sake, yet he is, abilities and cultivation out of the ques. tion, often constrained to use them. He certainly does, not venture upon any thing that deserves the name of argument, and the most conspicuous expressions to be found in the six or eight pages he has covered with his verbiage, are those in which he insinuates that set forms are useless among men, who (like himself, we suppose) being able to preach, are, of course, able to pray; as if he did not know that the most bitter opposition to forms of prayer, has come, almost universally, from the weak and ignorant, and that their use has been advocated by the most able talents which history has recorded. He is, certainly, desirous to keep himself unshackled, however much his course of proceeding may tend to shackle others. Are any of our readers disposed to believe that they may safely trust the management of their worship to the discretion of their minister? We would reply, though the remark is a trite one, that what is left to the discretion of the minister is left also to the indiscretions and the passions of the man;—and we sometimes at least find the two last, where the first only was looked for. But, even admitting that the congregation do more

*We are familiar with an instance of a candidate for the congregational ministry, who visiting, during his probation, one of our largest cities, attended the ministry of two of the most respectable presbyterian clergymen. In the morning, Dr. -, an advocate for the war, used in relation to it, in prayer, words something like these," May God go forth with our armies,-teach their hands to war, and their fingers to fight," &c. In the evening, Dr. —, an advocate for peace, prayed that "God would have mercy upon our abandoned soldiery,-restrain them from blood," &c. This glaring inconsistency had such an effect on this gentleman, that it produced a revolution in his opinions, and led him ultimately into

than listen, that they actually are able to join with their minister in his free prayer, they then, as we con

the Episcopal church; of which he is now a respectable minister. We might fill a volume with instances of these absurdities. Doubtless all of our readers, who are familiar with this mode of worship, can recollect some which have occured within their own knowledge. Who does not know of the disposition to meddle with state affairs, which, time immemorial, has been vented in the pulpit throughout New-England on the semi-annual returns of fast and thanksgiving days. If it is said, that Episcopal pulpits are not free from this censure, we reply that it has not yet been able to find its way into the desk, to mingle with the prayers, an advantage, which we dispassionately think, to be no small one. The English authors of a "New Directory for non-conformist Churches," quoted in a review in the Christian Observer, after condemning a similar practice in their own country, as well as other defects in their mode of worship, say-" This is highly reprehensible. But how much more so is it, in Christian ministers, when addressing the Almighty, to throw out bitter reproofs, or sarcastic reflections, on any of their fellow Christians, whether present or absent, on account of either obnoxious sentiments, or suspicious conduct. Yet we are sorry to say, we have known ministers ready, on all occasions, in this way to indulge their angry passions, and that, even towards their brethren." The following is from the same source. "It may serve to set some people right in this matter [the dissenting mode of prayer] to reflect upon the ingenuous confession, made by one who had been much admired, and followed for his talent in praying extempore. Dr. Mapletoft, having a prayer read to him, which had been a good time before, taken from his own mouth in short-hand, and being asked his judgement of it, found so many absurd and indecent expressions, that when he was told, he was the man who had used it, he begged God's pardon for his former bold presumption and folly, and resolved never more to offend in this kind, but to pen first of all the prayers he should hereafter use in public." See also the Blacksmith's Letter. The same authors, speaking of the disuse of the Bible among the

ceive, undeniably pray by a form, and, as far as they are concerned, a set form too; for they pray in the words of another, in words which they participate neither in framing nor in uttering, and of which indeed they have no knowledge till they are uttered. Of all forms we conceive these the most objectionable.*

It is an unquestioned fact that the Jews in their public worship used a set form of prayers. "The world,"— says Wheatley,-" is fully satisfied of this truth from the concurrent testimony of the best writers on antiquities." In what way could this custom have arisen ? As it was intimately blended with their religious institutions, it is hardly probable that it could have origi

Independents and others, which it seems was kept aside only to be used as a sort of creed, say," Half a century ago, there was scarcely one of these societies in London, where the reading of a chapter in the Bible would have been tolerated, and in most of their meetings in the country, (though almost half the people could not read) it would have been considered as a mark of heterodoxy for a minister to read the Bible to them!" Have their brethren in this country purged out this leaven, or are they still a little "papistical"?

*The Reviewer does not seem to have been aware that some of his own reasons are, substantially, in favour of set forms."The topics of prayer are, from its nature, limited; and ought to be and in a great degree are familiar.-Every person has forms of expression, which in some respect belong to him, and are a guide to his meaning before the whole is uttered.--Nor is every prayer offered in the church wholly different from all others," &c. If resemblance in part to forms enhances the value of extemporaneous prayer, how much better would be entire conformity.-And if these remarks are true where the congregation are confined mostly to their own minister, how does it operate where exchanges of pulpit service, occur almost every week?

nated in the unguided imagination of their own minds. Men had, doubtless, " prayed to God," as the Reviewer quotes Palmer as saying," two thousand years be fore any books were written," but does it necessarily follow that because there were no books, there were no forms of prayer? Was oral communication impossible? Had tradition no existence? In one of the earliest books which was written, that of Deuteronomy, in the compass of a page or two there are no less than four forms of prayer, of divine appointment; and in the book of Numbers, there is also the well known blessing of the priests.* That our Saviour made no objection to forms but rather approved them is shown by his attending the service of the Jewish Synagogue, where forms were always used, and from his giving a form to his disciples, whether as a pattern merely, or a set form, it is not now material to inquire. There is reason to believe that set forms were used in the primitive church. Paley,† speaking of the writings of Polycarp, who, he says, "Had been taught by the apostles," observes,-"I select the following as fixing the authority of the Lord's prayer, and the use of it among the primitive Christians.-If therefore we pray the Lord that he will forgive us, we ought also to forgive." "With supplication beseeching the all-seeing God, not to lead us into temptation." Wheatley quotes several of the ancient Fathers to the

* Numbers vi. 23-26. Deuteronomy xxi. 7-8.-xxvi. 3, 5–10, 13-15. These instances, with that of our Saviour, are, doubtless, what Dr. Wyatt alluded to, when he said, " the lawfulness of forms of prayer was established by a divine appointment.”

† Works, vol. ii. p. 112.

66

same effett.* True, the Reviewer quotes Tertullian as saying," that they prayed without any other prompter than their own hearts," but we certainly believe such prompting to be perfectly compatible with the use of a prescribed form; and we also believe the same as to the sense of his quotation from Justin Martyr, That the president prayed according to his ability," or as we should read it, with all his ability. The ancient Liturgies called by the names of St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. James, although it will not now be asserted that they were actually written by those apostles, are yet unquestionably very ancient. That of St. James was certainly used in the church at Jerusalem in St. Cyril's time, who was chosen Bishop of Jerusalem, about A. D. 350, and who, says St. Jerome, wrote a comment upon it in his younger days. Forms of prayer were used then in the primitive days of the church, in the days of her purity, and it was not, probably, till “ignorant and unworthy ecclesiastics” intruded themselves upon the church, "in the fourth and fifth centuries," that it was found necessary to impose authoritatively what before had been performed by common consent and freewill.

Of the expediency of forms of prayer in public worship we make no doubt, for we think them productive of great advantage.

They can be thoroughly digested and understood by the whole congregation before they are called upon to use them. The very nature of public worship supposes a participation on the part of the people. It is

*Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom and

others.