lw-'..~' •'1- A A 7 a J*-i ::^ ^, Cms ey. Letters to a Young Man Occasioned by Hf . V/ak 1 Essay. London, 1792'« L E T. T E R S TO A YOUNG MAN, PCCASIONED SY MR. WAKEFIELD.'S ESSAY ON PUBLIC WORSHIPj TO -WHICH IS ADDED, A REPLY TO MR. EVANSON'S OBJECTIONS TQ THE OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S DAY. By JOSEPH PRIESTLEr,'LL.D. F.R.S. Ergo cave ne tc falfo fub nomine menijax Simplicitas fors tranfverfum feducat, et illuc Unde referre pedem nequeas trahat. ¦ Buchananus. jvTec tHa.]audabis fludia, aut aliena reprendes, Hckace. LONDON; PRIKTED F0&. T. JomrSON, WO. J7, ST. FAVI.'s CHVtlGH-VARS. 1792. THE PREFACE. SHE following Letters were written after reading the firft edition of Mr. Wakefield's Eflay. A fe cond edition has been publiflied fince, and in this, " that he may not appear," as he fays, p. 4, " too " morofe and unrelenting," he gives a iketch of " a " plan of public worfliip, in which he would ac- " quiefce, till mankind fliall be fo well difciplined " with knowledge and virtue, by means of more *' learned, afllduous, and difinterefted teachers, . as ** to be able to conform with greater accuracy to '' the real power arid fpirit of Ghriftianity, deline- *-' ated in tlie life and doctrines of its founder; when " the gofpel fliall flijne in its native Iplendour, and " every mift of ceremony and fuperftition diflblve " before its rays." But this, in my opinion, will not be while hurnan nature is what it now is, or while the world continues. I therefore afli no longer terni for the duration of public worfliip. In this plan of Mr. Wakefield's, however, I do not difcover any thing particularly excellent, or ma terially differing from the plan of public worfhip adopted by fome whom he, with an evident fneer, calls Unitarian Dijfenters ; though if 'Mr. Wakefield be not an abfolute unique among Cliriftians, this is A a the IV THEPREFA CE. the clafs to which he himfelf belongs, being an Unitarian, and not conforming to the eftabliflied church. He .propofes to conclude the fervtce with ^' a fhort addjrefs from the minifter to God," though without faying whether the people are to join in it ; fixid yet in other places he feems to prefer a liturgy with refponfes to any other mode of worfhip. As to long or fijert, they are only terntis of comparifon, and air prayers in general ufe among us would have appeared fhort to rnany of our anceftors. If the generality of thp hearerg, to whofe inclinations minifters wjU generally conform, do not think the prayers, or the exhortations, too long, they are not too long v/jth refpeft to themfelves, whatever they may be with refped to others. But that Mr. Wakefield Ihould indulge Chrjftians with a mode of worfhip which he at the fame tinie acknowledges, p. 56, to be not only " without any authority from the gofpel f' of God, but inconfiftent with its true charafter," appears to me not a. litde extraordinary, Surely nothing to which this defcription can properly apply pught to be tolerated by any Chriftian^ in conde- Icenfion to any man, or any prejudice, I am forry to fee fo much appear^-nce of bigotry againft the whole body of DiiTGnters,. mixed with lb many profeflions of uncommon HberaHty, as appears in this pamphlet. Alas, what have they done ? What have they done ;o provoke the implacable ^efentment of Ml". Wakefield? What have they ^pne but, in cornjiion with other denominations of Chriftians, *t*rfB PREFACEj f CWiftians (if they, who have hardly any thing in com mon, ca,n be cailed a /^OT5WK^//(2«^ adopt modes' of publie wOrflaip approved by themfelves, as moft conducive td their own edification ? And, furely, the circumftance of length or brevity, that oi forms or no forms, refponfes or no refponfes, canriot be of fo much confequentie as to make us the objeft of fuch pointed fatire. However, if others be nc> more af- , fefted by it than I feel myfelf to be, the dart will" fall pointkfs. We hasve no great reafon to dread either the ciuii ef the arguments, p. ivj or the fhafti (f the s.tfACt. This, in my opinion (and I certainly knew rlfore of him than Mr. Wakefield can pretend to do), is a charafter that is faf from being applicable to Dr, Price, or the generality of diflfenting minifters. That Dr- Price had been as well acquainted with. the learned languages (for that I fuppofe to be the. branch of knowledge that Mr. Wakefield alludes to) as the generality ofthe clergy, even thofe who have been educated at our Univerfities, I have no doubt (for the real fcholars even among them, are not nu merous) and that he retained as inuch Ladn and Greek as the generality of fcholars do at his time of life, I have alfo no doubt. For with moft men ad vancing in life, inferior ftudies give place to flipe- rior ones. But I will venture to lay, that while a perfon re tains fo much Greek or Hebrew (an acquaintance with which laft is a rare qualification with the clergy) as to be able to read without afliftance only the more eafy parts of fcripture, he has every requifite of a good critic with refpeft to any thing deferving particular attention. For this does not depend upon the facility with which he can read the languages in general. With a little more time he will colleft the evidence neceflary to afeertain the fenfe of any dif ficult paffage, and form as good an opinion, as the more ready fcholar. The greateft fcholar would hardly choofe to publifh an opinion concerning the fenfe of a difputed paftage, without confuldng fcw- cordance.!, lexicons, and indexes, which the ordinary fcholar THE PRBFACEi ViJ fcholar can alfo do. And fome of the greateft fcholars in the learned languages have been very poor divines *.- Befides, to afeertain the true fenfe of paflTages of fcripture the knowledge of many thingsy befides the language iri -whieh they are written/ is requifite,- efpecially that of cuftprfis,- opinions, &c. Even the pWafeology of fcriptufe may not be fufficiendy attended to by thofe who are proficients in the lan guage in general. This alfo appears from Mr.' Wakefield's interpretation of our Saviour's lan guage, on whieh he lays fo much ftrefs, the true fenfe of which he has entirely miftaken, though there is no difficulty whatever in conftruing every word. The real value of a facility in reading the learned languages is greatly overrated by thofe who • If we may judge of Mr. Wakefield's general fyftem of theoldgy from' fhe' foTlowing flcetch of it, p. j, it is not fuch as can fafely defy either the club af argument, of the ftiaft of ridicule. " The ftupendous doftrine of redemptlan from the " confequences of Adam's tranfgreffion by the achievement of " immortaHty through tho medi-am of the Meffiah, a doflrine " proclaimed, exemplified, and afceftained, by the life of " the Son of God, his facrifice on the erofsy and his reftor- " ation to life on the third, day, was inculcated on mankind " amidfl: a moft auguft difplay of celeftial agency, accompanying f this unexampled communication ofthe Deity, the completion " and conclufion, it (hould feem, of all his religious difpenfa* " fations to the human race." The union of Unitariani/m, with fuch crude conceptions as thefe, refembles the mixture of iren and clay in Nebuchadnezzar's images. A 4 boafl VlJI THE PREFACE. boaft ofit*, and much more ufeful things muft be facrificed to it. Let us now confider how it appears ' that Dr. Price was " no true friend of religious liberty." " He was forward," Mr. Wakefield fays, " on va- *' rious otca/fio*is> to exprefs his difappfobatiOH' of " my coridufti and oppofed my eleftion to the- " claflical tutorfhip in the college at Hackney." He adds, in a ftrain of inventive furely not b'ecottl- ing any extraordinary meafure ofthe fpirit of Chrif tianity, or that can peculiarly recommend any mode of it, " but that Diflenters '^^ould thus fhew their ** averfion to any religious principles,, or any prac- " tice grounded ori thofe principles, is an excels of " inconfiftency and impudence, which no language " in my power- can chaftife in terms of fuitable in- " dignation and contempt," A confiderable portion of this unutterable indig nation and contempt, as much at leaft as fell to the fhare of Dr. Price, I own belongs to me ; being equally chargeable with this grofs inconfiftency and impudence. But whereas Dr. Price is happily out * I by no means wiih to detraft frpm the reputation of Mr, ¦Wakefield for that kind of literature to which he has giverii particular attention, on which he evidently values himfelf, apd with refpeiS to which he pronounces Diffenters in general to be ixceedi'.gly 'tllit'eraii. A Diffenter, however, of whofe acquaint ance with the fanie braijch of literature I have conceiveda high opiniofl, will foon endeavour to give the world ac eftimate of it. of THE PREFACE. iJf" cff the reach of this fudden ftorm-, which cannot af- feft the dead, it may overwhelm the livings Be ing, however, fo much interefted, let us expoftulate a little on the fubjeft. How- can it be faid that a man is no true friend of religious liberty, merely becaufe he expreffes his difapprobation of any particular opinion or con- (foft, and afts in confequence of it ? It is a liberty which all men, and all Chriftians, take ; and cer tainly no man has ever done it with more freedom than Mr .'Wakefield himfelf, and this very pamphlet affords the ftrongeft proof of it. Dr. Price really thought, as I myfelf do, that' public worfhip is of great importence, andthat an example of TiabituaTattendance upon it is of patti- cular confequence in an inftruftor of youth; and he afted upon diis principle, as, I believe, all the truf- tees of the New College did, in demurring to eleft Mr. Wakefield' a tutor in it, till they could procure information whether he attended public worfhip or not. The anfwer returned to their enquiries was nbt decifive, but left room to prefume that, as he had attended the public worfhip of the church qf Eng land, when he was tutor at Warrington, he would do fo in a fimilar fituation here ; and with a liber ality which Mr. Wakefield fhould have acknow ledged, they were not folicitous what mode of pub lic worfhip he preferred, though in their opinion his former praftice had been inconfiftent wjth, his. own X THE PREFACE. own fentiments, he being an Unitarian, while the Worfhip he attended was Trinitarian. Wheri, to the concern of all the friends ofthe in ftitution, Mr. Wakefield was found to attend no public worfliip af all, ftiU, with a liberality, which certainly does them honour, and which he would not have found every where, they expreffed no public difapprobation of it^ but fuffered him to continue in his employment rill he himfelfj of his own accord, diiTolved the connexion. Could Mr. Wakefield's Cambridge friends, of whofe liberality he makes fo great a boaft, to the difparagement of the Diflent- jtrs,- have done more * ? Thus much I thought myfelf called upon to fay in defence of Dr. Price, of the DiflTenters in general, and of the truftees of the new College iri particular. Dr. Price I confider as one of tbe firft of human charafters. I have had occafion to give particular attention to it, and I look up to it with equal vene ration, and affeftion. Of all men Dr. Price ¦was certainly the fartheft from being aftuated * t do nof much wonder that Mr. 