created being in the universe, or before the throne of God? Surely not. All created beings are servants by the necessity of their creation. Their derived and dependant condition determines and testifies their servitude. But here is one to whom it was humiliation to assume the form, and discharge the offices, of a servant. Though equal

to God, without any robbery, without any invasion of the most holy place, he did not eagerly retain his divine splendour, but shrouded it in a vestment of mortal flesh. As a servant, he worked out the stupendous plan devised in the council of Godhead, by the humiliation of our nature and the infamy of the cross.

The two passages examined are in exact harmony. He was in the "form of God, and "thought it not robbery to be equal with God," because the "Word was God, and was with God," and he took on him "the form of a servant" when "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."

And now, dear sir, as the subject under consideration is a great one, and we have had inquiries from many correspondents, I will continue the investigation in a series of letters. At present,

I remain, sincerely yours,

G. GREENWell.

From the Millennial Harbinger of October, 1846.

THE REFORMATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

It must be a source of much gratification to every lover of the cause we plead, to know that it is raising up for itself so many advocates, and in so many different and distant parts of the world. Within a quarter of a century, we may say, the cry for reformation has sounded forth from America, from Virginia, from the valley and hills of Buffalo, and its vibrations have spread north, south, east, and west, till the whole boundless continent is well nigh encircled; and froin Canada and Mexico, New Zealand and Oregon, the strong echo is thrown back upon us, and we are made to rejoice that even to the uttermost parts of the earth, and to the isles of the sea, the original proclamation of Peter and the Apostles on Pentecost is repeated, and sinners are every where called upon to reform and be immersed for the remission of their sins. True it is, that in many places the proclaimers are few and the calls many; yet we are rather astonished that so much has been done and is doing, than that we are yet so weak; aud the evident blessing of the Lord gives us confidence to persevere with all boldness in the hope of a still more abundant and a richer harvest; for whose arm but his could have so broken down the barriers of sectarian prejudice and tradition, and opened such a vent for the flow of primitive truth as its feeble and humble advocates are in so many places finding?

A recent hasty excursion through some parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, has made us somewhat acquainted with the condition and prospects of the cause there; and we were made glad to

meet, even in this strange land, with faces ever turned steadfastly towards Jerusalem, and hearts ennobled and warmed by the same common hopes and aims with ourselves. More than two thousand souls have rallied around the standard of reform, and forty or fifty congregations been organized after the primitive example. We regret that we could not find it practicable to visit a greater number of these little congregations, and give and receive a mutual word of exhortation in our pilgrimage. Still it was gratifying to hear of them in the main a good report. Steadfast in their adherence to the explicit teachings of the Scriptures and scrupulously exact in their conformity to the examples of the Apostles, where those examples are clear, it may be feared that some of them, like some of us, either congregations or individuals, may be led by the principle, to an unwarranted extreme, and find imaginary precepts in mere casual expressions, and formal examples in what may be only accidental historical narration. There is certainly a constitutional tendency to this error in the human mind, and we have felt somewhat the injurious influence of its practical results in the United States. The cause in Great Britain can scarcely hope to escape a similar injury; yet it would seem by no means necessary, since she has our experience by which to profit. It is true however, that we derive but little advantage, except from our own misfortunes and the only lessons truly fraught with wisdom to us, are those we study for ourselves. Just emerging from the overwhelming gulf of priestly tradition and clerical dominion, in Great Britain, tenfold more powerful than here, it is but a reasonable, or rather natural failing, to plunge into equally dangerous waves of incredulity and insubordination. Monarchy and anarchy are extremes that always nearly meet; and, in avoiding one, we but too often fall upon the other. They are the sharp rocks of Bozez and Seneh, between which lies the narrow passage to truth.

