scribed liturgies? And the remedy which Augustine and his contemporaries suggest for this evil, is quite as decisive in its import as the evil itself. The remedy was for the weaker and more illiterate pastors to consult their more wise and learned neighbouring pastors, who might discern and point out any improprieties in prayers. This whole matter will be better understood by adverting to the fact, that as early as the age of Augustine, many men had crept into sacred office, and some had even been made bishops, who were unable even to write their own names. This appears from the records of several ecclesiastical synods or councils about this time, in which bishops, when called upon to subscribe the canons of those councils, were obliged to get others to write their names for them. The following is a specimen of some of the signatures of those councils. I, Helius, bishop of Hadrianople, have subscribed by Myro, bishop of Rome, being myself ignorant of letters." Again, "I, Caiumus, bishop of Phoenicia, have subscribed by my colleague Dionysius, because I am ignorant of letters." These examples of illiterate ecclesiastics at once illustrate and confirm the complaint of Augustine.

66

No wonder that such ecclesiastics were unable to conduct the public devotions of their respective congregations in a decent manner, and therefore resorted to their more capable neighbours to patch up prayers for them; and no wonder that, with their simplicity and ignorance, they were often imposed upon by corrupt compositions.

And, by the way, even when liturgies were brought into general use and fully established, there was no uniformity even among the churches of the same state or kingdom. Every bishop, in his own diocese, adopted what prayers he pleased, and even indulged his taste for variety. This fact itself, we had almost said, is decisive that liturgies were not of apostolic origin. For if any thing of this kind had been known as transmitted from inspired, or even primitive men, it would, doubtless, have been received with universal veneration. It would have been cherished with a reverence similar to that for the inspired scriptures, and held fast with devout firmness. But no such thing appears. Instead of all this, as the practice of using forms of prayer gradually crept in as piety declined, so the circumstances attending their introduction and prevalence were precisely such as might have been expected. They were adopted by each pastor who felt the need of them, or was inclined to make use of them; and, by and by, when

prelacy came in, each bishop within his own diocese took such. order in reference to the subject as his character and inclination might dictate. This would lead, of course, to almost endless diversity. Accordingly, it is a notorious fact, that when the reformation commenced in England, the established Romish church in that country had no single, uniform liturgy for the whole kingdom; but there seems to have been a different liturgy for the diocese of every bishop. And when, in the second year of king Edward's reign, the principal ecclesiastical dignitaries of the kingdom were directed to digest and report one uniform plan for the public service of the church, they collated and compared the five Romish missals of the several dioceses of Sarum, York, Hereford, Banger and Lincoln, and out of them formed a liturgy. So that the missals in use in five popish bishoprics constituted the basis of the first liturgy of king Edward, and consequently of the book of Common Prayer, as now used in Great Britain and the United States. And this, no doubt, is the fact to which the celebrated earl of Chatham referred, when, in a debate in the British house of lords, more than half a century ago, he said that the church of England presented an aspect of a singularly motley character; that she had a popish liturgy, Calvanistic articles, and an Arminian clergy. It is sincerely hoped that this statement will not be considered as arising from any disposition to cast odium on the liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal church. It is, in many respects, a noble composition. We do not wonder that those who admire and love it are so numerous. Still its history ought to be known, and both the nature and design of the publication under review compel us, in justice to our argument, to make this statement. And, indeed, notwithstanding all the beauty and excellence of the English liturgy, it certainly bears, in some of its parts, very distinct traces of its origin, especially as it exists at this time in England. The alterations which it has undergone in this country have, it is true, divested it of most of its seriously objectionable features. Yet there are still passages even here which enable an accurate taste to discern something of "the tang of the old cask." On those we have no disposition to dwell. It has been the means of sincere and profitable devotion to millions; and that none may be disturbed in their edifying use of it, is our unfeigned desire. But to return to the early ages of the Christian church, which we are engaged in examining.

It was before stated, that we not only find no traces of any books, or prescribed forms of common prayer in the first three or four centuries of the Christian history; but that we do find a number of facts, incidentally stated, which are wholly inconsistent with their existence. Some of these facts have been already mentioned. Another very significant one is, that in the second, third, and fourth centuries, it was not considered as lawful, in any case, to commit to writing the prayers and the other parts of the service used in administering the Lord's supper. It was not thought proper that any other than communicants should be made acquainted with them; and in order to accomplish this object, committing them to writing, in any form, was solemnly prohibited. Basil, who flourished towards the close of the fourth century, tells us expressly, that the words which they used in blessing the elements were not written; and that what they said, both before and after the consecration, they had not from any writing. Now, when we consider that, of all the parts of the public service, as there are none more solemn, so there are none which have been more carefully regulated by prescribed forms than the Eucharist; we may confidently conclude, that if there were not, at the period referred to, and from the very nature of the case could not be any written forms for that ordinance, there were none for any other part of the public service.

