"That the words or expressions of the prayers offered in the primitive churches, were not imposed or prescribed, but every one that officiated, delivered himself in such terms as best pleased him; and varied his petitions according to the present circumstances and emergencies; or if it be more intelligible," he adds, "the primitive christians had no stinted liturgies or imposed forms of prayer."* Indeed, liturgies or prescribed forms of public prayer, were unknown in in the church till towards the close of the 4th, or beginning of the 5th century; nor then was there any one uniform ritual or service established. It was left to every bishop to draw up a form of prayer for his own church. After the prayer, the assembly presented their oblations or gifts, which each one, according to his ability, had brought with him. From these offerings the elder or officiating minister took so much as he thought necessary for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, which he consecrated by prayer; the people saying, amen, at the close. This ordinance was usually

King's Prim. Church Part 2. p. 33. To this very able and candid writer, the author in indebted for most of the facts above stated.

+ Neal, vol. 1, p. 97. Krazer de Liturgiis, sec. 1, chap. 1, p. 7. The following remarks of the learned Dr. John Pye Smith, appear to be well founded. They are contained in a very able sermon published by him in 1821, on the comparative advantages of prescribed forms and of free prayer in public worship.

After an extended historical investigation of the subject, he remarks; "Thus it appears that established forms of public prayer were introduced and fostered, by the increase and wide spread of ignorance, the decay of true religion, the rapidly growing prevalence of superstitious observances, and the appointment to the ministry of men, who were totally incompetent to the right performance of its duties. In a word, liturgies make no appearance among the materials of Ecclesiastical History, till a melancholy degree of corruption and ignorance had covered the christian church with portentous gloom, and the majority, or at least, the most active and ruling party, of both pastors and people, were worldly men, governed by principles foreign to those of scriptural piety, and making religion the subservient instrument of their worldly interests."

In coincidence with the above remarks, are the following sentiments

celebrated at the close of worship every Lord's day, and perhaps in the earliest times of the church, still more frequently, making a part of social worship whenever they engaged in it. After partaking of the Lord's Supper, it was a custom, in many of the churches, for the members to sit down to a sober and sacred repast, called the feast of love. At the breaking up of the assembly, the brethren and sisters exchanged with each other, what from its being a token of mutual good will, was called the kiss of peace. Well may we exclaim with Mosheim; How truly admirable the simplicity by

6

of the late Dr. Porter of Andover. "The result of my inquiries on this subject, (liturgies,) is, a full conviction that no forms of prayer were prescribed by public authority till the fifth century. Before this, forms were used, at the option of particular ministers. When the Arian and Pelagian doctrines began seriously to disturb the church, it was deemed necessary by the Council of Laodicea to require by ecclesiastical regulations, that ministers, instead of using the liberty before enjoyed, should always keep to one form of prayer, that is, should not pray, "pro arbitrio, sed semper easdem preces." This form, however, each minister might compose for himself, provided that "before using it, he should consult with learned and experienced brethren." This regulation was explained, as already in existence, by the Council of Carthage, A. D. 397. "About twenty years after this, that is, 416, the Council of Milan ordained, that none should use a set form of prayer, except such as were approved in a synod."

The following notice of the formation of the English Liturgy, may be interesting to the reader. "After the long night of superstition, as the day of the reformation dawned on the church,-it found the clergy too ignorant to pray or preach, in a becoming manner. A book of homilies was prepared to aid them in preaching; and a book of prayers, to be read instead of both extemporary devotions, and the Romish liturgy. The English prayer book, however, was chiefly compiled from the Romish, retaining the superstitions respecting extreme unction, the real presence in the eucharist, praying for the dead, &c. Three years after its first establishment, which was 1547, it underwent such a revision, as to exclude from it the above peculiarities of the Catholics. Several other changes in it were made, at different times, up to 1661,-but no authorised revision has since taken place."-Porter's Lectures on Homiletics, p. 292-4.

which the rites of our holy religion were characterized in these its infant days."*