Where there is manifestly no intention to give a ritual, we should be always careful to consider as authoritative, or even exemplary what may have been a mere accident. For instance, when in the second of Acts we are told, "They, (the disciples) continued steadfast in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers," it will not do to conclude that these various duties and privileges must always be attended to in the order in which they happen to be mentioned by the historian,—that in coming together in a congregational capacity, we must first attend to instruction in the Apostles' doctrine," then contribute to the "fellowship," next celebrate the Lord's death, and finally conclude with "prayer." It is plain that it was no intention of the historian to do any thing more than state the points of general and important bearing in the practice of the primitive Christians, without the least reference to the order of time or sequence in which they were attended to by them; and that he did not mean, in so doing, to give us any formal ritual of service, either as followed by them or as proper to be urged upon their successors in time to come. Not only is this evident, but also that he did not mean to be understood as even naming all the things which were of uniform practice in their congregational assemblies; for there is no specific mention of singing, of exhortation, of reproof, nor indeed of

edification and social worship of any kind. "To continue in the Apostles' doctrine" is by no means necessarily expressive of any one of these ideas. This they might have done, and doubtless the historian means to say they did so in private as well as in public. So with "prayers:" they continued steadfast in prayers, both in their congregational meetings and in private.

This method of interpreting the Scriptures would lead us to many absurdities; and, if generally applied, would evidently show us greatly inconsistent with ourselves; for if Luke is to be understood as intending any thing more than to give a general history of what was practiced, then must we take the whole chapter as preceptive, and sell our possessions, have all things in common, resort daily to a temple as do the Catholics, and eat our meat from house to house with gladness and singleness of heart.

Paul, in his epistle to the Philippians, (chap. iv. 6.) exhorts them to be careful, i. e. anxious about nothing; "but in every thing by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God. Now it is quite possible, by an ingenious stretch of this method of interpreting the Scriptures, to find in this passage a formal precept of the regulation of this part of our service when we are met, as a congregation, and to argue from it that the Apostle meant to teach us the importance of discriminating between prayer and supplication and thanksgiving, by making each the subject of a special address and by a different person;-that for instance, the presiding officer should give notice, that the time for this service had arrived, and that one, not called upon, but of his own accord, should offer up prayer-a second, supplication-a third, thanksgiving-and if these should have omitted any thing of importance, which a fourth or a fifth or any other ordinal might happen to think of, he or they should fill up the vacuum as to their judgment might be proper, and then the presiding officer conclude with his benediction. But in this several things strike us as wanting in the ritual. Where is the scriptural precept for determining the time for these privileges? If the presiding officer or officers may dictate it, why not also appoint the persons who shall give utterance to these requests for the Amen of the congregation? Where is the authority for putting an end to the vain repetition which, in a large congregation, must necessarily follow such an indiscriminate and unrestrained licence ? If the elder may say at last who shall not pray, why not allow him to say at first who should pray? The same authority that gives him power in the one case, gives him power also in the other. But more general still —whence is it proved that Paul was referring to congregational duties at all? Do not these inquiries lead us at once to see that any inferences so loosely drawn, can never be urged as binding upon us in our church order, and therefore they cannot be properly matters for contention or strife.

But it has not been our intention to do more than merely hint at these questions. We desire only to excite the observation, that much is left to our own sense of what is decent and in good order,—that the "other things" which the Apostle left to be set in order in Corinth, when he should visit the congregation in person, were points of discre

tion, which circumstances and common sense, then, as now, should arrange, and about which no general and unconditional rule could be given; and therefore, that it is not wise nor right to dogmatize too largely upon the narrow premises afforded us in the mere casual mention we may find of some specific acts or duties in the Scriptures and base upon them a detailed ritual-binding as a creed. This were to make opinions law, and inferences matters of faith, and thus introduce practically an evil worse than creeds, into the bosom of a denomination, one of whose fundamental points is, the banishment from the church of this very principle.

