tice too deeply rooted in the very propensities of our nature; but this would be the consequence, that it would be thrown into the hands of professional men on the one hand, and of uninformed men on the other. By the one it would be corrupted, it would be debased by the other. Let the friends of moderation and good sense consider whether it is desirable, whether it is even safe, to withdraw from the public the powerful influence of their taste, know. ledge, and liberality." (Pp. 49-52.)

Mrs Barbauld adds a few paragraphs on behalf of the Dissenters, but acknowledges that "in order to give Public Worship all the grace and efficacy of which it is susceptible, much alteration is necessary. It is necessary here, as in every other concern, that timely reformation should prevent neglect. Much might be done by judgment, taste, and a devotional spirit united, to improve the plan of our religious assemblies." (Pp. 60, 61.) Thus (she suggests) many of our churches are ill adapted to the purposes of hearing or seeing; the isolating effect of high-partitioned pews is prejudicial; the religious instruction ought to be less vague, desultory, and unedifying, than it unhappily is; while religion should be dissociated from that idea of gloom, which, in this country, but too generally accompanies it, and which is attributed by Mrs Barbauld partly to our melancholy and unsocial character as a nation, and partly to the colour of those widely-accepted religious systems which inculcate the eternity of penal torments, the dependence of our future lot on an arbitrary decree of election or reprobation, and the insufficiency of virtue to escape the wrath of God; in a word, "all the tremendous horrors of the Calvinistic faith."* "Public

Worship," says she, "will be tinctured with gloom, while our ideas of its object are darkened by superstition; it will be infected with hypocrisy, while its professions and tenets run counter to the genuine, unperverted moral sense of mankind; it will not meet the countenance of philosophers, so long as we are obliged to unlearn our ethics, in order to learn divinity, Let it be considered that these opinions greatly favour immorality. The doctrine that all are vile, and equally merit a state of punishment, is an idea as consolatory to the profligate, as it is humiliating to the saint. And that is one reason why it has always been a favourite doctrine.” (P. 73.)

309. PARRY, WILLIAM, a Dissenting Minister at Little Baddow, in Essex.-A Vindication of Public and Social Worship; containing an Examination of the Evi

*This part of Mrs Barbauld's pamphlet is largely quoted in Sabbath Laws, p. 230, et seq.; where are cited also some passages to the same effect from John Wesley, Archbishop Tillotson, Bishops Watson and Newton, and Dr Parr.

As to the utility of public worship, see the extracts from Addison, Jortin, and Vicesimus Knox, above, pp. 156, 231, 241; also Paley's Mora Philosophy, Book V., chap. 4, and his sermon on the subject.

dence concerning it in the New Testament, and of Mr Wakefield's Enquiry into its Propriety and Expediency. Lond. 1792. 8vo. Pp. 67.

Here the texts quoted by Wakefield are more particularly considered than by Mrs Barbauld. Mr Parry observes that "the attack made by Mr Wakefield's pamphlet on the propriety of public worship has the merit of being new; but by summoning the friends of religion to its defence, in a quarter which had not before been assailed, the conflict will probably terminate in establishing, not only the lawfulness, but the obligation of social worship upon invincible arguments: and thus instead of proving an injury to the cause of practical religion, it will be the accidental occasion of strengthening one of its bulwarks against future assaults. The attack, indeed, has not been formidable; but the just fame which Mr Wakefield has acquired in some of the walks of literature, may render it useful to discuss fully, what would scarcely have deserved reply, had it fallen from a less learned pen. From his established

reputation, and the loss he has sustained by following his convictions, he is entitled to full credit for the purity of his motives, even in this singular performance. But neither a regard for literary eminence, nor that respect which is due to integrity, should influence the human mind to receive opinions without sufficient evidence of their truth; or lead it to depart from what has been long considered as an important branch of religious practice, unless it be proved to be unscriptural and injurious." (P. 2.) Mr Parry endeavours to show that the example and precepts of Christ, and the practice of the apostles, afford " irrefragable evidence in favour of public worship, and lead to conclusions directly opposite to those Mr Wakefield has drawn from them."

