posed prayers. The öon dúvaμis used by him, as well as the κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν and κατὰ δύναμιν of Origen ; the εὐτόvwç of Justin, and EKTEVws of the LXX. no less than the expressions just cited from the Cosri of Buxtorf, must all have referred to the manner in which pre-composed language was enounced; and, consequently, Mr. Bingham's interpretation of the passage under consideration is the correct one; that of Dr. Pye Smith, and of the admirable Ernesti, the incorrect one, on every possible view of the case: nor can I see how these gentlemen could have allowed themselves to come to the conclusion, that pre-composed prayer could not be put forth with the ability and energy here described, just as well as prayer of the extemporaneous sort could.

In page 77, however, of your "Rejoinder," you make very short work of all the ancient liturgies now extant. You tell us, "Some are called Liturgies, and others Masses," (this latter term-originally designating the communion-service-will tell well with Dissenters!) "of St. James, St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. Matthew, or the Æthiopic: also of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom: and there are liturgical sentences, responses, and prayers, in the so-called Apostolical Constitutions.....But not one of all is a genuine composition; they are all either entirely spurious, or so interpolated, as to destroy the hope of ascertaining the authenticity of any part," &c. Here, therefore, because some of these are called masses, and are all interpolated, a perfect end is put to every inquiry on the subject! It is nothing to the purpose, that these have been cited, or referred to, by the most eminent fathers and councils; nothing, that they all agree in certain important particulars; nothing, that they have always been venerated and used in the Christian church; nothing, that we know on what grounds additions and alterations have been made: but, only because some

few fanciful, and perhaps heterodox, things occur in them, and the copies likewise vary, and, above all, are altogether opposed to certain modern groundless notions, they are at once to be proscribed, rejected, vituperated! Is not this a most ingenuous and summary way of dealing with any ancient document? The scriptures, too, have been interpolated: in some cases they have been corrupted; all ancient history, poetry, and what not? labours under the same or similar defects. When, therefore, we find these opposing our own prejudices, we are justified in rejecting and proscribing them by wholesale; and may then proceed in good troth and faith, to make out what we like to believe for ourselves, and to recommend what we may choose for the belief of others! I am very sure my worthy opponent will never think of openly advocating doctrines such as these; and yet the sweeping conclusion here arrived at, can be justified on no other grounds. No one, I believe, holds that these liturgies, responses, constitutions, &c. are immaculate. It is only believed, that they contain the groundwork of offices in use in the earliest times; that they can be shewn still to contain the main and principal parts of those offices; and hence, that they have preserved the observance of pre-composed public forms of prayer from the apostolic times to the present: and of these, the liturgy ascribed to St. James, is allowed by all, perhaps, who have written on this subject, to present the most ancient and authentic exemplar.

But, if the whole were entirely spurious, as you seem willing to have it believed, How are we to account for the circumstance of their having ever obtained in the Christian church? Were all the bishops, fathers, councils, &c. up to our times, perfect fools or knaves, or a compound of both? Were Cyprian, Chrysostom, Basil, Jerome, and a host of other worthies,-whose memory is de

servedly held dear by every lover of truth and of real piety-all imposed upon by these entirely spurious documents? Is this probable? Is it possible? Is it not infinitely more likely that they, who make these broad and indiscriminating assertions, are propelled to this by something altogether independent either of critical inquiry, or sound decision? For my own part, I consider this a matter too certain to admit of two conflicting opinions; and I do not see how others can avoid coming to the same conclusion.

The next testimony I shall adduce, and I shall now also follow the work of Mr. Palmer-is the apostolical constitutions. Here we have a liturgy given pretty much at length, which, I think with Mr. Palmer and Renaudot,70 is the transcript of no liturgy ever used in any church. "Yet,"-as Mr. Palmer also says,-"as it agrees more closely with the liturgy of Antioch in the fourth century, than with any other, I may fairly use it as a confirmation of the antiquity of that liturgy. In its order, its substance, and many of its expressions, the liturgy of Clement" (as it is called) "is identical with that of St. James," &c. These constitutions are considered generally as exhibiting a compilation older than the council of Nice, A. D. 325.

