the University, rather than the church, and cannot be dated back beyond the era of the Reformation, and yet finds it in his heart to add, that "a peculiarity like this [that is, the black and white robe] would surely pass without the bitterness of christian scorn, if unhappily so many good people had not fancied that the seat of the scorner' had become a necessary appendage of their religion."

We turn now to the forms of worship. In defense of liturgies, bishop Hopkins appeals to the worship of the Jewish synagogue, to cretain passages in the old testament, the Lord's prayer, with 2 Tim. i. 13., and the primitive church. We admit, that there were forms of devotion, or some kind of liturgy in the Jewish worship, but was this the fact in the first christian worship? As an offset to the testimony of Cyprian, A. D. 250, and Chrysostom of the latter part of the fourth century, cited by bishop Hopkins, we offer the testimony of Tertullian of the second century, of Justin Martyr half a century earlier, and as further evidence, Chancelor King. Tertullian says, "We do not pray with a monitor, reading our prayers out of a book. No, but on the contrary we pray from the heart, (de pectore,) our own heart and soul dictating to us what is most proper and suitable to be asked, having no need of any other monitor besides." Justin Martyr says, "The bishop sent up prayers and praises, (ws n duvaus) according to his ability." Chancelor King, an Episcopalian, who examined the subject carefully, says, "That the words or expressions of the prayers used in the primitive churches, were not imposed or prescribed, but every one that officiated delivered himself in such terms as best pleased him, and varied his petitions according to the present circumstances and emergencies; or if it be more intelligible, the primitive christians had no stinted liturgies or imposed forms of prayer." We add also the testimony of Neal. We have no certain account of the use of any liturgies in the first ages of the church. It is not till the latter end of the fourth century that they are first mentioned; and then it was left to the care of every bishop to draw up a form of prayer for his own church. In St. Austin's time they began to consult about an agreement of prayers, that none should be used without common advice; but still there was no uniformity. Nay in the darkest times of popery, there was a vast variety of forms in different sees; witness the offices secundum usum Sarum, Bangor, York, etc." Bishop Hopkins admits, that liturgies were first published in the latter part of the fourth century, but supposes from the fact, that previous to this, there was no controversy on the subject, liturgies came down sanctioned by the apostles, and undisputed to the fifth century. We come to the directly opposite conclusion, that there were no liturgies to contend about in the early age of the christian church. But the

'Hawes' Tribute, p. 32. King's Prim. Ch. part II. p. 33. Neal. vol I. p. 26.

bishop is confident, that liturgies were in use before Christ; "were presumed to be approved by him, and were adopted generally in the ancient liturgies." He adds, that "from these liturgies our own was carefully selected; every trace of superstition which the church of Rome had introduced, was eradicated," etc. Let us examine now the new testament. Our author thinks, that "enough is recorded" to substantiate his position. But he refers us only to the disciples of John Baptist, the Lord's prayer, and 2 Tim. i. 13. The language of Paul, "Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me," etc. we dismiss with the remark, that it may refer only to oral instruction, or the written epistles, and therefore cannot be relied on for the purpose to which it is applied. We have then, only to examine the request of John Baptist's disciples and the Lord's prayer. On these two instances bishop Hopkins, so far as the new testament is concerned, mainly relies in dedefense of liturgies. He says "in the eleventh chapter of St. Luke's gospel, [we dislike the Popish appellation of Saint,] wer ead that as our Lord was praying in a certain place, when he had ceased, one of his disciples said unto him: Lord teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples; and he said unto them, "When ye pray, say our Father, etc." Whereupon our author remarks:

Now this single passage seems to my mind conclusive as to the whole question, whether extemporaneous prayer, or a form, is sustained by the highest authority. For in the first place, it proves, that forms of prayer were then the established usage of the Jews. If the extemporaneous plan had been the prevailing custom, why should John the Bapfist have given a particular form to his disciples? If our Savior's apostles had not known it to be an approved system, why should they have asked him for a form of prayer? And, how could our Lord have forthwith complied with their desire, by giving them a set form?' p. 167.

