and acquirements of various kinds, to the possession of which we do not pretend) publicly to meet us. If they still decline this inquiry, we must leave the public, or those, at least, who are disposed to reflect and to reason, to determine between us.

Having been led to notice various works on the present subject, it would be incorrect here to omit the mention of Gilbert Wakefield's well known pamphlet, first published in the year 1791, entitled " An Inquiry into the Expediency and "Propriety of Public or Social Worship;" and afterwards re-published in 1792, with alterations on some important points. This work, as being the first, at least in modern times, especially written to oppose the practice of public social prayer, excited considerable attention at the time, and called forth replies from the pens of various writers. The answers of Dr. Priestly, John Pope, and Letitia Barbauld, are the most celebrated; replies were also published by another female controversialist, under the nom de guerre of Eusebia; by Dr. Disney, James Wilson of Stockport, Thomas Jervis, William Perry, John Simpson, Bruckner, &c.*

* The titles, &c. of some of these replies to Gilbert Wakefield, are as under:—we give them that the reader may, if he please, hear both sides of this controversy.

"Letters to a Young Man, occasioned by Mr. Wakefield's Essay on Public "Worship.-By Joseph Priestly.-Lond. 1792."

"Divine Worship: Founded in Nature and Supported by Scriptural "Authority-an Essay. With Remarks on Mr. Wakefield's Arguments "against Public Worship.-By John Pope.-Lond. 1792.”

"Remarks on Mr. Gilbert Wakefield's Inquiry, &c.-By Anne Letitia "Barbauld.-Lond. 1792."

66

Cursory Remarks on Gilbert Wakefield's Inquiry.—By Eusebia.— "Lond. 1792." The Second Edition of which contained a P. S. in the way of rejoinder to Gilbert Wakefield's Reply.

"A Defence of Public or Social Worship.-A Sermon preached in the "Unitarian Chapel, Essex Street.-Lond. 1791.-By James Disney, F. S. A. "Lond. 1792."

A Vindication of Public Social Worship: containing an Examination "of the Evidence concerning it in the New Testament, and of Mr. Wake"field's Inquiry into its Propriety and Expediency.-By W. Perry.— "London 1792."

"Christian Arguments for Social and Public Worship.-A Sermon ❝ preached before an Annual Assembly of Protestant Dissenting Ministers, "at the Chapel in Lewin's Mead, Bristol, on the 13th of April, 1792.-By "John Simpson-Bath 1792."

"The Social Worship of the one God agreeable to Reason and Scripture; "-A Sermon preached in the chapel, Princes Street, Westminster, March 27, 1796.-By Thomas Jervis."

દ

Gilbert Wakefield favoured Dr. Priestly with a separate reply, entitled Short Strictures on the Rev. Dr. Priestly's Letters to a Young Man, con"cerning Mr. Wakefield's Treatise on Public Worship," taking for his

Of a writer, whose reputation is so well established as that of Gilbert Wakefield, it is proper to speak with some degree of caution; but this is a plain and scriptural question, and I do not hesitate to say that his Inquiry into the Expediency and Propriety of Public or "Social Worship," must have excited attention, by the literary reputation of its author, and the occasional acuteness of its remarks, (aided indeed by, substantially, a good cause) rather than by any solid knowledge which it displays of the bearings or the details of its subject. The views, indeed, of this able controversialist were, for the most part, correct and enlightened, and many of his points supported by unanswerable arguments; but he would appear not to have himself sufficiently studied the present subject to be consistent throughout, and by some injudicious concessions which he made on the one hand, and some untenable positions into which he was driven on the other, he gave his opponents a superiority of which they did not fail to take advantage.*

The question, therefore, may be well considered as still an open one. I wish to inquire concerning it, with fairness and true candour, but without the affectation of either. In itself the discussion lies within a small compass; but existing prejudices, and the arguments and authorities which are adduced in its support, render necessary no inconsiderable degree of detail, and some portion, perhaps, of prolixity. Those who value truth will be prepared, however, to follow me through the former, and on so important and interesting a subject, even to bear, in some degree, with the latter.

motto "This our craft is in danger of being set at nought."-Acts xix, 27. He published also "A General Reply to the Arguments against the Inquiry "into Public Worship.-By the Author of that Inquiry.-London 1792."

* As an instance of the former of these, take his concession-that public social worship (and it has been assumed that he thereby meant public social prayer) did form a part of the Mosaic dispensation. In his first edition, indeed, he said "I find no circumstances in the scriptures con"cerning this people-the Hebrews-that wear any aspect of public worship as we conduct it;" but in his second edition, too easily convinced by the bold assertions and really superficial arguments of his opponents, he avowed himself to have been mistaken on this point. A remarkable example of his having taken up positions which were untenable, occurs in his hypothesis that Christianity was an improving system, and that, even if social prayer had been practised by Jesus and his disciples, it was in accordance with the ignorance of that age, and not binding on after times. A position, the weakness and pernicious consequences of which, were fully shewn by Pope and others, in reply.

Let us first ascertain, critically and exactly, what is the subject in dispute; a question fairly stated, being, in fact, half answered. Prayer, then, may be of various kinds, but the chief division is that into-I. Private: II. Public Prayer.

For the first of these (private prayer) it must, from its nature, be individual: for the second (public prayer) it may be divided into-first, individual; second, social.

