makes evident allusion to the Lord's prayer in several passages.6

The Apostolical Constitutions belong to a later age, and cannot, therefore, be introduced as evidence in the question under consideration.

Tertullian, at the close of the second century and beginning of the third, together with Origen, and Cyprian, who lived a few years later, give more authentic notice of the Lord's prayer.

Tertullian not only quotes the Lord's prayer in various parts of his writings, but he has left a treatise "On Prayer," which consist of an exposition of it, with some remarks appended, concerning the customs observed in prayer. In this treatise, which he is supposed to have written, before he went over to Montanism, i. e., before the year 200, Tertullian represents this prayer, not merely as an exemplar, or pattern of Christian petitions, but as the quintescence and ground of all prayer; and as a summary of the gospel. He strongly recommends, however, other prayers, and enumerates the several parts of prayer, such as supplication, entreaty, confession of sin, and then proceeds to show that we may offer other petitions, according to our accidental circumstances and desires, having premised this legitimate and ordinary prayer which is the foundation of all.8

Cyprian, who died A. D. 258, repeats the sentiments of Tertullian, whom he recognizes, to a great extent, as his guide in all points of doctrine. He wrote a treatise on the Lord's prayer, on nearly the same plan as that of Tertullian. He has less spirit, but is more full than his pre

Especially Paedag., Lib. 3. 7 De Oratione, c. 1, pp. 129, 130. 8 Quoniam tamen Dominus prospector humanarum necessitatum seorsum post traditam orandi disciplinam, "petite," inquit "et accipietis ;" et sunt, quae petantur pro circumstantia cujusque, praemissa legitima et ordinaria oratione, quasi fundamento; accidentium jus est desideriorum jus est superstruendi extrinsecus petitiones.-De Orat., c. 9.

Cyprian

decessor; and often explains his obscurities. says, that our Lord, among other important precepts and instructions, gave us a form of prayer, and taught us for what we should pray. He also styles the prayer, our public and common prayer;9 and urges the use of it by considerations drawn from the nature of prayer, without asserting its liturgical authority or established use.

Origen, contemporary with Cyprian, has a treatise on prayer, in the latter part of which, he comments at length upon the Lord's prayer. His remarks are extremely discursive, and chiefly of a moral and practical character; so that we derive no satisfactory information from him respecting the liturgical use of this prayer, or prayers rather, as he regards them. He, however, warns his readers against vain repetitions and improper requests, charging them not to battologize in their prayers; error which they could have been in no danger of committing, had they been guided by the dictation of a prayerbook. The explanation which he gives implies the use of extempore prayer.10

an

It appears from the foregoing authorities, that our Lord's prayer was neither in use by the apostles themselves, nor by the churches founded by them, nor by the primitive churches, until the close of the second century and beginning of the third. From this time it began to be used, and in the fifth and sixth centuries was a part of the public liturgies of the churches.

With reference to the Lord's prayer we subjoin the following remarks.

1. It is questionable whether the words of this prayer were indited by our Lord himself. If we adopt the theory

...

9 Inter cetera sua salutaria monita et praecepta divina, . . . etiam orandi ipse formam dedit, publica est nobis et communis oratio.De Oratione, pp. 204-206.

...

10 De Oratione, c. 21, p. 230.

of many that it is a compend of the customary prayers in the religious service of the Jews, how can it with propriety be affirmed that our Lord gave to his disciples any form of prayer whatever as his own?

2. This appears not to have been given to the disciples as a form of public prayer; but as a specimen of that spirituality and simplicity, which should appear in their devotions, in opposition to the "vain repetitions of the heathen," and the heartless formalities of the Pharisees. It merely enforces a holy importunity, sincerity and simplicity in private prayer. It was a prayer to be offered in secret, as the context in both instances indicates, Matt. 6: 3-14. Luke 11: 1–13.

3. Our Lord expressly enjoined upon his disciples to offer other petitions, of the highest importance, for which no form is given. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are offered to those who shall ask, while yet no prescribed formula is given, in which to make known our requests for this blessing. Why have we not, therefore, the same authority, even from Christ himself, for extemporaneous prayer, as for a litany? At least we must presume that our Lord had no intention to prescribe an exact model of prayer, while teaching us to pray, without any form, for the highest blessing which we can receive.

4. A strict adherence to this form is incompatible with a suitable recognition of Christ as our mediator and intercessor with the Father. "Hitherto," said our Lord in his last interview with his disciples before he suffered, "ye have asked nothing in my name." But a new and peculiar dispensation was opening to them, by which they might have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus." The petitions of that prayer might, indeed, be suitable to the Christian in every age, and in all stages of his spiritual progress; but they are appropriate rather, to those under the law, than to those under grace. They

breathe not the peculiar spirit of him who would plead the name of Christ alone, in suing for pardon and acceptance with God.

5. This prayer belongs rather to the economy of the Old Testament. Christ was not yet glorified. The Spirit was not given; neither was the law of ordinances abolished. However useful or important it may have been, in the worship of God under the Old Testament, is it of necessity imposed upon us under that better covenant which God has given; and by which he gives us nearness of access to his throne, without any of the formalities of that ancient Jewish ritual; and only requires us to worship him in spirit and in truth?

6. The variations of phraseology in the forms given by the evangelists, are so great as to forbid the supposition that it is to be regarded as a specific and prescribed form of prayer. The reader has only to notice the two forms of Matthew and Luke, to see that the variations are too numerous and important to justify an adherence to one invariable form of speech. The only form of prayer that can be a found in the Scriptures, is recorded on two occasions, with such variations as to exclude the possibility of deriving from either any authorized and unchangeable form of prayer. Both have the same general resemblance, united with circumstantial variations, which might be expected of one who was careful only to utter the same sentiments, without any studied phraseology or set form of words. They are as various as two extemporaneous prayers might be expected to be, if uttered upon two similar occasions with reference to the same subject.11

IV. The use of forms of prayer is contrary to the simplicity and freedom of primitive worship.

11 On this whole subject, comp. Augusti, Denkwürdigkeiten, Vol. V, pp. 88-134.

All the early records of antiquity relating to the ecclesiastical polity of the primitive Christians, and to their rites of religious worship, concur in the representation, that they were conducted with the utmost simplicity; and in total contrast, both with the formalities of the ancient Mosaic ritual, and the various forms of Episcopal worship and government, which were subsequently introduced.12 The men of those days all accounted themselves the priests of God; and each, according to his ability, claimed the liberty, not only to teach and to exhort, but even to administer the ordinances. All this is explicitly asserted in the commentary upon Eph. 4: 11, which is ascribed to Hilary of Rome, about A. D. 360. "After churches were every where established, and ecclesiastical orders settled, the policy pursued was different from that which, at first, prevailed. For, at first, all were accustomed to teach, and to baptize, each on every day alike, as he had occasion. Philip sought no particular day or occasion in which to baptize the eunuch, neither did he interpose any season of fasting. Neither did Paul and Silas delay the baptism of the jailer and all his house. Peter had the assistance of no deacons, nor did he seek for any particular day, in which to baptize Cornelius and his household. He did not even administer the baptism himself, but entrusted this duty to the brethren, who had come with him from Joppa; as yet there were no deacons, save the seven who had been appointed. That the disciples might increase and multiply, all, in the beginning, were permitted to preach, to baptize, and to expound the Scriptures. But when Christianity became widely extended, small assemblies were formed, and rectors and presidents were appointed; and other offices, instituted in the church. No one of the clergy presumed, without ordination, to assume his office. The writings of the apostles do not, in all respects, accord

12 Comp. Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen, Vol. I, pp. 91—132.