According to Mr Parry, the texts Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (above, p. 270), intimate only that Jesus chose to be alone at his private devotions, and it is strange to infer that because he was a friend to private devotion he was an enemy to public. That the prayer recorded in John xvii. was spoken by Jesus in the company of his disciples, is inferred from the manner in which the evangelist introduces it," These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven;" and from the statement subjoined to it,-"When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples;" besides that the following expressions in the prayer itself appear to indicate their presence: "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world" (ver. 11). "Neither pray for these alone" (ver. 20). "These things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves" (ver. 13).

Mr Parry notices what he regards as an important fact, unmentioned by Wakefield, namely, that "it was the custom of Jesus to go into the synagogues," or, as he chooses to express himself, "to attend the social worship of the Jews" therein. (Luke iv. 16.) "Though it had not previously been usual with him to speak, it was his custom to attend the synagogue, in the place where he

་

had been brought up.' It will hardly be denied that social prayer constituted part of the service of the synagogue. If such worship were unlawful, it cannot be supposed that our Lord would have given it his countenance and support." (P. 10.) But I find no proof that public worship was then practised in synagogues, whatever might afterwards be the case among the Jews. At all events, not a vestige of it there is to be found in Scripture.

66

That our Lord was in the practice of using social prayer with his disciples, Mr Parry infers from Luke ix. 28, 29, Matt. xvii. 2, and Mark ix. 2, &c., where it is said that he was transfigured as he prayed on the mount," and that "he was transfigured before them." As another instance of social worship, Luke xi. 1 is quoted:-" And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples." (See also Matt. xix. 13, and Mark x. 16.)

In regard to the precepts of Jesus, Mr Parry, like Mrs Barbauld, denies that Mr Wakefield's 4th text (above, p. 271) relates at all to social or public worship. "It is," says he, "a good rule of interpretation, generally allowed by divines of all persuasions, and what is abundantly more valuable, dictated by every sound understanding, that the connected sense of Scripture is its true sense. Let it be applied then to this, as it undoubtedly ought to every other passage." The subject in hand will then be found to be personal, not social devotion. (P. 16.) He controverts the opinion of Wakefield, that in text No. 5 (above, p. 271), the abolition of "all public devotion" is implied in the reference to the abolition of all temple-worship. "If we might but introduce on all occasions ourThat is,' how easily might many obstinate texts be made to truckle to a favourite hypothesis! . . By what rule in logic does Mr Wakefield infer, that because public worship, under the Christian dispensation, was not to be restricted to one place, therefore it was not to be observed in any place?" (P. 20.)

In considering the 7th and 8th texts adduced by Wakefield (above p. 272), Mr Parry holds that the former implies nothing beyond what it is usually understood to teach (see, for instance, Dr Clarke's paraphrase of it, above, p. 170); while in the latter he finds indeed a condemnation of the hypocrisy of long prayers for the purpose of ostentation, and a censure of the practice of extending prayer to an unedifying length, but nothing to countenance Mr Wakefield's assertion that the "inevitable inference" from it is a condemnation of all public and social prayers.

The invocation, "Our Father," in the Lord's Prayer, is not insisted on by Mr Parry as decisive, though he thinks it accords better with the idea of social worship than with personal devotion. (P. 28.)

With regard to the saying of Jesus," Where two or three are gathered together in my name," &c. (Matt. xviii. 20), Mr Wakefield is censured for omitting the preceding verse, Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching aǹy

thing they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three," &c. Our Lord, then, was expressly speaking of social worship, and not of assemblies for any other good purpose; though, it is admitted, these might properly enough be described as meetings in the name of Christ.

As for that occasion when social prayer was offered by the apostles at the election of an associate in the room of Judas (Text No. 10, p. 275), Mr Parry holds that in allowing it to be an instance of social prayer at all, though but "half a minute long," Mr Wakefield grants what establishes the lawfulness of such a practice. (P. 33.) "The instance of Peter and John going up to the temple at the hour of prayer is not to the purpose, for there is no evidence they prayed at all upon that occasion. The case of Cornelius refers to the devotion of an individual, and does not relate to the subject. And Peter's going up to the housetop to pray, only proves that, like his master, he chose to be alone at his private devotions; but nothing can be inferred from it as to public or social worship." (P. 34.)