I will detain you but a moment longer, just to notice the manner in which the primitive christians regarded the Sabbath. There is the fullest evidence that in the time of the Apostles, and indeed from the time of our Savior's resurrection, the first day of the week was kept as a day of holy rest, sacredly devoted to the public and private duties of religion. On this day the disciples were met, when Christ first appeared to them after he had risen from the dead, and again the next week, or seven days after. On this day they were assembled, when, at the season of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost decended upon them in his miraculous gifts, and achieved for them the first fruits of the cross, in the conversion of three thousand, under a single sermon. And frequently, in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistles, allusion is made to this day, as a season expressly set apart for the holding of solemn assemblies, and universally regarded by christians as holy time. In what manner the early christians were accustomed to keep the Sabbath is sufficiently indicated by a passage in Clemens Alexandrinus. "A true christian," he says, "according to the commands of Christ, observes the Lord's day, by casting out all evil thoughts, and entertaining all good ones, glorifying the resurrection of the Lord." Justin Martyr also writes: "On the day that is called Sunday, all, both of the country and city, assemble together, where we preach and pray, and discharge all the other usual parts of divine worship." And Dionysius declares: "To-day, being the Lord's day, we keep it holy."

The Sabbath was exceedingly precious to the primitive christians. They called it 'the chief of days;'

* Mosheim's Com. vol. 1. p. 262.

'their rest indeed.' They kept it with sacred gladness, as Tertullian affirms, giving themselves to holy joy, and banishing every thing that had the least tendency to, or the least appearance of sorrow and grief, insomuch that they considered it highly improper and wrong either to fast or kneel on that day in their worship.

In regard to fasts and festivals, none were enjoined by Christ or his Apostles; and none were regarded by the first christians as of divine appointment, though several were introduced at an early date, and were generally observed. The fast of Lent was very ancient, though far enough from having apostolical authority. So the festival of Easter, in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ, was early observed in the churches; and likewise of Whitsunday, or Pentecost, in commemoration of the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles. But no mention is made of Christmas till more than three hundred years after our Savior's advent, nor is there any evidence that this festival was observed in the church at an earlier period.

As for confirmation, it seems hardly necessary to remark, that it is a rite wholly unauthorized in the scriptures, and not once mentioned in any historical record till two hundred years after Christ. But by that time, it is well known, that a great variety of absurd and unscriptural ceremonies had crept into the church,—such as the use of sponsors in baptism, anointing the body, signing with the sign of the cross, exorcism, and a formal consecration of the water in baptism. All these rites were practiced in the time of Tertullian, who is the first author that takes any notice of confirmation; and if his testimony proves this rite to be of Apostolic origin, it proves the rites above specified to have the same origin.

*See King on the Prim. Church, Part II. p. 80.

The author is aware that there are three texts, which are usually urg

Such is a very brief outline of the order and worship of the primitive churches. Simple in their organization and government; pure in doctrine and practice; unincumbered with rites and ceremonies of human invention; not divided into different sects and denominations; but all known by the same name and holding the same views of truth and duty; no Methodists, no Baptists, no Episcopalians, no Presbyterians or Congregationalists, but all christians, united to one another in the bonds of a common faith and of the purest affection,

ed in support of the rite of confirmation. Acts 8: 14-17. 19: 6. and Heb. 6: 1, 2. But whoever reads these scriptures, with an impartial mind, must at once perceive that they have no reference whatever, to the rite of confirmation, as understood and practiced at the present day. In the first passage, it is said that Peter and John went down to Samaria, and prayed and laid their hands on those whom Philip had baptized that they might receive the Holy Ghost, i. e. his miraculous gifts. But what has this to do with the modern rite of confirmation? Have bishops power, by prayer and the laying on of their hands, to communicate miraculous gifts? If not, they might as well stretch themselves upon the dead body of a child, in imitation of Elisha; or make ointment with spittle for the cure of the blind, in imitation of our Savior; or anoint the sick with oil, in imitation of the Apostolic Elders; as pray and lay their hands on those who were baptized, in imitation of Peter and John, who did this to the Samaritan converts, 'that they might receive the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost.' I say miraculous gifts,—such as prophesying, speaking with tongues and the like-because they were something visible and obvious to sense; something that struck the wonder and ambition of the wicked sorcerer; for it is said, when Simon saw that through laying on of the Apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money. Besides, as Dr. Whitby justly observes, if they laid not their hands on all that were baptized, it makes nothing for confirmation; if they did, then Simon Magus also was confirmed and received the Holy Ghost, which it is presumed, the advocates of this rite will not admit. (Letters on Dissent, p. 44.)

That the same thing is meant by the laying on of hands by Paul, Acts 19: 6. is expressly asserted; the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied.

As to Heb. vi. 1, 2. the ablest and best commentators agree that the laying on of hands in this passage, denotes the same thing as in the passages above referred to-that is, the communication of miraculous gifts. Thus Owen, Whitby, Scott, Rosenmuller, and Stuart.