the Lord's day on the same foundation on which Christianity itself rests herein he is right; but that which has a firm foundation may still need law to inform, to regulate, and direct it; and, taking mankind as they are, to remove the authority of positive law from religious institutions, to place the claims of these institutions to our regard on any other ground than that of the peremptory authority and inviolable command of God, is a virtual desecration of them. NOTE I, page 185. By the Translator. THE question whether the spirit of the evangelic life or Christian dispensation desires or needs a Liturgy in worship; whether this spirit prefers or consents to bind itself to forms of prayer, prescribed or imposed by ecclesiastical authority or prudence, we would appeal, for a new examination on its merits, against the disposition which is made, or is sought to be made of it, by predominant sentiment. Whether it be from the new appearance of formalism, or from desire for a more chaste and cultivated manner in conducting public worship, or from defect of the spirit of free prayer in these times, or from all these causes combined, there are indications, not to be mistaken, that a preference for the stated use of Liturgies is prevailing to some extent in denominations which have hitherto thought it, among themselves at least, inexpedient; And as the tendencies of this preference in these denominations seem to us unfavorable to the interests of Christianity, on the whole, we should scarcely be true to ourselves if we should leave our author's remarks on Liturgies without at least indicating our judgment. Let us not misapprehend our author on this subject. Though he says, when speaking of the performance of the service, "Le ministre est lié à la Liturgie qui ne lui appartient pas, qui est la voix même du troupeau et à laquelle il ne fait que prêter sa voix individuelle," he had said before, "Des paroles à la fois humaines et préscrites ne me sem APPENDIX. 363 blent pas réaliser l'idéal d'une Liturgie: Si la parole humaine devait s'y mêler, je l'aimerais mieux libre et individuelle." Taking both these passages together, and interpreting them as we feel bound to do, without making our author inconsistent with himself, we obtain, as M. Vinet's judgment, on the whole, that, while the officiating minister, as the minister of a flock that has prescribed to itself forms of worship, is to be tied to the Liturgy of the flock, and not to use his own voice except as that of one individual thereof, there is, nevertheless, in this mode of worship, something inconsistent with the ideal of a Liturgy. "It appears to me," he says, “that the ideal of a Liturgy can not be realized in words at the same time human and prescribed. If human words are to be admitted, I prefer that they should be free and individual." As there are "human words" in all extant Liturgies, it is M. Vinet's impression that the ideal of a Liturgy is realized in no Liturgy; that is to say, if we understand him, that liturgical worship, such as it is every where in fact, involves more or less of inconsistency with the just idea of worship. This he might believe, and yet, on the whole, think this mode of worship expedient-expedient as being less objectionable than free prayer. And yet free prayer he thinks more congenial with the ideal of a Liturgy than prayers precomposed and prescribed by man. In the nature of free prayer as such, there is nothing incongenial with this ideal: In prescribed forms, on the contrary, the ideal can not be realized: Free prayer, then, has this advantage, and it is surely no uximportant one, that, in its just and complete exercise, the ideal of worship may be realized: It will be realized if those who offer free prayer are not in fault; it can not be in the other mode of worship. If, then, it be feasible to have free worship, unobjectionable as to manner and spirit, or just in proportion as this is feasible, the preferableness of free worship is unquestionable. Dismissing for the present the question as to this feasibility, we return to the other point-the incongeniality of Liturgies with the spirit of Christianity-the ideal of Christian worship: With such views of this spirit as our author has so forcibly and beautifully expressed, it was impossible for him not to have felt the incongeniality, the incon sistency of which we speak. He could not but feel that the spirit of Christianity, especially in its primitive manifestation, was entirely inconsistent with such an interference with spiritual liberty as the authoritative prescription of a human Liturgy would have been. History had acquainted him with the fact that there was no such interference ;* but, independently of history, he knew this by à priori evidence—he knew it, we may say, by intuition. The early Christianity would, in his apprehension, have denied itself if it had submitted to the imposition of a prescribed and stereotyped Liturgy. But, though we have no need of historical evidence, we ought not to forget this fact of history, namely, that there was no appearance of liturgical worship in the Christian Church until Christianity had become degenerate and corrupt. Liturgies were unknown in the purest times; in their beginning, their increase, and through all their changes, they were the work of uninspired men's hands; their origin is unknown: "They seem to me," says Dr. Owen, "to have had but slender oríginals; their beginnings were small, plain, brief; their use arbitrary; the additions they received were from the endeavors of private men in several ages, occasional for the most part ;" their apology was necessity, arising from the introduction of men "into the office of the ministry who had not gifts and abilities for the profitable discharge of the work of the ministry;" the times of their greatest abundance and prosperity were the ages of darkness; and, in Dr. Owen's judgment, they had the chief influence in promoting the degeneracy of the Church before the Reformation.