Tread my courts no more; bring no more a vain oblation: The new moon, and the sabbath, and the assembly proclaimed, They are a burthen upon me; I am weary of bearing them.* How similar are these and many other passages of the Old Testament to the language of our Saviour quoted above; but how little should we be justified in supposing that they meant any thing more than that internal religion, or that of the heart, is preferable to that which is only external! In like manner, all that Jesus ever intended by what he said to the woman of Samaria was, that in the Gospel dispensation neither the temple on Mount Gerizim, nor that at Jerusalem, would be the only authorized place of national worship; since the Gentile Christians would have no concern with either of them; and that no worship of this kind was of any consequence, compared with the religion of the heart. For it was customary with the Jews to deny of one thing what they only meant to assert more strongly of another. Thus we read, (John i. 17,) "The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." The meaning of which was, not what the words literally interpreted would signify, viz. that there was no grace or truth in the law of Moses, but that the dispensation of the Gospel is a system of more important truth, and a more gracious or benevolent dispensation than the law. That Jesus did not mean that the national worship of the temple, or the Jewish dispensation in general, was ever to be discontinued, is evident from his own conduct; and that the apostles did not so understand him, is evident from theirs; for they conformed to the law most strictly in every point. Paul, who contended the most earnestly for the liberty of the Gentile converts, circumcised Timothy, though his father was a Greek, because his mother was a Jewess. And in order to refute the calumny of some who had said, (Acts xxi. 22,) that he had taught all the Jews who were among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs," he purified himself in the temple, and thereby convinced his Jewish brethren that he himself walked orderly, and kept the law. * Ch. i. 13, 14, Bp. Lowth. See supra, p. 282, Note. It is well known that all the Jewish Christians to the latest period to which we are able to trace them, continued firmly attached to their peculiar customs. Nor have I the least doubt, but that this remarkable people is to be distinguished by circumcision, sacrifices at Jerusalem, and other customs, after their return to their own country, and the rebuilding their temple, and to continue so to the end of time. All that Paul is supposed to have said to the contrary is to be interpreted in the same manner as the preceding quotations from the prophets, and such language as the following, quoted by our Saviour (Matt. ix. 13): "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice;" which is explained by what immediately follows," and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offering;" (Hos. vi. 6 ;) the meaning of it being, not that sacrifice was ever to be rejected, but to be considered as of inferior value, when compared with moral duties. That Jesus did not intend to be understood literally in his directions about praying in the closet only, is evident from his own practice; for he often prayed elsewhere, and in the view and hearing of his disciples. He could therefore only mean to express, in strong, emphatic language, his disapprobation of the abominable ostentation of the Scribes and Pharisees of his time, who stopped to pray even in the public streets, when the hour of prayer was come, when they might have retired out of the view of all men, for the purpose. A rigorous interpretation of this precept would also be inconsistent with another general and very important direction of his, [Matt. v. 16,] to "let our light so shine before men,' that others, seeing our good works, may "glorify our Father who is in heaven." How is this to be done, if men are never to see others in the performance of that particular good work, which, according to the Scriptures, is the best foundation of all the rest, viz. devotion? I do not lay much stress on the phrase our Father in the Lord's prayer; though I think it much more naturally implies a direction for joint or social prayer; and that, had the idea of Jesus been, that each of his disciples should always pray separately, and never together, he would rather have taught them to say, my Father. That, in the idea of Jesus, his disciples were, on extraordinary occasions at least, to pray jointly, is clearly implied in what he said (Matt. xviii. 19, 20): "Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth, as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." The meaning of this seems to be, that the prayers of his apostles would have the same efficacy with their heavenly Father, as if he himself had been with them, and joined in their petitions. However, the Lord's prayer was evidently intended for ordinary, and not for extraordinary occasions; and accordingly it consists of such petitions as we can at this day, with the greatest propriety, make use of. Indeed, almost the whole of this prayer has been observed to be borrowed from forms that were in use among the Jews. I am, Sir, &c. LETTER IV. Of the Practice of the Apostles. DEAR SIR, MR. WAKEFIELD appeals to the practice of the apostles, as unfavourable to public worship. But this appears to me to be as clearly favourable to it as that of our Saviour: and if we only consider the situation of things in their time, it is almost impossible not to conclude that it must have been so. The apostles, being Jews, were accustomed to the business and the forms of synagogue worship, which consisted of reading the Scriptures, and prayer. When they began to preach Christianity, it was in the Jewish synagogues, at the usual times of the Jewish worship, which was morning and evening; that is, at our nine in the forenoon, and three in the afternoon, the times of sacrificing in the temple; and to these Jewish synagogues the Gentiles of the place resorted to hear the apostles. When the Christians separated themselves from the Jews, as we have an account of their doing at Corinth, (Acts xviii. 