on the ground of reason, the strongest, and I really think, the most unanswerable objections. Intending first to take a scriptural review of the subject, I shall, in this place, advert but briefly to the question of its rationality, but one or two previous remarks are indispensable. Generally speaking, that is, on common and stated occasions, and except in such peculiar cases as have been already noticed, to seek a public opportunity of praying appears to me unnecessary, absurd, and irrational. Publicity in prayer is unnecessary for that Being to whom prayer is addressed can see and hear as well in private: it is absurd and irrational-for, if I know any thing of the nature of prayer, publicity is calculated rather to disturb or injure-to prevent or counteract its exercise. If there be one thing more than another which appears to require thought, abstraction, loneliness-if I may so apply the word-it is prayer to God. We should be absent, not only from the world, but from the thoughts of the world-not only from other men, but almost from ourselves. The position that privacy is, generally speaking, desirable, almost essential to prayer, is so plain and self-evident to me, that I confess I want words to express my astonishment at the prevalence of the practice of public prayer. Yet the absurdity is now increased a hundred fold, when men, not content with praying publicly, attempt and profess to pray socially. Attempt and profess, I say, for really to do the thing is beyond their power. They are driven to the awkward expedient of pre-composed forms, or to the poor evasion of setting up one man as the organ and mouthpiece of the rest; but, till the thoughts of the heart can be composed, like words in a printing-press, and the feelings of men attuned like musical instruments, which vibrate in common at the same moment, and to one sound-till this be done, it is vain and deceptive to attempt and profess that which is commonly called public social prayer. If public prayer be an absurdity, social prayer, on common and set occasions, I do not hesitate to pronounce a moral impossibility. Social prayer then not being that rational thing, so proper in itself and so natural to man, which some of its defenders have been anxious to represent it, it follows that there is but one other ground on which its practice can be enjoined, or even justified, in the present day, as an ordinance binding on Christians; and that other ground I need scarcely say is--scripture authority. Prayer itself -even individual prayer-man can have no right to suppose acceptable to Deity, except by his having given, through

The The

revelation, a command, or a permission, that it should be offered up. But public social prayer-that men should meet in a regular manner, at stated times, with a priest or minister to officiate-prayer thus become a public rite-a. social institution-a religious ceremony, in fact--for this we must, of course, look for the express command and direction of Deity, through some of his authorized messengers. authority of man will not hold good in this case. Christian, at any rate, above all men, should refuse to practise, and cease to respect that as a part of the religion he professes, which has never been instituted, ordained or commanded, either by the founder of his faith, or the apostles employed to establish the Christian church throughout the world.

The indispensable necessity of giving a religious and scriptural authority for the practice of social prayer, has been felt by its advocates; they make, accordingly, as they appear to think, a triumphant appeal to the Old and New Testament on the subject. There, in almost every page of these writings, and but the more strongly confirmed under every succeeding dispensation, the advocates of public social prayer profess to find their favourite practice.

"Public Worship," (says Mr. Pope, p. 86, and from the context we collect that, by this expression, he means public social prayer) is a duty which has its foundation in human nature, and constitutes a most important part of universal religion. It was observed and recommended under the Mosaic dispensation; by Jesus Christ it was still more strongly recommended, and acquired new obligation; his apostles, in imitation of their divine master, made it their business to prosecute and extend the same as an indispensable principle."

Let us hear, on this same view of the subject, the language of Mr. Thomas Moore.

"Among the patriarchs and Jews, especially in the latter periods of their history, prayer and praises accompanied their sacrifices, and regularly formed a part of their social and public religious services." (Inquiry, P. 30.) Again:

66

"This duty" (that of public worship, put for public prayer)" has the sanction of antiquity, as well as of all modern practice among Christians. The Hebrews, from the infancy of their nation, were accustomed to it, Prayer" (quere-public social prayer?) was a companion of sacrifice. It formed a part of their worship in the temple, the whole of which was public and social. From the temple it was transferred to the synagogue, where, as there was no sacrifice, it formed the chief part of their religious services, and was offered in a form the most social that could be devised. These services Christ himself, and his apostles, regularly attended, and by this means, at least, expressed their approbation of social worship, in some form or other, leaving the use of liturgies, or free prayer, to the discretion

and judgment of the worshipper. Besides this, instances are mentioned in the gospels, in which Christ, on other occasions, prayed in society; and there are some in which his approbation of this custom is implied. Various passages have also been quoted, which prove that social prayer was the common and habitual practice of the apostles, and first Christians in general; and from the unexceptionable testimony of the earliest and most respectable writers, immediately succeeding the apostolic age, it is almost indisputable that, in their time, this custom universally prevailed in the Christian churches. The manner in which it was conducted bore a striking resemblance to that of the synagogue, which shews its origin to have been from thence. From that time to this, it has continued to be the uniform practice of Christians of all parties, however opposite, in other instances, their opinions, and whatever may have been their animosities. It has, therefore, the clear sanction of the religion we profess, not less than of reason. It has grown with the growth of Christianity-has accompanied, with equal' steps, its progress through the civilized world; and so long as this pure and benevolent system of faith and practice shall retain its hold on the minds of mankind, we have no fear of its decline." (P. 146.)

