a Clergyman should make him all the more anxious to lead his flock by the kindly, gentle methods of Christ, in which "mercy and truth" meet together. Even the charge of being "afraid of his Congregation" must 1 Pet. v. 3, 4. never divert him from His trust-to feed the flock of Christ, as a true loving Shepherd. Thus the most inveterate quarrels will be subdued, and the best interests of the Church be served to the great glory of God. Let diverse opinions in matters of form be reserved for their proper sphere-the councils of the Church. But let the acts of the Sanctuary show no trace of them, that the hearts of the people may be built up in faith and prayer as the heart of one man.

1. In applying to ourselves the great principles of our worship, let us keep particularly in mind the fact that whilst customs, whether of use or disuse, as a general rule have, to a certain extent, the force of law,* the common customs of worship have more than the ordinary force of law, because they are the natural expression of the great principle of agreement peculiar to worship. They are thus, as touching the conscience, amongst the most binding laws that exist. To appeal from them to the state, is simply to relax the application "The disuse of centuries disposes of the obligation."—Archd. Denison. Thesiger and Deane's opinion. The "Guardian," 1865, p. 846.

of a great religious principle, of which the state can of course take no cognizance.

2.-Perhaps in some matters of form, it may be, that general custom is on one side, and the written law on the other. Yet even in this case the tares of wrong customs, if such they be, for this is a point plainly open to question, are not easily removed without uprooting the wheat of right ones. The written law in such a case must be very clear, and its original purport and actual use by the Church above suspicion. If it were passed as such laws often are, simply for the sake of uniformity, it bears a kind of witness against its restorer, if uniformity has really been attained, even (some might think) at a lower level, without it.

3. In the previous instance I have supposed the terms of the law to be beyond a question. But such is not often the fact. In any case it is the "living voice of the Church" rather than its "dead letter" that we have to respect. It is to the Church itself, not to the individual poring over the rubric, that we must look for decisive interpretations of its own Prayer Book. And custom is often the best interpretation that the Church gives us. There is a kind of legality in opposing to the Church its own merely written laws, and perhaps some inconsistency also. I know not how those who

are ordinarily the opponents of Private Judgment would justify their own use of it, in exactly the case where it is least defensible.

4. In cases of difference, where both custom and the written law speak indecisively, it by no means follows as some claim, that every man can do just as he likes in the particular congregation to which he belongs; for the great principles which I am defending hold him still under bonds to consider his neighbour and avoid Phil. ii. 2—4. "offence." ""* Our opponents, perhaps, do worse.

The

wanderings of others are no justification of our own license.

5. The same is true where the Church has not provided by any law or custom for the practice which we, in our individual judgment, may think seemly and appropriate. The common consent of the Church is needful, lest the conscience of those whom we, perhaps wrongfully, esteem weak, be offended. Public Forms in a Congregation are, as I have said, a language. What settles the spelling and grammar of language, is usage. To interfere with what people understand, introducing what they do not understand, upon whose meaning, indeed, it is quite possible the very "experts" may differ,

*The rule that every one shall be persuaded in his own mind. Romans xiv., 5, sets no one free from the rule (verse 19) which tells us to follow after things which make for peace and which edify.

1 Cor. vi. 12. Rom. xiv. 15.

to introduce it on the ground, as we think, of some peculiar symbolical force or beauty in it, is like the pedantry or affectation of speaking Greek or French to people who understand only English. The application of the figure is still closer when it is actually a foreign custom which we want to introduce into our English Churches.

How

6.-Even when we have law, living, not dead law, on our side, there should be, as I have already remarked, great caution in enforcing our improvements. much more when our motive is only a mere Esthetic sense of fitness! We have to do, dear brethren, with the weak and variable souls of men; and we ourselves are like others, subject to great deceptions in matters of taste and feeling. There is a point where it becomes our duty to consider not so much what is "lawful" as what is "expedient." Wherefore for our meat should those perish for whom Christ died?

III. To all this it may be urged and is urged as a favourite objection, particularly by some who advocate a splendid ritual, that it is our duty to give our best to God.

Let me here say how heartily I agree with those who, looking at the Service in the light of oblation, make it a principle that we ought to offer our best to God. But then as to what is best?

We must remember that we are here dealing with an auxiliary principle of Worship and have to view it in strict subordination to the main principles as already laid down. The "best" is that which "best conduces to agreement in Christ."

But leaving, for the present, agreement out of the question and all the moral virtues implied in avoiding "offence" to the brethren-which is doing a great deal -I must candidly avow my conviction that pomp and glory of priestly attire and decoration are not, even Esthetically and with reference to spiritual fitness, the best offerings to make to our Father in Heaven, or likely to serve the purposes of devout praise.

1.—I know that the "gold, frankincense and myrrh" Matt. ii, 11. and the "alabaster box of precious ointment" will be used Markxiv. 3–9. against me. But admitting the evidence that these

afford of the propriety of our giving of that which costs

us something, they by no means justify any great appar- 2 Sam.xxiv.24

ent display in the Sanctuary. In many other respects, too, they do not reach the case. They were personal gifts actually passing out of the hands of the givers, and ceasing to be theirs any more. They certainly did not remain as ornaments and vestments for the persons of the offerers or as glittering decorations to gratify the eyes of sensation loving people. Such displays, I admit,