† It has seemed to us an invincible objection to the general use of * The following is the account given by Tertullian of the manner of worship in his time: "Illuc (that is toward heaven) suscipientis Christiani manibus expansis quia innocuis, capito nudo quia non erubescimus, denique sine monitore quia de pectore oramus."-Apol., cap. 30. Justin Martyr's is as follows: "Abeo pèv ovv ὡς οὐκ ἔσμεν, τὸν δεμιυργὸν τῶν δὲ τοῦ παντὸς σεβόμενοι, ἀνενδεῆ αιμάτων καὶ σπονδῶν καὶ θυμιαματῶν ὡς ἐδεδάχθημεν λέγοντος λόγω ευχὴς αἰ ευχαριστίας εφ' οίς προςφερόμεθα πᾶσιν ὄση δύναμις αἰνοντες.—Apol. + Owen's Works, vols. iv. and xix. London, 1826. Dr. Owen has with great care examined the question before us, and the study of his powerful treatises we would earnestly recommend as especially seasonable at the present time. Liturgies, apart from their intrinsic incongeniality with the spirit of Christianity, that they are unfavorable to the object of Christianity in these two respects: 1. The extension of the Gospel. Liturgies suppose churches already organized, power in the people to read, &c., difficulties which, we think, can not be embraced in any judicious plan for evangelizing the heathen: How could Brainerd have conducted public worship among his Indians had he been compelled to use a prayer-book? 2. Particularity in the offices of public devotion: Liturgies can not anticipate the various occasions and circumstances which demand distinct reference and mention in prayer. The life of prayer consists, in a great degree, in its suitableness to times and providences, and in particularity of petition. Herein Liturgies must needs be deficient: The state of the flock and the aspect of affairs are continually varying, but the Liturgy does not vary. The words, for general purposes, may be suitable; but they must be always read as they stand; and the new exigences rising up daily, and demanding distinct notice at the throne of grace, must be passed over with a generality of expression, which covers many other things as well as them. Surely that can not be the best way of conducting public worship which, in its very nature, has so great an inconvenience and defect. There are, however, objections against free prayer which ought not to be overlooked. The chief objections are these two: 1. Extemporaneous or free prayer produces confusion in the minds of the worshipers. "The congregation, in extemporaneous prayer," says Dr. Paley, "being ignorant of each petition before they hear it, and having little or no time to join in after they have heard it, are confounded between their attention to the minister and their own devotion. Their devotion is necessarily suspended till the petition is concluded; and before they can adopt it, their attention is required to what follows. Extemporary prayer can not, for this reason, be joint prayer. Joint prayer is that in which all join, and not that which one alone in the congregation conceives and delivers."* * Works, vol. i., p. 314. This argument confutes itself by proving too much. It proves that all that portion of mankind who can not read can take no part in public prayer. It proves that when the disciples prayed for Peter (Acts, xii.), and lifted up their voices together in prayer after the return of Peter and John from the council (Acts, iv.), they did not unite in prayer on these occasions. It concludes, moreover, as much against a joint hearing of the word as against joint praying. Truth from the pulpit can not be acquiesced in by the hearers until after its announcement is completed. It must be heard before it can be considered; but how can it be considered, since the discourse runs on, and a subsequent announcement is continually calling off attention from a previous one? The truth is, that this argument rests on difficulties which are wholly imaginary. The supposition that the attention of the hearers is suspended-that they are confounded between their own devotion and attention to the minister, &c., is groundless. The movements of the human mind are quicker than this argument assumes them to be. The mind takes in the most of what is said, whether in prayer or preaching, without any measurable lapse of time. Even in argumentative discourse, the attention of the hearers keeps pace with the speaker, and sometimes anticipates him. Discourse may, indeed, be so ordered as to confound attention, but it need not, and should not be. 2. The imperfection of extemporaneous or free prayer. It is often incomprehensive, omitting many things which ought to be in public prayer: It is often loose and inconsecutive: It is often full of faults as to diction: It is often delivered in a hesitating, stammering manner, &c., &c. In reply, we say, in the first place, that faults here are to be set over against faults-the faults of free prayer against the faults of Liturgies; recollecting, moreover, this difference, that the faults of liturgical worship are, for the most part, inseparable from it, while the faults of free prayer may, perhaps, be corrected: In the second place, that advantages, too, are to be compared with advantages; to lose those of free prayer would be to suffer a loss which were worse to the Church than all |