Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Review.-Moore on Social Worship.

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

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

Part I. Book v. p. 228."

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

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

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

VOL. XVII.

4 c

561

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

[ocr errors]

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

as we are informed, by a vision in the Temple, the whole multitude that had been praying without in the court of the women, were waiting for him; and the reason of this was, that, having finished their public prayers, they were expecting the benediction which the officiating priests always pronounced at the conclusion of this part of the services. (Ver. 22.) Lightfoot's Temp. Serv. Ch. ix. Sect. vi."

"It is not proved, at least, that there was no such leader. Perhaps the Israelites of the Station were considered as such : they were denominated the angels of the people, like the reader of the prayers in the Synagogue. Or if not, there is a passage in Joel, already quoted, (p. 41,) ch. ii. 15-17, in which, when the congregation of all the people were gathered together, the priests are commanded to offer up prayers in their behalf, between the porch of the Temple and the altar. This probably was not inconsistent with the usual practice. See also 1 Maccabees vii. 36, 37."

+Conn. Part I. Book vi. p. 383; Godwin's Moses and Aaron, Lib. ii. Ch. i, p. 64."

"Psalm cxli. 2."

incense, that he should offer it up with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which was before the throne; and the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hands,' &c. However inconsistent it may be with the more rational and enlightened devotion required by the Christian religion, it is clear that this practice gave a unity to the public prayers of the Temple, and rendered the whole perfectly social." -Pp. 56-60.

The remainder of this Chapter is devoted to "the religious worship of the synagogue," concerning which the author has collected much curious and interesting matter, tending to shew that the worship of the synagogue was social, and, in fact, the model of that which was adopted by the Christian Church. We give his view of the subject in his own words:

"So perfectly social, then, was the mode of worship which Christ and his apostles sanctioned by their regular attendance upon it. It has been observed, it is true, that we read of Christ teaching, and reading the Scriptures and expounding them in the synagogues, but never of his praying there. The reason of this, however, is extremely obvious. The prayers were the stated part of the synagogue services, in which all who attended regularly joined; it is therefore evident that no notice whatever would be taken of our Lord's joining in them, for this was a matter of course; and when it is said that his custom was to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath, this expression will always be understood by those who have any respect for the common usage of language, as implying that he joined in the prayers like all the rest who were present. But the case is different with reading the Scriptures and expound ing them; for none were permitted to do this, but those who were called out from the assembly for this purpose by the minister.

"In his own city Nazareth, as a member of the synagogue in that place, he was selected as the reader of the lesson for the day, and took occasion, as was usual, to comment upon it. This, therefore, especially as the passage was extremely remarkable, having reference to himself as the Messiah, it was very natural and proper for the historian to notice. But this very circumstance of his being selected as the reader, proves that he was present at the prayers. In all other places, when he taught the people, it was according to the custom, after the

reading of the law and the prophets was concluded. And thus did St. Paul at Antioch; which also being remarkable, especially with respect to the subject of his teaching, it was proper for the historian to mention. If a stranger happened to preach at any of our places of worship in the present day, those who heard him would naturally mention this circumstance to their friends, particularly if there were any thing singular either in his manner or his subject. But who would think of observing that he was present at the prayers, and joined in them with the others? His being there to preach implied this. No person, therefore, who pays any attention to the meaning which general custom has assigned to these expressions, can doubt that when it is said, it was the custom of Christ and his apostles to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, this implies, that

they constantly joined in the usual services of these places; and we see at once, that so universal and so long esta blished was the practice of social prayer in the habits of their countrymen, that it would never occur to them to give a particular command to enforce the observance of it, as if it were something new, or generally neglected.”—Pp. 83—85.

the

Social Worship of Christians." UnThe last Chapter relates to der this head, the author adduces the

Passages in the New Testament in favour of Social Prayer," first examining those that have been quoted against the practice. Amongst these latter, is Matt. vi. 5 and 6, his explanation of which is worthy of being given at length, together with his introductory remarks:

"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

"See Prideaux's Conn. Part. I. Book vi. p. 380."

Review.-Moore on Social Worship.

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

563

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 secret. And to this it may not be improper to add, that his owu benevolent acts, though he had no money

to bestow, were usually performed in public. However, there can be no doubt that the sole object of Christ in this exhortation, was to discourage as much as possible all ostentation, and to enjoin nothing but that the design of charitable deeds, according to his own words, should not be, that they might be seen of men. And certainly it is equally clear that he had the same object only in what he forbids respecting prayer. The same phraseology is used in both cases, and with the same intention. In this passage he is evidently speaking of his disciples' pray ing separately as individuals, and not in their social capacity. This is manifest from the nature of the case, as well as from all that has been now observed; but it is further confirmed by his use of the singular number on this occasion, and afterwards changing it for the plural: But when thou prayest, be not as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues, and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. But thou, when thou prayest,' &c. Here, then, the pronoun in the singular number is repeated, and thus rendered emphatical, evidently pointing out his meaning to be, when ye pray separately as individuals, do this, not in public from motives of ostentation and parade, but retire to your closets, &c. When, however, he gives them a model for their devotions in the Lord's Prayer, and, as Luke observes, † at the request of his disciples, he makes use of the plural form of expression, as speaking of them collectively: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the Heathen do,' &c. In this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in heaven,' &c., using the plural number throughout. This form, indeed, is evidently intended to be used in society, not less than in private. It is admirably adapted to the use of all men, at all times, and in all circumstances: it is moreover composed of sentences found in the Hebrew liturgies of

"In the Temple, individuals were in the habit of going to pray separately at any time in public, after the social worship of that place was concluded; and it is very possible, that the same practice might be observed in the synagogues; or, if not, many might attend the usual services of those places constantly for no purpose but to be seen of others, and on that account, and that only, are they censured. He does not condemn them because they prayed in the synagogue, but because they prayed there to be seen of men.”

