The distinction is still more to the purpose, when the case of the disciples or congregation of believers is embraced. For they did not simply listen to prayers; "they lifted up their voice to God' with one accord." But at the same time, they listened to preaching. And why? What reason can be assigned for this diversity? Surely, Brethren, ye can be at no loss to anticipate the only fair construction. Prayers were previously known, and therefore they could join in them, with voice as well as with heart. Sermons were unknown, were delivered for their instruction, and therefore they could only receive them into honest and good hearts, that they might bring forth fruit unto holiness.

Let me also advert to another circumstance peculiarly impres sive. Often is it mentioned, that, when the Apostles and disciples were together, they united in publick devotion. But when Paul was at Athens, and "certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks encountered him," he could stand up in the midst of Mars hill, and pronounce the well known discourse, opening in this manner, "Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious." And still, there was no prayer, no asking of the assembly to worship God. If Paul had been accustomed to the extemporaneous kind, he could certainly have prayed for them, and they could and would have listened, as they did listen to his preaching. But there were no believers among them, they knew not how to call upon God, and for this reason he refrained from prayer; it would not have been publick worship; extemporary effusions were not then in vogue; and neither at this place, nor at any other, does he appear to have audibly prayed, unless there were some in the congregation, who were antecedently prepared to mingle their voices with his own.

Tell me not then, that the Apostles were averse to precomposed forms. If their practice had been similar to that of many of our modern missionaries, they would have always commenced their religious solemnities with prayer, whether it was known to the congregation or not, whether they had fellow worshippers or not.

I know very well the tenour of the argument advanced by our opponents. I have repeatedly heard it pronounced, with an air of triumph and exultation, worthy of a better cause, worthy of something more candid and ingenuous. It is this. Do you think, that the Apostles prayed with a book? Do you think, that, when Paul

kneeled down, with the disciples, upon the sea shore at Tyre, and prayed, he held a book in his hand?

I confess indeed, that the objection is conclusive and unanswerable, with such as will neither investigate nor determine for themselves. But to those, who prefer reason to ridicule, the inquiries will be far more to the purpose, Did not the Apostles possess the faculty of memory? Could they not, as easily as ourselves, repeat from memory, the prayer of our Lord? We know that they did repeat it, and if the subject was not too serious, we might retort upon our dissenting brethren; Do you think, that the Apostles rehearsed it from a book? Do you think that as often as he used it, St. Paul held a book in his hand?

The truth is, that the argument is entirely unworthy of Christians. In the modern acceptation, there were no books at that time. Until long centuries after, the art of printing was unknown. Manuscripts alone were employed. The volume of inspiration itself was termed the scripture or the scriptures. And did not Christ require his disciples to "search the scriptures?" Did they not conform to the injunction, and address it to others? Did not Philip read from the scripture, in his interview with the eunuch, although he was before perfectly acquainted with its contents?

And precisely thus with liturgies. They also were written out, and set in order. They occupied a place in the Jewish temple and synagogues. The devotional psalms of David, whether of prayer or of praise, it will not be denied, were therein daily rehearsed, and not unseldom in the presence of Christ, and his disciples. Why then all this contumely, this contemptuous sneering at books, now so easily obtained, and so admirably adapted to the uses of publick worship? Why in particular, are not the questions triumphantly asked? Do you think that the Apostles sang from a hymn book? Do you think, that, "at midnight, when Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God," they held hymn books in their hands?

But enough of an objection more plausible than wise, more calcutated to delude than to instruct. While printed psalms and hymns are to be found in the seceding Churches, while they are mostly constructed in the language of supplication, opposition from that quarter, to our book of common prayer, comes with an ill grace, and is chiefly remarkable for the inconsistency betrayed by the individuals, who raise it.

The only remaining testimony, to which I have to call your attention upon the subject before us, is the practice of the primitive Christians. During the lives of the Apostles, they of course conformed to their example, as has been already sufficiently proved, and ever after, there was no departure from the principle divinely established. They used the prayer of our Lord. From a large number of authorities in my possession, I will present you with a few from the most distinguished Authors. Tertullian says, "The Son taught us to pray, Our Father, which art in heaven." He does not apprehend himself liable to the charge of formality, when he asserts, "Our Lord gave his new disciples of the new testament, a new FORM of prayer;" nor especially, when he terms it, "The prayer appointed by law," and "the ordinary prayer, which is to be said before our other prayers; and upon which, as a foundation, our other prayers are to be built." Cyprian observes, "Christ himself gave us a form of prayer, and commanded us to use it; because when we speak to the Father in the Son's words, we shall be more easily heard." But no one has expressed himself more explicitly and emphatically, than the pious and venerable Augustin, universally esteemed by catholick and protestant. Speaking of the Lord's prayer, these are his words, "Our Saviour gave it to the Apostles, to the intent that they should use it; he taught it his disciples himself, and by THEM he taught it us; he dictated it to us, as a lawyer would put words in his client's mouth,” He even declares in the most and again "it is necessary for all.” solemn manner, that "we cannot be God's children unless we use it."