'Wakefield, being a Cam- bridg-e min, fliould boa'ft of his own Univerfity, to the difpa. ragement of Diffenters. I, being a Diffenter, may be preju diced on the other fide ) bat, in my opinion, it is fufficient praife for the members of the Univerfity of Cambridge, if they be al lowed to occupy a middle ftation between thofe of the Univer fity of Oxford, and thofe who are ufually called rational Dijint' en, with refpeft to liberality, and an acquaintance with nieful knowledge in its full extent. by THE PREFACE. ij by the fpirit of perfecution; and, if true candour- ever had its pcrfeSl work in this world, it was in his breaft, -. This I fay, without wifliing to detraft ffom the virtue of the man, who, in my opinion, undervalues him. Mr. Wakefield's " difpofition may be as " ferious, his love of virtue as ardent, and his faith " as fincere," as in p. 26 he fays it is;.and certainly he is a great fufterer for his religious opinions, " I am perfuaded," he fays, Preface, p. 4, " that " no man in England, of any denomination, haa " fuffered fo much hindrance in his fecular con- '' cerns, on account of his religious opinions, as " myfelf; and this is to my mind a perpetual fource " of unfpeakable exultation." I am happy (and this I fay without any offenfive meaning) that Mr. Wakefield is able to confolc himfelf in this manner; for I do not fee how, in th« nature of things, there can be any remedy in the cafe rill his opinions be more generally received. Ifhe be, as I doubt not he is, truly confcientious in doing every thing in his power to difcountenance public worfhip, may not others be equally confcientious in adhering to it, and even in dreading the influence which his fentiments and praftice may have on their children and acquaintance ? This negative perfecu- tion, if it can be fo called (for m reality it is nothing more than withholding pofitive encouragement) is tlie"necenary and unavoidable confequence of Mr." Wak'Meld's avowed opinions and conduft, and cer- '"" tainly XII THE P-REFACE. tainly dtlFers very much from that kind of perfecu tion which afifes from perfons not being content to think and aft for themfelves, but from a deterqiinat- tjon to controul the conduft of others. I had myfelf full as much reafon to complain of perfecution, when for feveral years I was not able to get a fingle fcholar, when I wifhed to ©pen a fehool, becaufe 1 was an Arian. For any perfon who had a dread of Arianifm, and of his child be-^ ing infefted by me, could not be expefted to put him under my care; nor could I complain of it. It was the neceflary confequence of my principles and my fituation. Supjxjfe, what is very polTibk, that any perfon: Ihould make it a matter of religion to refrain from all labour, not only on Sundays, but on Saturday (the Jewifli Sabbath) alfo, and likewife on aU die fafts,- feftivals, arad holidays of every kind in the Popifli calendar, would he not neceffarily find hindrance in, his fecular concerns in confequence of afting ac cording to the diftates of his confcience ? He cer tainly would ; but his friends could not relieve him : thfy could only pity him. I fhould think, how-. ever> that there are fo many perfons, efpeciaUy ia the upper ranks of life, difinclined to public wor fhip, that Mr. Wakefield woukl not meet widi much hindrance in, his fecular concerns from them, at leaft on rfiis account. All. that any of us can do -is to follow the beft judgment of o.ur own minds, and abide by the con- 4 fequences THE PREFACE. Xllt fequences of Upright-And confiftent conduft, -what- ever they may be. But let us not cenfure others fbr following tiieir beft judgments, though it may eventually prove inconvenient to us. Many of my enemies, who would not only difcountenance,^ but even deftroy me, if they wei-e able, I am far firom thinking very ill of; and if their zeal had no mixture of malignity, there would e-ven be a meric in it. Tiie rime will come when we fliall know what we are nowignorarit of, and likewife one ano ther, better than we do at prefent ; and then it may happen that the perfecutors and perfecuted fhal| rejoice together, each of them having affifted in carrying on the. wonderful defigns of providence, in promoting the fpread of truth and virtue, though. in very different ways. I do not fee why the 'Diffenters fliould be treated with fuch peculiar acrimony by Mr. Wakefield, or other perfons; fince they are by no means one body of men, or anfwerable for each others prin ciples or conduft. As Proteftants, and much more as Chriftians, Mr. Wakefield himfelf claflies with us ; and would he not think it hard if our ab furd opinions, or improper conduft, fhould be afcribed to him by a Catholic, or an unbdiever? To my reply to Mr. Wakefield's ^ffay on Publii; Worfisip I have thought proper to fubjoin f6mc Remarks on'Mr. ¦E'tfaffi'fi's Letter to me on the ob^ fervance ofthe Lord's Day; and I have prefixed ta tliem that article of mine in the Theological Repofit$ry, 'Which tXT THE PREFACE. which was the occafion of his letter. The fubjefts are fufficiendy fimilar to give a propriety to thefe pieces accompanying each other. Mr. Evanfon is as chargeable as Mr. Wakefield with a eenfurable con tempt ofhis opponents ; though, to appearance, not on the poor ground of their being Diffenters. Both thefe ¦writers have brought important dif- fuflion? before the public., and they ought to purfue diem to their proper termination. And certainly Mr, Evanfon fhould not have thrown out the refleftions that he has done on the authority of Matthew's gof pel, or on the value ofthe hiftorical evidence of Chrif tianity, without ^ving the reafons on which fuch ©pinions as thefe are -founded, As die Rev- Mr. G. Morgan was better acquainted with the literature of his uncle. Dr. Price, than I c-n pretend to be, I requefted hjs account of it, and he Jjas given me his opinion in die following letter? DEAR. SIR, Dr. Price was by no means a ftranger to the Greek and Latin languages. He was induced to l^e them a confiderable degree of attention, by their immediate connexion wjth fome of his favour ite purfuits. Early in hfe his ftudies direfted hirn to Cudwcrth's IntelleStml Syfiem.-^From this work he imhibed a ftrong partiality for Platonifm, and an eager defire to ^xan^ine the fyftem according to Plato's THE PREFACE. Kt Plato's defcription of it in his own language: tliis jhe accompliflied, though, agreeably to his own confeffion, after the labour of years, and the expe rience of very great difficulties. His notes, how^ ever, to his Treatife on Morals will fliew that he was not a ftranger to the author he admired. Befides, thejfe was no part of literature more in terefting tq Dr. Price than a critical knowledge of the New Teftament. — This was an objeft of his purfuit to the lateft hour ofhis life^ indeed he readi with uncommon ayidity whateyer related to this fubT jeft. ^ His congregation mijft remernber that in hjs fer-i imons he frequendy introduced verbal crjticifim attended \yith a reference to the original language. I will add, that he was fo great an admirer of Epi^etus as always to carry a copy of his Enchiridion in his pocket, the Gree}?: of which he interpreted with the utmoft eafe. Thefe cfrcumftances moft certainly give Dr. Price no claim tq eminence as- a claflical fcholar, buf they are fufficient to refute the idle charge of his being illiterate ; a charge which I fliould fcarcely think to be deferving of any notice, as I fhould fuppofe that its effeft will be altogether confined, tof fhe in4ulget?ce ofthe author's temper. I aiji^ &c. Q, M0R,CAN, VINDIGATION OF PUBLIC WORSHIP. LETTER I. Of the natural Propriety tf fecial Prayer. DEAR SIR,' 1 FIND that you have read Mr. Wakefield's Effay on the Expediency and Propriety of public or fociat Worfhip, and alfo Mr. Evanfon' s Letter to me, on the Obfervance of the Lord's Day ; that thefe treatifes have made a confiderable imprelfioh on your mind, as they have on the minds of many oth«rsi and that, in confequence of this, you have of lafe abfented yourielf from all public worfhip. This I am truly con cerned for, becaufe I cannot help thinking that the Opinions thofe gentlemen maintain are Ul founded, and may be attended ¦^ith confcqtiences unfavour able to re%ion, and the beft interefts of mankind,- ^hich I am fure ytou have at heart. Ha:d you objefted to' prayer univerfally, as art addrefs to a Being who is previoufly acquainted witii every thir^ that we can inform him of, who is riot defeftive in any good difpofition towards any of his creattites, ahd whofe purpofes cannot be changed by any thing that we cari lay to him^ there would, on the principle of»«/«r/2/rtf/?fw», exclufive of what B wc 2 A Vindication of Public Worfioip. wc learn from the fcriptiires, have ,been fomething fpecious in your fcheme. It is an objeftion that has given much trouble to ingenious arid pious men. But admitting the reafonablenefs of prayer in ge-* neral, there cannot, furely, be even any plaufible ob jeftion to feveral perfons joining in the fame prayer, when they all ftand in the fame relation to the great objeft of prayer. What would you fay of the regulations of a pri vate family, in which each child fhould be permitted to fpeak to his father alone, but any two or three of them fhould be forbidden to approach him at die fame time, though they had all the very fame re- qiieft to make, and found a convenience in going together ? You would certainly think there was fomething extremely whimfical and unreafonable in fiich an order. And would it not be equally ab furd in the great family of mankind, with refpeft to God, their common parent ? The whole of our intercourfe with our Maker is founded on the analogy between our relation to him and that to our earthly parents. If, tlierefore, a human parent would even wifh to fee his children come to him together, and he would receive plea fure from fuch a fight, we are fufficiently authoriz ed to conclude, that the lame circumftance is no lefs pleafing to Our Univerfal Parent ; that he will -be pleafed wirji fee^g his whole family, or as many of theni as could be conveniently affembled for the purpofe, come to addrefs him in common, de claring AVtnMmtton of Public Worflsip. 