I would not be understood in the above remarks as giving a picture of what actually exists in Great Britain. The observations I have made are intended more as precautionary and general reflections upon a subject at present of much anxious inquiry, both there and here. We do not all profess to have made a full and satisfactory induction of all the Scriptures teach upon church organization; certainly we cannot say that we are agreed in practice as to what this may be. In the mean time, let us not forget what we have learned, and establish any principle which will endanger our freedom and serve to kindle and fan into flame, rather than extinguish the fires of discord, which now burn so destructively amongst the people of God. We were happy to find that great harmony prevails among those who have espoused the Reformation in these islands, and that no principle is more liberally cherished than that which recognizes the fullest freedom of difference in all matters of mere inference and opinion. This is as it should be; and whilst it is most desirable for many purposes, that our churches should all have the same order in their public worshipyet so long as we practice and observe all the things that are commanded, we can have no just ground for strife-if we happen to differ in the order or sequence of the parts.

One of the very best features in the state of the controversy in Great Britain, is the prayerful and anxious zeal for the cause, felt and cherished, not only by the principal men, but by the great mass of the churches. Every man and woman, if not a public, is at least a warm and zealous private preacher of reformation. Nor does their conduct, as is too often the case, neutralize their doctrine. By a good example they show forth the beauty of holiness, and in their good works and piety as well as by their exhortations, lead others to glorify God. I am persuaded that the best of us might be stirred up to more liberality by the example of some brethren in England, and feel ourselves awakened to the holy emulation of becoming more excellent in good works, and more ardent in Christian love. They love one another and contribute liberally to the followship, yet many of them are slow to contribute as we all should do to the divinely appointed means of planting churches. But little is done to keep efficient evangelists in the field, and with some the plain question of duty on this point is yet in dispute, and they are not satisfied that in negligence, yea, even in positive opposition, there is sin. Hence, though I believe there is much liberality among the brethren in contributing of their means to other purposes, they have but one regularly and constantly sustained evangelist in the field. The church at Nottingham have alone provided

for the temporal wants of brother Greenwell, and thus enable him to devote his time and talents to the preaching of the word. Upon this point there seems to be something yet to learn; though it may not be altogether from the want of knowledge that this remissness springs. Many and heavy are the demands at home, that is in their respective congregations, which the brethren have to answer; and with but limited fortunes, it may be, that the means are more wanting than the will. This we would rather believe-for it certainly argues but a poor appreciation of the riches of salvation to see us so careless about proclaiming them-or a very undue estimate of the efficiency of human instrumentality in the conversion of the world, when we show ourselves so unwilling to employ evangelists.

A better acquaintance with the Scriptures and a more enlarged experimental knowledge of the true spirit and genius of Christianity, we doubt not will lead to a wholesome correction of our views on this point and infuse into our policy not only more liberality in the consecration of our means, but a larger share of public benevolence, for sending the gospel to our dying fellow-mortals. It is in this way that the reformation must spread itself and continue its triumphs over those who would oppose it. By this means our brethren in Great Britain can do much towards the spread of truth and surmount the strong bulwarks thrown around the many establishments about them. These are a powerful obstacle in their way; but of them and many other matters of interest, we must speak in another number.

W. K. P.

NOTE TO THE ABOVE

WE shall be anxious to see brother Pendleton's further remarks on the social order of worship adopted by the churches in England. To what particular congregation he refers, we are not aware. He did not spend a Lord's day in Nottingham, nor did he in any way witness our order of worship. The voluntary prayers of the brethren we suppose is that to which he objects, and which he thinks is open to abuse. So it is, in some circumstances. After seven year's practice, we approve of both, and have long adopted the plan of giving an opportunity for the exercise of the voluntary and solicited prayers of the brethren. The Apostles' doctrine,-the fellowship,-the

breaking of bread, and the prayers of the brethren-was the order of the first churches. Acts ii. 42. This may become a ritual-a mere ceremonylike any other order. But not, however, if the brethren are spiritually minded and lively in the faith. Being of divine appointment it is not so likely to dwindle into mere formality as that order which is merely of human arrangement.

We shall consider it to be our duty to publish brother Pendleton's further remarks when they arrive. J. W.

SUMMARY OF FOREIGN NEWS.

FROM Kentucky we have intelligence of the success of the labours of several brethren, showing the steady onward course of the truth. Brother W. P. Clark writes us an account of a six weeks' tour, beginning in the month of September last, in which he preached several days at Houstonville, Lincoln county, Ky.,