the severest ecclesiastical censure; and though he is at liberty to indulge himself in the pulpit, in the use of his own expressions, yet, even there, extemporaneous prayer, if it exceed a few sentences, is almost universally stigmatized as pharisaical, or objected to as a tacit depreciation of the perfection of the Liturgy. Forms are represented as

66

necessary," and forms only are held to be allowable. Let us examine the arguments which are brought in support of this opinion.

from the

Prayer.

[1.] One of the most common, and yet perhaps Argument it is the weakest of the arguments in favour of Lord's liturgical forms, is founded upon what is improperly denominated THE LORD'S PRAYER. Because our Lord gave a form of prayer to his disciples, forms of prayer, it is contended, are alone adapted to the public services of the Church, "As if," says Hooker, “our Lord, "even of purpose to prevent this fancy of extemporal and voluntary prayers, had not "left us of his own framing one which might “both remain as a part of the Church liturgy, "and serve as a pattern whereby to frame all "other prayers with efficacy, yet without

66

66

superfluity of words." To either branch of B. v. § 26. this assertion are opposed the following considerations.

First, It is readily admitted by the advocates of Liturgies, that, as has been established by

1

Lightfoot, and other learned commentators, this formula was not, strictly speaking, composed by our Lord himself. "It is very ob"servable," says Bishop Bull, "that the Lord "Christ himself, when he recommended to his disciples, upon their desire, a prayer to be "used by them, (that which we call our Lord's Prayer,) he did not frame an entirely new

66

66

prayer, in words of his own conception, but "took out of the ancient euchologies or prayer"books of the Jews, what was good and lau"dable in them, and out of them composed that 66 prayer. The very preface of our Lord's Prayer, Our Father which art in Heaven, "was the usual preface of the Jewish prayers. "And all the following petitions* are to be "found almost in the very same words in their "prayer-books." How, then, can it be with propriety affirmed, that our Lord gave his disciples a form of prayer at all? It is evident from the text, that the design of his directions, related to a far more extensive and unrestricted exercise of the duty of prayer, and that it had

*" Primitive Christianity," Sermon xiii. So Dr. COMBER also, in his "Origin of Liturgies," tells us, that our Saviour was "so afraid of innovation, as to take every sentence "of his prayer out of the Jewish forms then in use." And Grotius himself is guilty of the same puerility: "So far," he remarks, was the Lord himself of the Christian Church "from all affectation of unnecessary novelty!"

more especial reference to the secret devotions of the closet. St. Luke states, that "one of "the disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us "to pray, as John also taught his disciples." Our Lord so far complies with this request, as to give them in a few simple sententious petitions, a specimen of that spiritual style of supplication, which, in opposition to the "vain "repetitions" of the heathen, and the heartless parade of the pharisee, is alone acceptable to Him who seeth in secret; and he then immediately passes on to enforce a holy importunity and earnestness in asking for spiritual blessings, which shews that he did not design to reprehend the mere length of the prayers of the Pharisee, apart from their ostentatious publicity, much less to circumscribe the devotions of his disciples within the narrow compass of a form.

The words which introduced the formula in St Matthew's Gospel, are," After this manner, "therefore, pray ye;" and it is remarkable, that in the copies preserved by the two Evangelists, there is a material variation. The words debts and trespasses, are, it is true, said to be the same in the Syriac; but in the fourth petition, there is an undeniable difference of phraseology, which, although of no importance in itself, is sufficient to expose the futility of the reasonings in support of the obligation of adhering to

the exact words. But this is not all; the doxology is omitted by St. Luke, in whose Gospel our Saviour's words seem more express for the use of the prayer, while the Evangelist Mark omits the formula altogether, but records, evidently in reference to the same occasion, an exhortation corresponding to one of the petitions of which it consists: "When ye "stand, praying, forgive if ye have ought "against any, that your Father also who is in "heaven may forgive you your trespasses." Very different was the design of our blessed Lord from that of teaching his disciples to pray in the words of a form: the whole force of the passage is destroyed, if we do not consider it as rather inculcating the spirit of contentment and meekness in which they were to present these their accustomed petitions, and as affording them a lesson with regard to the few and simple matters to which they ought to confine their care and their requests.

Secondly, It is observable, that in the conversation which arose from the request of the disciples, our Lord expressly enjoins upon them to address to the Father, petitions which are not comprehended in this formula, and of which no forms are subjoined. The condition and the promise, "Ask and ye shall receive," refer immediately to the readiness of our heavenly Father to "give the Holy Spirit to them

"who ask it." Surely, this petition is not of less importance than any one of those which are comprised in "the Lord's Prayer," and would not have been omitted had that been intended to serve as a perfect model. To those who attach so much importance to forms, this circumstance must, one would think, appear inexplicable. But on the supposition that our Lord, in referring his disciples to the Jewish prayer-books for specimens of simple and compendious forms of appropriate supplication, had no intention to prescribe an exact model of prayer, or to lay upon them the obligation of adhering to a form of words, it is easy to account for any seeming omission: no petition specifically relating to the gift of the Holy Spirit, was, it is probable, in common use in the Jewish Church, and the formula being altogether of a Jewish character, would therefore contain no reference to the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. On this account, it cannot be regarded as an instituted standard or pattern of acceptable prayer, except so far as regards in general the things for which we ought to pray.

Thirdly, That the use of this formula was not designed to be perpetually binding on the disciples, is rendered still more probable by what may be considered as amounting to a virtual repeal of any previous directions on the subject. Hitherto," said our Lord in his last

66