3 ckring their common wants, and expreffing their common gratitude and fubmiffion. This is an idea fo natural, that it has been adopt ed by all hationsj whether favoured with divine re velation or nof. The very idea pf each individual applying to i:he Supreme Being only feparately, and never, or not genefallyj in companies, does not ap pear to have been fo much as ftarted before. Modes of worfhip have been various, as various as the fancies of men could make them; but ftill it has al ways been fecial. Sometimes perfons have pre fented themfelves iri the temples, or at the altars, together, but have prayed feparately. At other times one ofthe company has fpoken aloud, fb as to be the mouth of all the reft ; and frequendy they have all fpoken together, repeating the fame words. All thefe, however, are only varieties of public or fecial worfhip. I am. Sir, &c. B a LETTER A Vindication bf Public Wo^jhtp* LETTER n. bf the Jewifh Worjhipi DEAR SIR, In the Jewifh religion; the Divine Being; whd himfelf appointed the forms of it, not only was therd provifion for a morning and evening facrifice, of^. fered in the name of the whole nation, and art an-- nual day of atonement, in which the high prieft went into the holy of holies to fupplicate for aU the people, but every male of a proper age was obliged to make his appearance before God three times in the courfe of every year. This was not merely public, but, ftriftly fpeaking, national worfhip-. In the uftial mode of worfhip among the Jews, the people prayed in the great court of the temple at the time that the priefts were offering incenfe in the holy place, each perfon praying for himfelf. But to this David added hymns, to be fung by the Invites, accompanied with Inftruments of mufic j and in this part of the worfliip all the people might join. What thefe hymns were, may be feen in th^ book of pfalms, many of which were compofed for this purpofe; and feveral of them confift of joint addreffes to the Supreme Being in the plural num ber, though die purpofe of public worfhip is equally attained A Vindication of Public Worfhip, 5 attained by each of the company fpeaking the fame words in the fingular number. It is probable, how ever, that hymns had been ufed on the fame occa fion before, and that David only improved this part of public worfhip, now called Pfalmody. The hea- theris alfo had their religious hymns," accompanied' with inftruments of mufic, at their facrifices. After the Babylonifh captivity, dxtfynagogue wor fhip ¦was introduced ; and this is well known to have confifted of reading the fcriptures and prayers, and probably of finging alfo, for fuch is the worfhip of the Jews in their fynagogues at this day, and their cuftoms have not materially changed fince die in- troduftion of Chriftianity, and certainly not in imi tation of the cuftoms of Chriftians. There are Jews in this country : their fynagogues are open to Chriftians, and their liturgies are printed in Hebrew and in Englifh, and in the title page ofthe book the prayers contained in it are faid not only to be pub licly read in the fynagogues, but alfo to be ufed in all families *. It is not particularly faid that Jefus went to the fynagogues to pray, but neither is it faid that he went thither to hear the fcriptures , read ; but as prayer is well known to have been the proper bu- * The Jews have not ufually prayers in private families, but their cuftom is to refort to their fynagogues e;(rly in the morn ing and late in the evening, to pray feparately. But whenever, on thofe occafions, ten perfons meet together, they confider themfelves as a congregation, and then one of them reads the prayers ^loud, and the reft fay Amen. B 3 finefs 6 A Vindication of Public Worfhi^p. finefs ofthe place, there cannot be a doubt but that, when he attended there, he conftantly did both the one and the other j his preaching or teaching in the fynagogues being only occafional, and therefore particularly mentioned. Had Jefus negleftcd the worfhip of the fynagogue, or any part of it, he would, no doubt, have been feverely cenfured, if not excommunicated, on that account. i\ negleft of this kind could not but have been particularly ¦objefted to him by his cavalling and watchful ene-. mies. But no fuch thing is fo much as hinted |,t in the whole of the gofpel hiftory. To expeft the exprefs authority of Chrift in favour of public wor^ ihip is moft unreafonable, when in his time the praftice was univerfal, and his own compliance with it was, no doubt, moft ftrift and exemplary. In faft, to require an exprefs account of his going to the temple, or to the fynagogue to pray, when every other Jew did fo, and would have been cen fured for not doing it, is like requiring fimilar ex prefs evidence of his undrefling to go to bed. It . is fortunate, however, that we have a diftinft ac- count-of Jefus eating, drinking, and fleeping, or we might have been amufed once more with the gnof- fic notion, of his having no grofs body, that re quired any fuftenance or refrefhment ofthe kind. I am. Sir, &c. tETXEP 4 Vintfi^ation ef Public Worfhip. 7 LETTER ni. OhjeSions to facial Prayer from the Sayings of Chrift. DEAR SIR, You have been led by Mr. Wakefield to lay great ftrefs on our Saviour's faying to the woman of Samaria (John iv, 21), Believe me^ the hour cometh when ye fhall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerufalem, worfhip the Father, The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worfhippers fhall worfhip th^ Father in fpirit an^ in truth, for the Father feek- eth fuch to worfhip him ; and alfo on his faying to his difciples (Matt. vi. 56), Thou, when thou pray - eft, enter into thy clofet, and when thou haft fhut the dgor, pray to thy Father who is in fecret. But to in terpret fuch language as this, as if it was intended to forbid all public worfhip, or any worfhip befides that of the clofet, appears to me to betray a moft" unaccountable ignorance of tiie fcripture phrafe- ology, and on the fame principles it niight have been concluded that all facrifices were forbid den to the Jews, even long befpre the coming of Chrift. David fays, Pf. li. 16, Thou defireft not facrifice, dfe would L give it; thou delighteft not in burnt offer - B 4 ing. S ¦ A Vindication of PubUc Worfhip. - ing. The facrifices of God are a broken fpirit. A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not der fipife. Ifaiah alfo fays, ch. i. 13, Bring no more vain oblations. Incenfe is an abomination to me. The new moons and the fabbaths, the calling of affemblies, I cannot away with. It is iniquity, even the folemn meet ing. Tour new means, and your appointed feafts, my foul hateth. They are a trouble unto me, I am weary to bear them. How fimilar are thefe and many other paflages of the Old Teftament to the lan guage of our Saviour quoted above ; but how litr tie fhould we be juftified in fuppofing that they meant any thing more than that internal religion, or that of the heart, is preferable tp that which is only external. In like manner, all that Jefus ever intended by what he faid to the woman of Samaria was, that in the gofpel difpenfation neither the temple on Mount Gerizim, nor that at Jerufalem, would be the only authorized place of national worfhip; fince the Gen- rile Chriftians would have no concern with either of them ; and that no worfhip of this kind was of any confequence, compared with the religion ofthe heart. For it w^ cuftomary -with the Jews to deny of one thing what they only meant to affert more ftrongly of another. Thu? we read, John i. 17, The law came by Mofes, but grace and truth came by Jefus Chrift. The meaning of ^s^hich was, not what the words literally interpreted would fignify; viz. jthat there, was no grace or truth in the law of Mofes, A Vindication of Public Worfioip. a but that the difpenfation ofthe gofpel is a fyftern of more important truth, and a more gracious or be nevolent difpenfation than the law. That Jefus did not mean that the national wor fhip ofthe temple, or the Jewifh difpenfation in ge neral, was ever to be difcontinued, is evident from his own conduft ; and that the Apoftles did not fo underftand him is evident from theirs ; for they conr formed to the law moft ftriftly in every point. Paul, who contended the rnoft earneftly for the li berty of the Gentile converts, circumcited Timothy, though his father was a Greek, becaufe his mother was- a JeWefs. And in order to refiite the calumny cf fome who had faid, Afts xxi. 22, that he had taught all the Jews who were among the Gentiles to for - fake 'Mofis, faying, that they ought not to circumcife their children, neither to nmlk after the cuftoms, he purified himfelf in the temple, and thereby con vinced his Jewifh brethren that he himfelf walked, orderly,^ and kept the law, ' It is well known that all tiie Jewifli Chriftian,s, tp the lateft period to which we are able to trace them, continued firmly attached to their peculiar cuftoms. Nor have I the leaft doubt, but that this remark able people is to be diftinguifhed by circumcifion, facrifices at, Jerufaleni, and other cuftoms, after their return to their own country, and the rebuild ing their temple, and to continue fo to the end of time. All that Paul is fuppofed to have faid to the gontrary is to be interpreted iri the fame manner as the io A Vindication ef Public Worfhip,. the preceding quotations from the prophets^ an4 iuch language as the following, quoted by our Sa^r viour, / will have mercy, and not faerifice ; which is explained by what immediately follows, and the knowledge of the Lord rfther than burnt offering,, Hof. vi. 6, the meaning of it being, not that fa? prifice was ever to be rejefted, but to be confidered as of inferior valuv when compared with moral du- jues. That Jefus did not intend to be undejrf^ood lir terally in his djreftions abput praying in the clofei enly^ js evident from his own praftice ; for he pftei^ iprayed elfewhere, and in the view and hearing of his difciples. He could therefore only mean %o exp^efs;, }n ftrong emphatic language, his difapprojpation of the abominable oftentation of the Scribes and PhaT fifees of his time, who flopped to pray even in the public ftreets, when the hour of prayer was come, when they might have retired out of the view of all men for the purpofe. A rigorous interpretation of this precept would alfo be inconfiftent with another general and very Important direftion ofhis, to lei our light fhine before ¦men, that others feeing our good works may glorify our Father who is in heaven. How is this to be done, if men are never to fee others in the perfprmance of that particular good work, which, according to the fcriptures, is the beft foundation of all the reft, viz. devotion ? 1 do not lay much ftrefs on the phrafe our Father in A Vindication of Public W^rfh^, %% in the Lord's Praypr ; though I think it much rnor? ^atufally implies a (Jireftion for joint or fecial pray-. er J and that, had the idea of Jefiis been that each of his difciples Ihould always pray feparately, an4 never together, he wopid rather have taught them to fay my Father. That, in the idea of Jefus, his difciples were, on extraordinary o(2cafions at leaft, to pray jointly, is clearly imphed in what he faid, IVfatt. xviii. 