Public individual prayer may take place in two ways, thus: either one man may pray in the presence of others, who are themselves not praying-such was the prayer of the pharisees in the market places, and at the corners of the streets; or, several persons, met in one place, may each offer up his separate prayer-as was the practice in the courts of the Jewish temple, and as is alluded to in various parts, both of the Old and New Testament.

Public social prayer is the joint or common prayer, or form of prayer, of many assembled individuals. In substance it can be of one kind only, though it is practised in two ways-I. By a set and pre-concerted form of words, delivered by one man, in the plural number, and in which the rest express their intention of joining, by-1st, audibly accompanying the words throughout: 2d, occasional responses; 3d, the use of the final phrase, Amen. II. In an extemporaneous form, one man using words, also in the plural number, which have not been previously agreed upon and established, but to the use of which, either tacitly or audibly, the persons present give their assent, professing to make the prayer their own.

1.

We have here then four species or modes of prayer:-
Private individual.

2. Public individual of one person.

3.

of more than one person.

4. Public social-either with or without set forms.*

*This division, which is very important to the argument, may to some appear yet clearer, if put in the form of a table, thus:Individual, or (1) The prayer of the closet.

I. PRIVATE

PRAYER may be

(2) By one in the presence of others who are not praying.

(a) Individual

II. PUBLIC

(b) Social

(3) By several, each praying separately, though in the same place.

(4) Either by a liturgy, or extemporaneously, one man praying as the organ of the assembly.

It may be here observed, with regard to singing, that (so far as the psalms.

P

It is respecting the last of these four classes of prayer that I purpose inquiring. Wishing to free the subject from a common source of ambiguity, I must request the careful attention of the reader to the above classification of the modes of prayer, in order that it may be distinctly understood what it is I do, and what it is I do not, seek to disprove and overthrow. Not only the words worship and prayer (the latter of which we have seen is not synonimous with, but only one species of the former) not only these words have, in this controversy, been frequently, by writers upon it, confounded with each other, but the terms prayer, public prayer, public individual prayer, and public social prayer, in the course of the argument, have been frequently, and I believe I may say, in some instances, skilfully substituted the one for the other; the defenders of social prayer thus claiming for their cause all the arguments which may be used in favour of prayer abstractedly, and gaining, at least, a temporary triumph over their opponents, by causing it to be believed, whilst these were attacking social prayer only, that, in fact, they were opposing the practice of prayer itself.

To protect myself from this danger then, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I do not direct my arguments against the first class-the private and individual prayer of the closet; regarding it, on the contrary, to the member of the Christian church, who, as such, has received permission to pray, as one of the highest of privileges and advantages. Further, as not being practices of the present day, I do not direct my arguments against either the second or third classes that is, public prayer individually performed, whether by one man, or by a few, or a whole assembled multitude. Though it will be incidentally shewn, in the course of the argument, that, although special circumstances, which we shall have to explain as we pass on in our scriptural inquiries, produced these practices in an early and unenlightened age, and with a view to particular objects;

or hymns contain prayer or petition) that practice stands upon precisely the same ground as any other kind of prayer. I have deemed it unnecessary to mention, on every occasion, singing in connection with prayer; but they must evidently, as religious ordinances, stand or fall together. Singing, however, generally consists, not of prayer, and even when it does so, not of social prayer, but of individual praise or thanksgiving; though even this, from the lips of those frequently who use it, is an unauthorized practice, and objectionable on other grounds. It may prevent confusion in the argument, if religious singing, as now practised in our churches and chapels, should receive a separate notice-it need be but a brief one.

yet, that, as Christian ordinances, they are now wholly without authority of scripture, and unsupported by the principles of Christianity. This species of prayer, indeed, as already observed, is neither practised, nor specifically defended in the present day, though often, in argument, confounded with the class which follows. The remaining mode of prayer then, namely, the fourth, or public social prayer, with or without set forms, is that against which (as it is the common practice of the present day) my arguments must be considered as directed. To this I object that it is irrational and anti-scriptural—and I hold myself prepared to prove it both.

In a few words then, the specific practice which I now oppose as irrational and anti-christian, is-public prayer, conducted in a social manner; which stands opposed, at once to private prayer, and to public prayer conducted in an individual manner. Prayer, as performed in the churches and chapels of the present day, might perhaps, without impropriety, be taken as our definition; or we should not object to adopt the description given by Mr. Moore, (Inquiry, p. 120) and say-that we are arguing against that which he professes to defend, namely," SOCIAL PRAYER IN THE MANNER NOW IN "USE; that is, of one individual delivering the prayer in the name of all, and the congregation signifying their participation "and concurrence by the response-Amen." I am only anxious to adopt such a precise definition of the subject as shall avoid ambiguity, and put the reader exactly in possession of my object.

A word or two as to the nature of public social prayer, may here also be necessary. It is essentially, as, indeed, its name imports, the joint and united prayer of all the persons present. It is not that all the parties pray, each for himself, but that they pray collectively and as a body. It is not that one man, the priest, or officiating minister, himself, individually, prays for, or in the name of all; but he is considered as the representative and organ, or mouth-piece of the whole, and they all speak, as with one united voice, in him. It is a real, or an intended chorus of prayer, all joining in the same petition, at one identical moment, and all expressing that petition in one common form of words, which equally professes to give the thoughts and petitions of each and all, whether pre-composed or extemporaneous-whether one voice only be audible, or all join aloud in the same sensible sounds.

To the practice of praying publicly and socially there are,