Christians as giving assent to such a doctrine. Ritualism, then, is the use of ceremonials, vestures, and accompaniments of public worship in themselves, or in the manner of using them, different from what Christ and the apostles have enjoined. The principle which governs the determination of the question under discussion may be put thus:-Do we, or do we not, find revealed in the New Testament all doctrines and forms of worship necessary to the observance of Christianity in such a manner as God will accept? If we do, then we must search the Gospels, &c., for injunctions to Ritualism; and, failing its discovery, we are warranted in concluding that Christianity has no need of any such artistic embellishments. If, on the contrary, it is not allowed that all things necessary to the advancement of Christianity are so revealed, we are thrown helpless on the decisions of councils, conferences, and synods, varying in their decrees, which, far from being consistent with Christianity, are not even consistent with one another. It seems beyond question that the divine Founder of our religion would not have left necessary matters in a state of indecision; that He has left matters of little moment to be dealt with according to indivi dual opinion is another affair, quite apart from what is essential. Now what say Christ and the apostles regarding ritualistic worship? Christ's teaching is eminently simple, both in its matter and the mode of its delivery. "Be ye followers of Me;” “learn of Me;" I am the true Vine;" not more elaborate or abstruse are His discourses. And the sanctuary He used was, by turns, the hill-side, the inland sea-shore, the synagogue, the Pharisee's or the publican's house, and the temple. In all, His devout bearing entranced those about Him. Of the models of worship which He furnishes to us, take the Lord's Prayer, after which manner we are told to pray. There is no mention of varying attitudes during its recital, or the particular position the body should maintain. Its deliverance from a heart really feeling the solemnity of God's audience-chamber, and fervently breathing the various petitions and ascriptions of praise, is all that Christ insists upon. When He had His seasons of prayer, spending whole nights by Himself on the bleak hill-tops, the beautifully simple record is, And He went up into a mountain to pray." No word follows about genuflexions, chasubles, or any earth-born ceremonial, tending to distract the worshipper's attention from the divine realities He was contemplating. And with what scorching, yet just satire does He picture the devotion of the Pharisee! and how sublime does the publican's simple "God be merciful to me a sinner" appear by the side of the pompous self-glorification of the former,-"I give tithes of all I possess," &c., as if by that he was doing God service! True as it is that "He dwells not in temples made with hands," the Creator does not lay upon us the duty of spending material wealth or taste on His worship. He to whom the whole universe belongs pierces through outward trappings, and judges according to the disposition of the heart towards Him and towards the work he has

given us to do. His indifference to forms of worship appealing to the senses, and his distaste for sacrifices of wealth in His worship, are clearly shown in the Psalmist's words, "If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is Mine, and the fulness thereof. This is said in correction of the idea some devout Jews had had of God's jealous care over sacrifices and offerings as means of recommending one's self to Him. "Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High," is David's concluding advice to such. And as in our day it is beyond doubt that many of the Ritualists are men of piety, though the direction it sometimes takes may be injudicious, and calculated positively to bring Protestant Christianity into contempt instead of advancing it; so these old Hebrews, even under the Mosaic dispensation, are reproved for making too much of external observances, their piety notwithstanding. Christ interpreted Moses' law in a free manner, as witness His healing the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath, after His having justified His disciples for plucking the ears of corn on that day. It was galling to the Pharisees to have their pet observances thus set aside, and that with so much reason that they could not answer Him a word. The same Lord who declared that He preferred mercy to sacrifice was careful not to give the slightest encouragement to that spirit which has in all ages shown itself willing to pay inordinate attention to mere externals. By His condemnation of the trivialities with which successive Jewish generations had overloaded the Mosaic service, He left a warning to Christians against introducing similar unauthorized matters into His worship, more especially to those who might raise minor humanly devised rites into the rank of observances just as necessary as baptism and the eucharist. The way that leads to life eternal is narrow enough without crowding it with need. less obstructions to pilgrims heavenward.

