The men who are so intently looking for some new dispensation, as much excelling the Christian as that exceeded the Jewish, usually speak of the gospel as having been well enough in its day, but as being inadequate to the wants of this wonderful century we live in. By way of reply to this silly vaunt, it is enough to point to the names of Edwards and a "heavenly host" of divines in past ages, exceeding in the union of intellect, learning, industry and piety, any of the most famous scholars of our times. In looking for her brightest lights, the Church still looks backward to the illustrious dead who are the glory of her present, as well as of her past history. It is ridiculous to assert that this age has outgrown the good old gospel, till it shall have produced a whole generation of ministers fit to stand on the same level with the ablest of by-gone times. And those theological giants, whose foot-prints in the solid rock are still an astonishment to us, and make us feel as if we would have been "as grasshoppers in their eyes," those men of might were far from having outgrown the fitness of the gospel for their intellectual and moral wants. It had by no means exhausted, even upon them, its power of illumination, and its quickening efficacy. Had Jonathan Edwards lived to this time, exempt from the decays of age, he would all the while have been growing in grace, and in religious knowledge, with an ever increasing attachment to that primitive scheme of doctrine, which he loved, and preached, and defended. In fact, we can learn nothing spiritually, except by the teaching of the Holy Spirit; and this the ancient believers had as well as we. In completing the conversion of the world, Christianity will have no harder work to do, and no greater difficulties to overcome, than she had at the outset. To finish the work will demand no greater efforts, or more effectual scheme of doctrine, or more of self-denial and suffering, than were found in the early disciples and martyrs, and in the Reformers and Puritans of later day.

It has been often said, that, if our Puritan fathers had survived to these times of illumination and progress, they would have been "liberal Christians" of the loosest modern pattern. Often, for this purpose, has the parting address of John Robinson to the Plymouth settlers been quoted, as it is reported by Governor Winslow. "He was very confident that the Lord had more truth and light yet to break forth out of his holy Word." "Here also he put us in mind of our church covenant, at least

that part of it whereby we promise and covenant with God and one another, to receive whatsoever light or truth shall be made known to us from his written Word: but withal exhorted us to take heed what we received for truth, and well to examine, and compare it, and weigh it with the Scriptures of truth, before we received it. For, saith he, it is not possible the Christian world should come so lately out of thick anti-christian darkness, and that full perfection of knowledge should break forth at once." It will be seen that Robinson's pious expectation was, that more light should yet break from the Bible, as it has largely done, and will continue to do, among evangelical divines. But he had no expectation that the promised light would spring forth merely from an advanced state of culture of the human mind, or a more luminous condition of society. In the dedication of that learned work, the "Orthodox Evangelist" by John Norton, one of the earliest ministers of Boston, it is written: "Even fundamental truths, which have been the same in all generations, have been, and shall be, transmitted more clear from age to age in the times of reformation; until that which is perfect is come, and that which is imperfect be done away. The truth held forth is the same; though with more of Christ, and less of man. Such addition is no innovation, but an illustration; not new light, but new sight." And this is what the orthodox divines of New England have been doing. Without impairing the belief in the cardinal truths of the gospel, they have made very great improvement in the mode of presenting and proving them.

It is folly to pretend, that if our pious fathers had lived to see a day like this, they would have espoused the modern liberalism or rationalism, as being that new light or vision of truth, which they predicted as at hand. They were not at all ignorant of it. There were those who even then had broached the new ideas; and our fathers, who were eagerly inquisitive in such matters, had fully examined and discussed them, and had rejected them utterly. As Chaucer says:

"There is no new guise but it hath been old."

Pelagian, Arian and Socinian heresies, in all their forms, were then perfectly well known; and our forefathers who turned from them with abhorrence then, would have done the same had they lived unto this day.

The true friends of theological progress have a plain and most inviting path before them. Let them master, by profound and devout study, the whole scheme or system of revealed religion: let them present it in distinct and unexceptionable forms: let them support it with such proofs, both new and old, as will not break in the handling: let them live up to it in all its spirituality and virtue let them spread it to the ends of the earth, and to the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills.

SITTING IN PUBLIC PRAYER.

THE posture in which prayer is offered is justly reckoned among the non-essentials of religion; and yet it may be a matter of no inconsiderable importance. Every thing relating to the worship of God ought to be done "decently and in order." And it is a serious question, Whether it is in due and decent order, for persons in health to remain seated while solemn supplication is offered to God?

