history a prominent part of the public worship of the Hebrews, even when sacrifices were most in use, and the Mosaic rites were most scrupulously observed. This is important for various reasons, but chiefly because, in the first place, prayer was used in their public religious services under a divine sanction, as is proved, among other considerations, by our Lord himself when he quotes the language of the prophet Isaiah; "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations." His fervour too on this occasion, in so mild and forbearing a character, was extremely remarkable; and the historian has not failed to mark its singularity by applying to it a quotation from the Psalms; "As it is written, 'The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.' The object, moreover, of his zeal is as worthy of attention as its warmth and intrepidity. He was offended not because the sacrifices and Mosaic rites were profaned, for these were temporary and speedily to be abolished, but because prayer, public social prayer, was disregarded; for this was a duty which his God and Father had approved and required, and which would form a part of pure and spiritual worship at all times, when Jewish rites and ceremonies are forgotten. And in the second place, the preceding account of the Hebrew worship is important, for the reason before given, namely, that as Christ and his apostles were accustomed to attend the Synagogue on the sabbath, they regularly joined in the social worship

practised there, and thus by their example gave an unequivocal recommendation of it to others.

Will it then still be urged, that our Lord not only discouraged this practice, but absolutely commanded his followers to abstain from the observance of it? Had he meant to do this, and had he disapproved of social prayer as highly as its opponents in the present day wish to have it believed, what was his duty relative to this subject? As this practice had been so long and so universally established in the habits of his countrymen, instead of giving it encouragement by a regular attendance upon it in their synagogues, had he intended to set it aside, whilst his prohibition of it was the most clear and unequivocal, would he not have embraced every opportunity that occurred of warning his hearers of its pernicious 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 show 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 and 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 reference 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 contributions 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 se