+" Chap. xi. 2."

that time, which were all used as social prayers.

was

"To the passage under consideration, moreover, the observation has been applied, † That among the Jews nothing more common than the use of a phrase directly negative, and without restriction, to express a limited and comparative idea. The following are instances of this kind: If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife aud children, aud brethren and sisters, and even his own life also, he can. not be my disciple.' No one understands this as meaning any thing more than to assert the great principle, that to prefer any earthly consideration to our duty, is inconsistent with the Christian character. Again; 'Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.' The meaning of which is better expressed by Mr. Wakefield's translation: He that be lieveth on me, believeth not so much on me as on him that sent me.' And in the Acts, Peter says, Auanias, thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God;' that is, Your offence is greater against God than against men.' If passages like these are to be understood literally, without regard to the nature of the particular case, the connexion in which they stand, as well as the true spirit of religion, and the principles of common sense, what are the contradictions and absurdities, as observed before, that will not find vouchers enough in the Scriptures? Similar latitude of interpretation is not only allowable, but necessary, in the exhortation of Christ, When thou prayest, be not as the hypocrites,' &c. But when all the circumstances which have been stated are taken into consideration, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion, that nothing more is intended in this passage (as in that on the subject of almsgiving, the phraseology of which is precisely similar) than a solemn caution against ostentation, or praying in order to be seen of men, without the slightest intention of giving discouragement to social prayer, originating in right motives and accom panied by humility. It is plainly directed, and directed only, against individual prayer in places of public resort."-Pp. 9198.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Review. Moore on Social Worship.

Long as this quotation is, we cannot forbear making another which we think also valuable :

"To the Corinthians the apostle gives directions on the subject, which prove indisputably that prayer was not confined to the closet, but that Christians were then in the habit of using it in their assemblies for religious purposes: the man whilst praying was to have his head uncovered, the woman to wear the usual covering on the head.

"There is one passage, however, which can leave no doubt on the mind of any person who has not previously received the strongest bias on the subject, that social prayer in the manner now in use, that is, of one individual delivering the prayer in the name of all, and the congregation signifying their participation and concurrence by the response, Amen, was the habitual practice of Christians in general in the apostolic age.+ Let him that speaketh in an unknown language, pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown language, my spirit pray eth, but my meaning is unprofitable. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, that is, with my spirit, as in the preceding verse, understanding myself, and with the understanding also,' or with meaning, so as to be understood by others. I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Otherwise when thou shalt bless God with the spirit,' with thy mind, understanding thyself, but not understood by others, how shall he that filleth the

[ocr errors]

"1 Cor. xi. 4."
+"1 Cor. xiv, 13, &c."

"This does not necessarily refer to the gift of speaking different languages, given on the day of Pentecost, and which was so essential to the apostles in preaching to different nations: a foreigner might speak in a language unknown to the rest of the assembly, and it seems strange, if an individual possessed the miraculous power of speaking an unknown language, that he should not at the same time be enabled to interpret that language."

"See Locke on the passage. This sagacious and skilful commentator, however, understands by my spirit in the 14th verse, the mind of the worshiper; but by spirit in the next verse supernatural assistance to pray in an unknown language. But what sufficient reason can there be for changing the meaning of the same word so suddenly in the same passage? The repetition of the pronoun my was not necessary. The signification seems to be the same here as in our Lord's ex

565

place of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, since he knoweth not what thou sayest? For thou indeed givest thanks well; but the other is not edified.' Were there no other text on the subject in the New Testament, this would be sufficient.

"It is not easy to imagine a more puerile attempt to evade the proof afforded by this passage, that social prayer was the common practice of Christians in their assemblies at this time, than that which has been made by some observations on the use of the word amen, as if it were not intended to express a participation in the prayer at the conclusion of which it was uttered. Every one knows that amen is a Hebrew word, signifying truth, and that it is properly translated verily at the beginning of many of our Lord's solemu affirmations recorded in the Gospels. But every one knows also that, by common consent, when it is used by those who hear, at the end of a prayer delivered in their presence, this use of it implies, not their approbation only, but their concurrence, their participation in what the speaker has uttered. That this was the ancient as well as modern sense in which it was so used, is unquestionable. The common response, says Vitringa, in the Jewish synagogue, was amen; by which the whole congregation replied to the minister's prayers and benedictions; and thereby signified their concurrence with him ( suum eo consensum testatus cum precante'). He has a distinct section on this use of the word, in which he enumerates the several circumstances insisted upon by the Talmudic writers as requisite to render it acceptable to God, among which one at least was proper, namely, that it should be accompanied by a firm persuasion that God heareth prayer."+-Pp. 119–122.

and of the "Inquiry," the author In the conclusion of this Chapter,

pression addressed to the woman of Samaria, of worshiping God in spirit and in truth, that is, with the mind and sincerely."

Vitringa quotes this text, among others, in order to shew that the worship of the synagogue and of Christian assemblies was essentially the same, both including prayers, thanksgivings and benedictions, with the responses of the people, by saying, Amen. The chief difference appears to have been, that the Christians did not use forms of prayer, or read the law. Vitringa de Syn. Vet. Lib. iii. Pars ii. Cap. xix. p. 1100."

"Vitringa, p. 1092."

« AnteriorContinuar »