While we are disposed, for ourselves, to answer this question in the negative, we would by no means insinuate that they who indulge this habit, are not in heart as devout and sincere as others. They have fallen into the custom through want of consideration, or in view of motives of convenience, stillness, and the like, which cannot compensate for that great "appearance of evil," a seeming want of reverence and humility.

We remember the days, when, if a person sat down in time of public prayer, they who stood around were thrown into commotion; and smelling-bottles, fans, and "the most powerful and pungent cold-water which could be procured," were put into requisition with instant and friendly zeal, as though something alarming had taken place. The present, to be sure, is the age of labor-saving inventions; but these do not seem to be called for in the service of heaven, in which none of us toil too hard. Fair ladies and fine gentlemen have been known to stand for hours under a blazing sun, on balconies and sidewalks, to see some military parade, or other vain and senseless pageant, who could not endure the severe and exhausting penance of standing for ten minutes in the act of common prayer.

Can it be considered as reverential to address our Maker in the attitude of sitting? Suppose that a number of us were to visit the chief magistrate of the nation at his official residence, for the purpose of soliciting some great favor, indispensable to our welfare, and depending wholly on his good pleasure. Should we be apt to stretch ourselves at once on the luxurious lounges and couches, one "lazily nursing his leg upon his lap," another hanging by the arms over the back of his seat, as though he could not even sit without crutches, another extending his limbs to their utmost longitude, and all reclining as much at ease as possible, gazing on vacancy, while one only stands up respectfully, as spokesman, to plead in our behalf? Such a scene would shock the sense of propriety in the veriest backwoodsman, were he to witness it in the "East Room" at the "White House;" and he would be ready to say: "Those men will lose their errand; they are not much in earnest, and their petition will not be granted." And is not such a spectacle much more out of character, in the audience chamber of the Most High, wherein a company of "miserable sinners" has drawn near to plead for their forfeited lives, and to implore pardon and salvation?

What would be thought of the devotional habits of a man, who, when retiring to his closet for secret communion with God, instead of falling upon his knees, should make it his practice to "spread himself out," as easily as possible, in a cushioned rocking-chair? And are postures of such easy familiarity any less unseemly in the united devotions of the house of prayer? So long as "actions speak louder than words," ought we not so to "behave ourselves in the house of God," that our good shall not be evil spoken of, and that our outward deportment shall not lay a stumbling block in the way of souls?

If a heathen-man, or some prayerless profligate, were to enter many of our churches, he would see, during time of prayer, some sitting very comfortably and patiently as though waiting for the end of the business; some turning the leaves of books, and (possibly!) of newspapers; some picking their teeth or whispering with their neighbors; some standing and staring, like indifferent spectators having no interest in what is going on; and a few others seriously and devoutly attending to the sacred service. Let him leave this place of worship and enter another, where the whole assembly, with eyes reverently covered, and

with apparent solemnity, are offering up their united requests to God. Would not these two sights make each a very different impression on his mind? And is that impression a matter of small consequence? May not the salvation of his soul hinge upon it? It is in vain to say, that looks, gestures, and attitudes are non-essentials, while their influence is so great and lasting. Though "bodily exercise profiteth little" to the person who performs it, it may have an immense effect upon such as witness it; and therefore we are required to serve and glorify God with our body, as well as with our spirit.

It is true, that men may be very punctilious in matters of religious ceremony, or other externals, while yet the heart is full of cursing and bitterness, and is rankling with secret enmity toward God. But does this prove that there is no connection between right and holy feelings and an appropriate outward deportment?

If this practice of sitting shall come into general use, there is danger that it will deteriorate the gift of prayer in the ministry. The clergyman who invites his congregation to accompany him to the throne of grace, sees no sign or mark of their consent to go with him to the footstool of mercy. How can he feel that his invitation is accepted, when there is no visible appearance that it is so; and when all things remain the same as if the people had not heard his request. He may pray at, or to, or over, or for his congregation; but it must be hard to feel that he is praying with them. He will be disposed, instead of the usual formula,-"Let us unite in prayer," to say: "Hear me pray!" He cannot but feel the depressing effect of this seeming inattention to one of the highest duties of his calling.

In the primitive days of the Church, sitting in time of prayer was wholly disallowed, except in case of bodily infirmity. Though kneeling was then much practised, standing was the most approved position, especially on the Lord's day. There are, in the Scriptures frequent allusions to this matter; but sitting is only once mentioned in connection with prayer. This is in II Samuel vii. 18, where it is said that David "sat before the Lord." The word, however, by a natural association, is also used to denote a long continuance in one situation; and this is, probably, what is intended in this solitary instance of its use by a servant of God in religious worship. That David himself, as