and delivered with more energy and

appropriate, and feeling.*

The arguments by which the use of a liturgy is justified are such as follow. Its friends argue that it is evident the worship of the Jews was liturgical. The first act of public worship, say they, recorded in their history, was the divine hymn composed by Moses, upon the deliverance of the Israelites by the destruction of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. This was sung by all the congregation, alternately; by Moses and the men first, and afterwards by Miriam and the women; which could not have been done, unless it had been a precomposed set form. David appointed the Levites to stand every morning to thank and praise the Lord, and likewise at even.-1 Chron. xxiii. 30. The same practice was afterwards observed in the temple of Solomon, and restored after the captivity, at the building of the second temple.-Neh. xii. 24, 45, 46. Now, say they, it is evident that this was done after a prescribed form. The whole Book of Psalms, they observe, consists of forms of prayer, indited by the Spirit of God, for the common use of the congregation, as sufficiently appears from the titles of many of the Psalms themselves. That the Jews did always worship God by set forms, is attested by Josephus and Philo, and proved by Dr. Hammond and Dr. Lightfoot: so that they think there can be no more reason to doubt that the Jews had, and used, a precomposed, settled liturgy, than that the Church of England has, and uses, the Book of Common Prayer.

Further, say they, that our Saviour continued in the communion of the Jewish Church, it is impossible for us

• See Buck's Theological Dictionary. Article, Prayer.

to doubt; and as the worship of the Church was conducted by a liturgy, and consisted of set forms, it necessarily follows that our Saviour joined in those liturgical forms, and consequently gave them the sanction of his authority, by giving them that of his practice. Our Saviour's Apostles and Disciples too, they observe, undoubtedly, as members of the Jewish Church, used the same forms till our Saviour's Ascension, and even after we find them repeatedly attending the worship of the synagogue, which was managed by their liturgy. To those arguments the advocates for extempore worship reply, that it is neither reasonable nor scriptural to look for the pattern of Christian Worship in the Mosaic dispensation, which, with all its rites and ceremonies, is now abrogated and done away.

Those who contend for the use of a liturgy in public worship argue, that our Saviour's Apostles, both during the time of his life with them, and after his ascension, used that form of prayer which he taught them, and which for that reason is called the Lord's Prayer. The word outws, in St. Matthew, vi. c. 9 v. may be rendered, they acknowledge, "in this manner," and consequently may be considered as a directory, or pattern; but in St. Luke, xi. c. 2 v. it is evidently, say they, used as a form-" When ye pray, say, Our Father, &c." The advocates of extemporary prayer insist, that it was prescribed as a form, to continue only till the pouring out of the Holy Spirit should qualify them for the more enlarged and spiritual discharge of the duty of prayer. To this they reply, that upon the same pretext, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and the most sacred institutions of Christianity, may be set aside. To another objection, that Christ afterwards commanded his disciples to pray in his name, and that this form of

prayer not having his name in it, must, by this injunction, be superseded; they answer, that to pray in Christ's name is to pray in a dependence on his merits and intercession, and consequently, that prayers may be offered through him, though he be not named. That our only title to call God our Father is, through the mediation of his Son, and therefore that address is certainly, though indirectly, in the name of Christ. It is objected again, by the advocates of extempore prayer, that we have no authority from scripture to affirm, that after the day of Pentecost our Saviour's Apostles ever used the Lord's Prayer as a form. To this argument they answer, that the silence of the Scripture might as well be brought as an argument to prove that the Apostles did not baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, since the commandments by which the use of them is enjoined, are equally strict. They who argue for extempore prayer object, that if our Lord had intended this prayer to be used as a set form, he would not have added the doxology, when he delivered it at one time, as it is recorded in St. Matthew, and have omitted it when he delivered it upon another occasion, as in St. Luke. To this the friends of liturgical forms of prayer reply, that the objection concludes with as much force against the use of the Lord's Prayer as a directory, as against the use of it as an established form; and that from the circumstance of its being given with the doxology, in one of the Evangelists, and without it, in another, nothing more can be inferred, than that it may be used at different times, as a form, with the same variations.

They also have many testimonies from the Christian Fathers, which they adduce to prove, that in those early days of the Church, it was not only nniversally used as a

form of prayer, but acknowledged by the Church as an institution of Christ, and as universally obligatory. Such is the testimony of Tertullian, St. Syril of Jerusalem, St. Chrysostom, St. Austin, and of many others. The advocates of extempore prayers observe, that as we possess the Scriptures, the Church, in our times, is just as competent to judge on this subject as any of the Christian Fathers.

The advocates for set forms of prayer contend, that in the fourth chapter of the Acts, from the twenty fourth to the thirty first verse, we have evidently a form of prayer, used by the whole Church. When Peter and John reported to them the threats of the council, the sacred Historian records" When they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, &c." They observe that quador, with one ομοθυμαδόν, accord, evidently signifies altogether-that the whole Church together lifted up their voice. Now, say they, you must either suppose that the whole congregation were at that moment inspired, not only with the same sentiments, but with the same words, or you must allow that this prayer was a precomposed form, suited to the state of persecution in which the Church at that time was. The answer commonly given to this argument is, that it is possible that this prayer might be offered up by one, in the name of the whole Church, who mentally joined with him, though not in an audible manner.

They who consider fixed forms as the most proper manner of public prayer, argue that, upon the supposition that extempore prayers had been in use in the Apostolical Churches, it is impossible to account for a change so great, so sudden, and so universal, having taken place, within so short a period after the age of the Apos

tles. Within about a century and a half after the Apostolical age, it is certain, say they, that the use of liturgies was common, if not universal, in all Christian Churches. Now, if the mode of worship was changed from extempore to liturgical prayers, in the short intervening period, from the death of the Apostles, to about the middle of the second century, how came it to pass that so remarkable an innovation was introduced into the worship of God, without a single vestige being left in the records of antiquity, of such a change having ever been effected? Had such a change ever taken place, (many, unquestionably, would have opposed it, say they) it must have occasioned many disputes, and, in all probability, a division in the Church. The innovators could easily have been convicted of altering the form of Christian worship, and even the proposal of such alteration must have excited many jealousies, and much alarm. They observe, that the same mode of reasoning is generally used, and with much success, by Podo-Baptists, to prove that infant baptism must have been practised by the Apostolical Churches, because, had it been an innovation it must have been attended, at its first introduction, with such disputes and divisions, that some traces of them must have found their way down to modern times. It must be confessed this is a strong presumptive argument, to which we do not remember of having seen a satisfactory answer given.

The existence of liturgies in the early progress of the Christian Church, ascribed to St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. James, the friends of liturgical worship consider, as another strong argument to prove that forms of prayer were used in the Apostolical Churches. They allow that these forms of prayer have been corrupted, by later