Images de page
PDF
ePub

of or against the use of a Liturgy. It is chiefly through forgetfulness of this influence, that Churchmen and Nonconformists so often judge unfairly of each other's modes of worship. All parties are agreed that, other things being equal, our worship of God will be more real and earnest in proportion as our minds are free from distraction. But it is one question whether the mind is less likely to be distracted in worship by the regular use of a Liturgy, than by extemporaneous prayer; it is an altogether different question whether a devout man-Nonconformist or Churchman-is less likely to be distracted in worship by a religious service to which he is accustomed, than by one to which he is a stranger. The former question, which is abstract, is somewhat difficult; the latter, which is relative, is easy. There can be no doubt whatever, that novelty in worship has always a certain tendency to distract the mind, and that therefore, other things being equal, the mode of worship to which a man is accustomed becomes for him the most natural, and consequently the most effective vehicle of praise and supplication. Even supposing, therefore, we came to the conclusion that, considered in itself, a Liturgy is less distracting than "free" prayer, it would not follow that a Nonconformist will be less distracted in worship, when on any occasion he uses the Liturgy at Church, than during that service which custom has made familiar to his mind. And, on the other hand, when a Churchman comes occasionally into a Dissenting congregation, and tries to join in the prayers, and finds that his mind is not so entirely engaged in the act of worship as when he hears the Liturgy read, he has no right to leap to the conclusion that therefore the liturgical service is, considered in itself, the less distracting. Of two roads, both leading to a given destination, the longer may be practically the shorter, to the man who knows it well, but who is a stranger to the other.

Manifest, however, as all this is, it is exactly what is so often forgotten by both parties in their estimate of each other's modes of worship. Each attributes to the other that distraction of spirit which he himself naturally feels whenever he occasionally adopts the unfamiliar method of his neighbour. The Presbyterian wonders how the Episcopalian can worship God, whilst he is reading out of a book: the Episcopalian wonders how the Presbyterian can worship God, whilst he is waiting to know what prayer his minister will offer next, and whether he himself will be able to add the inward "Amen." The Church clergyman, when he has attempted to lead the prayers of an assembly in language of his own, has perhaps found that his mind was so engaged in the choice of fitting words, as to preclude him, to a great extent, from entering, heart and soul, into his own prayer; and he forthwith proceeds to attri

bute the same distraction of mind to the Nonconformist minister. He forgets that the latter may have been so accustomed to give utterance to the very feelings which keep rising in his heart as he prays, that his difficulty rather is to throw his soul into any language except that which is fresh and new. In like manner, we I issenters listen, now and again, to a Cathedral service: the intoning of the prayers seems to us more like a musical performance, than the communion of the soul with the living God; the characteristics of the building-its fine architecture, its stained windows-all tend to alienate our attention; and the whole service leaves upon our minds a sense of unreality. But we shall fall into uncharitable error, if we attribute this sense of unreality to all around us. We have not worshipped; but others may have worshipped devoutly. God may have seen burning within some hearts there, the fire of a purer devotion than has ever yet been kindled within our own. The place itself, which is so strange to us, has been familiar to them for years; to them it has now a homely look. The intoning of the prayers, which to us seems so unnatural and unreal, may have become to them the natural vehicle of worship; so that their diffculty now would be to worship with equal fervour where the prayers are not intoned. Surely the Churchman and the Dissenter ought, each of them, in charity to remember, that the other knows best what are the natural and actual effects upon his own mind, of his own modes of worship.

Regarding it, therefore, as a settled point that, other things being equal, the mind of a devout man is less likely to be distracted in prayer, when he follows the method of worship to which he has been accustomed, we go forward to glance at the more abstract question as to whether the use of a liturgy or of free prayer is less likely, in itself, to prove an occasion of distraction to the spirit. Now here, at first sight, it might appear as if this question were as easy of solution as the former. "Who can doubt "-it might be asked -"but that a man will be able to throw his whole soul more fully into a prayer which he knows before-hand, than into a prayer uttered from the feeling of the moment, of which he does not know what the next sentence may be?" But those who speak thus confidently forget that distraction in worship may proceed from one of two causes, either from too much attention, at the moment of utterance, to the vehicle of prayer, or from too little attention to it. If too much attention be given to the mere words of a prayer, either on the part of him who leads devotion, or of those who follow, the result will be distraction of spirit; the mind will be so much engaged with the words themselves, as to be practically unable to fill them with deep, earnest feeling. And this is unquestionably the great danger which belongs to the use of free prayer

10

our Dissenting congregations. If the minister is not fluent in speech, the consciousness of his own defect may tempt him to take so much pains with his language, as to leave it but poorly filled with the real spirit of heartfelt worship, or he may on account of his defect, so stumble, or blunder, or repeat himself, as to attract the minds of the people unduly to his mode of expression, and so prevent them from filling his words with a deep, earnest meaning. Or if, on the other hand, he is fluent in language, his temptation will be to make prayers instead of praying, to elaborate fine sentences which may lead the people to be admiring their minister, when they ought to be worshipping their God. Or, without any vainglory on the part of the minister, the people themselves may fall into the habit of listening to beautiful prayers for what will gratify their taste, instead of heartily using them as vehicles of devotion. But let not the Churchman imagine that he escapes the danger of being distracted in worship, through the use of a Liturgy. He must, indeed, be conscious that he does not escape it. Why should he? Distraction of mind in worship may and does proceed from attending too little to the vehicle of prayer, as well as from attending too much to it. Thus, even in private prayer, when we kneel before God, to present to Him our desires and purposes, we find that these naturally shape themselves into language, whenever we concentrate our faculties upon the act of worship. There may be no words on the tongue, but they are present, nevertheless, to the thought. And whenever in secret prayer we cease to speak to God either orally or mentally, we presently find that a host of intruding thoughts are taking possession of the mind. Again, we know that, if for the first time we are telling any one what we have seen or heard, we throw into the narrative our whole present thought and feeling; but if we are merely repeating words which we have committed to memory, we may all the while be thinking of something quite different from the thought and sentiment of which the words are an expression. Now it is in this direction that the danger of the Churchman lies. The words of the Liturgy become, in the course of time, so familiar to his mind, that it costs his spirit not the slightest effort to speak them; they come to his lips almost mechanically; and as they demand in themselves no special attention, the mind is in danger of being distracted by a host of intruding thoughts. And so, if the Nonconformist sometimes catches him self trying to turn a sentence well, or admiring a well-turned sentence, and has to recall his mind from the mere words of prayer to the solemn act in which he is engaged, the Churchman, just as often doubtless, catches himself repeating the old familiar words, whilst he is busy with other thoughts altogether, and has to recall his mind from these foreign thoughts to the actual words which he

