might be improved. If there is to be responsive reading at all, it should be the order from Sabbath to Sabbath; but the wording of the order of 1896 would seem to permit responsive reading one Lord's Day and prohibit such reading the next Lord's Day. It is as follows: "Lesson from the Old Testament, which, if from the Psalms, may be read responsively." According to this, when the lesson is from some other book of the Old Testament there would be no responsive reading; and if there was responsive reading from the Psalms at every service, then the people would never hear any selection from the other books of the Old Testament. This would be a mistake, since the other books are profitable for instruction, and the pulpit readings for a year should give a comprehensive view of the contents of the entire Bible. There is a remedy for this. The Church should use the Psalter regularly, and at the same time it should hear readings from other Old Testament books. The way to do this is to make the reading of a selection from the Psalms an independent part of the service. The Psalter contains the great liturgy of God's ancient Church; but it is a devotional book for all time, and, therefore, belongs to the section of worship which should be shared by the people, as well as the minister, since they both join in it. With the Psalm as an independent part of worship the regular first lesson could then be taken from any book of the Old Testament. This need not add materially to the length of the service, while it would add greatly to its profitableness. We need to honor God's word more than is sometimes done; and we honor it when we give it a prominent place in the service, and read it as though we reverenced it, and pronounce it so as to make the meaning plain and the teachings impressive. Too many ministers often weaken and injure their afternoon or evening services by the omission of Scripture readings. The law suggests two lessons, and makes one obligatory; and, therefore, it is not well for a minister to make so little account of his evening service as to discard the Scripture reading. If he thus slights the service it can hardly be expected that the people will esteem it very highly. Dignity is given to it by the proper reading of the sacred word, for God's word is better than man's.

It may be asked whether the "Order of Public Worship is obligatory. In the first place it was enacted by the representative body of the Church, which body has a right to command obedience on the part of its ministers and members. This being so, the answer to the query will depend upon the nature of the act, that is to say, whether it is directly or indirectly mandatory. It is plain that the intention was to secure a uniform observance. The law says: "In order to establish uniformity in public worship among us on the Lord's Day." This shows that the purpose was to bring about the same practice in all the churches. It is true that the Discipline goes on to say, "We earnestly recommend the following order of morning service." It may be said that to "earnestly recommend" is not to command. That may be so in some relations, but in others an earnest recommendation is equivalent to a command, if its performance be practicable. Thus is it with the expressed wish of a parent. So when the governing power in a Church reveals its desire its earnest recommendation should have the force of a command if it be reasonably possible to obey. The act states that the "parts inclosed in brackets may be omitted." This being so, it would follow that there was no permission to omit the parts not inclosed in brackets. How far the language allows variation as to some details may be an open question. Even a fairly rigid constructionist might hold that as long as the general form is observed there might be the insertion of something not specified in the order of service. Having used all called for by the order, he might not hesitate to introduce a hymn, an anthem, an organ voluntary, or some other exercise not out of harmony with the spirit and letter of the law. The fair interpretation is that the order is what the General Conference wants and expects the Church to observe, but that, at the same time, the wording is not so ironclad that it will not bend where there is a real necessity. In regard to the sacramental and other formal services of the Church there can be no doubt as to the mandatory character of the law. The slighting of the communion service especially is to be deprecated. As to the duty to conform to the regulations and recommendations of the supreme legislative body of the Church it may be well

to cite Article of Religion XXII, "Of the Rites and Ceremonies of Churches." It says, "Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the rites and ceremonies of the Church to which he belongs, which are not repugnant to the word of God, and are ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like), as one that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and woundeth the consciences of weak brethren."

That there is need for some order of service will be admitted by all thoughtful persons. Even some who declare against orderliness are usually the greatest sticklers for some form. Let a thing be done in a way to which they have not been accustomed and they will quickly cry out in protest. It is not according to the order with which they are familiar. As some order is necessary, the real question is as to what the order should be. In answering this inquiry it is to be remembered that the purpose of an order of public worship is to make sure that all that is necessary or desirable in such a service shall be included, and that these parts shall come in a proper and logical order, so that there shall be a common understanding as to the succession of the different parts. Liturgical differences come mainly from different conceptions of the parts and the true purpose of such a service. The Church which makes the sermon the main thing is likely to have a comparatively brief and simple form of worship, so as to give the discourse the greater share of the time; the Church which makes the sermon a matter of minor importance will probably have an elaborate service in which the sermon or sermonette will play a very small part; and the Church which believes in the sacramentarian idea and thinks the sacrifice should be surrounded by an impressive and gorgeous ceremonial will develop something like the mass of the Roman Church. To the average Protestant the mummery of the Roman Churchno matter what may be the suggestiveness of the symbols-can have little or no attraction. Little better is the ornate and intricate forms of high churchism, in which there seems to be a reversal to Romish practices. Especially is this true in reference to the absurd practice of intoning the service, a silly pro

cedure which is neither speaking nor singing. In constructing an order of service, therefore, it is necessary to keep in mind the exact purpose of such a service. Speaking generally, it may be said that the object of a public religious service is twofold: first, to aid the congregation in worship, and, second, to impart religious truth. Perhaps to these should be added the celebration of the sacraments and the observance of the other ordinances of the Church. An ordinary service naturally divides itself into two parts, worship and instruction, though both elements appear in both sections-worship, however, preponderating in the first and instruction preponderating in the second, more particularly in the sermon.

Certain principles commend themselves to every intelligent thinker when considering what is the proper form. We note a few: First, the service should contain all the elements that ought to be found in such a service, especially prayer, praise, the reading of the Scriptures, the sermon, and whatever else naturally belongs to a full scriptural service. Second, the order of arrangement should be simple, natural, and logical; or, in other words, it should be such as will naturally and easily lead the mind from the first item to that which immediately follows, and so on to the end. Third, this order should be constructed on the principle of a climax, ascending from the lower to the higher. Hence it is hardly appropriate to begin with such an outburst as an exultant doxology. The opening might be a call to worship, a confession, or some such recognition or adoration of God as would be appropriate for a humble or penitent sinner who approaches to worship or present his petition, while the service would probably close with a doxology full of praise for the blessings received. Fourth, there should be a proper balance preserved between the several sections of the service, so that one will not unduly limit or trespass upon the time needed by the others. Fifth, there should be abundant opportunity for extemporary prayer. The Church has certain fixed forms of prayer in certain services, and there is nothing wrong in this, for Jesus himself has given us a permanent form; but in the general service there should be abundant opportunity for extemporaneous prayer that may touch the fresh needs of the hour. Sixth, the form

of service should be sufficiently fixed to maintain at least a fair degree of denominational uniformity, so that a member would know what to expect wherever he went; yet, at the same time, the order should be so flexible that it could be varied in minor matters when circumstances should indicate the necessity of some modification, by insertion or omission to meet the legitimate requirements of the occasion. These variations, however, would be exceptional. It is necessary to have some order of public worship, for no order to guide ministers and people leads to confusion and disorderliness of service instead of the orderliness which should characterize public worship. There is a judicious mean between the one extreme of a too ornate and overloaded liturgy and the other extreme of one so bald that, in its barrenness and coldness, it lacks the essential features of a scriptural and well-balanced service and therefore is measurably unprofitable. There is, however, something more important than a form of worship, and that is the fact of worship. The form has its value, but the spirit is more greatly needed. An order of worship is merely the skeleton. The skeleton is necessary, but it should be clothed upon the living body. Whatever may be the form, there must be the life. Where there is earnest spiritual life the Church can prosper with very little form. Where there is form without spiritual vitality the Church must fail.

JBNeely