in our college at an early hour in the morning! Conceive the unfinished state of their toilet-the gabbling of the prayers by the hard-worked chaplain-the inattention of all present-the anxiety manifested in all to depart—and the total absence of every appearance of piety or even decency. Consider all the circumstances of the case, my dear uncle, and ask yourself if it could be well otherwise; and then remember how it is written, "God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth;" and must it not be confessed that chapel here is a mere profanation, and that it would be better to shut the chapel-doors altogether than thus to enforce a worship so scandalous as this?

Supposing the attendance at chapel were voluntary, how many do you think would come? But I forget that the Church of England is opposed to the voluntary system, and that her religion is now declared to be one of force.

The wearing of the surplice is to me and to a few others a very great trial. This Popish garment we are compelled to wear every Saturday evening, every Sunday, every Saint's day, and every vigil of the festivals. We know so well the history of the surplice, that it is impossible to deny its Popish birth. The question of wearing or rejecting this absurd sheet is the well-known origin of Non-conformity, and if the surplice was opposed by some of the first Bishops of the Protestant

Church if the great and venerable Non-conformists were content to die in prison sooner than carry about with them this badge of superstition, -how can we justify ourselves in assuming the Papist's masquerade dress?

?

Many of my friends laugh at my scruples, and ask me, “What does it signify?—shall I be any worse -what harm does it do?" &c., but by this mode of arguing any wickedness may be introduced. A crucifix could do no harm-incense could do no harm. If the fellows of our college were to come to chapel dressed like Popish Priests in cloth of gold, and were to carry incense pots and banners, it could do no harm;-if we gownsmen were to carry palms, and were to wear garlands, it could do no harm. But in reality the harm is very great; it is introducing into the worship of God that which is not appointed; it is adding to the work of Christ; it is yielding to the principle on which Popery depends; it is keeping up a friendship with the Beast; it is carrying his mark on our foreheads; it is adhering to the rudiments of the world; it is not worshipping God in spirit and in truth.

I protest I am perfectly ashamed of myself whenever I put on the surplice, for I never am dressed in this filthy thing without seeing in imagination the blood of the Non-conformists on its skirts, and nothing but the fear of expulsion would prevent me going into chapel in plain clothes. And yet this is a very shameful motive to obedience,

for which I can offer no excuse. How my conscience is to get clear of this stumbling-block I do not at present see. I know my duty, but do

not follow it.

I find I have written as far as the limits of my letter will allow; in my next I will state my scruples on other subjects.

Your dutiful Nephew,

FRANCIS EMERSON.

LETTER XIX.

FROM THE SAME TO THE SAME.

MY DEAR UNCLE,

YOUR answer to my scruples about the surplice is indeed not satisfactory; you tell me that "white linen is the righteousness of the Saints," and that wearing surplices "encourages the linen trade." The earthly reason I shall leave untouched, for I am in no wise concerned in it; but for the spiritual reason I may be allowed to offer a reply.

It is very true, that, in the mystical language of the Apocalypse, white linen is called the righteousness of the Saints; but if that were any argument for the Clergy or the young gentlemen of Cambridge putting on a white sheet, I should require, first, that the Clergy and the gownsmen of the Universities were really Saints, which is certainly not the case; secondly, that all the Saints, all the spiritual believers of all countries, and of both sexes, should be dressed in surplices at all times. But if this symbolical mode of ornament is admitted, then do we at once concede the point to the Church of Rome, that we may worship,

not always in spirit and in truth, but sometimes by emblems and figures and theatrical representation. In this way we may keep candles burning all day in the churches, because Christ is "a light to lighten the Gentiles;" or we may offer up incense, because "Christ gave himself for us as an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour;" or we might mix water in the Sacramental wine, because blood and water flowed out of the wound in our Saviour's side; or, in short, whatever we can invent to gratify our fancy and to excite our languid imagination, may be resorted to in the adoration of the living and true God. The very smallest approach towards a sensual worship, the coining of any rite or ceremony not enjoined in the Gospel, is, according to my belief, a black and enormous crime, and it is by laxity on this subject that all the corruptions of the Church have commenced and been matured. To finish, therefore, this subject, as you have quoted Scripture for the surplice, I must also make my references. "They shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy he that overcometh the same shall be clothed in white raiment, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life." (Rev. iii. 5.) This, in prophetical language, is very appropriate and solemn, but when put into practice in the persons of the Cambridge gownsmen is not only ridiculous but profane and impious; for not only