is mechanically repeating. Thus, it is obvious that we cannot escape from distraction of mind or from mere lip-worship, by any external methods or arrangements of one kind or another. How should we? "God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth." It will be admitted, we think, by every candid and reflective mind, that much may be said in favour both of free prayer and of the use of a Liturgy. Indeed, why should it not be at once confessed that each method of worship has advantages peculiar to itself? Free prayer, no doubt, makes us dependent, to a greater extent, on the minister's temperament or passing mood; but, on the other hand, a liturgy, if used exclusively, robs us of the help which a minister might often give us; for it must be conceded that a pastor may often help his people, by his prayers, to pray, as well as help them by his sermons to live. And if sometimes, coming into the general congregation in a devotional frame of mind, we are prayed out of it by a rambling, lifeless, extempore prayer, there is this compensation, that, sometimes coming in a dull and lifeless mood, we are prayed into a devotional frame of mind, through catching the fervent spirit of him who leads our worship. On the other hand, a stated form of prayer leads a man to throw the blame of unrefreshing worship on himself; extemporaneous prayer tempts him rather to throw the blame on his minister. If the Liturgy seems more reverential, free prayer seems more confiding; the former may appear to be the more becoming, as we approach the throne of Eternal Majesty-the latter surely appears to be the more natural, as we come into the presence of a loving Father, who invites us to speak to Him just as we feel.

It is our own conviction that it is with the prayers as with the sermons of our public Christian assemblies: the best and the worst are extemporaneous. There is no kind of preaching so effective and so well fitted for all classes of hearers, as extemporaneous preaching of the highest kind. When a man has acquired such a mastery of language as that he can be both fluent and exact,-and can trust himself to render a beautiful similitude into beautiful language, to state a logical argument with precision, to tell a touching story in touching words, to give full play to the tide of emotion, saying at the same time, as it rolls itself forth in the tumult of appropriate expression, "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further!"then let that man think out his sermons, but never write them; for, other things being equal, there is nothing like the power of the living word, as it comes gushing forth naturally from the living mind and heart. "Other things being equal," we say: but alas! other things are rarely equal. And hence it comes to pass that the lowest kind of preaching is also extemporaneous, the pouring forth of words without any earnest pre-meditation,often without any arrangement,-in a confused heap of common

places and repetitions. In like manner, we believe that the highest kind of public prayer is the extemporaneous, when that is simple and yet free from cumbersome repetition, when it is so fresh as to stimulate thought and quicken feeling, and yet so chaste and natural as not to direct overmuch attention to itself. Such prayer, when its substance is in unison with the sympathies of the congregation, must be the best, for it will be most likely to obviate both kinds of distraction to which we have referred. It will keep the mind active in attention, so as to exclude intruding thoughts, and yet not put attention to the prayer itself in the place of praying to God. But alas! as there are many extemporaneous preachers to whom we would say, "Write your sermons," so there are many who pray in our public assemblies, to whom the people might well say, "Why not lead our devotions in the words of the English Liturgy?' And, considering the wants of our congregations generally, and the average qualifications of our ministers, it comes to be a serious practical question for our Nonconformist Churches, whether they ought not in some way, to unite liturgical with free prayer. We do not here forget (although Churchmen sometimes do) that many Dissenting ministers have an unwritten liturgy of their own, so that their congregations often know beforehand the substance, at least, of the prayer they are about to utter. But is this all we need? Would it not be advisable to introduce to some extent forms of prayer? We venture to say that the leading representatives of our modern Nonconformity regard such a question as being fairly open to discussion. Whatever some of our forefathers may have said, the more intelligent Dissenters of the present day do not speak of the very idea of a Prayer-book in terms of indiscriminate censure. We do not now think of a Liturgy as necessarily associated with formalism. We recognise the fact that when an empty formalism prides itself on being without forms of prayer, it is formalism of the worst and deadliest kind. There are many amongst us who would not be averse to the occasional use of a Liturgy; and there are even some who advocate its regular use as one part of our public worship.

But, at the same time, we are universally agreed that we will not exclude free prayer altogether from our Christian assemblies. Whatever advantages a Liturgy might bring to us, we claim the liberty of retaining those advantages which we know from experience to belong to our present mode of worship. And herein. we agree with the large majority of those two thousand men who were ejected from the Church of England in 1662. In the debate on the alteration of the Liturgy, previous to the passing of the Act of Uniformity, when the Bishops objected that the Liturgy would be made void, if every minister might put in and leave out what he pleased-the Presbyterians divines replied, “You mistake

« PrécédentContinuer »