SERMON S.

I. Before the Houfe of Commons, at St. Margaret's Westminster, Jan. 30, 1766. By J. Barnardiston, D. D. Master of Corpus Chrifti College, in Cambridge. Johnfon, in Ave Mary Lane.

II. At the Ordination of the Rev. Mr. Edward Harwood of Bristol, . and the Rev. Mr. Benjamin Davies, of Marlborough, Oct. 16th, 1765, in the Old Jewry, London. By the Rev. Mr. Thomas Amory. To which is annexed, the Rev. Mr. Harwood's Confeffion of Faith, and a Charge delivered by Samuel Chandler, D. D.. 8vo. 1s. 6d. Becket., We recommend the Perufal of this Sermon, &c. to all those who, are engaged in, or defigned for the miniftry; they will find in it many. obfervations that well deferve their ferious attention.-The difcerning Reader will likewife be pleafed with Mr. Harwood's confeflion of faith, and his pertinent anfwers to the queftions propofed to him.

III. At St. John's Chapel, Birmingham, Dec, 27, 1765; on the Excellency and Ufefulness of Mafonry: before a refpectable Body of the ancient and honourable fraternity of Free and Accepted Mafons. By the Rev. Thomas Bagnal, A. B. Stuart.

IV. The Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation clearly and fully confuted; from Common Senfe; from the unerring Atteftation of the Senfes; from the. indubitable Maxims of Philofophy; from the Proofs of our Saviour's Miracles, vouched by himself; and from the Words of his Mouth, repeated and attefted by St. Paul, and three Evangelifts. By Patrick Des. lany, D. D. Dean of Down, in Ireland. Johnston.

V. Family Religion.-On Joshua's Refolution, Chap. xxiv. 15. By Thomas Reader. Buckland.

VI. The Appearing of Chrift, the chief Shepherd, confidered and improved. On the Death of Mr. Sanderfon, Paftor of the Diffenting Con gregation at Bedford, Jan. 24, 1766. By Samuel Palmer. Buckland."

VII. At Euface-ftreet, Dublin, Jan 16, 1766, on the Death of the reverend and learned John Leland, D. D. who departed this Life on the 16th of the fame Month, in the 75th Year of his Age. By Ifaac Weld, D. D. Johnflon.

In this difcourfe, Dr. Weld (as ufual in funeral Sermons) gives A ketch of the life and character of that truly amiable and excellent perfon,. whofe death was the occafion of its being delivered:-the particulars will, doubtlefs, be very acceptable to all who were perfona ly acquainted with the worthy Doctor, or converfant with his learned, valuable and celebrated writings.

The late Sermons by the Drs. Sharpe and Kennicott, in our next.

The Continuation of our Account of Dr. Blackstone's Commentary is deferred to the next Month's Review.

We have received an anonymous letter containing fome objections to our account of Mr. Tr's Trigonometry: but it will be foon enough to fhew the injuftice of the charge, when the Writer has demonftrated that Mr. Tr's artificial numbers are deduced from true principles. For every attempt to folve mathematical problems by methods founded on erroneous principles, must be confidered as an attempt to fubftitute error in the place of truth,

THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

For A PRI L, 1766.

Public Prayer. A Treatife in Two Parts. Part I. Representing the Advantages and Disadvantages of fet Forms, and their respective Moment in determining the Mode of Public Worship.. Part II. Pointing out the Defects of Public Free Prayer, as practifed among Proteftant Diffenters, and directing to proper Methods of Reformation and Improvement in that Mode of Worship. 12mo. 2s. Buckland.

IN

N the Advertisement prefixed to this Treatife, we are told, that it has more than one author; which, indeed, without any fuch declaration, must be evident to every difcerning reader; the fecond part, though not without its merit, being obviously inferior to the first.

