that sooner or later all opposition must fall before it."

Nothing, indeed, is more pleasing in these Lectures than the unassuming tone of the preacher, and the free and manly spirit which he encourages in his hearers. At the close of the IVth, he thus addresses his juvenile flock :

"The free exercise of the understand. ing, upon this and every other subject which is at all interesting, must be ever delightful. The observations here offered to your attention, are not urged upon you with a tone of authority, as though commanding your abject and blind submission. My greatest pleasure is in meeting you from time to time, fully prepared to judge upon all subjects for your selves. Yet, my young friends, I am so well satisfied myself, of the firmness of the ground on which I stand, that I have no fear or apprehension, when calling into free and full exercise the highest and best capacities of your nature: convinced, that if no unhappy bias takes place in your minds, from sin and from the world, religion, whether natural or revealed, the more fully it is inquired into, the more decisive will appear the firm foundations upon which it rests."-Pp. 66, 67.

Mr. Holden is sparing of critical remarks upon sceptical writers; but he naturally introduces the name of Hume in the Lecture (the VIIIth) on the Historic Testimony in favour of Christianity, and smartly confutes the favourite argument of this renowned sceptic by an argumentum ad homi

nem.

"Mr. Hume, who in some of his writiugs thus attempted to destroy all faith in history, and to plunge the mind into all the uncertainty and unhappiness of universal scepticism, himself wrote a History of England. But did he expect his readers to question whether there ever were such kings of England as Alfred, or John, or Henry the Eighth? Or did he expect that in remote ages it should be questioned whether such a person or writer as Hume ever existed?-Pp. 126, 127.

The dilemma in which serious and candid Deists are placed, is properly urged by the Lecturer:

"Many unbelievers have admitted the excellence and greatly comprehensive nature of the gospel morality; as also the

purity and excellence of the character of the Founder of this holy religion. But what can we say of the morality of the gospel, if it was a system of fraud? Or, what can we say of the purity and excellence of the character of Christ, if he knew that he had no just pretensions to a divine commission ?"-P. 134.

We are much pleased with a remark or two in the introduction to Lect. XIII. on "the Morality of Revela

tion:"

Much

"By a system of morals, I do not mean to assert that it presents itself in these writings in the particular form of a system; but that they contain it. less when I use the term system of mosacred sanction of divine authority; for rals, is it my intention to exclude the they here present themselves also in the form of laws; or in all cases connected all-perfect Being under whose government with and expressive of the will of that bation our everlasting happiness will be we live; and on whose favour and approfound to depend."-Pp. 215, 216.

The Lectures almost bear the character of paternal counsels. The benevolent spirit of the gospel pervades them all. And though not aspiring to originality, nor distinguished by ingenuity, and though written without the ordinary anxieties of authors in regard to style, they insinuate themselves by the good feeling which they express into the affections of the reader, and are in fact better suited than some works of higher pretension to attract, persuade, convince and improve the greater number of youthful inquirers.

ART. III.An Inquiry into the Scrip

tural Authority for Social Worship; with Observations on its Reasona bleness and Utility; and an Account of the Manner in which the Religi ous Services of the Temple at Jerusalem, and of the Synagogue, were conducted in the Time of Christ. By Thomas Moore. 12mo. pp.

156. Hunter and Eaton. 1821. NOME late attempts to disparage

the authority of social worship led the author of this tract (see his "Advertisement") to preach several Sermons in defence of the practice, which, by the advice of some friends, he has given to the public in the present

form. A small work of this kind was much wanted, and we have no hesitation in recommending Mr. Moore's Inquiry," as a judicious and satisfactory argument for common or joint prayer.

The "Inquiry" consists of three chapters. In the first, the author alleges "Arguments from Reason in favour of Social Worship." Of its reasonableness he thinks "the universal practice of Christians" a presumption, and for its utility he appeals to experience. The second Chapter is a discussion of "the Degree of Encouragement given to Social Prayer by the Scriptures of the Old Testament." Here, the practice of the Jews is fully inquired into, and the author expresses the result of the inquiry in the following terms:

"From the instances which have been

selected, then, it is perfectly manifest that the Israelites were always accustomed to public social worship, consisting of both prayer and praise; and it is observable that of these instances some consist of thanksgiving and adoration; some of confession of sin; others of petition; and in others all these are united. Should it be said that part of them took place on extraordinary occasions, and are therefore no proofs of the common practice of the Jews, it is obvious to reply that they are such instances only of which the historian would take any notice; the usual and every-day services of religion would, of course, be passed over in silence, just as days of public thanksgiving, or any solemn act of national worship on some singular occasion, might be mentioned by historians of the present day, whilst the regular worship of the Sunday would not form a subject sufficiently remarkable to be adverted to. The whole of these instances, however, together with the Psalms composed expressly for the Temple service, and the officers appointed to conduct it, prove incontestably that social worship was the constant and stated practice of the Jews, and that it was always connected with the observance of the Mosaic rites.

