that Christ has commanded us to use it." But tes A. It follows, that if the judgment of the ancient fathers may be relied on, who knew the practice of the Apostles much better than we can pretend to do, we may safely affirm that the Apostles made use of the Lord's prayer. And if it be granted that they did so, we may reasonably suppose that they enjoined the use of it. It is very improbable, indeed, that a Christian assembly would, in their public devotions, omit that prayer which was the badge of their discipleship, and so expressly enforced on them. And the very petitions of the prayer, it may be remarked, running all along in the plural number, do evidently show that it was primarily designed for the joint use of a congrega tion. 2. How is it evident that the Christians of the first centuries used the Lord's prayer in their assemblies? A. From its being always used in the celebration of the Lord's supper, which for some ages was administered every day. And St. Austin tells us in express words, that this prayer was said at God's altar daily. So that, without enlarging on the subject, we may reasonably conclude, that the Apostles and primitive Christians did join in the use of the Lord's prayer. 2. What is the next argument to prove that the primitive Christians used stated forms of prayer? A. From their joining in the use of psalms: for though all the psalms are not prayers, because some of them are not addressed to God, yet it is certain a great part of them are so. Q. How does it appear that the Apostles did ever join in the use of psalms? A. Because we are told, Acts xvi. 25. that Paul and Silas, when they were in prison, prayed and sang praises (psalms) to God: and this we must suppose they did audibly, because the prisoners heard them, and they would have disturbed each other, had they not united in the same prayers and praises. Because also St. Paul blames the Corinthians, that when they came together, every one had a psalm, had a doctrine, &c. 1 Cor. xiv. 26. Where we must not suppose that he forbad the use of psalms in public wor ship, any more than he did the use of doctrines, &c. but that he is displeased with them for not having the psalm altogether; that is, for not joining in it, that so the whole congregation might attend one and the same part of divine service at the same time. From whence we may conclude, that the use of psalms was a customary thing, and that the Apostles approved of it; only ordering them to join regularly in the use of them, which we may reasonably suppose they afterwards did, since we find by the Apostle's second epistle to them, that they had reformed their abuses.. The Apostle exhorts the Ephesians to speak to themselves with psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in their hearts to the Lord, chap. v. 19. And he bids the Colossians to teach and admonish one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in their hearts to the Lord, chap. iii. 16. From which texts of scripture, and several others that might be alleged, we must necessarily conclude, that joint. psalmody was instituted by the Apostles as a constant part of divine worship. 2. How does it appear that the primitive Christians continued in this practice ? A. Because Eusebius, Justin Martyr, Cyril, So crates, Athanasius, and many others of the ancient fathers mention the churches using psalms in the public assemblies of the primitive Christians, as a practice that had universally obtained from the times of the Apostles. 2. What do we learn from the use of psalms? A. That the Apostles and primitive Christians, by jointly singing such psalms in their congregations, did consequently join in the use of precomposed set forms of devotion. 2. How does it appear that the primitive Christians used precomposed set forms in their public worship? A. That the primitive Christians did very early use precomposed set forms in their worship, is evident from the names given to their public prayers, for they are called common prayers, constituted prayers, &c.. But that which puts the matter out of all doubt, are the liturgies ascribed to St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. James; which, though corrupted by latter ages, are doubtless of great antiquity. The liturgy of St. James was of great authority in the Church of Jerusalem, in St. Cyril's time, who has a comment upon it still extant; which St. Jerome says was written in his younger years: It is not probable that St. Cyril would have taken the pains to explain this liturgy, unless it had been of general use in the church; which we cannot suppose it would have obtained in less than seventy or eighty years. St. Cyril was chosen Bishop of Jerusalem, about the year 349; to which office, it is very well known, seldom any were promoted before they were pretty well advanced in life: if, therefore, he wrote his comment upon this liturgy in his younger years, we cannot possibly date it later than the year 340; and then allowing the liturgy to have obtained in the church about eighty years, it necessarily follows that it must have been composed in the year 260, which was not above 160 years after the apostolical age. It is, indeed, declared by Proclus, and the sixth general council, to have been St. James's own composition; and that there are forms of worship in it as ancient as the Apostles, seems highly probable; for all the form, Sursum Corda contained therein, is also in St. Cyril's comments; the same is likewise in the liturgies of Rome and Alexandria, and in the constitutions of Clemens, which all agree are of great antiquity; and St. Cyprian, who lived within an hundred years after the Apostles, mentions it as a form then used and received; as does also Nicephorus. We do not deny but that these liturgies may have been corrupted in after times; but that no more overthrows the antiquity of the ground work of them, than the large additions to a building prove there was no house before. It is an easy matter to say that this liturgy could not be St. James's, because of its corruptions: but is this an argument to prove that there were no ancient liturgies in the church of Jerusalem or Alexandria, when even in Origen's time we find an entire collect produced by him out of the Alexandrian liturgy? And the like may be showed as to other churches, which by degrees came to have their liturgies much enlarged by the devout additions of some extraordinary men, who had the care of several churches afterwards; such as St. Basil and St. Chrysostom: So that notwithstanding their interpolations, the liturgies themselves are a plain demonstration of the use of divers precomposed set forms of prayer, besides the Lord's prayer and psalms, even in the first and second centuries of the church. That in Constantine's time, the church used such precomposed forms, is evident from Eusebius' church history, who tells us of Constantine's composing a prayer for the use of his soldiers in the next chapter he gives us the words of the prayer, which makes it undeniably plain, it was a set form of words. 2. It is true that the church of the three first centuries joined in the use of divers precomposed set forms of prayer besides the Lord's prayer and psalms; but was this the practice of the church in succeeding ages? A. Yes; and of this fact we have undeniable testimonies. Gregory Nazianzen says, that "St. Basil composed forms of prayer." And St. Basil himself, reciting the manner of the public service that was used in the monastic oratories of his institution, says, that "nothing was therein done, but what was consonant and agreeable to all the churches of God." The council of Laodicea expressly provides," that the same liturgy, or form of prayer should be always used, both at the ninth hour, and in the evening." And this canon is taken into the collection of the canon of the Catholic Church; which collection was established in the fourth general council of Chalcedon, in the year 451; by which establishment the whole Christian Church was obliged to the use of liturgies, so far as the authority of a general council extends. It were easy to add many other proofs of the same kind, within the compass of time to which those we have already produced belong; it is needless to mention such as are so obviously plain as to admit of no objection. To descend into the following ages is unnecessary; for the greatest enemies to precomposed set forms of prayer acknowledge, that in the fourth and fifth centuries, and ever after till the times of the Reformation, the joint use of them obtained all over the Christian world. And therefore we shall take it for granted, that what has been already advanced, is abundantly sufficient to prove, that the ancient Jews, our Saviour, his Apostles, and the primitive Christians, did join in the use of precomposed set forms of prayer. 2. What is the next thing to be proved? A. That they never joined in any other. 2 How does it appear that the ancient Jews, our Saviour, and his Apostles never joined in other prayers before our Lord's resurrection? A. That they never joined in any other than precomposed set forms previous to our Lord's resurrection, may very justly be concluded from our having no authority to think they ever did. For, as he that refuses to believe a matter of fact, when it is attested by a competent number of unexceptionable witnesses, is always considered to act against the dictates of reason; so does that person act no less |