a character, as to leave little room for doubt, that he is not what he professes to be, but an Episcopalian at heart, under Presbyterian colours; and that his desire is not so much to reform as entirely to revolutionize the worship of the church of Scotland, and reduce it to an entire conformity with that of her southern sister.

The publication in this country (which has recently come to our knowledge) is made by our Episcopal neighbours, evidently for the purpose of turning into ridicule the Presbyterian mode of worship, and thus, indirectly, recommending liturgies. This is evident, from the slightest inspection of the names of those booksellers in the title page for whom the work was particularly printed, and also, from the advertisement at the close, respecting the places and rates at which it may be obtained for extensive circulation, by the dozen or hundred. Of this, however, we make no complaint. We are perfectly willing to have our worship and order, as well as our doctrines, subjected to the most rigid scrutiny, and will cordially thank any man, or body of men, who will point out to us an error, and enable us to correct it. In the exercise, then, of the same liberty which we are willing to yield to others in reference to our opinions and practices, we shall use the freedom to make such remarks on the letter under consideration, as appear to us adapted to place in a full light the subject of which it treats.

When this literary "Blacksmith" finds fault with the church of Scotland for neglecting the stated reading of the scriptures in her public service, we have every disposition to unite with him, and to say, that wherever such neglect exists, it ought to be corrected. But such neglect makes no part of presbyterianism. So far as it has existed, or now exists in Scotland, it is contrary to the express injunction of her "Directory for the Public Worship of God"; and we rejoice to know, that while the same injunction is contained in our own "Directory," it is generally followed in those parts of the church with which we are most acquainted.

Again, when the writer enters his protest against some of the circumstances which have been allowed to attend the ancient mode of administering the Lord's supper in the church of Scotland, he may at least be heard without rebuke. Indiscretions and irregularities, we doubt not, have often been admitted on such occasions, against which all lovers of pure and undefiled religion will be ready to lift up their voice. Yet,

we have no hesitation in saying, that while we like levity, eccentricity, fanaticism, or any species of unhallowed passion, in the management of sacred things, as little as our neighbours, we had much rather see the life and power of pious affection, even though occasionally attended with some undesirable ebullitions, than the lifeless coldness of formality; freezing up every thing, not so much in that vital, and beautiful, and healthful order which God has appointed, as in the rigidity of spiritual death. When Whitefield preached, and when the power of that truth which he dispensed was made effectual to the hopeful conversion of thousands, some irregularities, no doubt, occasionally occurred, which his friends lamented, and which he himself, in the end, did not attempt to justify. Yet would not every enlightened friend of the Redeemer's kingdom unfeignedly rejoice, if scenes, such as that holy man of God was permitted to witness, even with all their accompaniments, should pervade the world? When the pious are collected, roused, and animated to peculiar feeling; and when the ignorant and impenitent are awakened, impressed, convinced of sin, and brought to the Saviour, the enlightened friend of religion will thank God, and take courage," even though he should see something to deplore mingling itself with the apparent triumphs of the cross.

But as the greater part of this little volume is taken up with statements and reasonings intended to discredit extemporary prayer and to recommend liturgies, we shall principally attend to this general object in the sequel.

We by no means think the use of prescribed forms of prayer unlawful. There are multitudes of excellent people who think them convenient, attractive, and edifying. With these we find no fault. May they experience in the use of them more and more of that comfort and edification which they seek! We should think ourselves acting an unworthy part, if, in relation to such a point, we were capable of attempting to disturb the devotions, and ridicule the preferences of any serious Christians. Millions, we question not, through the medium of precomposed forms, have been built up in faith and holiness unto salvation. And if any serious persons find such forms better adapted to promote their spiritual benefit than extemporary prayer, they would not be faithful to their own souls if they should reject the use of them. Nothing, therefore, that we are about to offer, has for its object to make con

verts to our mode of worship. We would, on no account, wound the feelings or unsettle the convictions of any pious Episcopalian who has been long accustomed to consider the use of the Book of Common Prayer as a sine qua non to his Christian devotion. But when the zealous advocates of liturgies go further, and undertake to judge for others as well as themselves; when they attempt to cover with ridicule every other mode of social prayer than that which they have thought proper to adopt; when they represent extemporary prayer as indecorous, ridiculous, and fanatical; when they pronounce those who find it for their edification, and deem it a duty to pray without a stinted form, to be acting the part of rebels and schismatics, criminally departing from God's prescribed plan, and rejecting, as some have asserted, what all sober, regular Christians, in all ages, have used, there is surely no impropriety in saying a word in our own defence. This, and this only, is the object of all that shall follow. Not to disparage the opinions or the practices of our neighbours; but simply to assign some of the reasons why we cannot unite with them; and why we are constrained to think that they have not yet adequately considered the grounds of our decision. no part of Christian meekness to hear our sacred things, from time to time, misrepresented and vilified, without taking the trouble, or feeling a disposition to lift a voice in their favour.