19. Again I fay unto you^^ that if two of you fhall agr^e m farth, as touching any thing that they fhall afk, it fhall be done for tlaem of my Father who is in heaven. For wher^ two or three are gathered together in my name f. there am I in the mid/l of th-em. The meaning of this feems tp be, that the prayers of his Apoljfles would have the fame efficacy with their heayenly Father, as if he himfelf had been with them^^ anc? joined in their petitions. However, the Lord's Prayer was eyidendy intended for ordinary, and not for extraordinary occafions; and accordingly it con- fifb of lUph petitions as we can at this day, with the greateft propriety, make ufe of. Indeed, alinoft the whole of this prayer has been obferved to be borrowed from fof ms that were in ufe among the Jews. I am, Sjr, 8cc^ BETTER ife A Vindication of. Public Worfhip, LETTER IV. Of the Practice of the Apoftles, PEAR SIR, Mr. Wakefield appeals to the praftice of the Apoftles, as unfavourable to public worfliip. But this appears to me to be as clearly favourable to it as that of our Savipur: and if we only confider the fituation of things in their time, it is almoft iinpof- fible not to conclude that it muft have been fo. The Apoftles, being Jews, were accuftomed to the bufinefs and the forms of fynagogue worfhip, which confifted of reading the feriptures, and prayer. When they began to preach Chriftianity, it was in the Jewifh fynagogues, at the ufual times of the Jewifli worfhip, which was morning and evening; that is, at our nine in the forenoon, and three in the after noon, the times of facrificing in the temple; and to thefe Jewifh fynagogues the Gentiles of the plaqe reforted to hear the Apoftles. When the Chriftians feparated themfelves from the Jews, aS we have an account of theif doing at Corintii, Afts xviii. 6, and procured a place of worfhip of their own, they, no doubt, continued to do juft as they had done before in the fynagogue, No change would he made but 4 in A Vindiceaim of PubUc Wirftolp. t$ in die place of meeting. They would, of courfej jaffemble on the fame day, and at the fame hours* There was no motive whatever for a change, except of the Sabbath for Sunday, which in rime took place ; but this change would not naturally proceed farther than the day. The bufinefs of it, arid the manner of condufting ^e bufinefs, would be the fame as before, and confequently public prayer would not be omitted. It is well known to all perfons eonvSrfant in Chriftian antiquity, that, even the officers and dif cipline of the Chriftian church were borrowed fi-om thofe of the Jewifh fynagogue, the elders and dea-' cons being the fame in both. And notwithftanding all the differences of opinion and praftice among Chriftians, from the time of the Apoftles to the prefent, it does not appear that there was ever any difference on this fubjeft. All the fefts of Chriftians had their churches, their minifters^ and their public worfhip. Abufes were, no doubt, introduced into every thing, and into this among the reft. But, as we are able to trace the rife and progrefs of all other abufes; furely, if public worfhip itfelf had been an abufe, which arofe after the times of the Apoftles, there coukl not have been any peculiar difficulty in tracing it> and afcribing it to its proper author. Such an innovation as this could not have been in troduced filently, like a mere opinion. It muft hz^ve made a great and vifible change in the ftate of things, fugh as could not but have attraded much notice. I cannot 14 A VtnMcatton ef Public Worfhip* I cahriot help concluding, thereforci that fince ifid fuch change as this in the affairs of Chriftians tan te pointed outj but that, notwithftanding every other poffible difference, there is no ttace of any on this fub^ft, the praftice was always 'bniverfal; that it be gan with the Apofiles, and, though changing in form, has always remained the fame in fubftance, till Mr. Wakefield undertook to difput^ the authority, ex pediency, and propriety of it. We frequently read of the Apoftles and other Chriftians being affembled together, and on almoft all thefe occafions there were prayers. Of the dif ciples in general it is faid, Afts ii. 41, that th^ con tinued ftedfaftly in the Apoftles' doSirine and fellowpip; and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, which is evi dently a defcription of their ufual worfhip, as more particularly defcribed by Juftin Martyr in a later period. As the JeWs had been ufed to pray for themfelves, tiiough in die company of others, both in the temple and in the fynagogues, it is poffible that this might be done by many Chriftians in early times. This is now the praftice of the Cathohcs in their churches; which are open every day, and all day lon^, for this purpofe. But that prayers in which others were ex pefted to join were ufed in the public affemblies of Chriftians, in the time of the Apoftles, is evident from One circumftance, if there were no other, viz. that the audience was expefted to fay amen to the prayer, which, therefore, muft have been dehvered 3 in A VindicMon 6f Public Whrfinp. ij in an audible voice, fo as to have difturbed others, if they had at the fame time been praying by them felves. I Cor. xiv. 1 6, When thou Jhalt blefi with the fpirit, how fhall he who occupies the place of the ' unlearned fay amen ai thy giving of thanks, feeing he 'underftandeth not what thou fay efi. For thou verily givefi thanks well, but the other is not edified. To fay amen to the pubUc prayers was alfo the cuftom in the Jewifh fynagogues, and, in imitation ofit, con tinued to be a refponfe in all Chriftian churches in early times, I am,- &c LETTER V; Of .ihe Expediency and Ufe of Public Worfhip. DEAR SIR, Mr. Wakefield appeals to the praftice of Chrift and the Apoflies, as unfavourable to pubhc wor fhip; but he refiifes to abide by this appeal. " If it were," he fays, p. 6, " an original appendage to the " gofpel, the argument of progreffive praftical per- " feftion, grounded on the exigencies ofthe primitive « times, the genius of the gofpel, and the charafter " of the human mind, would conftitute alone m " my tS A rmdication of Public tVorfhip. " my eftimation a moft powerful argument, wheri « oppofed by nodiing better than! ipere ufage and *^ prefeription." This appears to me to be moft tfncertain and dangerous ground to go upon; fince the mere fancy of any individual Chriftiafi, of his having conceived a better and more improved method of devotion than was known to Chrift or die Apoftks, will,- on this principle, authorize him to depart from their ideas, and follow his own. It was this principle that led to all the abufes and corruptions of Chriftian worfhip in the dark ages. For they were all con ceived to be improvements, when they were intro duced, and even not contradiftory to any thing in the praftice of Chrift or the Apoftles. What un bounded fcope then will be given to imagination,- When rid regard is paid to that praftice, or any other precedent; but when what was done by Chrift him felf and the Apoftles after him, may be confidered as only firiting the mere infancy of Chriftianity, whereas we live in the advanced ftate of it; when rejefting their milk, we think ourfelves fit to X3k.e. fironger meat than they ever ventured iipori. With this idea one perfon may rejeft the obferv'- ance of the Lord's dayy another all public or fecial worfliip, and a third all prayer,' public or private, or he may circumfcribe the obgefts of prayer accord ing fo his fancy. This alfo has been done by Mr. Wakefield. « Where is the paffage of fcripture," he fays, p. 2^, " which gives me atithority to pray "for A Vindication of Public Worfhip. 17 *' fox health (to fingle out this praftice among others) " in that unquahfied manner with which fuch peti- ^' tions are often urged on the ear of the A1-. " mighty." In what unquahfied, and therefore indecent, man ner, fome perfons may pray for health, or for any thing elfe, I cannot fay, and therefore cannot defend. But that health, or any other temporal bleffing, or what is ufually deemed fuch, may be very innocently prayed for, I have no doubt, if we conduft our felves by fcripture precept or example. Hezekiah prayed moft earneftly for recovery from ficknefs, that is, for health and life, and was not cenfured, but gracioufly heard. t)avid bO;h prayed, and gave thanks, for the fame bleffing, and others of a fimi lar nature; and our Lord authorizes us to pray for our daily bread, which is the means of fupportino- health and life. If the mere poffibifity of any thing being no bleff ing, but a curfe, to us, be a reafon why we fhould not pray for it, fuch is oUr ignorance, that we ought to forbear to pray for any thing. What is there in nature that is abfolutely, and univerfally, either good or evil? Certainly not life itfelf, or any thing that contributes to the prefervation of it. Nay, as we •ought, in ftriftnefs, to judge of moral as of natural things, can any perfon be abfolutely certain that he fliall not be ultimately better, as Pete;r probably was, for falling by any particular temptation. Might he not, thereforej on this principle, queftion the pro- C priety iS A Vindication of PubUc Worfhip,r priety ofour Saviour's direftion, to pray that we be riot led into temptation. Surely, then, feeing to what it leads, we cannot be too careful how we give way to the idea of aiming at a degree of refinement, and perfeftion, in the method of devotion unknown to Chrift or the Apoftles, fo as to think ourfelves at liberty to depart from their principles and prac tice. We are certainly allowed by an univerfal and moft indulgent Parent, who knoweth our frame (and the praftice is abundantiy authorized in the fcriptures), to indulge our natural wifhes for what ever appears to us to be good for us, at the time, and alfo to exprefs that wifh in the form of a prayer, but always with due fubmiffion to the wiU of God, who knov/s better than we do what is really good for us. ¦ Chrift even prayed to be excufed the pains of a violent death, though he had been apprized that it was the wife intention of God that he fhould fub mit to them, and was prepared fo to do. To pre tend to greater refinement, and greater ftrength of mind, than this, is unnatural. We only deceive and injure ourfelves by the attempt. If an attention be paid to the real principles of hu man nature, which Mr. Wakefield calls the character ' ef the human mind, it appears to me, that we muft perceive the wifdom of all the ufual means of virtue, ahd of focial prayer among the reft, as what every man, be his attainments what they wiU, really needs, and may ufefully avail himfelf of. Every paffion or affeftion A Vindication of Public Worfhip, 19 affeftion of our minds is ftrengthened by proper exercife; and all the focial paffions (and thofe of devotion are all of this clafs) arc beft exercifed in company. Will any perfon pretend that he can be fo ehearful alone, as in the company of thofe who are as much exhilarated as himfelf? Does not every man feel the glow of patriotifm with double fervour when others join him in expreffing the fame patri otic fentiments ? Is not this the principle on which all clubs, and focial meetings of that kind, are formed? Muft not, then, the fentiments of devotion be felt with pecular fervpur when others join us in them, either in hymns, or in prayer ? Let any man go into a Catholic church abroad, where he will fee, as I have done, the natural expreffions of devo tion, unreftrained by fhame, and where there is no fufpicion of hypocrify, and fay >vhether he be not excited to devotipn by the fight. If he do not choofe to go into a churchj he may be fome judge in this cafe by feeing ex^en the counterfeit devotion of an aftor on the ftage, or viewing it in a good pifture. Certainly there