Cyril of Jerusalem is the next writer I shall notice. You ask me, in answer to my last: "What will your readers think when they are informed that Cyril (or whoever the writer was, for the genuineness of the work

70 Renaudot (tom, i. Dissert. p. x.) very justly observes, that, although this collection was made before the council of Nice, it has in latter times been very greatly interpolated. In a very ancient Syriac MS. he tells us, this Clementine liturgy, as it is called, does not appear that the Greeks never counted it among their liturgies; and that it never obtained in any church, although it represents the form and character of the authentic liturgies.

is not undisputed) says not a word about a liturgy, or about St. James?" You add, "The whole discourse, (Cateches. Mystagog. v.) which you so adroitly call 'a commentary,' &c. is a description, in the form of an exhortation, of the service of the holy eucharist" (p. 77, "Rejoinder"). I was not aware of the "adroitness" I had had recourse to, before you were so good as to admonish me of it. All I can say by way of apology is, first, I only adopted the term used by Wheatly on the Common Prayer, to whom I referred you. And, secondly, If, after all, this discourse is a description, by way of exhortation, aliàs, an explanation, "of the holy eucharist;" Pray, in what respect does it differ from a commentary; for here, where the description is given, the exhortation is left out?-I think, therefore, my dear Sir, you have here stepped out of your way to gain no possible end.

This was,

Again, "Whoever the writer was," &c. perhaps, intended to throw doubt over the whole. Why, then, do you not affirm at once, that the work is not genuine; and so give me an opportunity of refuting you? ...." The work," you say, "is not undisputed."71 I only ask, Do you dispute it? I may further ask, What has not been disputed? Is the New Testament, or even the Old, free in this respect? I need not answer this question to you. Why then throw doubts over that, which you have neither the inclination nor ability to impugn? Such a way of proceeding is, I know, very well calculated to catch the vulgar reader, and to throw into obscu

71 True: but the disputes raised seem to have originated from no other source, than an opinion (of Rivet, I believe,) that, as the liturgy could not be justly ascribed to St. James as its author-which no moderately learned man ever thought of-neither could this treatise be ascribed to Cyril: which is of course very cogent reasoning. See Lit. Orient, Renaud. tom. i. Dissert. p. xxv.

rity, with certain persons, documents and matter against which they are already sufficiently prejudiced: truth, however, needs no such shift as this.

Again, "Cyril says not a word about a liturgy;" No; he only "gives a description of the service of the holy eucharist." Well: and is not the service of the holy eucharist properly termed the liturgy? Most certainly: and hence the book, or form, containing this, is also correctly termed the liturgy: and again, it is this part of the service alone, which bore that name. Cyril was, therefore, after all, speaking of a liturgy: he was explaining its terms and observances, although he may not have used this particular word. Once more; "He says not a word about St. James." Very true. Still he says something about a liturgy; and that very liturgy, or service, turns out to be the service termed the liturgy of St. James, and no other! "Whoever," says Mr. Palmer, "compares the orthodox and monophysite thanksgivings of St. James with this passage of Cyril, will acknowledge that the order, sentiments, and expressions, are the same; and will perceive that this portion of the liturgy of St. James can be proved beyond question to be older than the middle of the fourth century, and that it was then used at Antioch and Jerusalem."72

"His remarks on the Lord's prayer are next in order," continues Mr. Palmer.-" Jerome also testifies that this custom prevailed in Palestine." (Ib. pp. 35, 36.)

The next writer to whom Mr. Palmer appeals (but in

72 If it be said in reply, that the parts commented upon by Cyril are found in other liturgies; the answer is, As these liturgies can be shewn to be derived from that ascribed to St. James generally, and to have been adopted as such after the times of Cyril, the objection is of no weight. You say, moreover, Dupin and Cave affirm that Cyril's work has nothing to do with the liturgy, known under the title of St. James. My answer is: What has just been said, in reply to the objection, apparently drawn from Rivet, need not be repeated here.