of the tribes of Israel; that so every tribe might have a mouth and voice, to praise and to give thanks unto God for him in the temple.

Thus we have seen, what warrant to pray, and call upon God in a set form hath from the practice of the Church of God in the Old Testament; and, if reason may have place, in the publick service of God, where one is the mouth of many, there is none so proper and convenient. For how can the minister be said properly to be the mouth of the congregation in prayer unto God, when the congregation is not first made acquainted, and privy to what he is to render unto God in their names; which in a voluntary and extemporary prayer they are not, nor well can be. I am sure neither so properly, nor conveniently, as in a set form, which they and the whole Church have agreed upon, and offer unto God at the same time, though in several places, in the self same form and words: and this may be a second reason; mean from uniformity; for how can the Church, being a mystical Body, better testify her unity before God, than in her uniformity in calling upon him? especially our Saviour telling us, that if but " two or three shall agree together on earth, as touching any thing they shall ask, it shall be done unto them of his Father which is in heaven;" so prevailable with Almighty God is the power of consent in prayer.

I

Let us now, in the last place, see what reasons they bring, who contend altogether for voluntary prayer, and would have no set forms used. First, they say, it is the ordinance of God, that the church should be edified by the gifts of her ministers, as well in praying as preaching. Ergo, their prayers should be extemporary or voluntary; because in reading a set form this gift cannot be shewn.

To this I answer: First, that there is not, in this point, the same reason for prayer and for preaching; for in prayer (I meane publick) the minister is the mouth of the church unto God, and therefore it were convenient they should know what he puts up to God in their names; but in preaching he is not so. Secondly, Why should not the pastors and ministers of the church, edify the church by their gift of prayer, as well in composing a set form of prayer for her use by general agreement, as in uttering a voluntary or extemporary prayer in a particular congregation? Thirdly, Are not the members of

the

the church to be edified, as well by the spirit of the church, as the church or some part thereof by the spirit of a member? But how can the church edify her mem-bers by her gift of prayer, otherwise then by a set form agreed upon by her consent? Fourthly, ostentation of gifts is one thing, but edification by them another. Ostentation of the gift of prayer is indeed best shewn in a voluntary or extemporary prayer; but the church may be edified as well by a set form; yea, such a form in the publick service of God is more edificative, than, a voluntary. And that, both because the congregation is first made acquainted therewith, and secondly, because they are better secured from being ingaged in ought that might be unfit to speak unto God either for matter or manner, or such as they would not have given their con-sent to, if they had been aware of it. For, now that ex

traordinary assistance of the Holy Ghost, which was in the primitive and apostolical times, is long since ceased; and all men to whom that office belongeth, to speak to God for others, are not at all times discreet and well advised, when they speak to him at will, and extempore, but subject to miscarriage. Lastly, I answer, That the church is to be edified by the gift of her ministers in voluntary prayer, loco et tempore in fit place and upon fit Occasions, not in all places, and upon all occasions. And thus much to this objection.

But they object secondly, that the spirit ought to be free and unlimited, and that therefore a book or set form of prayer, which limits the spirit in praying, is not to be tolerated or used.

To this I answer: it is false, that the acting of the spirit in one Christian, may not be limited or regulated by the spirit of another; especially, the spirit of a particular man in the publick worship, by the spirit of the church, whereof he is a member. For doth not the apostle tell us, 1 Cor. 14, that even that extraordinary spirit of prophecy, usual in his time, might be limited by the spirit of another prophet?" Let the prophets," saith he, "speak two or three, and let the other judge: if any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace." Is not this a limiting? He gives a reason: "For the spirits of the prophets," saith he," are subject to the prophets. Besides, are not the spirits of the people, as well limited and determined by a voluntary prayer, when they joyn therein with their minister, as they are Vol. IX. Churchm. Mag. for Oct. 1805. P p by

by a set form? True, the spirit of the minister is then free; but theirs is not so, but tied and led by the spirit of the minister, as much as if he used a set form. But to elude this, they tell us, that the question is not of limit ing the spirit of the people, but of the minister only; -for, as for the people, no more is required of them, but to join with their minister, and to testify it by saying Amen; but the spirit of the minister ought to be left free, and not to be limited. But where is this written, that the one may not be limited as well as the other? We heard the apostle say even now, The spirit of the prophets, is subject to the prophets: if in prophecying, why not in praying? and what shew of reason can be given, why the spirit of a particular minister in the public worship of the church, may not, yea ought not to be limited, and regulated by the spirit of the church representative, as well as the spirit of a whole congregation, by the spirit of a particular minister? For every particular minister is as much subordinate to the spirit of the church representative, as the spirit of the congregation is to his so much for this objection.