R. S., an able coadjutor of mine in a recent debate, says (p. 103) that "Christ continually attended the [temple] services;" but, on examination, this, instead of being in favour of Ritualism, is rather against it, for we are told at Luke xix. 47 that "He taught daily in the temple," and in no part of the Gospels is it said that He went there to participate in the services. His teaching and His practice which so exasperated the priests had savoured little of Ritualism, or He would have met with better usage from them. At Acts v. 20, 42, it is stated that the "apostles taught and preached Jesus Christ daily in the temple," which, seeing it was the great resort of devout Jews, was the place where they were most certain of large audiences. Luke does not say, however, that they attended ritual, although it must be admitted that Paul went to the temple to be purified, which ended in his arrestment. As a Jew he did that; and that this was unnecessary for Gentile believers is perfectly clear from Acts xxi. 25, where the decision of the apostles on this point is recorded. Ritualism can extract no justification of itself out of these apostles' doings, but rather the

reverse.

"Lines" adduces as an argument for his position, that it was on the form, not the fact of worship that Cain was rejected and Abel accepted (p. 16). Scripture gives a very different version of the matter. God said to Cain, "If thou doest well, shalt not thou be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door" (Gen. iv. 7). St. Paul tells us that "by faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain" (Heb. xi. 4). Likewise St. John, 1st Ep. iii. 12, "Because Cain's works were evil, and his brother's righteous." Thus unquestionably it was the fact of sin on Cain's part which drew down God's displeasure, and the fact of Abel's faith which gained God's countenance, the form being purely accidental, and not influencing God's decision. Hence we affirm that Ritualism finds no footing here.

As to the ritual of the wilderness and temple, it was only suited to a people whose minds as to spiritual things were tabula rase, and who required to be trained by a gross palpable system to the perception of spiritual truth; but Christ removed the need for that (Col. ii. 14). It was imposed on the Jews till the time of reformation" (Heb. ix. 10). To adduce it as a reason for an ela borate ritual in our day is as sensible as it would be to contend for the existence of the present day prophets because prophets formed part of the old dispensation. Moreover, if you claim the incense-burning, &c., of the temple, on what principle can you reject the sacrifices? It must either be the whole Mosaic economy or none of it. St. Paul, writing to the Galatians, strongly insists on the latter course. As we are told at Col. ii. 17, these Old Testament rites were but "the shadows of good things to come;" the good wine has been kept to the last." Who would prefer the shadow to the substance? The Christ has come in bodily shape to the world; men have seen Him; and the fourfold account of His earthly sojourn received in faith, and acted on, is the “nunc dimittis" to the Jewish ritual and its like; "the vail of the temple was rent;" no more on this mountain alone, nor at Jerusalem, but everywhere shall He be worshipped (John iv. 21), and with as much acceptance in the meanest hovel where faith is as in the gorgeous cathedral with full choral service. It is right that a Christian should often ask himself, "What shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits?" but we should be careful that our responses conform to the objects the gospel sets before us,-greater purity of life, faith in Christ, and more faithful diligence in making known His salvation to others. It may be safely said that there is in every man's life plenty of scope for the manifestation of thankfulness, without lavishing fortunes on palatial churches, and accumulating a large assortment of church vestures and other eyepleasers. Micah (vi. 6, 9) gives some useful counsel on these points. R. S. attempts to show (p. 104) that Ritualism is essential to true Christianity because we should "glorify God," quoting from the Prayer Book the familiar passage about "rendering thanks for the great benefits," &c., and urging our imitation of the heavenly

host in our worship. We may do all that and yet not have the least tinge of Ritualism. In fact, if the rendering of thanks and praise, hearing the gospel preached, trying to do God's will hereas it is done in heaven," be Ritualism, then it and Christianity are synonymous, and many devout Dissenters who worship in the barest, baldest forms imaginable, may challenge the whole host of reputed Ritualists as having out-ritualized even them.