The defign of the first part, which is written with freedom, moderation, and Judgment, is to fhew the expediency and ufefulness of free prayer, in preference to forms. In the introduction, the Author gives his readers a few ftrictures on the authority and antiquity of the two modes of prayer. As to the point of authority, he obferves, that the fcripture neither exprefsly enjoins, nor forbids, by any pofitive precept or prohibition, the praying with or without a form; that one mode of worship may neverthelefs be better, and more eligible than another, though it is not enjoined as univerfally neceffary in all cafes; that if any mode of worship is preferable to another, the preference must be justly due to the primitive mode, whatever that might be, as Chrift and his apoftles, and all their pious followers in the first and pureft ages, certainly worthipped God in the best way and manner.

He further obferves on this head, that the practice of the primive church, fo far as can be collected from the New Testament, is in favour of free-prayer; that the filence of fcripture, with refpect to the particular mode of prayer, argues much more ftrongly for free prayer than for forms, as it is not to be fupVOL. XXXIV. pofed,

S

pofed, that the great founder of the Chriftian church would have left it without forms, or given no direction for the compofition of them, if they had been abfolutely neceffary, or generally expedient and ufeful.

As to the point of antiquity, he obferves, that it is allowed by the most celebrated and learned writers in favour of forms; that free-prayer was the primitive mode of worfhip among Chriftians; that the first introduction of forms into the Chriftian church was upon an occafion by no means honourable to them, namely, the grofs ignorance and fcandalous infufficiency of fome minifters towards the clofe of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century. He concludes his introduction with fome general remarks, and proceeds to confider the advantages of forms, the principal of which are these following:

Set forms establish and secure the unity of faith and worship, reduce all the churches to an uniformity, prevent any disagree-ment or contradiction in their petitions, and inftruct them, as they worship the fame God, to worship him with the fame mind and voice. Forms of prayer are an ufeful, and, in fome cafes, neceffary relief to the infirmities of mankind; particularly, in times of general and prevailing ignorance, when few are to be found, otherwife capable of conducting the public devotions, with tolerable propriety or decency.-Set forms claim the honour and advantage of exact and accurate compofition. Where they are introduced, it is reasonable to fuppofe that learning, genius, and ftudy, will all be employed, to give the higheft poffible finifhing to them; and, in the ufe of fuch forms, the worfhippers depend not on the abilities of their minifter, whether they must offer up proper and becoming petitions in suitable language and method. Whereas the performer in free prayer is liable to run into much incoherence, and, in confequence, to violate grammar, apply mean and vulgar phrafes, ufe tedious repetitions, dwell too largely upon fome topics, and omit or glance too flightly upon others, and the like, which cannot fail of expofing the public offices of religion to fome degree of contempt or neglect.-Set forms are an useful curb upon the wild fancies and licentious paffions of fome men, that may be employed in leading the public devotions.-Set forms give people the advantage of bearing a vocal part in the public prayers.-The people, who worship by a prefcribed form, are apprized beforehand of what they fhould join in as their addrefs to God. When the people depend upon their minifter for the matter of their prayer, there must be more uncertainty whether it will be such as they can confcientioufly join in. They must hear in order to underftand, and understand in order to judge; and if what they have heard be agreeable, they adopt it, and offer it as the devout breathing of their hearts to God; the mind paffes throngh this

procefs

procefs as the minifter is uttering, or as foon as he has uttered a fentence in prayer; and yet it is no fooner uttered, than he is going on to another part of his prayer, that requires the fame operation. Thus the hearer is kept in painful fufpence and doubtful hesitation, and has little fcope left for the exercile of his devout affections.

After giving fuch a representation of the advantages of forms, as appears to our Author to include every thing of importance that has been urged in their favour, he now proceeds to take a review of these advantages.-The unity of the Chriftian church, the decency of Chriftian worship, and the devotion of Chriftian worshippers, are the three grand objects, he obferves, which those who plead the advantages of forms muft have in view; and he is not worthy the name of a Chriftian, he adds, who regards any of them with indifference, much lefs who treats them with neglect or contempt.