are feafons in which it is beft for a man to be alone, and to pour out his heart before his Father, who feeth in fecret ; but at other times, efpecially when the mind is lefs difpofed to fervour, it is equally advantageous to join in the com mon forms of adoration, confeffion, thankfgiving, and petition, v/ith others. We alfo feel the fenti ments of brotherly love with peculiar warmth when C 2 we 20 A Vindication of Public Worfhip. we prefent ourfelves at die fame time in the pre fence of our common Father, and jointly exprefs the feelings that belong to our common, and moft interefting relation to him. This praftice muft, in a more efpecial manner, tend to reprefs all refent ment, and promote compaffion and good-will. We are all the offending children of the fame parent, and equally ftand in need of the fame indulgence and mercy: let us therefore join in fupplicating it together. I do not fay that our prefent forms of devotion will fuit a man in the more advanced ftate of being to which he will be raifed in the ftate after death, becaufe I know nothing of that ftate: but they appear to be well adapted to human nature in its prefent ftate ; and we ihall confult our improve ment infinitely better by conforming to them, than by attempting to get above them, and difregarding- them. Befides, the bulk of mankind will never be in that high clafs of Chriftians which does not ftand in need of the ufual rnodes of improvement ; and, in whatever rank our vanity may lead us to place ourfelves, we fhould confider how our exam ple may affeft them. You may think that you can employ your time more ufefuUy in your clofet than you can do in tlie church, or the meeting-houfe ; and in fome cafes ino doubt you may; there bting no general rule without fome exceptions, and effential focial duties may well occafionally fuperfede the attendance on public worfliio-^ A Vindication of PubUc Worfhip. 2 1 worfhip. But, in general, I am well perfuaded that a man cannot fpend his time to better purpofe than by fetting an example of a regard to the forms of religion to thofe who look up to him; to fay nothing of the improvement that he may himfelf receive there, if he give due attention to the duties of the place. If he be inattentive to them, he may feel his time pafs irkfomely enough ; and, as far as his own improvement is concerned, it might have been better for him to have been elfewhere: but the fame objeftion will lie againft any other duty, in any other plaqe. The mind is improved by a repetition of good impreffions. We all know that a ferious turn of mind is acquired by reading ferious books, and fe rious converfation ; and that levity of mind is ac quired by impreffions of an oppofite nature : and if every perfon be the better for hearing a good dif courfe, on a moral fubjeft, when the attention is not fatigued by the length of it, fome real improve ment may be had, from a repetition of the fame fen timents and ideas expreffed in the form of a prayer, provided that be not too long. There appears to me to be unreafonable com plaints of long prayers, when pious difcourfes, of much greater length, are not particularly complained of; and a prayer may be confidered as a particular mode of prefenting the fame pious fentiments to the mind, fo that the hearer of it may be edified, whe- riier he join in it fo as to make it his own prayer or C 3 not. 2.2 A Vindication of Public Worfhip,- not. If this exercife, which requires a confiderable effort of the mental faculties, be omitted, the mind, in a paffive ftate, will ftiU be fubjeft to the impref- fion of ufeful fentiments, and may derive confider able advantage from the fervice. ' The longeft prayer that I have ever met with is that of bifliop Hoadley, in his treatife on the Lord's Supper, and which I have reprinted in my Forms for Unitarian Worfhip. But certainly even that long form may be read at one time with much fatisfac- tion and advantage. Why then might it not be heard, without interruption, with equal advantage ? From habit many perfons, we can have no doubt, have felt nothing of wearinefs or difguft from pray ers of an hour long, when, I fuppofe, Mr. Wakefield would feel all the horrors of languor and diftrefs in lefs than five minutes. Such is the effeft of edu cation ; and I fhould think it no unfavourable cir cumftance in a perfon's education that fhould enable him to bear, to relifli, and to improve by, devotional exercifes of confiderable length. It is even wife iri a man to ufe fome little effort with himfelf, . and not to defift from religious exer cifes on the firft fymptoms of wearinefs, but to per-, fevere in his attention to what he hears; and this is no more than we are obhged to do in a thoufand other cafes, and what we find our account in. An exercife of any kind that is tirefome at firft may not only ceafe to be tirefome, but even become plea- fant, fo that we cannot well do without it; and if it be A Vindication of Public Worfhip. 23 be omitted, we fhall feel a vacuity which nothing elfe can fupply. This will be equally the cafe with religious exercifes ; and is it not defirable that the mind be brought into fuch a ftate as not only to bear, but to relifli, religious exercifes of all kinds; fince it muft be an effeftual fecurity to virtue ? We know by reading and obfervation, that fome perfons have been able to reliili nothing fo much. Our Saviour could continue a whole night in prayer to God ; and the Apoftle exhorts us, no doubt from his own praftice, to prqy without ceafing ; and, al lowing for ftrong expreffions, there muft furely be fome meaning in fuCh language as this. If we difcontinue reUgious exercifes in public, we fhall in time become lefs difpofed to them in pri vate, and be in danger of lofing all fenfe of habitual devotion, except what may remain from former good. impreffions. Habits of piety or benevolence re quire not only to be formed, but to be kept up, and invigorated, by repeated afts ; and fure I am that this habitual devotion, which is the higheft attain ment of man, and the moft perfeftive of his rational nature, can never be acquired, or kept up, without fuch frequent' meditation on fubjefts of religion, reading the fcriptures, and aftual or virtual prayer, as will not in general be attained without the aid of public worfhip, in which the attention will be ne ceffarily' folicited at leaft by proper objefts; where: the fcriptures are always more or lefs read, where. proper difcourfes are delivered, and where the Su- C 4 premp 24 A Vindication of PubUc Worfioip. preme Being is invoked, and numbers join in tne fame forms of adoration. In all matters of great importance it is our wif dom not to depend wholly on voluntary afts, but to lay ourfelves under a kind of neceffity of doing that which is only ultimately, and not immediately,, and obvioufly, beneficial to us. If a young perfon had nothing of the namre of a tafi impofed upon him, he would hardly be brought to learn any thing. Before he could be brought to apply from free choice, the proper feafon of acquiring fome branches of knowledge would be paft, and could never be recalled. Now in many refpefts we are all but children, and in our noviciate, and we fhall aft a very unwife part, if we leave thofe praftices which furnifh the elements of religious feelings and habits to our own arbitrary pleafure. In this cafe the praftice, will often be neglefted, and confequentiy the habit will never be formed. It is happy for many perfons that the force of cuftom operates as a kind of law, and obliges them to attend to afts of public and private devotion from their early years, and even through the whole of life. By this means they are continually kept within the influence of good impreffions, the filent operation of which is unfpeakably beneficial to them. It may fometimes fubjeft them to pafs an hour in a manner rather unpleafant to them, but by degrees they become reconciled to it, fo that, from being irkfome, it becomes tolerable, and from toler- 5 abl? A Vindication of Public Worfhip. 25 able fuch as, whether pofitively pleafurable or not, he does not know how to do without. However, by this means he is kept out of the paths of vice, and in the praftice of virtue. I own myfelf to be fo far from Chriftian perfec tion, that I think myfelf happy in fuch a neceffary mode of fpending my time, efpecially on Sundays, as ferves to keep up a conftant attention to my fitu ation as an accountable being, to my relation to God, and my dependance upon him, fo that I can not be long without being reminded of my deftina- tion to a future and everlafting ftate; as by this means I hope I am more in the way of acquiring thofe fentiments and habits which will qualify me for it. Let others fancy that tiiey can do without thefe ordinary helps, I cannot but think there would be more wifdom in a greater diftruft of themfelves, Happy is he that feareth always. I am, &c. LETTER s.$ . A Vindication of Public Worfhip. LETTER V. Of Oftentation in Religion. REAR SIR, You think that by reflifing to pray in public you avoid oftentation, which is certainly a bad thing, and ought, no doubt, to be guarded againft. But an apparent indifference to religion is another bad thing, and therefore ought likewife to be guarded againft ; and how is it to be known that a man is devout at all, if no perfon ever fee, or know him to be fo ? To avoid oftentation on this rigorous idea, not only muft a man never' pray out of his clofet, but be careful that it be not known that he prays, even there; becaufe his retiring for that purpofe will, if it be known, have the fame effeft. And fince the fame reafon requires that fimilar precau tions be taken with refpeft to alms-giving, and every other moral virtue, how is the religious man to be diftinguiflied from the irreligious, at leaft from the carelefs and indifferent? Is no man ever to difcover any zeal for religion, or is his zeal to be fliewn in words only, and never by his aftions, left his conduft fliould favour of oftentation ? Our Lord abfolutely requires of his difciples that they fliould confefs him before men; for that, other- 8 wife. A Vindicatim of Public Worfhip. ) Uij.iiij.a. Elf sriJ I»!tr!ius Xj)ir©') »" a'lt/iEOOJ av^m crtii.- n-a;i]E; oui/ w; if; ii/cc naot avvlpt^ElE 0EW, &)5 ETTt TO Ej" ^va-iafr,DioM, u,; e^s eva Ivia-ovv Xpirot, Toy a(^ Evo; -sral^Di 'iirpo£>iSoj]a, xai Et; ma oiila Kot^ijwpno-aiila. Igh. Ad. Mag. c. vii. p. 19. •f- El ovt sv CT¦a!