1 Cor. xiv. 14-17. Let us see how far this will help you. "Does not," you ask, "the whole strain of expression imply, that the prayers adverted to were the production of the minds of those, who are reproved for using their gifts irregularly ?" I answer; If you mean extemporaneous production of the minds, &c. my opinion is, that the context is against you; for these reasons: first; St. Paul says (v. 15), "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also."42 Now we know that, among the Jews, both prayer and psalmody were always conducted with pre-composed forms. Our Lord's prayer, as we have just seen, enjoined this, whether we take it as a literal form, or as a model. Besides, the context here would rather require, that both these services be carried on in the same way: that is, if singing had a prescribed form, so should praying. Now go on to the 26th verse; where, unless I greatly mistake, previously composed forms are spoken of by the apostle. "How is it then, brethren," says he, "when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation." He adds, "Let all things be done unto edifying." Observe here, we have in v. 15, “I will sing,” (i. e. a psalm, aλ), which has its parallel in v. 26, in “every one of you hath a psalm, (faλμòr exei,)" &c. Let me now ask, Was it ever customary in any congregation of believers, whether Jews or Christians-be the latter of what denomination they may,-to pour forth extempo 42 Is it not remarkable that the apostle should here speak of praying and psalmody in the same breath, and in the same terms? Does he not seem to say, that they stand very much on the same grounds, just as I had said in my former letter? raneous matter for psalm-singing? By your reasoning already noticed, this should seem to be impossible from the consideration of the human speech, and organs of speech. Yet, if we are to understand St. Paul here, as speaking of extemporaneous productions of the mind, we have no alternative left, according to your own shewing-but to believe something which we know never did exist, and which, from the nature of the case, never could: for,-be it also borne in mind,-you hold that these productions were not extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. Again, the having a doctrine (didaxùr), a tongue (yλwooav), a revelation (åñoкáλv‡ır), an interpretation (ipμnveíav), must, I think, mean that these things were previously in the possession of such persons, were brought forward now, and irregularly exhibited in the assembly. I differ from your supposition, that these were not extraordinary gifts; because, among other things, I find the apostle saying (at v. 22), that "Tongues are for a sign," &c. which he had just shewn (v. 21), had been made matter of prediction; and because we know that, in the case of the apostles, this gift, together with all the others, was considered by them themselves as miraculous. When we are told (v. 32), that The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets,”—the passsage which has perhaps misled you-we are, I think, to understand, that even these miraculous powers were not such as forcibly and irresistibly to obtrude themselves, either on those who enjoyed them, or on others; but were subject to that wisdom, which also came from above, and was a gift of the same spirit. In this sense, they never could be put forth, but for the edification of the church. The term 66 knowledge," ( yvos), as already noticed, appears to have been used with a similar reservation. You ask, secondly, (p. 74,) "If precomposed forms of prayer had been used by the first churches, was not this an opportunity for introducing a mention of them?" My answer is, first: The apostle is not here arguing on the subject of prayer generally, but on preaching. We cannot, therefore, expect him to be so specific on the one subject, as on the other. And, secondly: Although he is not speaking of prayer generally, yet he casually introduces it in conjunction with psalmody,-which is nearly allied to it :-and, in speaking of this, he manifestly introduces the mention of pre-composed forms. It is true, he does not say in so many words, that every one of them had brought a liturgy with him, yet, as in each case he appears to have alluded to some previously possessed doctrine, psalm, interpretation, as indeed the custom of his times was; I have a right to conclude that, as far as prayer was concerned here, that of the extemporaneous sort was altogether excluded. I will add, If the context were half as strong on your side of the question, as you are willing to have it believed, you could, and probably would, have positively shewn that extemporaneous prayer was meant; and not have thrown on me the task of proving the contrary. I conclude, therefore, that you must have felt,—what I have now shewn,-that St. Paul was very far from taking the side of Dissent in this place. You offer another negative argument,-no very convincing evidence of the strength of your cause, against the existence of pre-composed liturgical forms in ancient times (although you have already allowed that they may have existed as early as those of the apostles),—which is to this effect. In the persecutions under Diocletian, we often read of the scriptures being destroyed, but not one word affirming the same of prayer books. The inference is, none could therefore have existed. But this, likewise, is fallacious; because, first, the circumstance that no such fact occurs on record, is by no means sufficient to prove that none took place. This process would imply, that one might prove something out of nothing; which need not occupy a moment's consideration. In the next place, If the liturgical services of those days were of a sort with those used in the synagogues, which I shall presently shew was the case, they would consist principally of large portions of scripture, as it is the case with our own now. The introductions, collects, &c. would be short; and, as there was manifestly a great scarcity of books among the Christians, these prayers would in most cases-as you have allowedbe committed to memory, and so be recited memoriter in the congregations, just as some parts must now be among us. And again, in the manuscript liturgies, as usually found in our public libraries, the lessons from the scriptures are not unfrequently introduced; so that by far the greater part of the book actually consists of scripture. Other manuscripts contain nothing but these lessons, and are termed lectionaries, as every one at all conversant with these questions knows. If then no liturgies were actually destroyed in those days, it will not follow-from our first consideration-that none existed: and-from our second-If it is only said by the historians that the scriptures were destroyed, it does not follow that copies of the liturgies were not also destroyed; as the less might have been comprehended under the terms of the greater; and so liturgies and scriptures might naturally enough have perished together, without any express mention having been made by the historians of the former. As the circumstance insisted upon by you, therefore, will admit of an easy explanation, the negative argument framed upon it cannot be allowed much weight, and may very fairly be left to shift for itself. SECTION IX. On the Provisions made by the Apostles for the You will, perhaps, now allow me to carry you a little farther into the writings of St. Paul, and to suggest the consideration, whether he has not left us something more convincing on this question, than the mere negative arguments to which you have had recourse. I think I may fairly premise, that if the modes of worship to be established in the Christian church were supposed in the apostolic times, to have any such weight as both you and I assign to them; that is, if one mode would be considered more edifying than another; one system of divine service more acceptable to Almighty God than another; that mode or system would not have been left altogether unprovided for. If then we can shew that there are good grounds for believing that such provision was made, and that there is no accounting for many things even now existing, on any other supposition; we shall, perhaps, be justified in concluding that the more acceptable method of conducting divine worship was actually pointed out and prescribed by apostolical authority; and, consequently, that every thing opposing this is both unscriptural and unjustifiable. And this, I think, we can do. 66 To come to St. Paul then on this subject. I need not tell you, I am sure, that he occasionally does speak of 29.66 ORDINANCES,' TRADITIONS," and of a " FORM OF SOUND WORDS." In 1 Cor. xi. 2, he says,...." Ye.... keep the ORDINANCES, (τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε) as I delivered them to you (rapédwкa vμïv).”—Our chief business here will be to inquire, what the apostle could have |