Mr. Moore is a Protestant, a Dissenter, and a Unitarian, and has he yet to learn that "the pure and benevolent system "of faith and practice," called Christian, has been deformed and corrupted, by the addition of creeds which it never taught, and the imposition of practices which it never sanctioned? Amongst the latter of these, and not the least prominent, or the least pernicious of them, stands the practice of public social prayer. The authority of scripture, and the various dispensations of the revealed will of God, to which Mr. Moore and others so confidently appeal, will, I think, upon investigation, be found to fail them. I speak not this unadvisedly, or without due consideration. Before I sat down to write on this subject I not only read every work I could meet with, which had been written in defence of the practice, but I carefully perused all the books, both of the Old and New Testament, with an express view to this particular inquiry; and I have now lying before me, as the result of that perusal, a transcript of nearly 500 passages, copied at length, being all which appeared to me, directly or indirectly, to bear upon the question of religious worship. With these before me I feel confident in putting a negative upon nearly all the above positions of Mr. Moore. Of public social prayer it shall be my business to prove that we have no evidence whatever that it accompanied the sacrifices" of the patriarchs-that "the "Hebrews, from the infancy of their nation," were not accustomed to it; that it formed no part of the temple service; and, consequently, could not have been transferred thence to the synagogue; that Jesus did not "express his "approbation of it," by attending such services; that

66

66

instances are not " mentioned in the gospels," in which Jesus practised or expressed his approbation of this institution; and, finally, that various passages can not be quoted," which prove that social prayer was the common and habitual practice of the apostles and first Christians in general." When I shall have established these negatives, by reference to the scriptures, it will be felt as of little importance to the Christian, that the practice in question" had its origin in "the Jewish synagogue;" that it comes recommended by the testimony of those "fathers," whom Mr. Moore terms"the earliest and most respectable writers immediately "succeeding the apostolic age; " or, as he elsewhere exultingly states, that it has universally prevailed among parties of every "name or denomination, whatever form of "church government, and religious discipline, they may "have adopted, or whatever system of doctrine they may "have received as true; whether Episcopalians, Presbyte"rians, Independents, or Baptists; whether Trinitarians, or "Unitarians; Arians, Socinians, Lutherans, or Calvinists."

For this long and perplexing list of authorities, I confess that I feel but a very trifling degree, either of deference or respect. The laws of God, as revealed in the earliest ages -the commands of Jesus-and the authority of his apostles, in later times, these are, I confess, to me, of greater importance than them all.

For the sake of clearness, whilst taking a scriptural view of the subject, and in order, in some degree, to systematize so extensive an investigation, I shall now state, in the form of questions, or inquiries, the several points to which, in the remainder of this, and in the succeeding Essays, I wish to call the attention of the reader.

1. Was public social prayer (being the fourth species of the preceding classification) commanded by Deity at the creation of man, or at any time throughout the patriarchal ages?

2. If not so, was it then practised without such command? 3. Was it instituted by Moses, or was it afterwards, by divine direction, introduced into the tabernacle or the temple worship?

4. Was it, without such direction, practised by the Jewish people, in their synagogues, or elsewhere?

5. If the practice had been commanded under the Mosaic dispensation, would it have, therefore, been imperative upon Christians?

6. Had it been practised by the Jews, in their synagogues,

or elsewhere, without divine authority, would it then have been imperative upon Christians?

7. Was it instituted by Jesus or his apostles, as a part of Christianity?

8. If not so instituted, was the practice sanctioned by their example, or by that of the churches which they instituted?

9. Is it so consistent with the nature of things, or so agreeable to the spirit and general principles of Christianity, as to render it probable that it was adopted, by the early Christians, as a matter of course, without the necessity of a divine appointment?

10. If sanctioned neither by the command nor the example of Jesus and his apostles-if neither consistent with the nature of things, nor agreeable to the spirit of Christianity, in what way did it come to be consideredas it now is considered-a part of Christian worship?

The proof of these points it should rather be for the supporters of the practice to establish. To prove a negative is, at all times, confessedly difficult; yet I shall have little doubt of being able to establish negatives in reply to the above inquiries. In that case, one only other questionthe following-will remain:

11. If public social prayer was instituted neither during the patriarchal ages, nor under the Mosaic dispensation, nor in the Christian church—if it was neither communicated to the Jews, by the previous practice of the patriarchs, nor to the first Christians by that of the Jews, nor to us by the example of Jesus and his apostles-in that case, on what other scriptural grounds is it meant that the practice should be defended as one now binding on the Christian-as sanctioned by Deity-or as desirable in its consequences to mankind?

It may assist in simplifying this inquiry, if I observe, in the way of concession, that, should the four first of the above questions, or either of them, be answered in the affirmative, (that is, if it should appear that social prayer was practised in the earlier ages-instituted by Mosesordained in the temple-or joined in by Jesus-without objection being raised-in the synagogue) should this be made to appear, I am willing to allow that there would then be some ground for inferring that the practice might, without being expressly commanded, have been introduced into Christianity as a thing in itself reasonable, and which had already received the sanction of Deity. But if these pre