unreasonably, who believes a matter of fact without any evidence. And on what evidence can any man believe a matter of fact, but the testimony of those, on whose veracity and judgment, in the case, he may rely? But what testimonies can any man produce in this case? No one can pretend to any proof, either express or by consequence, within this compass of time, of the joint use of prayers conceived extempore; because there is not the smallest degree of evidence, or so much as a bare probability of it. And therefore it must, of necessity, be acknowledged, that the ancient Jews, our Saviour, and his Apostles, never joined in any other prayers than precomposed set forms, antecedent to our Lord's resurrection.

2. How does it appear that they never joined in any other prayers afterwards?

A. As for our Saviour, we have no particular account of his praying, between the time of his resurrection and that of his ascension, and therefore can determine nothing on the subject respecting him. But, with regard to the Apostles and primitive Christians, we may prove that they never joined in any other than precomposed set forms, after our Lord's resurrection, by the same mode of reasoning that we prove they never did before his resurrection. For unless sufficient authority can be brought to prove, that they joined in the use of prayers conceived extempore, we may very reasonably conclude that they never did so.

2. Is there any reason in particular which is of itself a strong argument, that the Apostles and primitive Christians did never join in any other than precomposed set forms of prayer?

A. Yes; the difference between precomposed set forms of prayer, and prayer conceived extempore, is so very great, and the alteration from the joint use of the one to the joint use of the other so very remarkable, that it is utterly impossible to conceive that if the joint use of extempore prayers had ever

been practised by the Apostles and first Christians, it could so soon have been laid aside by every church in the Christian world; and yet not the least notice be taken, no opposition be made, nor so much as a hint given, either of the time or reasons of its being discontinued, by any of the ancient writers whatever. But that every nation that has embraced the Christian faith should, with perfect harmony, without one single exception, as far as the most diligent search and information can reach, from the days of the Apostles to as low a period of time as any can reasonably desire, unite and agree in performing their joint worship by the use of precomposed set forms only; certainly such a unanimous practice of persons at the greatest distance both of time and place, and not only different, but perfectly opposite in other points of religion, as well as their civil interest, is a strong argument that the joint use of precomposed set forms was fixed by the Apostles in all the churches they planted, and that by the special providence of God, such mode of worship has been preserved as remarkably as the Christian sacraments themselves.

Q. What is the next thing to be considered?

A. That the precomposed set forms of prayer in which they joined, were such as their respective congregations were accustomed to, and thoroughly acquainted with.

Q. How does this appear?

A. As to the practice of the ancient Jews, our Saviour and his disciples, it cannot be doubted, but that they were accustomed to, and well acquainted with those precomposed set forms, which are contained in the scriptures; and with respect to their other additional prayers, the very same authors from whom we derive our accounts of them, do unanimously agree in attesting, that they were of constant daily use; and consequently the Jews, our Saviour, and his disciples, could not but be accustomed to, and thoroughly acquainted with them.The matter,

C

therefore, is past all dispute until the gospel state commenced, and even then also it is equally clear and plain; for it has been fully shown, that the Apostles and primitive Christians did constantly use the Lord's prayer and psalms.

Q. But were there not other prayers, which made up a part of their divine service, such as the ministers themselves composed?

A. No; because the same authorities which prove that they were precomposed set forms, do also prove that the respective congregations were accustomed to them. For since the whole congregation did, with one accord, lift up their voice in an instant, and vocally join in that prayer which is recorded, Acts iv. 24; since the public prayers which the primitive Christians used in the first and second centuries were called common prayers, constituted prayers, and solemn prayers; since the liturgy of St. James was of general use in the church of Jerusalem, within 160 years after the apostolic age; since the church in Constantine's time used authorized set forms of prayer; since the council of Laodicea expressly provides that the same liturgy be constantly used, both at the ninth hour and in the evening; we say, since these things are true, we may appeal to the reason of all men, whether it was possible, in those and the like cases, for the respective congregations to be otherwise than accustomed to, and thoroughly acquainted with those precomposed set forms of prayer in which they joined.

Q. What is the last thing here to be considered?

A. That the practice of the ancient Jews, our Saviour, his Apostles, and the primitive Christians, warrants the imposition of a precomposed liturgy, both upon the clergy and laity.

Q. How does this practice warrant the imposition of a precomposed liturgy upon the laity?

A. Because, it being impossible for the laity to hold church communion without a form, we must certainly infer it was imposed upon them. It was

impossible for the laity to hold communion either with the Jewish or Christian church, unless they joined in a precomposed liturgy, because the joint use of such liturgy was their particular mode of worship; and, consequently, as many of the laity as held communion with them, must have submitted to that mode of worship.

2. How does their practice show that a precom posed liturgy was imposed upon the clergy'

A. The clergy were obliged to use a precomposed liturgy in their public ministrations, because the use of such a liturgy was settled amongst them, and it was undoubtedly expected from the clergy that they should practise accordingly. He who is in the least versed in antiquity, must know how strict the church-governors were in those times, and how severely they would animadvert upon such daring innovators, as should offer to set up their own fancies in opposition to a settled rule. So that it is no wonder, if in the first centuries we meet with no law to establish liturgies; since those primitive patterns of obedience looked upon themselves to be as much obliged by the custom and practice of the church, as they could be by the strictest law. But we find that afterwards, when the perverseness and innovations of the clergy gave occasion, the governors of the church did, by establishing canons, oblige the clergy to the use of precomposed liturgies; as may be seen in the 18th canon of the council of Laodicea, which enjoined, that "the same liturgy should be used at the ninth hour and in the evening." This is as plain an imposition of a precomposed liturgy as ever was or can be. Thus also the second council of Milan enjoins that such prayers should be used by all, as were approved of by the council; and that none should be said in the church, but such as had been approved of by the more prudent sort of persons in a synod; which is another evidence of an imposition of a precomposed liturgy as plain as words can express.

2. Is not the imposition of a precomposed liturgy a greater grievance to the laity, than if each pastor imposed his own prayer, conceived extempore, on his flock?

A. No; because every extempore prayer is as much imposed, and lays as great restraint upon the laity, as the imposition of a precomposed liturgy, and is as much a form of prayer to the people, as a printed book can be. Besides, when the liturgy is precomposed the laity have this advantage, they know what they have to pray for; whereas, in extempore prayers, they are obliged to depend wholly upon the ability of the speaker.

2. But is not the imposing of a liturgy a grievance to the clergy?

A. No; since it is done, according to the situation of our church, in these states, by their Bishops, joined with the representatives of the clergy, and also of the people; so that such imposition being a joint act of their Bishops, of themselves, and of the laity, it cannot be deemed an hardship.

Q. Have not forms of public worship many great advantages?

A. Yes; forms of prayer drawn up by the wisdom, talents, and piety of the whole church, must certainly be better than those composed or uttered extempore, or even those carefully prepared by an individual minister. They enable the people to know beforehand the prayers in which they are to join. They prevent the erroneous opinions of any minister from misleading the devotions of the people. And they secure the conducting of public worship with that dignity and reverence, which are due to the Almighty Lord and Ruler of the universe. Where forms of prayer are not prescribed, every thing is left to the minister. And public extempore prayers are found often to be erroneous in point of matter, and often rendered disgusting by being presumptuous, or familiar and vulgar in point of language.