Many professing Ritualists may be animated by the best of motives, the communion of their hearts with God, sincere and ardent, and their desire for His supremacy over all hearts, earnest as it should be; but it may be seriously questioned whether such scenes as were enacted when Brother Ignatius took his congregation to be blessed by Dr. Gray can tend to the advance of Christianity. Riotous conduct in Ritualistic churches is the effect of Ritualism. If there were no new-fangled ritual going on, there would be no rows there. If Ritualists would avoid public exhibitions, they would remove a stumblingblock which hinders not a few from embracing Christianity when they see it so bedecked with foreign trappings, that the populace are first tickled at its novelty, and then roused by the thought that such practices go on under cover of true Protestant Christianity. Plumes borrowed from Popery may make fine birds: but, as in the old fable, such pretensions only elicit ridicule and court failure. The advancement of true religion in our own hearts, and its establishment in hearts strangers to it, is effected by means quite other than those that Ritualism supplies by all-sufficient means; nevertheless, if the New Testament is to guide us supremely in such matters, our heavenly Father has declared Himself as most praised, served, and glorified by those who strive to make the wicked forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts." "They that be wise [or teachers] shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." Man has abundant opportunity for the intensest devotion, in opening new living temples for the Holy Ghost, and in adorning these as the Word directs. "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. xv. 9), is our Lord's verdict upon the Pharisees' nice ritual observances. The solemn discourse accompanying it should make Ritualists bethink themselves as to their fidelity to their Lord and Master, in urging the necessity for elaborate ritual, about which He is either altogether silent, or by implication condemns. Let us, by all means, be zealous in Christ's cause, but let our zeal be according to knowledge" of His example, His precepts and His warnings against needless display in worship (Matt. vi. 1-7). So shall we best work out a consistent Christianity, and, so far as in us lies, insure its advancement in the manner its Author has prescribed.

66

RUDDY.

Literature.

IS CARLYLE OR MACAULAY THE GREATER

WRITER?

CARLYLE.-REPLY.

Ir is a pity that M.T.'s pen was not restrained within the bounds of the question, instead of being allowed to wander in the manner in which he has permitted it. The entire first page of his article is quite wide of the point. To what is it relevant-to show that Carlyle is an older man than Macaulay ? and what is M. T.'s ridiculous parody of Byron's lines supposed to illustrate? For our own part, we cannot see any excuse for wresting them from their meaning. Let us also impress upon M. T. the fact that the comparison to be made in the present discussion is not between the lives of the two authors (although on that point there would be no cause to fear the result as to Carlyle), but their writings. How the enumeration of Macaulay's official labours-which we would not for an instant seek to depreciate can at all affect this controversy we are at a loss to understand. Macaulay and Carlyle are both historians, they are both essayists, they are both poets, they are both biographers, they are both philosophers, which is the greater? What little further we have to state upon the matter we hope to say without calling in the assistance of the high-sounding, but, we fear, empty language so needlessly employed by M. T.

We quite agree with M. T., that to be intelligible is one duty of a writer; and it is much to be regretted that he has not himself followed the rule he lays down. What are we to understand by the following?"Chaotic confusionariness and multitudinous environments: its mystery-shrouded impalpabilities and its hazy nebulosities." Strange to say, this is from the restrained and intelligible pen of M. T.! What is meant by "This is a debate that can only be expiscated by quotations"? We must express our thorough objection to the way in which M. T. has endeavoured to excite a false feeling against Carlyle. It is not the province of a debater to indulge in language of the character to which we shall presently draw attention, although it may do very well for an advocate with a bad case" to throw plenty of mud, because some is sure to stick." M. T. says, "Carlyle has devoted six times as much matter as the Bible contains to glorify and deify the vain, hypocritical, tyrannical, infidel, self-seeking, Europe-disturbing king of scoundrels, Frederick the Great." Here we have an abundance of mud, a plenitude of epithets, but no truth.

Why drag the Bible into the discussion ? why not confine the debate to its legitimate ends, and keep within the compass of the subject? We are always loth to attribute an unworthy motive,