do these things indicate the character of the ministry needed to lead the Church in such a mission and at such a time. They should be men of earnest piety, willing to meet opposition and persecution in any form, for the truth's sake, for humanity's sake, and for Christ's sake; men of apostolic zeal, boldness, and faithfulness, who show to all men, by the spirit that is in them, that they are called of God, and have, in their work, the witness and the fruits of the Spirit of God, seeking "not to know anything among men save Jesus Christ and him crucified." They should be also men of eminent practical ability; not men of "genius," so called-let such men rather seek another sphere for the display of their eccentricities-but they should be men of strong common sense, a quality for the ministry next in value to piety; men who can adapt themselves to the world in which they are to work, to human nature and human society as they are; and who go forth to their labors under the power of the single conviction, that the Gospel system of grace, and that alone, can relieve mankind from their spiritual thraldom, and elevate them to the true enjoyment of the sons of God. They should, furthermore, be men of high attainments and thorough training in all that may aid them in vindicating, illustrating, and enforcing the word of God. The question has sometimes been raised, whether the standard of professional attainment should remain at the point settled long ago, or be elevated. Without entertaining the question of the time to be spent in professional study for the ministry, it is manifest that, if anything is to be learned from the present state of worldly science, from the aspects of every form of error, from the boldness of skepticism in high places in the Church itself, under the garb of peculiar reverence for the truth, and from a corresponding irreligion among influential portions of society-all which the Gospel is obliged to encounter in its progress among men-the standard of attainment should be advanced beyond that of former times. This is probably the conviction of all who are employed as instructors of candidates for the ministry, as well as of a large portion or nearly all of those who are actively engaged in the work; and those who may be eager to enter the ministry, and who feel restive under the course now marked out by the Church, will be of

the same judgment a few years hence. The present times, moreover, demand that the ministry should be men of unreserved consecration to their special work, looking solely to the grace of God to give their mightiest or their feeblest efforts success. Secular pursuits, as far as possible, should be avoided. Let the dead bury their dead. Let your farms and your merchandise be managed by others, and obey the apostolic injunction to a minister regarding his duties: "Give thyself wholly to them." These characteristics of the ministry, which the present age preeminently demands-earnest piety, eminent practical ability, high professional attainment, and unreserved consecration-it was, we doubt not, the aim of the founders of Danville Theological Seminary to seek and secure in the candidates who should enter its halls. This we may justly assume to be the aim of its faculty, its directors and trustees, its patrons and its friends. With these views, and animated in honest endeavors to realize them by an eye single to the glory of God, we may justly hope that our labors will meet the approbation of the Head of the Church, and be crowned with his blessing.

Fathers and brethren, such is the work of the Church; such is her true mission, set before us by her crucified and reigning Lord; such are the responsibilities which rest upon all who are to lead the Church in her work; such is the object, as one of the agencies employed, to which the school of the prophets in your midst is consecrated. May we each, in our lot, give to the great work that measure of ability with which God has endowed us, so that we may each receive at last the welcome plaudit: "Well done, thou good and faithful servant!"

ART. VII.—A Manual of Worship suitable to be used in Legislative and other Public Bodies, in the Army and Navy, and in Military and Naval Academies, Asylums, Hospitals, etc., compiled from the forms and in accordance with the common usages of all Christian denominations, and jointly recommended by eminent Clergymen of various persuasions. pp. 132. GEORGE W. CHILDS, Philadelphia, 1862.

THE compiler of this little volume is the Rev. Dr. Shields, pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, and among others who unite in recommending it, we notice the names of Drs. Hodge and Boardman (of our own church), Durbin (Methodist), Williams (Baptist), Bellows (Unitarian), Bishops Potter and McIlvane, and President Woolsey, of Yale, which are sufficient to evince that the work is regarded as eminently catholic in its character. It has been evidently prepared with great care.