^alo'f TUfay^aaii atotc^xlptHc^ si; x.aivSv!ia, iXm^o^ tiKv^ov ; ixfiy.Si o-aS^ali^wlE; dTAdt xofa >(VfMKr,v [j^wniii ^uflc^, sv ij xat ^avi ¦nf/.us afElfiTiEii Ji auloy. Set. Ign. Ad. Mag. c. ix. p. 20. The Greek has tbe word ^wjjv but, as It is not in the Latin tranfla tion, and without it there is a better contraft to keeping the fabbath, mentioned immediately before, it is, I believe, uni verfally confidered as an interpoktion. See the note of Goti- lerius on the paffage. D ^"^ aflembly 54 A Vindication of the " affembly of all who live in the cities, or in thtf f' country ; and the afts of the Apoftles and the " writings of the prophets are read, according as the " time will permit. The prefident difcourfes, in- " ftruftlng the people, and exhorting them to good " aftlons. Then we ftand up to pray, and after " prayer, bread, and wine with water, are brought, " and the prefident offers prayers and thankfgiving& " as he is able, and the people join in faying, amen. " Then there is a diftribution and a partaking of *' the things for whicli thanlcs were given, and they " are fent to thofe who are abfent by the deacons. " The rich give according to their pleafure, and what " is collefted is depofited with the prefident for the " relief of widows, and orphans, the fick, &c *." This is certainly very fimilar to the account that any perfon would now give of Chriftians fpending the Lord's Day. Nothing is faid 'of this btifinefs' being tranfafted in the morning or evening only j fo that we cannot but conclude that it was done in mid-day ; and it muft have taken up a confiderable part of it. * Ti) TOU iiXiou ^£yO|^x!»)l ruiipci isa,S\uv y.ala ¦etoXei; vi aypou; j/,iwv[ur ETTi TO a.u\o crui-E^euo"*; y.vu:,.:, -,ia,i ra. ccffoi/^r/ifxovEVfxCiix Twv wtto^oTkuv, vt Ta crvyy^a.yL^a\cc rojv 'nrpoip'/jiwi', avxyiyvuffyMat i^z^\% ey^wpEi, £iTa> ,s;a.V(7ay^i]iw tov aj/ayywo'/totl©'', o 'crpoE;&/; Slot. T^oyov rviv vovBga-ixv KXi CJ¦pov-^^IC¦l^ Tn; Tw» y.oKm Tovlait /itifiiiirEU; OTWEilai. ETTEila ayi^ajAeBa xoinij mjam-.3 xat Ey%«; ^nrsfji.'^oiJ.Bit' ,sijava-a.i.'.iwv yifj.0)' t'*); eu^*];, aoTo; fircotT^i- ptleti, xai oij/o; k«i uswp" xai o wpoE;!.;; i^X"^ o/aoiu; xai £Up(;agi;ia5 oo-jj ^ui-a^i; aiHiW a.iia'7ri(x7nv,^ /ai 9 Aao; Eirsv(pvtfj.n, 7>.Lyuv To a^rt?. Kai sj JiaJoa-i; xai n fiila^iiil/i; avro rui euj^af i;ii&eiI]«i/ Exa;u yinslai, xai Toi; w «r«f»ucri ha, otdKoiut ^mijt.'icila.i, Apol. injo. Edit. Thirlby, p, 97. Th« Obfervance of the Lord^s Ddyi J jf The Lord's Day had not the appellation of afah- i>dh, nor was it afafi; but it was always caUed a fef tival; and both with the Heathens and the Jews, feftival days were no more employed iri labour than faft days, though on tiiem they were at liberty to Work if they pleafed. The writer ofthe epiftie of Barnabas, Comparing the Jewifli rehgion with the Chriftian, fays, " The '' fabbaths which ye now keep are not acceptable fo " me; but thofe which 1 have made> when refting *' from all things I fhall begin the eighth day, that " is the beginning of the other world. For which " caufe we obferve the eighth day with gladnefs, in " which Jefus rofe from the dead; and having ma- " nifefted himfelf to his difciples, afcended into hea-' " ven *.'* Tertulhan, comparing the feftivals of the Heathens with thofe of Chriftians, fays, " If you would in- " dulge to pleafure, you may; and not on one day, " but on many. With the Heathens feftival days re- *' turn once a year, but to thee every elghtii day is *' a feftival f." * OpalE «o-«; XEysi" ou ra. vvt aaQQalct Etcoi ^Exla aM ct 'O-E'Totr.ica et as JiolaTrauo-a; ra, ¦ro-anTa, a^x^,v tjiiE^a; (Jy^o«; ra-oma-u, o ir" aAAou xoa-//,ou KOX'1'- ^"> •"=" ayii;,tEi' r-nv ¦niJ.^oi.v tjjv ay^o-nv ei; iiv(p^asvnv, sv -n -y.cn o i-na-ovf avsri ex tt>i(m, xai (pajEpu^Ei; assSji si; Tou; oiifaiovq. Barnabas , Epift. c. xvii. t Si quid et carni iridulgendum eft, habes. Non tamen dies tantum, fed et plures. Nam ethnicis femel annuus dies quifque feftus eft, tibi oaavus quifque dies. Ee Idolatria, cap. xiv. ^' ^'^' D 2 DionyCus 5^ A Vindicatim of the Dionyftus, bifliop of Corinth, in his letter to th,«';i; TM.' cA,,t,ai r,«.tfai; ejouOetei' o//,oiw; Ie y.ou rm iTfo tou aaQSalav riu.a.v. For fuch it is acknowledged yas the oiiginal reading, and n''t Ta; 70V a-atCcMou. t Porro in ipio fabbatho requiritur jndutio veftium pretiofa- rum, in honorejjfi fabbathi, et fumma Ixtitia, cujus pluriraa figna edunt, epulando et indulgendo genio, quantum res unius cujuf- que patitur. 4n''"iuitatts- facra. Par, Vf . cap. viii. fedl. lo. p. 300. Obfervance of the Lord's Day. 41 I am the more furprifed that Eubulus fhould ima gine the Jews fpent their fabbaths in this reclufe and rigid manner, when it appears from Luke xiv. i, &c. that Jefus was invited to v/hat may well be called a feaft, at the houfe of one of the chief Pharifees, on the fabbath day. That the company on this occa fion was large, is evident from their choqfmg out the chief rooms, and that it confifted chiefly of perfons of diftinftion, js probable, from its giving our Lord occafion to advife his hoft, that, when he made a feaft, he would not invite his friends and rich neigh bours, &'f. whiph feems to imply that he had then done fo. The Chriftians of Tertullian's time were far froqi Ijpending the Sunday in the rigid and gloomy man ner in which it was obferved by the old Puritans. *' It is faid," fays he, *^ let your works fhine, and ^' now pur fhops, and gates fhine. For you will find •" more doors without lights and laurels among Hea- ^' th^ns than among Chriftians *." And this book was written when he was a Montanift, the moft rigid of all the fefts of Chriftians. Hilary fays, ^' We on the eighth day, which is *' alfo the firft, rejoice in the feftivlty of a perfeft « fabbath f ," Jt is evident, however, that the Sun- * Sed luceant inquit opera veftra. At nunc lucent taberns et januae noflras. Plures jam invenles ethnicOrum fores fine lucer- jiis et laurels, quam Chriftianorum. De Idol. c. xv. p. 94. •f- Nos in oftava die, quse et ipfa prima eft, perfefti fabbati feftiyitate Ipetamur. Prologus in Pfalmorum explanationem. Ppera, p. 637, day 42 A Vindication of the day feftivlty of the primitive Chriftians did not con fift in fports, but in finging pfalms, and other expref fions of religious joy, or in cheerful fociety. What were the praftices of the Chriftians in the times of the Apoftles, may be pretty fafely inferred from thofe of the times that immediately fucceeded tiiem, fince we have no account of any difference between them. Befides, the Apoftles, and all the Jewifli Chriftians, having been ufed to a weekly day of public worfliip, and having, no doubt, experi enced the benefit of it, would naturaUy continue the fame cuftom when they became Chriftians, and re commend the fame to the Gentile converts. Indeed, Jt is moft evident, and aUowed by aU, that the-cuf- toms refpefting the Jewifh fynagogues were kept up in Chriftian churches, the former having been, in all refpefts, a model for the latter. But, independently of thefe ftrong prefumptions, from praftices both prior and fubfequent to thofe of the Apoftolic age, there appear to me to be fuffi cient marks of regular affemblies being held by Chrif tians in the books of the New Teftament, and alfo of thofe affemblies being held on the firft day of the week. As this day was unqueftionably in after times call ed the Lord's day, it may fafely be concluded to be the fame that was intended by the fame term in the book of Revelation, For Chriftians, who made fo much ufe of the books of the New Teftament, would ^ever ufe words in fenfes different from thofe in which Obfervance of the Lor^s Day. .43 which they apprehended them to be ufed there. This day, therefore, had, even in the age of the Apofties, acquired a peculiar appeUation, and was, in the cuf tomary forms of fpeech, diftinguifhed from all the other days of the week; and the probability will be that, along with the fame name, the early Chriftians received from the Apoftles the cuftoms peculiar to that day, and fuch as have been recited from their writings. But there is not wanting, in my opinion, the cleareft evidence in the books ofthe New Teftament themfelves, that all the Chriftians in fuch large cities as Corinth and Ephefus affembled for public worfhip at mid-day, and that thefe affemblies were held on the Lord's day. This is more particularly evident from the epiftles of Paul to the Corinthians, whofe pubhc affembhes required much regulation. In them he diftinguifhes the church from private houfes, as was mentioned before, i Cor. ii. 22. He fpeaks of the whole church coming together into one place, I Cor. xiv. 23, 26, and again i Cor. xi. 18. In thefe churches, or public aflembhes, women were to keep filence, i Cor. xiv. 34, 35, and ftrangers were fre quently prefent, fo as often to be converted by what they heard or faw in them, v. 23. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all fpeak with tongues, and there come in thofe that are un learned or unbelievers, will they not fay that ye are mad? ^ut if all prophecy, and there come in one that believeth noty^ 44 A Vindication of the pot, or -one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all. And thus are thefecrets of his heart made ma nifeft; and fo falling down on his face, he will worfhip God, and report that God is with you of a truth. It appears alfo from the epiftle of James that ftrangers frequently attended the public affemblies of Chrif tians, chap. ii. 2. If there come into your affembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in alfo a poor man, in vile raiment; and ye have refpeSi to him that hath the gay clothing, and fay unto him, fit thou here, in a good place; and fay to the poor, fiand thou there, or fit here under my foptfiool, ^c. What do thefe circumftances give us an idea of, but of fuch promifcuous affemblies as are now held by Chriftians in" all countries, and in mid-day, to which any ftrangers that choofe it may refort? What were churches in private houfes (i Cor. xvi. 9, Col. iv. 15) but affembhes of Chriftians held there, independent ofthe proper members of fuch houfes? And where were epiftles to whole churches read but in fuch affemblies? as in the church of Laodicea, Col. iv. 16. That thefe affembhes were held fre quendy and regularly, appears ftom feveral circum ftances. Their being attended by ftrangers fuflici- ently implies it. For how could fuch perfons know of private, or only occafional affemblies ? In Afts ii. 25, we read of Paul and Barnabas affembling them felves a whole year with the church, and teaching much people. What could this be but attending regular af fembhes Obfervance of the Lord's Day. 4^ icmblies of the whole church in that populous city, where the Chriftians were numerous in a very early period ? If thefe affemblies were weekly, there can hardly be any doubt but that they were held on the Lords day; and notwithftanding what has been urged by Eubulus on this head, I cannot help thinking it very evident, that this was the cafe both at Corinth and at Troas. With refpeft to the former, though the apoftle fpeaks ofthe money to be collefted (i Cor. xvi. 2), as laid up by individuals, on the firft day of the week; I cannot help thinking with Mr. Locke, that it was alfo on that day to be depofited in fome one hand, or place; becaufe otherwife it would not have anfwered his purpofe, in preventing all gatherings when he fhould come. Could he mean to intimate that they fhould every week, and on the firfl day of the week in particular, put into a private purfe in their own houfes whatever they intended for this charity, left it fhould get mixed with their other money, and afterwards they might not be able, or willing, to feparate it? This, furely, was too trifling, and arguing an