"It is a remarkable circumstance, that in the first edition of Mr. Wakefield's pamphlet against public worship, which at the time excited considerable attention, he says expressly, I find no circumstances in the Scriptures, concerning this people, the Hebrews, that wear any aspect of public worship, as we conduct it;' but in his second edition he abandoned this topic of argument, in consequence of

the satisfactory answers to it, and allows himself to have been mistaken. He adds, however, that the Jewish public worship is nothing to the purpose; + in which he appears to us to have been equally mista ken: and, among other reasons, because, services of the Jews appears to have been in the first place, this part of the religious sanctioned by the personal attendance of Christ and his apostles; and, secondly, the universal prevalence of social prayer and praise among this people, accounts satisfactorily for no command occurring in the New Testament for the observance of this custom. To this it may be added, that social prayer is a duty altogether independent of the Mosaic institutes; but by its connexion with them it may be

considered as receiving an additional divine sanction."-Pp. 42-44.

The author next describes from Vitringa, Buxtorf, Lightfoot and others, "the religious services of the Temple in the time of Christ," and, after stating a variety of particulars, thus concludes this part of the " Inquiry:"

"From the whole of this account, then, it is evident that the entire service of the Temple was not only public, but of the whole people, conducted by officers as social as possible. It was the service appointed for this purpose.

"The mode of prayer, it is true, was probably different from that in use among Christians. There is no proof that they had any minister to conduct this part of the services, and Prideaux says, that every one repeated what prayers he ceptions, referring to the instance of the thought proper according to his own conPharisee and Publican, as mentioned by Christ. It appears, however, from Lightfoot's and other accounts of these services, on the best authority, that they had forms, and of these several have been given. The comment moreover upon the Talmud says expressly, § that these were the prayers of the people; and Maimonides || observes that their prayers were

"From the able pens of Mrs. Barbauld, Dr. Disney, Mr. Simson, (Simp son,) and Mr. Pope."

+ "See Pope's Answer to Wakefield." "Luke xviii. 10, &c."

§ Temp. Serv. ch. ix. sect. vi.”

"Maimonides, who lived about the end of the eleventh century of the Christian era, was the most learned and least superstitious of the Jewish writers.

He was the Jewish oracle,' says Lewis, 6 an author, as Cuneus observes, above

at first free, and unrestricted with respect both to time and forms, but that after their return from the Babylonian cap. tivity, they made use of forms, and at stated times. And with respect to the Temple service, the fact evidently was, that at the times of morning and evening sacrifice they had public prayers, in which all the people joined, either personally or by their representatives; and the outer court of the Temple being constantly open during the day, individuals went thither at other times, when they pleased, each to offer up his own prayer in his own thoughts and words; so that to infer from the instance of the Pharisee and publican, that all the prayers offered in the Temple were private, or individual and unsocial, would be just as reasonable as if a stranger who had never at tended the religious worship of the Roman Catholics in the present day, should conclude that they had no public prayers, because he happened to go into one of their chapels when two or three individuals were repeating their prayers separately, as is commonly seen to be the case, after the public services are concluded. Whilst the Jews had forms of prayer which they were required to repeat at least three times a day, † once in private, and if possible at the morning and evening service in the Temple, they were at liberty to use each for himself any other prayers he might think proper. And as it was considered to be the duty of all, who could, to be present at public prayers, considerable numbers usually attended on these occasions, as appears from Luke i. 10. This, then, was at

our highest praise; the only man of that nation who had the good fortune to understand what it is to write seriously, and to the purpose.' (Pref. to his Ant. p. 74.) Lightfoot and Vitringa have made ample use of his works, which treat at large of the services of the Temple and the Synagogue. He made an excellent Abridgment of the Talmud, and for this and his other works,' says Prideaux, he was esteemed the best writer among the Jews.' Prideaux's Conn. Part I. Book v. p. 228."

"Vitringa de Syn. Vet. Lib. iii. Pars ii. Cap. xiv. p. 1032."

+Such was the practice of David and Daniel. Psalm lv. 17; Dan. vi. 10."

"Or the account attributed to him, which, if spurious, was still written at a very early period, and is sufficient authority for a fact of this kind, mentioned as it is incidentally, and without design. Zacharias, the officiating priest for the time, being detained longer than usual,

VOL. XVII.