6,) and procured a place of worship of their own, they, no doubt, continued to do just as they had done before in the synagogue. No change would be made but in the place of meeting. They would, of course, assemble on the same day, and at the same hours. There was no motive whatever for a change, except of the Sabbath for Sunday, which in time took place; but this change would not naturally proceed farther than the day. The business of it, and the manner of conducting the business, would be the same as before, and consequently public prayer would not be omitted. It is well known to all persons conversant in Christian antiquity, that even the officers and discipline of the Christian church were borrowed from those of the Jewish synagogue, the elders and deacons being the same in both. And notwithstanding all the differences of opinion and practice among Christians, from the time of the apostles to the present, it does not appear that there was ever any difference on this subject. All the sects of Christians had their churches, their ministers, and their public worship. Abuses were, no doubt, introduced into every thing, and into this among the rest. the rest. But, as we are able to trace the rise and progress of all other abuses; surely, if public worship itself had been an abuse, which arose after the times of the apostles, there could not have been any peculiar difficulty in tracing it, and ascribing it to its proper author. Such an innovation as this could not have been introduced silently, like a mere opinion. It must have made a great and visible change in the state of things, such as could not but have attracted much notice. I cannot help concluding, therefore, that since no such change as this in the affairs of Christians can be pointed out, but that, notwithstanding every other possible difference, there is no trace of any on this subject, the practice was always universal; that it began with the apostles, and, though changing in form, has always remained the same in substance, till Mr. Wakefield undertook to dispute the authority, expediency, and propriety of it. We frequently read of the apostles and other Christians being assembled together, and on almost all these occasions there were prayers. Of the disciples in general it is said, (Acts ii. 42,) that "they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers," which is evidently a description of their usual worship, as more particularly described by Justin Martyr in a later period. As the Jews had been used to pray for themselves, though in the company of others, both in the temple and in the synagogues, it is possible that this might be done by many Christians in early times. This is now the practice of the Catholics in their churches; which are open every day, and all day long, for this purpose. But that prayers in which others were expected to join were used in the public assemblies of Christians, in the time of the apostles, is evident from one circumstance, if there were no other, viz. that the audience was expected to say Amen to the prayer, which, therefore, must have been delivered in an audible voice, so as to VOL. XX. Y have disturbed others, if they had at the same time been praying by themselves. 1 Cor. xiv. 16, 17: "When thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified." To say Amen to the public prayers was also the custom in the Jewish synagogues, and, in imitation of it, continued to be a response in all Christian churches in early times. I am, &c. LETTER V. Of the Expediency and Use of Public Worship. MR. WAKEFIELD appeals to the practice of Christ and the apostles, as unfavourable to public worship; but he refuses to abide by this appeal. "If it were," he says, “an original appendage of the gospel, the argument of progressive practical perfection, grounded on the exigencies of early times, the genius of the Gospel, the analogy of the divine dispensations, and the character of the human mind, would constitute alone, in my estimation, an irrefragable objection, opposed by nothing better than mere usage and prescription."* This appears to me to be most uncertain and dangerous ground to go upon; since the mere fancy of any indivi dual Christian, of his having conceived a better and more improved method of devotion than was known to Christ or the apostles, will, on this principle, authorize him to depart from their ideas, and follow his own. It was this principle that led to all the abuses and corruptions of Christian worship in the dark ages. For they were all conceived to be improvements, when they were introduced, and even not contradictory to any thing in the practice of Christ or the apostles. What unbounded scope then will be given to imagina tion, when no regard is paid to that practice, or any other precedent; but when what was done by Christ himself, and the apostles after him, may be considered as only suiting the mere infancy of Christianity, whereas we live in the advanced state of it; when, rejecting their milk, we think ourselves fit to take stronger meat than they ever ventured upon! • Enquiry, p. 6. (P.) Ed. 9, 1792, p. 16. |