66

66

this practise had produced extremely pernicious and demoralizing effects on some of the parties thus engaged; we did not, we confess, so readily perceive the connection between the cause and the effect, till the letter of our correspondent, J. F., in defence of this lady, brought it home to our apprehensions. "To effect the reform (says J. F.) contemplated by the committee, it is necessary to go to the root and origin of the vice; to learn the history of the criminal; "to mark by what gradual steps that criminal proceeded "from misfortune to error-from error to crime; to note "how often a female criminal has been made such by the crimes of our sex; to hear, in fact, that SECRET HISTORY that will "not be told to a man." In this way then, in studying the progress, and listening to the secret history, of seduction, are the mornings of young and inexperienced females employed in Newgate. We confess now, that upon the showing of their own advocate, we can well understand the causes, as we do seriously deplore the consequences, of the evil which has been stated to result from such occupations; and we are of opinion that a case is here presented to our imaginanation more worthy the interference of "The Society for the "Suppression of Vice," than any of their prosecutions of obscene books, or impure prints!*

It must not be supposed, from any reflections thrown out in these papers on the subject of prison discipline, that we are unfriendly to any endeavours to obtain, through the legislature, a reform of our prison discipline. Our objection is to individuals-generally indiscreet, superficial, interested individuals-taking upon themselves the duties of the executive, and officiously interfering with a work to which they are in no respect competent; and which should be directed by the government of the country alone, under the influence the salutary influence, we willingly admit, of public opinion! We may not, indeed, go the length of the

* As some of our readers may doubt the possibility of young females being permitted to take part in such proceedings, we may quote upon this point, the information given by Mr. Buxton, "The next day she (Mrs. Fry) commenced the school in company with A YOUNG LADY, who then visited a prison for the first time, and who since gave me a very interesting description of her feelings upon that occasion. The railing was crouded with half naked women, struggling together for the front situations, with the most boisterous violence, and begging with the utmost vociferation. She felt as if she was going into a den of wild beasts; and she well recollects quite shuddering when the door closed upon her, and she was locked in, with such a herd of novel and desperate companions." (p. 122.) What a misfortune to this young lady and her friends, that these, her first and natural impressions, should ever have been removed by a more regular and familiar intercourse with such "desperate companions!"

Quakers, in our wish to see the prisons such houses of comfort-such mansions of hospitality, as to render the criminals within more happy than those without the walls; and to induce others to follow the example of the poor woman recently described by Mr. Hick, chairman of the London Workhouse Committee, who applied to him to know "whether she might not get to Newgate, under the care of "Mrs. Fry, by stealing a little something;' and indeed we

think there is some ground for the opinion of a worthy city baronet, who imputed to the Society for the Reformation of Prison Discipline, a wish to provide for the prisoners" Turkey carpets and tea and toast."

But, doubtless, in the construction of our prisons-in the classification and employment of the prisoners, many important reformations might be attempted; which, as the legislature and the legislature alone, can effect, the duty of those who profess to deplore the present state of our prisons is plain and obvious. Let them call the attention of parliament to the evil. Let them use their wealth and influence in returning to parliament, men who will support this and all other just and salutary reforms. But above all, let them not, like the Quakers, exhibit the vile hypocrisy of supporting and succumbing to the very men who refuse to redress the evils which they affect so loudly, so feelingly, to lament! We have also, we confess, an insuperable objection to all the endeavours of our modern philanthropists as proceeding on religious grounds, and being represented as Christian duties; as it is in consequence of such a view of the subject that our prisoners, to the other evils of their situation, are exposed to the constant annoyance, sometimes indeed of well-meant, but generally of hypocritical endeavours to convert and save their souls; endeavours which, however fashionable they may now have become however pious they may now be held-are more nearly allied to a spirit of hypocrisy and fraud, than consonant with the precepts of Christianity. Jesus never enjoined his apostles and first followers never practised-such a mode of hawking religion, and forcing a trade in piety; they did not take advantage of the distress and destitution of individuals, in order to force upon them the truths of the gospel; they did not hunt about for vice in holes and corners of the earth; they did not ferret out the inmates of the prison house, to obtain converts to their faith; they did not dog the heels of ignorance, and incapacity, and crime, to swell the numbers of their followers; they did not seek to

*Times Paper, April 21:

extort the confessions of their faith from the polluted lips of expiring criminals. No! they acted with dignity-with discrimination; excluding, indeed, none from the terms of mercy and pardon; but enforcing the exalted principles of truth on such only as possessed a desire to understand, or a disposition to receive them.

