convinced, do irreparable injury to the spiritual life of our Free Churches. Our freedom in prayer has been our glory and our proud privilege, and that freedom we must jealously guard. But there are in our congregations men and women of differing temperaments. There are those amongst us—and I am speaking now out of the experience I have gathered during my ten years’ ministry—who would find simple forms a help to them, and the question is whether the interests of a congregation _as a whole_ would not be better met by an order of service which should combine free and liturgical prayer, rather than by an order which should confine itself rigidly to the one, to the utter exclusion of the other. Further into the question I do not mean to enter. I shall have achieved my object if I have brought you to see that the question is really one of _Christian expediency_. There is no question here of right or wrong. About our perfect right to introduce forms if we choose there can be no doubt. But a thing may be lawful and yet not expedient. And that is the point we have to settle with reference to liturgical forms. Is it expedient to introduce them? Would they enrich our worship. Would they edify the worshipper? Would they help us to come with boldness to the throne of grace? If they would, then adopt them. But if they would tend to formalism, if their effect would be to make us _say our prayers_ instead of _praying_, or if their introduction would create bitterness or breed dissension in the Church, then better for ever remain without them.