Mr Parry next adduces some evidence of the practice of the apostles which Mr Wakefield has omitted:

66

"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." (Acts i. 14.) They unanimously persevered in prayer; and there can be no reasonable doubt entertained but this was social prayer. .... Can it be supposed that the apostles and the other disciples, like the Jewish hypocrites, ostentatiously used solitary prayer in the presence of one another, against the precept of their Lord? Or, if it were admitted that they did, where would there have been that unanimity in prayer which is so emphatically spoken of in the text?" (P. 35.)

"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts ii. 42.)* -" And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord," &c. (Acts iv. 24.)*—"But we will give ourselves unto prayer, and to the ministry of the word." (Acts vi. 4.)—" And when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." (Acts vi. 6.) Prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him." (Acts xii. 5.)-"Many were gathered together praying." (Acts xii. 12.)—" And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." (Acts xiii. 3.)*— "And when he (Paul) had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all." (Acts xx. 36.)—" Why," asks Mr Parry, "did not Mr Wakefield refer to this passage? This is 'pointed, unequivocal, and pertinent' to the subject; and, I will add, decisive against his position." (P. 40.)

"And they brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city; and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed." (Acts xxi. 5.)

These passages are referred to, and briefly remarked upon, by Mr Wakefield. I have quoted them above, p. 275.

VOL. II.

T

He quotes also Rom. xv. 30; 1 Cor. xi. 13, xiv. 13-17, 23; 2 Thess. iii. 1, 2'; 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, 8; James v. 14; 1 Pet. iii. 7.

"Thus it appears," he adds, "there is abundant evidence in the New Testament, that social and public worship was practised among the apostles and the earliest Christians. And the incidental manner in which their worship is spoken of, or referred to, in the Acts and Epistles, instead of weakening, strengthens the argument in support of the practice; because it involves in it this obvious but important idea, that social and public worship was their general and uniform practice. It could not therefore be reasonably expected, that the mention of it in the Scriptures should be more explicit or more frequent than we find it to be. Common practices are not referred to in any writings, otherwise than in such an incidental manner as particular circumstances or occasions may require the writer to notice things, which, in any other view, it would be impertinent or unnecessary to mention; but when so mentioned, it is evident they are common practices, and not deviations from the general conduct of the parties. The scriptures of the New Testament were written for the use of Christians who lived in the age when they were composed, and that immediately following it, as well as for those in the present day. Where then would have been the propriety of particularly narrating well-known facts and practices, which were continually taking place in every Christian family, and Christian assembly? Accidental, and even oblique references to ancient and established customs in the writers of antiquity, are in many cases more satisfactory evidence of their existence and general prevalence than direct and positive narrations would be. Accounts of the latter description might be suspected of fabrication. But when the proof of an ancient practice arises from the accidental mention of it, or an occasional reference to it in a contemporary writer or historian, the evidence comes in that order and form which might most naturally and reasonably be expected, and is therefore most convincing and indubitable." (Pp. 51, 52.)

Mr Parry's concluding section is "On the Nature and Design of Christianity." If the purposes of that religion are to purify and exalt believers, to separate them from that portion of the world which lieth in wickedness, and to unite them in the public profession of the Gospel, and the practice of love and holiness-will not this design be much better promoted if public worship be not excluded from Christian assemblies? "If, as Mr Wakefield recommends, the services of religious assemblies were confined to instruction, discussion, and disputation, would not a company of persons, met together only for such purposes, resemble an academic school rather than a Christian church united for the honour of God? Would not the distinction between the church of Christ and the world, which now falls greatly short of what it was in the apostolic times, be still farther impaired? And would not numbers who frequent such assemblies be in danger of losing the small degree of reverence they have for the Divine Being, instead of having it increased? Would not the disuse of public worship