It is

The questions which the contents of this book call upon us to discuss, are such as these-Is there any warrant in scripture for prescribed forms of prayer? Have we any evidence that they were at all in use in the three or four first ages after the apostles? Is confining ourselves to written forms, on the whole, expedient and useful? We shall endeavour to answer each of these questions with as much candour and brevity as possible.

1. Is there any warrant in scripture for the use of prescribed forms of prayer?

The writer of this little volume, indeed, very unceremoniously and confidently asserts, that the use of liturgies has been uniform in the church in all ages; that all men, all religions, and at all periods until the fifteenth century, (we suppose he means the sixteenth), have agreed as unanimously in the use of forms of prayer for public worship, as they did in the belief of a God; that God himself prescribed forms of prayer for the Jews; that the worship of the syna

gogue was by such a form; that our Saviour prescribed a form to his disciples; nay, that it is evident our Saviour generally used a form of prayer himself, in pouring out his own heart to his Father in heaven!

These assertions may do very well for a "Blacksmith," who may be supposed to be more familiar with his anvil than either with the Bible or with ecclesiastical history; and who may be ready to adopt, without examination, and to repeat by rote what others, little less ignorant than himself, may have said in his hearing. But that they have scarcely a shadow of truth in them, every well informed person must know.

With respect to the Old Testament church, we know of no evidence that they had any forms which could with propriety be called a liturgy, at any period of their existence. They had psalms and other inspired writings which were either read, recited, or sung; and they had some forms of words with which they were accustomed to perform certain rites, and to bless the people. But the church of Scotland had all these, and more, at the date of this letter; yet our "Blacksmith" charges them with having no liturgy. And the Presbyterian church in the United States has, and constantly uses, all these; yet we were never considered as having a liturgy, so far as we know. With respect to forms of prayer in the Jewish synagogue, the writer before us is very positive that they were in constant use. But we know not on what grounds this assertion is made. The Old Testament scriptures do not give the least hint of the existence of such forms of prayer. Josephus and Philo are both profoundly silent respecting them. And nothing can be more evident to every candid reader, than that the eighteen prayers, as they are commonly called, mentioned by Vitringa, Prideaux, and others, are forgeries; that is, they carry on their face that they were not composed, as is alleged, before the advent of the Saviour, but since the dispersion, when there was neither temple nor sacrifice. We do not positively assert that there were no forms of prayer used in the ancient synagogue service; but we do say, with fearless confidence, that there is no clear evidence that there was any such thing. And we must further say, that if prescribed forms of prayer not only existed, but held so important a place in the worship of the Old Testament church, as some modern friends of liturgies are disposed to imagine, it is, indeed, passing strange that we do not find, in all the inspired writings, or in any other authentic work, the least hint or allusion respecting them.

If forms of prayer had been indispensable, or even invariably used, in social worship, in all ages, as the writer before us imagines, we might have expected Moses, and Ezra, and Nehemiah, and Solomon, above all others, to have employed them, on the great public occasions on which they were called upon to address the throne of grace as the mouth of assembled myriads. Yet, we presume, no one can peruse the prayers which they employed, without perceiving that they could not have been written before they were used; but came warm from the heart, and were afterwards committed to writing by the direction of God.

With respect to the New Testament dispensation, we apprehend that the slightest impartial inquiry will convince any one, that we have quite as little solid evidence from this, in favour of liturgies, as from the Old. Much use, indeed, in this controversy, has been made of that form of prayer which our Saviour taught his disciples, at their particular request, commonly called the Lord's Prayer. But we are persuaded that a candid attention to every circumstance connected with the delivery of that prayer, will convince any one that it furnishes no proof whatever of either the necessity or duty of prescribed forms of devotion. We believe that it was never designed by our Lord to be adopted as a permanent and precise form of prayer; but only as a general directory, intended to set forth the topics, or general matter of prayer; and our reasons for thinking so are the following:-This prayer, taken alone, is not, strictly speaking, adapted to the New Testament dispensation. When it was delivered, the Old Testament economy was still in force, and the setting up of the New directed to be prayed for as future. It contains no direction for asking in the name of Christ, as the express injunction of our Saviour renders now necessary. It is not delivered in the same words by the several evangelists, and of course, we cannot suppose the use of the ipsissima verba, to say the least, indispensably necessary. We hear no more of its use, by the inspired Apostles, or the primitive Christians, during the Apostolic age. And it was not for several centuries after that age that this form of prayer was considered as proper to be introduced into the service at every season of public worship. For these reasons we are persuaded that the Lord's Prayer was never intended to be used as a strict form; and, of course, that it affords no argument in favour of prescribed liturgies; and in this opinion we are fortified by the judgment of many distin