4 C

least prayer in society; and as they were in the habit of repeating the same forms, it was not individual and separate, but prayer in conjunction, or strictly social. However, the following circumstances are decisive: whilst the people themselves were praying in the outer court, the officers of the Temple, called the Israelites of the Station, who were the delegates of the people, were repeating the prayers in their behalf. And if they had no priest, or minister, to lead their devotions, the reason appears to have been this: The offering of incense,' as Prideaux observes,†upon the golden altar in the Holy Place, at every morning and evening service in the Temple, at the time of the sacrifice, was instituted on purpose to offer up unto God the prayers of the people, who were then without praying unto him. And hence it was that St. Luke tells us, that while Zacharias went into the Temple to burn incense, the whole multitude were praying without at the time of incense.' And for the same reason it is that David prayed,

Let my prayers be set before thee as incense, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.' And according to this usage is to be explained what we find in Revelation, (viii. 4, 5,) for there it is said, An angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer, and there was given unto him much

"Psalm cxli. 2."

tendency, and giving them exhortations to avoid it? He was a reformer of religious abuses, and came for that express purpose. Would he not have laboured incessantly to exterminate this most fundamental abuse, as he must have considered it, had he entertained the views on the subject which its opponents are ready to attribute to him? And would he not have instructed his apostles to pursue the same course? But what is the fact? In the whole account of his public instructions, there is but one passage that can with any plausibility be urged as bearing the appearance of a prohibition of social worship; and that, if examined by the same rules of interpretation as are adopted in other cases of a like kind, will be found to have no such meaning; whilst in the recorded discourses of his apostles, and in their epistles, there is not a single expression adverse to this practice. This solitary passage, which is of so much importance as to shew that professing Christians have hitherto been universally mistaken in their Master's intentions, and ought to reject all public and social prayer for the future, occurs in Matt. vi. 5, 6: And when thou prayest, be not as the hypocrites; for they love to pray standing in the synagogues, and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily, I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret, will reward thee openly. Take this passage as it stands separately, without any refer ence to the context, to other passages of the Scriptures, or to the kind of phraseology in general use at that time, and without regard to the conduct of Christ and his apostles, or his particular design on this occasion, and it would be nothing extraordinary, if any person were led to suppose that it does contain something like a prohibition of all public social prayer. But in this way any absurdities whatever may find sufficient support in the Scriptures. It is, in fact, by the use of this method chiefly, that the popular errors of the present day, gross as they may be, are enabled to maintain their hold on the public mind. The advocates for them are in the habit of taking detached sentences of the Bible, that seem to uphold their favourite opinions, and judging of them by the sound, despising all the just rules of criticism, overlooking the design of the writer, the context, the general strain of the Scriptures, and making no allowance for difference in the customs and modes of expression that prevailed when they were written;

and in this manner it is no wonder if their hearers be misled: it would be strange, indeed, if they were not. But in forming a judgment of the passage before us, take into consideration all the circumstances that have a tendency to throw light upon it, and it will be clearly perceived, that it neither is nor can be inimical to social worship. For in the first place it should be remembered, that it is the only passage that appears to contain a prohibition of all public prayer, whilst there are many others decidedly in its favour: secondly, if our Lord intended here absolutely to forbid his followers to pray in the presence of men, then his own conduct was in opposition to his instructions; for he not only attended the social worship of the synagogue, but there are other instances upon record in which he did pray in company : thirdly, his apostles, to whom he addressed himself on this occasion, did not so understand him; for there are various passages in the Acts and the Epistles which prove that they were in the habit of social prayer; and lastly, if Christ here meant to prohibit all public social prayer, then in the context all almsgiving in the presence or with the knowledge of others, is as expressly forbidden by him; for he exhorts immediately before, Take heed, that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them. Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.' The language in this case is not less positive and absolute than in the former. Now it is perfectly evident, that this exhortation cannot be meant to be understood literally, and to its full extent; for few deeds of charity can be done with absolute secrecy; and a large proportion of them, if performed at all, must take place in public, or with the knowledge of many individuals. Nor is it possible that so truly benevolent a teacher as Christ was, should ever intend to throw a check upon a practice, which, however wrong the motives may be from which it may sometimes proceed, is fraught with so much benefit to mankind, and for which at all times the necessity is so general and so urgent. On the contrary, he conferred the highest praise on the poor widow for casting the only two mites she possessed into the treasury, which was a public act; and his apostles also speak with deserved commendation of the liberal contributious of individuals for the relief of others, particularly Paul, in the case of the Gentiles affording such assistance to the poor brethren at Jerusalem; none of which deeds of charity were done in secret. And to this it may not be improper to add, that his own benevolent acts, though he had no money