There remaineth yet a third, which may be answered in two or three words. No set form of prayer, say they, can serve for all occasions: What then? Yet why may it not be used for all such occasions as it serves for? if any sudden and unexpected occasion happen, for which the church cannot provide, the spirit of her ministers is free who will forbid them to supply in such a case, that by a voluntary and arbitrary form which the church could not provide for in a set form? And this is what I intended to say of this argument.

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

A Few Thoughts on the Creation, Generation, Growth, and Evolution of the Human Body and Soul: On the Spiritual and immortal Nature of the Soul of Man, and of the Resurrection of his Body at the Last Day, in a Spiritual, Incorruptible, and Glorified State.8vo. Pp. 171.

Ith

Twill generally be granted we believe, that there is no subject of greater importance,or one that requiresmore frequent and serious consideration, than that which forms the main point of discussion in the work before us. Though

many

many collateral points are here discussed, and perhaps some of them rather unnecessarily, yet the great object of the author, is to ascertain the nature of the human Soul, and to prove its conscious existence after the death of the body.

In the introduction he gives the different opinions which have been entertained on the mo nentous subject of the state of the body and soul of man after death; the last of which opinions is that of the Church of England, as follows:" that immediately after death, the souls of men enter a state of happiness or misery; but that neither this happiness nor this misery are so great, or so perfect, as they will be after the final award at the day of judg ment that the souls of good men at death, enter into a state of happiness, and remain therein until the resurrection of their bodies at the last day; with which (then raised spiritual, incorruptible, and immortal) being united, they then enter a state of consummate happiness, in which they are to dwell for ever and ever."

:

"Of all these opinions" says the author, "when tried by the test of the scriptures of truth, by which alone we are enabled to judge, this last seems to be the only one which accords therewith."

Considerable pains are taken, and certainly with much force, to prove that Adam was made a living creature, in common with the other animals, before the Almighty breathed into him "the breath of life," or "his soul."

This separate creation of the body and soul is well sup ported by a consideration of the Mosaic account of the original formation of man, and of other passages of scripture, particularly the 15th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

It will be evident that if this position be proved, the question of the possibility of the soul's existing in a state of consciousness after the death of the body, is settled at

once.

Whether the author of this pamphlet has maintained his ground completely against every objection that might be used, we will not say, but this we will venture to assert, that it will be extremely difficult to overturn his argument; and we think, moreover, that some additional strength might be given to it, by a consideration of many passages of scripture which have either been entirely omitted, or slightly noticed by him. What Dr. Priestely has advanced in favour of material

Pp2

ism

ism in his "Disquisitions concerning Matter and Spirit," is examined at more length than it deserved, though the absurdities of that shallow metaphysician are clearly exposed.

The author has also examined the notion of Bishop Law, on "The Sleep of the Soul," which he refutes from the example of Moses's soul appearing with Enoch and Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration.

In the last section, reasons are offered in support of the notion, unquestionably not a new one, of the propa-. gation of human souls. The author thinks that "at the same time the embryo-body is generated, there is produced an embryo-soul every way adapted for its corporeal habitation; an immortal spirit which can never die, or cease to exist; no, not if it could give ten thousand worlds for annihilation: and this little soul, being thus incorporated in the little body, as its house or habitation (and not chymically united), is, most probably, with it gradually enlarged, and has its faculties gradually evolved with those of the body, while it ever retains its distinct, indivisible, indestructible, and immortal spiritual nature."

We must acknowlege that the perusal of these Thoughts" has afforded us no small portion of satisfaction, as having placed a subject of the nearest interest in a new and very important point of view. The author has made a small mistake in attributing the excellent treatise On Death," quoted at page 50, to Bishop Sherlock, instead of the Dean his father.

A Charge, delivered at the Primary Visitation of the Reverend the Archdeacon of Sarum, in July 1805. By the Reverend CHARLES DAUBENY, Archdeacon of Sarum. 8vo. Pp. 32.-Rivingtons.

I

T must afford peculiar satisfaction to all true members of the established church, to see such zealous and upright divines as the author of the present charge, advanced to places of dignity and authority. We feel, for ourselves, a grateful respect for the venerable bishop of Salisbury, for having conferred so honourable a mark of distinction upon Mr. Daubeny, to whom the Church of

England