We read of some of the early churches being supplied with copies of the sacred scriptures; but not a word of their being supplied with prayer books in any form. When the buildings in which the early Christians worshipped were seized, and an exact scrutiny made of their contents by their pagan persecutors, we read of copies of the Bible being found, and vessels for administering the communion, and other articles very minutely specified; but not a hint respecting forms or books of prayer. We meet with frequent instances of reading psalms, reading other portions of scripture, reading narratives of the sufferings of martyrs, reading epistles from other churches, or distinguished individuals; but not a syllable of reading prayers. Now all this is wonderful, if prayer books and reading prayers had been then as common as many of the zealous friends of liturgies assert, and would persuade us to believe. The very first document in the form of a prayer book that we have met with, is a Libellus Officialis, mentioned in the twenty-fifth canon of the Council of Toledo, Anno Domini 633. This, however, seems to have been rather a brief

"Directory for the worship of God," than a complete liturgy. It was a document given to every presbyter at his ordination, to instruct him how to administer the sacraments, lest through ignorance of his duty in reference to those divine institutions, he should offend Christ. "Quando presbyteri in parochiis ordinantur, libellum officialem a suo sacerdote accipiant, ut ad ecclesias sibi deputatas instructi accedant, ne per ignorantiam etiam in ipsis divinis sacramentis Christum offendant."

With respect to the alleged liturgies of St Mark, St James, and that of Alexander, all enlightened protestants, as we believe, agree that they are manifestly forgeries; and with regard to the liturgies attributed to Chrysostom and Basil, Bishop White, an English prelate, who lived in the reigns of James I. and Charles I., delivers the following opinion: "The liturgies," says he, "fathered upon St Basil and St Chrysos tom, have a known mother, (to wit, the late Roman church,) but there is (besides many other just exceptions) so great dissimilitude between the supposed fathers of the children, that they rather argue the dishonest dealings of their mother than serve as lawful witnesses of that which the adversary intended to prove by them."-Tracts against Fisher, the Jesuit, p. 377.

The result, then, is that liturgies were unknown in the primitive church; that, as piety declined, the clergy began to need external aids for conducting the public devotions of their congregations; that this matter, however, continued for several centuries to be managed by each pastor for himself; that in the exercise of this individual discretion, frequent blunders occurred, through the gross ignorance of the clergy, and sometimes blunders of a very unhappy kind; and that liturgies did not finally obtain universal prevalence until the church had sunk into a state of darkness and corruption, which all protestants acknowledge to have been deplorable.

The only question which remains to be considered is, whether confining those who minister in holy things to prescribed liturgies in public worship, is, on the whole, expedient and useful? Having spent so much time in the preceding discussion, we shall answer this question with great brevity.

We are constrained, then, to answer it, in general, in the NEGATIVE. It is, indeed, both expedient and useful that precomposed prayers should be repeated from memory, or recited from a book, by those who, from weakness, or want of pre sence of mind, need such help; that is, who cannot pray in a

connected and edifying manner without such aid. For we shall ever maintain, that it is better, far better, to read or recite a good prayer, than to utter a bad one extemporaneously. But a question worthy of very grave consideration is, whether any man who is unqualified to pray without a form, is fit to be a minister of the gospel? We think there is a life, a simplicity, and a touching and moving power in prayers poured forth from a pious and feeling heart, which cannot, ordinarily, be approached in reading written forms. We think, too, that there is so great a variety in the exigencies, sufferings, situations, hopes, and joys, of individual believers, of each particular congregation, and of the church at large, at different times, and at the same time in different places, that being confined to the same precise form of words for ages together, is by no means most conducive to the edification of the body of Christ. We cannot help believing, that the constant repetition of the same words, independent of this variety of situation and exigence, tends to produce with many, dullness, and a loss of interest. It is in our apprehension, also, no small evil, when the gift and the grace of prayer are not daily called into exercise, and thus eventually repressed. Bishop Wilkins, though a friend to the use of forms of prayer where they were needed, argues strongly against yielding ourselves entirely to such leading strings," as he emphatically calls them, and expresses the opinion, that giving vent to the desires and affections of the heart in extempore prayer, is highly favourable growth in grace.-Gift of Prayer, chap. ii. p. 10, 11. We are persuaded, further, that where religion is in a lively state in the heart of any minister, and especially when it is revived among the members of his church generally, there is a feeling of constraint on being confined to forms of prayer, which will either vent itself in extempore prayer, on particular occasions, or will lead to languor and decline under the repres

66

sion.

to

Besides, one of the first principles of prescribed liturgies seems to be questionable. Why should men who lived three or four hundred years ago understand prayer, and be able to prescribe forms for it, better than the pious and learned divines of the present day? Why should we, of the nineteenth century, consent to bind ourselves as apprentices in prayer to men who lived at the dawn of the reformation, when we decline doing so as to preaching? Surely nothing but long habit could reconcile any to such principles. In consequence of