So true it is therefore, Brethren, that the primitive Christians recognised this inspired form, as having been the foundation and guide, the manual of Apostolick devotion, and that they also regarded it as peremptorily enjoined upon their personal adoption. And this not merely in private, but in publick worship, for which the words of the prayer are indeed most suitable; it being drawn up in the plural number, and so, designed to be uttered, where two or three are gathered together in the name of Christ.

Consider then, that, if they are thus clearly and indisputably proved to have repeated one form, in the course of their publick service, no objection would be likely to exist against the rehearsal of another and another; that the approbation of their Lord, being

fully ascertained in one instance, they would not be slow to believe it a sufficient warrant and pattern, or as Tertullian calls it, a foun dation for their other prayers. Accordingly we find, from the unanimous testimony of all antiquity, that they were not more addicted to "singing and making melody in" their "hearts to the Lord," with precomposed " psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs," than they were to supplicating his mercy and forgiveness, his grace and heavenly benediction, with precomposed prayers. He who could doubt this, might as well doubt, that there were such men as Justin Martyr and Origen, the former of whom speaks of "Com mon Prayer," and the latter of "constituted prayers;" might as well doubt, that Cyril was bishop of Jerusalem, at the middle of the fourth century, and contend that he never made a commentary upon the liturgy ascribed to the Apostle James, when that commentary is still extant, and Jerome assures us, that he wrote it in his younger years.

My limits will only permit me to add, that many liturgies were early composed, and introduced into the primitive Church. Some of them were attributed to the Apostles, as those of Peter, and James, and one to the evangelist Mark. Others were anonymous, as those of Rome and Alexandria, and others were known to have been written by Basil, Chrysostom, and Ambrose. There is indeed no one fact in ecclesiastical history susceptible of stronger proof, than the universal prevalence of precomposed forms of prayer from the earliest times. No other publick worship obtained. No other has been alluded to, by the writers, who flourished in the first centuries of the Christian era. And are we accustomed to pronounce them, the best and purest ages of the Church, the ages most distinguished for heartfelt piety, for holy obedience, and unaffected renunciation of the world, and the fashion thereof? How justly may we infer, that those prayers, instead of being gradually introduced to the exclusion of such, as were unpremeditated and extemporary; that those prayers were in strict accordance with the worship observed by the Apostles, and therefore sanctioned by the unerring wisdom of God.

It is also worthy of remark, that the ancient Syrian Church discovered in India by Dr. Buchanan, and which, you will remember, had no intercourse with the western Christians, for thirteen hundred years from the Apostolick age, was utterly ignorant of ex

temporary prayers, and possessed a liturgy, believed by its bishop, to have been coeval with its origin. "Here," says the missionary, "as in all Churches in a state of decline, there is too much formality in the worship. But they have the bible and a scriptural liturgy; and these will save a Church in the worst of times.”

We may indeed challenge our opponents to produce one single instance of publick worship, celebrated in a different manner, anteriour to the reformation in Germany and Switzerland. By whom extemporary prayers were there introduced, I am unable to determine. It was not by the reformer Calvin, for in a letter to the Duke of Somerset, Lord Protector of England, written in the year fifteen hundred and forty nine, he was evidently opposed to such an innovation, and says, "I do highly approve, that there should be a certain form of prayer and ecclesiastical rites. From which it should not be lawful for the pastors themselves to discede.-First, That provision may be made for some people's ignorance and unskilfulness.-Second, That the consent of all Churches amongst themselves may the more plainly appear.-Third, That order may be taken against the desultory levity of such, who delight in innovations. Thus there ought to be an established catechism, an estab lished administration of sacraments, (publicam item precum formulam) as also a PUBLICK FORM OF PRAYER.”

The old historian Fuller inserts the original words, with the remark, that they "deserve our translation and observation," and I know not that Calvin ever varied his sentiments. They are such as do credit to his judgment and sagacity, and if widely circulated might possibly relieve us from much of the odium, so profusely lavished upon our service, by the very description of innovators, whom he so freely condemns."

The origin of extemporary prayers in England is better understood. They were contrived by popish emissaries disguised in the garb of protestantism, and pretending the utmost abhorrence of what they stigmatized, as the corruptions of popery still existing in the English Church. The object was to produce division and dissention, as the surest mode of bringing the reformed religion into disrepute, and regaining the ascendency once enjoyed by the Roman pontiff. For this purpose among other things, they were loud in their invectives against the liturgy; they vilified it, as a new edi tion of the mass book, and insisted upon its being wholly abandon

W