sons; since they are by no means one body of men, or answerable for each other's principles or conduct. As Protestants, and much more as Christians, Mr. Wakefield himself classes with us; and would he not think it hard if our absurd opinions, or improper conduct, should be ascribed to him by a Catholic, or an Unbeliever?

To my reply to Mr. Wakefield's Essay on Public Worship, I have thought proper to subjoin some Remarks on Mr. Evanson's Letter to me on the observance of the Lord's day; and I have prefixed to them that article of mine in the Theological Repository, which was the occasion of his letter. The subjects are sufficiently similar to give a propriety to these pieces accompanying each other. Mr. Evanson is as chargeable as Mr. Wakefield with a censurable contempt of his opponents; though, to appearance, not on the poor ground of their being Dissenters.

Both these writers have brought important discussions before the public, and they ought to pursue them to their proper termination. And certainly Mr. Evanson should not have thrown out the reflections that he has done on the authority of Matthew's Gospel, or on the value of the historical evidence of Christianity, without giving the reasons on which such opinions as these are founded.

press his disapprobation of LONG PRAYERS. But this conclusion becomes still more reasonable, if we observe also, how, in a former discourse to his disciples, he cautioned them against vain repetitions in their prayers, after the manner of the heathen; and at the same time reflect, that long prayers are scarcely practicable without some of that idle and babbling tautology so explicitly forbidden. And this objection applies forcibly to the Liturgy of the Church of England, and (but in a less degree) to the prayers of dissenting congregations." Enquiry, Ed. 3, pp. 33, 34.

• Mr. Wakefield, however, thus exhibits what he calls "rude outlines" of his present opponent's intellectual accomplishments:

"In exhibiting the Doctor's character, with respect to his merits as an experimental philosopher, it would be impertinent in me to offer my opinion, who profess myself a most perfect ignoramus in every department of philosophy unconnected with geometry. Nor of course, on this account would my suffrage be at all honourable to the Doctor: but I cannot doubt his excellencies in this science to be commensurate with his extraordinary reputation.

"On the subjects of metaphysics, morals, politics, and the evidences of revelation, take him all in all, I should exceedingly question, whether the Doctor has had an equal, certainly no superior, either in ancient or modern times.

"Add to these qualifications, an inexhaustible fund of native good sense, which, on all subjects, like a copious perennial stream, enlivens, adorns, and fertilizes in every part of its extended progress; in conjunction with an acuteness of discernment, and a perspicuity of thought, exhibited in clear and convincing language, beyond any writer within the sphere of my knowledge." Strictures, pp. 4, 5.

Mr. Wakefield immediately adds the following qualification of his panegyric: "In points of philology and history, I beg leave to deniur at an appeal to the Doctor's tribunal: not, however, because his powers are not fully equal to whatever he should please to undertake with suitable industry and preparation; but because these subjects require a long, patient, and unremitting investigation, because they are alone equal to the employment of a man's whole life." Ibid. p. 5.

814

A

VINDICATION OF PUBLIC WORSHIP.

LETTER I.

Of the natural Propriety of social Prayer.

DEAR SIR,

I FIND that you have read Mr. Wakefield's Essay on the Expediency and Propriety of public or social Worship, and also Mr. Evanson's Letter to me, on the Observance of the Lord's day; that these treatises have made a considerable impression on your mind, as they have on the minds of many others, and that, in consequence of this, you have of late absented yourself from all public worship. This I am truly concerned for, because I cannot help thinking that the opinions those gentlemen maintain are ill founded, and may be attended with consequences unfavourable to religion, and the best interests of mankind, which I am sure you have at heart.

Had you objected to prayer universally, as an address to a Being who is previously acquainted with every thing that we can inform him of, who is not defective in any good disposition towards any of his creatures, and whose purposes cannot be changed by any thing that we can say to him, there would, on the principle of natural religion, exclusive of what we learn from the Scriptures, have been something specious in your scheme. It is an objection that has given much trouble to ingenious and pious men. But admitting the reasonableness of prayer in general, there cannot, surely, be even any plausible objection to several persons joining in the same prayer, when they all stand in the same relation to the great object of prayer.

What would you say of the regulations of a private family, in which each child should be permitted to speak to his father alone, but any two or three of them should be for

“Arguments against and for the Sabbatical Observance of Sunday, together with a Letter to the Rev. Dr. Priestley, by Edward Evanson, A. M.” 1792.

bidden to approach him at the same time, though they had all the very same request to make, and found a convenience in going together? You would certainly think there was something extremely whimsical and unreasonable in such an order. And would it not be equally absurd in the great family of mankind, with respect to God, their common Parent?