unworthy diftruft of tiieir hberahty. Befides, is not the unqueftionable faft of all fimilar coUeftions of money in after rimes being made in churches, and on the Lord's day, a fufficient evidence that the praftice began in the times ofthe Apoftles? Indeed, why fliould the Apoftle mention, thefirfit day 4 46 A Vindication of the ofthe week on this occafion, if it was not the time of their public affemblies ? I have particularly confidered all that Eubulus has advanced in fupport of his opinion, that Paul preached at Troas on the evening before the Lord's day, and not on the evening of that day, and think it evident that his conclufion is ill-founded. It appears from Afts xx. 6, that at this time Paul fpent feven days in Troas. Why then fhould he preach to them on the firft day of the week, if it had not been the time of their ufual affemblies ? He had his choice of aU the feven days; but probably, the wind not being favourable for failing, he did not choofe to call the church togedier before their ufual time of meeting, and before that went from houfe to houfe. Eubulus lays much ftrefs on the Jews beginning the day on the evening. But, as Dr. Lardner fays in his Obfervations on Macknight's Harmony, p. g, (in which he fhews that the women went to embalm the body of Jefus on the morning of the firft day ofthe week, and not on the evening of the feventh, though that morning, juft before fun rife, is faid. Mat. xxviii. I, to be the end of the fabbath), " All know " very well that the Jewifh civil day began at the *' fetting of the fun; but that day was divided into " two parts, nighty and day; by day meaning the *' natural day, or that part of the civil day which is « hght.", To Obfervance of the Lords Day. jsfj To ufe the term day for day Ught was as cuftomary with the Jews as it is with us. Thus, Luke fays, chap. xxii. 6. As foon as it was day, the elders of the people j ^c. led Jefus into their council, though, according to Eubulus, the Jewifli day was, then half expired; and all the preceding tranfaft,ions (of the fame day, ac cording to him) are faid to be done on the evening, and the night, as if they belonged to the preceding day; juft as we fhould now fpeak. So alfo Ezra is faid (Neh. viii. 3), to have read in the book of the law from the morning until mid-day, though, accord ing to Eubulus, their mid-day was paffed about the time of his beginning to read. Alfo the term next day is ufed in oppofition to the evening before, though, according to him, it was a part of the fame day, Afts iv. 2. They put him in hold to the next day^ for it was now even-tide. And yet Eubulus refers to- this paffage as in his favour, p. 97. I have no doubt, therefore, but that vs'hen we read, Afts XX. 7. And upon the firft day of the week, when the difciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them (ready to depart on the morrow), and conti^ nued his fpeech unto midnight, the affembly began in- the day-light of the Sunday, and that the next day was the Monday foUowing; efpecially as there was then no perfecution of Chriftians, to induce them to hold their affembhes in the dark. I ftiall conclude with a few obfervations of a more general nature,' but I fhall not enlarge upon them. I. If the appropriation of one day in feven for the g purpofe 48 A Vindication of the purpefe of public worfhip was the praftice of* the Apoftles, we may conclude that it was not hurtfol^ but ufeful. And though we Gentile Chriftians are not bound by the Jewifli ritual, we may fafely infer, that if the fabbath, as obferved by the Jews, necef farily led to evil, it would not have been appointed by God for them. And ftom its not being hurtful to them, we may fafely Infer that it cannot be fo to v-s, fince human nature is the fame. That this ob fervance was prevented from being hurtful to the Jews by any peculiar reftriftions with refpeft to fo cial intercourfe, I have fhewn to be a mifapprehen- fion of Eubulus. 2. In my opinion the ceffation from labour on the Lord's day makes a pleafing and ufeful dlftinc- tion in our time ; and, befides its excellent religious and moral ufes, greatly contributes to the civiliza tion of Mankind. The expeftation ofit relieves the . labour of all the preceding fix days ; and confequent ly that labour is done better with this interval than it would have been without it, to fay nothing of the relief that it affords the labouring cattle. ¦3. Befides, I cannot help diinking that in this country the manufafturers labour to excefs; and that it would be very defirable, would contribute to lengthen their lives, and make their lives much hap pier, if their labours could be moderated. The I iches of this nation are procured by the premature cxhaufting of the ftrength and vital powers of the greater part pf oar manufafturers; though it is not denied Obferioance of the Lords Day. 40 denied that the intemperance of many of them con tributes to the fame effeft. Like our horfes, their lives are fliorfened, and made wretched, by fatigue. 4. If the law did not provide intervals of reft from labour, the labourers themfelves would not fail to do it ! and the intervals of their own providing would have a worfe effeft than the prefent. Our annual feafts, in every town and viUage in the kingdom, are far more mifchievous than Sunday fpent in the worft manner. For no ideas of religion being now an nexed to them, licentioufnefs has no reflxaint. 5. If it were left to every individual to choofe his own time for public worfhip and inftruftion (if fuch a cuftom could be called public) many would great ly abridge, and many would negleft it altogether; as we fee to be the cafe with family worfhip, even where the obhgation and ufe of it are acknowledged. The confequence would be that fecular concerns would engrofs their whole time, and the very ap pearance and profeffion. of Chriftianity would be in danger of difappearing among us. But on fuch topics as thefe I forbear to enlarge, as it has been done fufficiendy by Philander and Subsidiarius. That much evil arifes from the manner in which Sunday is now fpent by many, both ofthe lower and higher ranks in the community, cannot be denied; but I hope it is not without a remedy, and I am fully perfuaded tiiat tiie abohtion of the obfervance of Sunday would be attended with much greater evil. I am, Gendemen, Your's, &c, &c. E Hermas. 50 A Vindication of the Remarks on ilfr. Evanfion's Letter on the Obfervance of the Lord's Day. Mr. Evanson is far from denying the expediency or propriety of public worfhip, or the ufe of public tnftruSion; fo that he differs very materially from Mr. Wakefield. But he would not have the Lord's day fet apart for thefe purpofes, and is of opinion, that this inftitution has no fanftion, either in the praftice' of the Apoftles, or that of any Chrif tians, tlU the third century. That the public affemblies of Chriftians . were, however, from the times of the Apoftles, held on the Lord's day, and that a confiderable part of this day was always devoted to the bufinefs of thofe affemblies, appears to me to be fo evident, from the authorities produced by me before, and efpeci ally that of Juftin Martyr, that I do not think it neceffary to argue the matter at large any farther. Let our readers fairly compare what each of us have written, and then judge between us. I do not fee why Mr. Evanfon fhould write with fo much apparent peeviflinefs on this fubjeft, if he did not himfelf, in fome meafure, feel the force of my rea foning upon it; nor why a queftion of this nature cannot be difcuffed by any Chriftian, with the per feft calmnefs and good humour of which I fet hirh an example. 5 I« Obfervance of the Lord's Day. c % It was particularly unvv^orthy of a fcholar and a gendeman, to obferve, as Mr. Evanfon does. Note page 146, that in quoting a paffage of Ignatius, which I gave at length in the margin, I omitted to tranflate a particular claufe in it relating to the dignity cf Chrift; becaufe it was unfavourable to my principles as an Unitarian, though it had no thing at aU to do with the queftion that I was then difcuffing. He caUs my conduft in this cafe, *' a prudent caution, confidering my avowed re- " ligious principles, and that I was quoting his " authority to prove what was the religion of the " apoftolic age." But what is this to the pur-, pofe, unlefs the queftion between us had been con cerning this particular article of religion, and on this we had no difference; Mr. Evanfon being an Unitarian as much as myfelf? That I Ihould trouble my reader with a tranf lation of more of the paffage than I had occafion for, I do not fee. That Mr. Evanfon fhould infinu ate that there was any unfairnefs in my conduft on this occafion, I am concerned to fee, hot on my own account, but on his. That, as a defender of Unitarianifm, I am not afraid of any quotation from Ignatius, has fufficiently appeared by my writ ings on the fubjeft; and on this head, I doubt not, Mr.. Evanfo.n himfelf is weU fatisfied. Though! fhall not go over the whole field of argument with Mr. Evanfon, I fhaU briefly reply to E 2 any 52 A Vindication of the any remark of his that has the appearance of be ing new. Not being able to deny that the officers in the Chriftian church, in the age ofthe Apoftles, received fome confideration in temporals for their labour in fpirituals, he fays, p. 1 27, whatever that might be, " I find not the flighteft reafon to believe, that " any refident preacher of the gofpel was maintained *' as fuch, at the expence of hi^ fellow Chriftians, " before the latter half of the third century, when " corruptions multiphed apace, and the fatal pre- " diftcd apoftacy was advancing with large and " hafty ftrides." Now, not to infift on the cafe of Timothy, who appears to have devoted his whole time to the work of the miniftry, and therefore to have had a juft claim to a full maintenance ; and that, for any thing that appears, there would be the fame occa fion for other perfons doing the fame fervice, and re ceiving the fame recompence, in other places; I would obferve in general, that the want of writings immediately after the time of the apoftles, makes it difficult to prove the exiftence of any praftice among. Chriftians in that period by pofitive evi dence : but that an univerfal acknowledged praftice ' (among: all the difcordant fefts into which Chrif tians were then divided) in a later period, without any hint, or vifible caufe, of a change, is a ftrong prefumptive evidence that the praftice exifted from the beginning. The objeftors fliould fay, when. Obfervance of the Lord's Day. 53 when, and by whom, or from what particular caufe the fuppofed innovation arofe. Who was it that perfuaded aU the fefts of Chriftians, who had not before been ufed to have any public inftruftion, to appoint orders of men unknown to the apoftles, and give them falaries out of the fruits of their own labour, when before this time, whatever of this kind had been done, had been performed gratui- toufly. Such changes as thefe require to be ac counted for in a more fatisfaftory manner, than by faying they arofe from ratrc fuperftition or prieft craft. If thefe