If the question as to the use of a liturgy in our church, and by our ministers in the discharge of their official duties, is to be regarded either as open, or as settled in the affirmative, then we can understand why a work like this might be prepared and brought before the public by one of our clergymen. But we beg leave to say that the question, so far from being a mooted one in our denomination, has been from the first settled in the negative by the church as a church; that is, by a majority so great that the minority has been nowhere. The fact that in the time of the Reformation there was, here and there, in the Protestant Church, a man who supposed a liturgy to be desirable, and who was fearful of intrusting the management of the public service in the church to any and every minister without specific directions, proves just nothing at all in favor of such a form. All, without exception, had been accustomed to the use of a liturgy, and dispensing with it, and returning to the usage of the primitive church, was, in the state of case then existing, a matter of experiment. One of the fathers has observed that error may at times so prevail that truth itself would be an innovation. And so it was then. But the experiment has long ere this been fully made, and has proved satisfactory. And in view

of it our own branch of the Church of Christ has for more than two centuries rejected the liturgy. And it is hardly in place now, and, after three centuries of successful trial evincing the groundlessness of the aforesaid apprehension, to make that very apprehension itself the reason for attempting to return back to the practice which it sought to inaugurate, and which was a plain departure from the usages of the primitive church.

If, after the careful training which our church has ever demanded of her ministry before entering upon their sacred work, there have been found among them those who can not select appropriate portions of the Scriptures for any occasion whenever their services are required; and who can not, either there and then, or in a hospital, deliberative body, or anywhere else, pray without book; they have been heretofore advised by the church to unite with such denominations as use prayer-books. But if, on the contrary, our ministry do not require them; then we may with reason ask, Why should a pastor of one of our churches prepare such a work? Why should others of our ministry unite with Episcopal ministers in recommending its use? We say without hesitation that we view the whole procedure with feelings of decided disapprobation. In our view it seems like an attempt to establish a precedent contrary to the cherished views and settled practice of our church. And this can not be permitted. If persons who feel unable to conduct family worship without a form of prayer; and if others who, in the absence of a clergyman, may be called to officiate in the army or navy, at a burial, for instance, or in a hospital or deliberative body, are disposed to employ a prescribed form of prayer, let them use it; but this manual was prepared mainly to assist clergymen in the performance of their duties. And in this aspect of the case we object to it in toto, so far as the ministry of our church are concerned. It is an attempt to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.

That this manual was prepared mainly for clergymen to assist them in performing their official duties, is obvious. We have "A form of Divine Service for Public Occasions," which service is, of course, conducted by clergymen. And another, "Form of Daily Prayers in National and State Legislatures;" all

of which bodies are provided with chaplains. We have other "forms" to be used in the army and navy, and for public thanksgiving, humiliation, etc., which were prepared, of course, for those whose appropriate duty it is to officiate on such occasions.

And then, moreover (unless we greatly mistake), in the "Form for Public Worship," the audible responses are provided for the congregation, "Deliver us, O Lord," "We beseech Thee, O Lord God." (See pps. 14-17). We know not whether this were really the design of the compiler, but, from the isolated position in which these expressions are formed (not wholly unlike that of the somewhat similar expressions in the English church service), such seems to have been the intention in regard to them. And if this be so, it certainly is a most unwarrantable attempt to innovate upon the recognized and established usages of our church.

Then as to the subject-matter of some of the prayers, we have decided objections to it. In praying for those in authority, there is undoubtedly no impropriety in designating them as servants of God. They possess and exercise in professed subordination to Him, authority which he has delegated to such. Hence Nebuchadnezzar, and even Nero, are thus designated in the Scriptures. But this, assuredly can not be regarded as a precedent to justify the application of this term to all men indiscriminately. And so, too, in regard to the terms "children of God," "brethren," etc. There may be a sense in which all men are children of God, as he is the Father of all; but in practical theology, the term has a distinct meaning, as when John says, in reference to Christians, "Now are we the sons of God;" and Paul, "The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ." Can it be proper, then, in the solemn exercise of prayer, to ignore these distinctions, as is done in this manual? For example, in the prayer for the wounded, p. 68, they are called, "thy suffering children." And in the prayer for those under sentence of death for their crimes, p. 68, they (be they impenitent murderers, guerrillas, traitors, and the like) are named "thy servants who for their transgressions are appointed to die;" and these prayers are to be offered in the