The whole of our intercourse with our Maker is founded on the analogy between our relation to him, and that to our earthly parents. If, therefore, a human parent would even wish to see his children come to him together, and he would receive pleasure from such a sight, we are sufficiently authorized to conclude, that the same circumstance is no less pleasing to our Universal Parent; that he will be pleased with seeing his whole family, or as many of them as could be conveniently assembled for the purpose, come to address him in common, declaring their common wants, and expressing their common gratitude and submission.

This is an idea so natural, that it has been adopted by all nations, whether favoured with divine revelation or not. The very idea of each individual applying to the Supreme Being only separately, and never, or not generally, in companies, does not appear to have been so much as started before. Modes of worship have been various, as various as the fancies of men could make them; but still it has always been social. Sometimes persons have presented themselves in the temples, or at the altars, together, but have prayed separately. At other times, one of the company has spoken aloud, so as to be the mouth of all the rest; and frequently they have all spoken together, repeating the same words. All these, however, are only varieties of public or social worship.

I am, Sir, &c.

IN the Jewish religion, the Divine Being himself appointed the forms of it. Not only was there provision for a morning and evening sacrifice, offered in the name of the whole nation, and an annual day of atonement, in which the high-priest went into the holy of holies to supplicate for all the people, but every male of a proper age was obliged to make his appearance before God three times in

the course of every year. This was not merely public, but, strictly speaking, national worship.

In the usual mode of worship among the Jews, the people prayed in the great court of the temple at the time that the priests were offering incense in the holy place, each person praying for himself. But to this, David added hymns, to be sung by the Levites, accompanied with instruments of music; and in this part of the worship all the people might join. What these hymns were, may be seen in the book of Psalms, many of which were composed for this purpose; and several of them consist of joint addresses to the Supreme Being in the plural number, though the purpose of public worship is equally attained by each of the company speaking the same words in the singular number. It is probable, however, that hymns had been used on the same occasion before, and that David only improved this part of public worship, now called psalmody. The Heathens also had their religious hymns, accompanied with instruments of music, at their sacrifices.

After the Babylonish Captivity, the synagogue worship was introduced; and this is well known to have consisted of reading the Scriptures, and prayers, and probably of singing also, for such is the worship of the Jews in their synagogues at this day, and their customs have not materially changed since the introduction of Christianity, and certainly not in imitation of the customs of Christians. There are Jews in this country: their synagogues are open to Christians, and their liturgies are printed in Hebrew and in English, and in the title-page of the book the prayers contained in it are said not only "to be publicly read in the synagogues, ," but also " to be used in all families."*

It is not particularly said that Jesus went to the synagogues to pray, but neither is it said that he went thither to hear the Scriptures read; but as prayer is well known to have been the proper business of the place, there cannot be a doubt but that, when he attended there, he constantly did both the one and the other; his preaching or teaching in the synagogues being only occasional, and, therefore, particularly mentioned. Had Jesus neglected the worship of the synagogue, or any part of it, he would, no doubt, have

* The Jews have not usually prayers in private families, but their custom is to resort to their synagogues early in the morning and late in the evening, to pray separately. But whenever, on those occasions, ten persons meet together, they consider themselves as a congregation, and then one of them reads the prayers aloud, and the rest say, Amen. (P.) See Vol. XVII. pp. 298, 294.

been severely censured, if not excommunicated, on that account. A neglect of this kind could not but have been particularly objected to him by his cavilling and watchful enemies. But no such thing is so much as hinted at in the whole of the Gospel history. To expect the express authority of Christ in favour of public worship, is most unreasonable, when in his time the practice was universal, and his own compliance with it was, no doubt, most strict and exemplary. In fact, to require an express account of his going to the temple, or to the synagogue to pray, when every other Jew did so, and would have been censured for not doing it, is like requiring similar express evidence of his undressing to go to bed. It is fortunate, however, that we have a distinct account of Jesus eating, drinking, and sleeping, or we might have been amused once more with the Gnostic notion of his having no gross body that required any sustenance or refreshment of the kind.

LETTER III.

I am, Sir, &c.

Objections to social Prayer from the Sayings of Christ. DEAR SIR,

You have been led by Mr. Wakefield to lay great stress on our Saviour's saying to the woman of Samaria, (John iv. 21, 23,) "Believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him ;" and also on his saying to his disciples, (Matt. vi. 6,) "Thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret." But to interpret such language as this, as if it was intended to forbid all public worship, or any worship, besides that of the closet, appears to me to betray a most unaccountable ignorance of the scripture phraseology, and on the same principles it might have been concluded that all sacrifices were forbidden to the Jews, even long before the coming of Christ.

David says, (Psalm li. 16, 17,) "Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it; thou delightest not in burntoffering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Isaiah also says,