things did operate as caufes, what were the circumftances which favoured their operation ? I fhall now come to Mr. Evanfon 's more par ticular authorities, or rather to his objeftlons to mine. He complains of my tranflation of a paf fage in Ignatius, in which he is reprefented as re commending the obfervance of the Lord's day in preference to that of the Jewifli Sabbath. That tranflation I took without fufpicion from Arch bifliop Wake; but upon examination, I am fatlf- fied that Mr. Evanfon had no reafon to complain ofit. " No longer obferving Sabbaths, but keeping " the Lord's-day, in which alfo our life is fprung up by him." That the word t^mvUfe, which Is omit ted in the old Latin verfion, is a fpurious read ing, for ¦ny.ifctv a day, expreffed or underftood, is evident from the . reference to it in the following relative; viz. in which, i. e. " in which day, our life is 54 A Vindication of the is fprung up by him," which makes good fenfe, but the phrafe, " the Lord's life, in which life our life fprung up," is not fo. Mr. Evanfon fays, p. 131, that (^wfre; xara fig nifies living according to, which I do not deny, and that, " if 'living according to the Lord's day has " any meaning, it is beyond his, comprehenfion." I do not pretend to vindicate the ftrift propriety of this Greek phrafe, nor that of many others, efpeci ally thofe that are found in authors not claffical ; but the word day is not the lefs neceffary to a con fiftent fenfe of the paffage. If the word Ufe be the true reading, it ought at leaft to have been fol lowed by in whofe Ufe, not by in which Ufe. If we may be aUowed to interpret the leffer epiftles of Ignatius by the larger, interpolated ones, this fenfe wUl be much more evident. For in them the correfponding paffage is as follows * : " Let us no longer keep the Sabbath after the " Jewifh manner, rejoicing in idlenefs; for he " that doth not work fhould not eat, and the ferip- " ture faith, ' In the fvveat of thy brow fhalt thou * MiixETiai' SaSfaTi^iuftEi/ laoaixs;;, xai apyia; j^aipovTE;" o /au Epya- ^ouE)>©- ya^, /i» lEffOiETtJ ; EV iJ^WTi ya^ Ta ¦arpoff-UTra 178 (foLytk rov aprop ffS, ^aui Ta Aoyia' ff¦^^' Exar^ vjjlUv 2ataSaTi^ETa ¦BrnEV/AaTixw;, f«- TvETii »o/J,a -^cu^mi ou awj/.a.r'^ aviaet, SVfAia^yiav ©ea iavfj.a'C,us, uk eu>,a ta^iiiiv, v.cu x^^ia^a. -ujivu-jt y.a.v /xE^sTpii/xEi'a $a.&iQov, yai op^:icr« xai xpwToi; V8V ax E^acri jf^ai^w;'" xai [xetcc. rai SattaTiirai, eopTaCETW -nra; ^i^op^^ir©' rriv xu^iaxnv, tku avoi.Ta^Hi.ov, mv PucrtXi^a,, T))» vtra^ov ^sra- iritiv rnv nf^Egut' %v 11 xai r^wn viu.m a,msi7\i. Id. interp. § 9, p. 56. " eat Obfervance of the Lord's Ddj., 55 ** eat bread,' but let each of you keep the Sabbath " fpiritually, rejoicing in meditation on the law, '^ not in the reft of the body, but admiring the *' workmanfhip of God, not eating things prepared '¦'¦ the day before, drinking cold liquors, walldng a *' meafured fpace, and rejoicing in dancings and ** noify fenfelefs diverfions ; but after the Sabbath *' let every lover of Chrift make a feftival of the " Lord's day, on which he rofe from the dead, the " queen, the greateft of aU days, in which our hfe " arofe." Mr. Evanfon fays, p. 132, that he fees nothing in the account that Juftin Martyr gives ofthe bufinefe done in Chriftian churcheson the Lord's day, that could reafonably be fuppofed to have taken up more than an hour and an half at the moft. But our Sunday fervices at prefent do not in general employ more time, in either part of the day; and Juftin might think it fufficient to mention what was done in one part, efpeciaUy that in which the Lord's fupper was adminiftered, as that would comprize every thing that was done in Chriftian affemblies, concerning which he wiflied to give his readers fatisfaftion. Mr. Evanfon alfo fays, p. 134, that contrary to my conclufion (viz. that the affembly defcribed by Juftin Martyr was held in mid-day'), " the circum- " ftance of the adminiftration of the Lord' s fupper " clearly afcertains the time of holding it to have " been in the evening. For," he adds, " from St. " Paul's epiftles, PUny's letter, and even from " the. 56 A Vindication of the " the paffage you yourfelf have quoted from that *' father of the Romifh church Cyprian, it is evi- *' dent, that during the three firft centuries the " evening was the only time of celebrating the " Eucharift, or Lord's Supper. Such a meeting " therefore, could not at all interfere with the ufual *' bufinefs of the day." But Mr. Evanfon needs not to be informed that the Jewifh evening fervice was at our three in the afternoon, and tiiat the fervice of this time of the day is ftiU, in imitation, no doubt, of more antient times, called the evening fervice. Mr. Evanfon, p. 152, quotes Clemens Alexan drinus, as condemning the fetting apart of any par ticular time for the purpofe of public worfhip, when he fays, " We are commanded to worfhip " God through Chrift, not on chofen days, as fome *' others do, but continually, through our whole '^ life. Wherefore a well-informed Chriftian wor- " fliips God, not in any ftated place, nor chofen " temple, nor on any feftivals and appointed days, *' but through his whole life, whether he chance " to be alone, or in company with other believers." But, befides obferving that this writer makes no mention ofthe Lord's Day, but only of feftivals and appointed days in general, to interpret what he here fays in confiftency with what he fays elfewhere, of " allftrue Chriftians obferving the Lord's Day, and " therein glorifying the refurreftion of Chrift on " that Obfervance of the Lord's Day. 57 *' that day;" he could only mean that Chriftians do not confine their worfhip to that day. This day was certainly never confidered by the early Chriftians as a Sabb'ath, or a day of neceffary reft from labour ; but it was deemed facred, and was foon celebrated as feftival days were; and whe ther the cuftom, adopted by Chriftians in imitation of the Heathens, of ornamenting their houfes, as a token of feftivlty on that day, was approved or dif- approved by Tertulhan (on which Mr. Evanfon lays fo much ftrefs, p. 141), makes no difference in my argument, fince the praftice fhews that this day was by them diftinguifhed from other days. He might condemn the manner in which it was done ; but it is fufficiently evident, from the paffage I have quoted from this writer, that he did not difapprove the thing itfelf. What reafon, then, had I for quot ing him, as Mr. Evanfon more than infmuates, un fairly for this purpofe ? I agree entirely with Mr. Evanfon that civil governors ought not to interfere in this bufinefs, which, as it relates to religion, is out of their proper province. Let no man be compelled to obferve the Lord's day in any manner that he does not him- , felf choofe; but let every man be left at perfeft li berty to work or reft as he pleafes ; and in my opi nion harveft work ought not to be neglefted on. that daf, in fo uncertain a cUmate as ours. Were I a mi nifter in a country place, where the chief depend'- ence of my congregation fhould be upon farming, F I would 58 A Vindication of the I would choofe to have pubhc worfhip early in the morning, and late in the evening, and exhort my hearers to make the moft of the middle part ofthe day, in taking care of their hay and their corn. But I would not give up the idea of the fanSiity of tiiat day, in feme proper fenfe of the word, or the appropriation of a confiderable part of it to the pur pofes of public inftruftion and public worfhip. If I may judge from my own experience, mucfe more time is neceffary to teach, and to inculcate,, the principles of Chriftianity,, than Mr. Evanfon fuppofes, The mere teaching indeed, if that be confined to the elements of Chriftianity, might, no doubt, be difpatched, as he fays, in an hour; but repeated impreffions are neceffary to form and to ftrengthen rehgious habits; and the bufinefs ofthe world is fuch, that if the views of Chriftianity were not frequently prefented to the mind, we fhould foon lofe fight of them entirely, and become as worldly-minded as thofe who never heard of Chriftianity. Hence the neceffity of repeated ex hortation. And, as the knowledge of what direftly or indireftly relates to religion may well employ a Chriftian rninifter the whole week, fothe communi cation of what he may judge to be ufeflil to his hearers may weU employ a confidera,ble part of one day in it. Mr. Evanfon, in anfwer to what I obferved of the colleftion for the poor Jewifli Chriftians being made in the church of Cprinth every Lord's Day, in Ohf&ro^e (f the Lord's Day. jg \r order to prevent the neceffity of any colleftior^ beii^ made when he fhould himfelf vifit them, fays that -Ko,^ taro, muft imply that the money was kept in the benefaftor's own cuftody, apd npt depofited in any common fond. This I own to be the ufua^ fenfe of the Greek phrafe : but, as the purpofe for ¦which Paul wrote could not haye been anfwered by this method, and fuel) coUeftions, whenever they are mentioned in later times, were made on that day, I rather think, eithef that the Apoftle did not exprefs hinifclf accurately, or that the common js not the univerfal fenfe of the phrafe. Yet Mr, Evanfon fays, p. 150, " I would as foon rnif-fpend my time in *^ atterjipting to prove that the fon fhohe at noon " to a perfon who fhpifld perfift in affirming it to " Jbe thipn midnight darknefs," . as to contend with me for maintaining what I have done 'with refpeft to this circumftance. Very little, howeyer, depends upon this paffage with rpgard to ovir main argu ment ; and Mr. Eyanfon's reafoning would have no lefs force, if it was yninixed with fuch contempt for that of his adverfary. If Mr. Evanfon wiU take the pains to inform himfelf, he wiU find, that, notwithftanding the ri gorous alaftinence of the Jews from all labour, and even from lightmg a fire on the Sabbath day, 'they always did, and ftiU do, contrive to fpend that- day as a feftival, and that they make entertainments on itj in preference to other days. If he have not Jutland's Jewifh Antiquities, of which the late riots 3 have ^® A vindicatim, i^Cs have deprived me, fo that I cannot have rePoiirife to that author at prefent ; or, ifhe fufpeft, asheevi* dently does, that I did not quote Kxm. fairly, let him look into Buxtorf s Synagoga Judaica, in which he will find a very copious account of the Jewifh method of entertaining themfelves on the Sabbath; or, ifhe make enquiry of any living Jew, he wiU find, that my former account was perfeftly correft. Cotile- rius in his note on the paffage of Ignatius quoted above fays, Certe in proverbium abiit Sabbatarius luxus, i. e, " The luxury of the Sabbath became " proverbial." As luxury implies excefs, it is certainly not to be juftified on any day ; but focial and cheerful enter tainments, fuch as are not improper on other days, j are by no means inconfiftent with the afts of reli gion required of the Jews on- the Sabbath, or of Chriftians on the Lord's day. THE END, YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 05346 3734 .9- " 'ft . ^ -^ V £>&.> ..tl ¦> -.* ^5 5#. 4 ...^t ¦*'.. ,, >