved how well soever out of scripture, would turn to be an argument against the scriptures themselves, as containing such incredible doctrines." Our opponents we believe have reached his premises, and, unwittingly, we doubt not, are rapidly travelling to his conclusions.

* Whiston, Samuel Clarke, Emlyn, Chandler, Benson, Pierce, Grove, and in short all the most eminent Arians have been worshippers of Christ. Carpenter compiled in 1793, a Liturgy for the use of his congregation. In the advertisement prefixed he says, "I think it right, in our public worship to pray to the Father only in the name of Christ. But as praise is certainly ascribed to him in the scriptures, and as love to Christ is made an essential branch of his religion, I cannot but think we are justified in addressing him with hymns of praise and thanksgiving." In the

classes of Christians, and as we have limited ourselves in these strictures to Episcopal peculiarities, we think it unnecessary to enlarge on these topics here.

2. If the popish error of the real presence is not discountenanced in the parts of sentences which he has so disingenuously quoted, yet he has not the hardihood to allege that this error is any where supported, or admitted by the church; on the contrary he must know full well, that it was one of the principal points, on which the reformers laid such stress, as obnoxious to divine truth, and that the Episcopal church has ever been distinguished for the strength of her opposition to this very error. Did he feel no hesitation in endeavouring by such indirect methods to fix upon the church the odium of retaining a long exploded superstition? Will his principles permit him to feel no uneasiness under the knowledge that these unchristian statements might reach, and perhaps satisfy many who would have little knowledge of the church but from his remarks; and who Litany, (which is formed on the basis of the Episcopal) although he strikes out the petition to the Trinity, yet he retains the others in the form of prayer to the Father, viz :--" through the intercession of thy well-beloved Son, our Redeemer, have mercy upon us," &c. "by the direction and assistance of thy Holy Spirit, have mercy upon us," &c. Lindsey had previously (in 1774) adopted the prayer book of the English church altered on the plan of Dr. Clarke. The petitions of the Litany resemble those in Carpenter's-the second petition is, "O God, who by the precious blood of thy only begotten Son, hast purchased to thyself an holy church, and placed it under thy continual protection, have mercy upon us." The third is, "O God, who by thy Holy Spirit, dost govern, direct, and sanctify, the hearts of all thy faithful servants, have mercy upon us." This last, if we are not mistaken, is the Liturgy used at King's Chapel, Boston.

would probably never hear of any denial of their truth, even should it be publickly made?

Will our readers believe that the extract which he first quotes is from a prayer in which the following passage previously occurs, and of which his quotation is but the same sentiment prolonged? "Vouchafe to bless and sanctify with thy word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that we, receiving them according to our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood." The other extracts which he has adduced stand thus connected in the Communion office: "The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life: take and eat this in REMEMBRANCE that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving." "The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life, drink this in REMEMBRANCE that Christ's blood was shed for thee and be thankful."* It did not suit the Review

*We know not how language more expressive and better adapted could be used. "This perfectly secures us,―says Archdeacon Daubeny,--from the gross corruptions of the church of Rome; because the commemoration of a fact cannot be the fact itself; the representation cannot be the thing designed to be represented; the sign cannot be the reality which it is meant to signify." Guide to the Church.--Appendix, vol. ii. p. 414. It is not improbable that Edward VI. may have written in the style which the Reviewer quotes, though we should like some better authority for it, than that which he adduces; and we should like also to have seen how the same Edward would have written to protestant dissenters, had they been known to him; we might then perhaps