As to the unity of the Chriftian church, continues he, which forms are fuppofed to fecure and advance in a greater degree than free prayer; we obferve that Chriftian unity and ecclefiaftical uniformity are two things in fome men's ideas ftrangely confounded; and yet in their own nature, far from being fo connected, as that that they must neceffarily ftand or fall together. The former is converfant, about the inward substantial and vital parts of Chriftianity, things effential to a Chriftian as fuch; the latter about circumftantial matters, points of mere ceremony and form, things no more effential to a perfon as a Christian, than his particular features, motion or drefs are neceffary to his being a man, or one of the human kind. The one admits variety in fpeculative opinions and external modes of religion; the other fixes an invariable standard to which the confciences of men must be ftretched, and by which their practice must be determined in doubtful, or confeffedly indifferent matters. I he one is founded in humility, and cemented by charity and love; the other takes its rife from a fpirit of domination, and requires fines, imprisonments, and worldly terrors effectually to fupport it. The one confifts with free enquiry and mutual forbearance; the other damps or deftroys them. Through Chrift we have access by one fpirit unto the Father. Eph. ii. 18. Thus does an inspired apoftle exprefs the common privilege of all true Chriftians, and exhibit the grand point in which all the great lines of true Chrif tian faith and worship unite as their common centre. They who worship the Father through the Son, as the only Mediator, and by the Spirit, with humble reliance on his gracious aids, fenfible that they are in themfelves unworthy to be accepted, and of themselves unable to perform their duty in an acceptable manner, unite in the main flentials of the Chriftian profeffion and worfhip, how much fever they be in other refpects divided.

As to an agreement in the fame form of addrefs to God, it is as easy to conceive how Chriftian unity may subsist amidst variety in the exercise of free prayer; as how the feveral bodiescorporate in a kingdom may all unite in addreffing their prince, each in their own manner, and according to their own particular fentiments and circumftances, but all with fuch harmonious expreffions of loyalty, as fhew them well affected to his government; and fuch a general agreement in the matter of their addrefles, as fhews them all to have the fame confidence in his royal wisdom and goodness for the common bleffings of an equal government, and fuch particular favours as are fuitable to their respective circumstances, and confiftent with the general good. It is indeed natural to expect fome difference in the addreffes prefented by different bodies of men; as for inftance, an house of convocation, and a number of diffenting minifters, and it is poffible they may contradict one another but if one petition only for the protection of the church established by law, and the fecurity of her privileges and revenues; and the other for the maintainance of toleration and religious liberty, here is difference without contradiction; and a wife and gracious prince (fuch as we have reafon to esteem his prefent Majefty) may look upon them both as his very good fubjects, and return them both a very gracious anfwer. A form of common addrefs to prevent difagreement or contradiction in the addreffes of his Majefty's fubjects, would be a new, unheard of, and ftrange device indeed; and why they fhould have a form of common prayer to prevent the like inconvenience in their addrefles to the King of Heaven, is not easy to understand; unless we fuppofe, what ought not to be once admitted into our imaginations, that there is no allowance to be had in the court of Heaven for the different byafes of mankind from particular fentiments, paffions, and interefts, which fometimes affect their worthip; or that God exacts from thofe, that worship him, a feeming and outward agreement more perfect, than he knows can in this imperfect ftate of things, really and inwardly take place amongst thinking and inquifitive minds.

Upon the whole, it is hard to conceive, why in providing for unity of faith and worship, fo particular a stress should be laid upon the ufe of one common form of prayer; and yet the matter be left abfolutely undetermined in refpect of public preaching. Muft minifters and people ufe the very fame words in prayer to prevent contradiction and difagreement; and yet the public inftructions be left to the difcretion of every minister, and the confequence, that doctrines as widely different from one another, as earth and heaven, are taught to the people, be thought no breach of unity? Is it of fuch vaft importance to prevent difagreement in what minifters fpeak as the mouth of the people to God; and yet of no importance to prevent the like difagree

ment.