This argument is drawn out at length with supposed "cumulative proof," and a seeming air of triumph. It is said to be "perfectly manifest," that if John and his converts "had been accustomed to the extemporaneous mode of conducting public worship, as followed by so many in our day, such a circumstance never could have happened as the disciples related to the Savior." This argument has two edges. If extemporaneous prayer was the invariable custom, the disciples of John and of Christ, being under a new dispensation, might probably ask, for some oral or written pattern, from which to frame their extemporaneous supplications. The same request is often made of pastors now, by young converts. But if forms of prayer were in use, what possible reason could be given for asking how to pray? Would an Episcopalian, with his prayer book in his hand, need to make such an inquiry either of presbyter or bishop? The man who prays extemporane

ously might have a reason for asking such a question, but he who prays from a liturgy has no reason at all. Were the disciples doubtful whether to pray extempore, or from a written form? That point was already settled, in either case, by universal practice. Did they say, "Lord teach us to pray," on account of the new circumstances under which they were placed? This instruction they would have needed just as much in extempore prayer, as they would on the supposition, that they had been accustomed to a written form. The argument is at least as much against the liturgy as it is in favor. But the "cumulative proof" now turns against bishop Hopkins. When, and where did Christ pray from a written form? and is there proof, that the prayer he gave his disciples was read in worship, or ever written, till it was recorded in the scriptures by the spirit of inspiration? The variations too of this prayer, and abridgements by the several evangelists, we think of some importance. It is evident that the substance was the main thing, and not the precise words. If Christ wrote the prayer when he gave it to the disciples, and they had read it every sabbath in public worship, it would not have varied so much in the scriptures. So at least, we believe. But he said unto them, after this manner pray ye. Take this for a pattern. So they received it, as a model of prayer in brevity, doctrine, and spirit; but no mention is made of their having used this, or any other prescribed form, either by rote or book.* Most of the prayers contained in the old testament were not reduced to a written form before they were offered. The prayer of Daniel, in view of the den of lions, was evidently dictated by circumstances, and flowed spontaneously from the heart. Such was the prayer of Agur, of Habakkuk, of Hezekiah, (Isa. xxxviii. 3.) Such were many of the prayers offered by the prophets. Little is said in the new testament of forms of prayer. The prayer of the publican was neither written nor read. The same is true of the pharisee's prayer, God I thank thee etc., and we have no proof, that the prayers in general, recorded in the new testament, were pre-composed forms. Did the apostles carry about a prayer book? The ardent soul of Paul, in his devotions, would have overleaped a whole liturgy if it did not meet his spirit

They who idolize the form of the Lord's prayer, would do well to remember, that it says nothing of Christ, or of redemption through his blood. When it was given to the disciples, the great doctrines of the cross could not properly be introduced as topics of prayer, for the time had not come. But now, since redemption is completed, the Lord's prayer has ceased to be, strictly speaking, a christian prayer, because it has no allusion to Christ. We regard it as a most admirable form, considering its date. We approve of its occasional use, and would detract nothing from its sacredness, or value. But it is a singular fact that, for reasons already stated, it is much admired by Deists and Unitarians. See Pope's Universal Prayer. Had Christ given a form of prayer after his ascension, we doubt not, it would have been essentially different.