But why, if all this desire for reform, this hatred of sin, this ardour for religion, be sincere-why is it that its manifestations are confined to the poor only? Has Mrs. Fry, and her pious supporters and admirers, no sympathy for royal sinners-no concern for titled impenitents? Can she behold unmoved the rich corrupting the springs of public example, and sending down the bitter waters of pollution to the poor? Can she see the high and the mighty enter the broad, wide way that leadeth to destruction-and will she not admonish them of their error, and seek to conduct them to the narrow, unfrequented path of life and peace? If such, indeed, shall appear her conduct, and the conduct of her party, then must an appeal to the example of Jesus and his apostles, cover but too many of their pretended followers with shame and confusion of face. "Woe

unto you that are RICH!" was the exclamation of Jesus ;the party whose principles we have been examining, reserve their woes for the poor only! When Paul "reasoned of

66

righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, FELIX "trembled:"-these truths, however, in the hands of modern teachers, leave higher, greater sinners than Felix, secure in sin, and whilst regardless of the precepts of righteousness or the practices of temperance, yet are such frequently found among the titled patrons and supporters of the party who affect the deepest interest in the doctrine of-judgment

to come

1*

*The following letter, which has been published as from Lord Orford, in answer to an application made to him to become President of the Norwich Bible Society, is a striking illustration of the hypocrisy of our modern saints:"SIR,-I am surprised and annoyed by the contents of your letter-surprised, because my well-known character should have exempted me from such an application; and annoyed, because it obliges me to have even this communication with you. I have long been addicted to the gaming table-I have lately taken to the turffear I frequently blaspheme-but I have never distributed religious tracts. All this was well known to you and your Society; notwithstanding which you think me a fit person for your President!-God forgive your hypocrisy I would rather live in "I am, &c. &c."

the land of sinners than with such saints.'

We cannot undertake to answer for the genuineness of this letter; but how many of the noble presidents, patrons, and subscribers to our bible societies might not, if they were so disposed, confess as much of themselves as the above noble lord is represented to have done. By the by, Joseph John Gurney is Secretary to the Norwich Bible Society, did Friend Joseph, the brother of Elizabeth Fry, make the above application to LORD Orford?

In conclusion we have only to remark, that should the Quakers as a body, or the Ladies' committee in Newgate, in particular, feel themselves aggrieved by any thing contained in this paper, they will come forward, either themselves or by some authorised agent, publicly to prove in what we have wrongly accused them; and we, on our part, if convinced, will cheerfully confess our error. In the absence, however, of any such attempt on their part, they will by their silence, afford us an additional evidence, that our reasoning has been correct, and our judgment just!

ON RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.-ESSAY VII.

THE PRAYER OF THE JEWISH TEMPLE.

"What is man?

Where must he find his Maker? with what rites

Adore him? Will he hear, accept, and bless?

Or does he sit regardless of his works?

'Tis Revelation satisfies all doubts."-Cowper's Task, Book II.

WE are engaged in an examination of the worship of the Jewish temple, with a view to prove that public social prayer was not practised therein. In the two preceding Essays we have shewn that prayer formed no part of the public and appointed worship of the Jews. The fifth Essay (p. 46) explained the duties of the priests; the sixth (p. 162) those of the levites; the one were appointed to sacrifice to, the latter to sing the praises of, Jehovah, as the God and the king of the Jews; but neither, as we have seen, were appointed or commanded to pray; or to lead the public or joint prayer of the people. Prayer, indeed, was never commanded to the Jewish people at all: it is never spoken of as a duty (p. 51): it was simply permitted to them as an advantage allowed them as a privilege; and it was permitted and allowed to those only who were worthy of this advantage, and who chose to avail themselves of this pri'vilege: it must, therefore, have been individual; whereas

C

sacrifice and the singing of the levites were expressly appointed and commanded as public, stated, and national observances.

In reply to those who contend (as Lewis, Bennett, Moore, and others, see p. 47) that social prayer formed part of the temple worship, it might be sufficient to call upon them to produce the passages, the chapters, and the verses, in which this observance is commanded, and the officers appointed to conduct it; or let them, if they cannot do this, produce plain and palpable cases in which social prayer is practised; or, failing in that, let them produce passages in which the Jewish people are extolled for the observance; or censured for the neglect; or admonished for the abuse of the practice. Not one such have been, or can be, produced; all these can be produced with regard to the national sacrifices of the Jews; but not a single passage can be produced in which public social prayer is commanded; or in which its nonobservance is censured; or its abuses pointed out. This is, at least, strong inferential argument that public social prayer formed no part of the worship of the Jewish temple.

With inferential argument we shall not, however, be content in this case; we shall produce positive and conclusive evidence, to shew-not, indeed, that prayer was not practised in the Jewish temple, for that it is part of our case to insist that it was-but that such prayer was permitted, not. commanded; that it formed no part of the stated ritual and observances of the court of Jehovah; and that, above all, and as a consequence of all, that it was individual and separate-not joint and social; that they had not "liturgies or prescribed forms," as some have contended; but that, in the language of Prideaux, (himself an orthodox priest, and a defender of public social prayer) that "all prayed in private to themselves, and all according to their own private conceptions.'

The temple is spoken of by the prophet Isaiah as being "a house of prayer;" and such, indeed, it was; but upon this epithet, occurring, as it does, ONCE ONLY in all the books of the Old Testament, by far too much stress has been laid; an endeavour having been made to establish an inference, that prayer-stated and social prayer-was the chief end and object of the Jewish temple; in the performance of which the whole of its officers, priests, levites, &c. Sassisted. "One of the chief distinctions of the temple, "then, (observes Mr. Moore, Inquiry, p. 49) was this: it was "denominated by God himself NOT A HOUSE OF SACRIFICE,