ual wants, and serve as a medium through which to pour forth his soul in praise and thanksgiving. We cannot believe, that Jonah needed a prayer book in the whale, or found any difficulty in framing a supplication fitted to his case. Bishop Hopkins lays great stress on the fact, that we sing from a form, and it is therefore, equally proper to pray from a form. We do not question the lawfulness of using set forms in prayer. Every prayer is more or less a form. But we cannot be restricted by an imposed liturgy. It made sad work in the Reformation, when protestants were compelled to use popish prayers in public and social worship, and forbidden the exercise of their own devotional feelings. There are insuperable objections to the invariable use even of the best liturgies. In peculiar circumstances, no adapted form of prayer is at hand. Shall we then omit prayer in those times of deep distress, when prayer is most of all needed, or employ a form which does not touch the case? Neither. Let the burdened soul vent its griefs and desires in its own natural channel, without "let or impediment." The mother of Legh Richmond lost a lovely child by the carelessness of a servant who let it fall from a window. The agonized parent, forgetting her prayer book, kneeled down and prayed out of the fulness of her heart. To her little son Legh, she said "Help me to pray, my child: Christ suffers little children to come to him, and forbids them not,' say some thing.' 'What shall I say, mama?— shall I fetch a book?' Not now,' she replied; 'speak from your heart; and ask God, that we may be reconciled to his will, and bear this trial with patience."* We have witnessed scenes like this, and felt the total insufficiency of a liturgy. It is a stereotyped thing, and can neither encompass the range of human sorrow, nor meet the growing demands of the church. It is not fitted for the monthly concert of prayer, because it is not adapted to the missionary enterprise. It is designed for the church, and therefore, (we speak now of the Episcopal liturgy) cannot be fitted either for the grave of the sinner, or for his character in the services of the sanctuary. We have felt these evils, and especially has a jar come over every nerve, as we have heard the most sublime and unrivaled burial service, designed expressly for the pious dead, performed over the remains of the avowedly ungodly. To such contradictions, and deficiencies must the best constructed liturgies be subject. And if the cholera, or some new calamity afflict a nation, the liturgy-impeded churches cannot unite in the public prayer, till the bishop sets forth a suitable form. Is the necessity of such delay scriptural, or is it merely human? These and similar objections are sufficient grounds with us, for refusing to be tied down to any prescribed forms of devotion. Bishop Hopkins says of forms,

*Mem. of Rev. Legh Richmond. p. 234.

"We prize them the more because they insure to us the blessings of established order-the substantial benefits of peace. We deny, that they are unfriendly to any religious feeling which is of a sober, deep, and wholesome character. We deny, that they are unfriendly to any excitement which ought to be desired or approved. But we are thankful, that they keep us, under God, from being blown about with every wind of doctrine." These are privileges, we allow, but the disadvantages may be equally great. A free spirited animal in fetters, will not run too fast for the safety of his rider, but the benefit is counterbalanced by a necessarily tardy gait. Yet we are not quite so sure, that liturgies will either prevent schisms or errors in doctrine. In the Reformation they caused woful schisms, and we occasionally witness bitter contention between the two parties long known by the appellations of high and low church. As to unity in doctrine, error can never be fenced out by the form of sound words. The purity of every church in faith and practice, forms or no forms, depends, under God, upon a spirit of deep-toned and abiding godliness. Bogue, and Bennett, describing the state of religion among the dissenters from the accession of George III. to the year 1808, say, "Many who drank the cup of Arianism first, and then of Socinianism to the very dregs, ceased to be members of the dissenting congregation; and with a perfect hatred of the doctrines of the church of England, pusillanimously bore a part in her very explicit trinitarian worship."* Before we leave the subject of liturgies, we give the views of bishop Wilkins. We quote from Bickersteth's admirable Treatise on Prayer, p. 53. After allowing the use of forms for "the young and weaker christian, both in the family and the closet," and guarding them against "that lip service and formality, to which in such cases we are more especially exposed," he says,-" But, for any one so to sit down and satisfy himself with this prayer book, or prescribed form, as to go no farther, this were still to remain in his infancy, and not to grow up in his new nature. This would be as if a man who had once need of crutches, should always afterwards make use of them, and so necessitate himself to a continual impotency. And if it be a fault not to strive and labor after this gift, much more is it to jeer and despise it, by the name of 'extempore prayer,' and 'praying by the Spirit,' which expressions are, for the most part, a sign of a profane heart, altogether a stranger to the power and comfort of this duty." It will be perceived from an investigation of the subject of liturgies, that they cannot, either on the ground of authority or utility, be preferred to the extemporaneous mode of worship. They need not hinder the spirit of true devotion, and they cannot be essential to its promotion.