Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

jection to such prayer meeting: and it might be needless to say that I had none were it not well to be perfectly exclusive in my reasoning, to avoid frivolous replication. To all other prayer meetings, I object; and I object, first, as a Churchman should object, who believes himselt to be bound by the canons of the Church; and who, we are to presume, cannot consider himself in the light of an amateur, entitled to select such parts of church worship, as may suit his fantastick or vitiated taste, and to reject the remainder. If he demand this privilege, it appears to my understanding, that he is, pro hac vice, a separatist; that he is not a Churchman in the regular acceptance of the word; and, if rectors have sanctioned this irregular procedure, among their parishioners, they are liable to censure, for aught I can comprehend to the contrary. The xxiii. article is as follows: "It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he is lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work, by men, who have publick authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." The collections of men, and women, and children, in private houses, for the purposes of prayer, &c. are certainly congregations, and not always less numerous than the collections in many of our churches. And why not publick? Is it not true, that the daily inquiry is," will there be a prayer meeting this evening?" And that any of the parish, who may incline, have free ingress to this occasional chapel, in the same manner as they would into the church itself? Have we not all known the house within to be filled, and numbers attending through the doors and windows, from without? Is this private devotion? Is it not the position of your correspondent, that, on such occasions, at such meetings, laymen and lay women exhort, and preach, and pray? And is not this preaching in publick to the congregation? And would not such preaching in publick be in opposition to the article above recited, even if the liturgy were strictly pursued in the department of prayer? a fortiori, where the prayers are in part or altogether extemporaneous? Perhaps such individuals"feel" themselves called to this ministry. But called is clearly explained in the article itself, not to be self-ordained, but constituted by men, who have publick authority for this purpose. am not now discussing the comparative merits of different modes of worship, but endeavouring to prove that no consistent Churchman can adopt the course proposed by your correspondent. How far these meetings are supererogatory must be for ever a matter of opinion; and the affirmative and negative will probably be assumed and supported with equal pertinacity. But this touches the question of expediency, and I have still something to say, in point of right, recommending to your correspondent to weigh maturely the xiv. article, on works of supererogation.

The xx. article commences thus: "The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies," &c. By virtue of this power the Church in convention send forth the Book of Common Prayer; as, for example,

"Ratification of the Book of Common Prayer. By the bishops, the clergy, and the laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in convention, Oct 16, 1789. This convention, having, in their present session, set forth a Book of Common Prayer, &c. do hereby establish the said Book and they declare it to be the liturgy of this Church, and require that it be received as such, by all the members of the same, &c." This is not a simple recommendation, but a most positive injunction and requisition. Suppose that the convention in full divan had been addressed as follows. You have supplied forms for only two kinds of worship, publick and private but there is a kind of worship, different from both; it clearly is not private family worship; and we dare not say it is publick, for then we, who, as laymen, officiate, shall be subject to censure. But it is a kind of worship, in which, detachments of parishes meet, with or without their clergy; men and women preach, and exhort, and pray extemporaneously; and the clergy themselves, when present, use the liturgy or not, as they think proper. Is this canonical? Is it likely in its tendency, to suppress heterodoxy, or to multiply crude opinions of scripture texts, and to promote schism? In one word, is it allowa ble? Can any man, of sound mind, doubt the reply of the convention to queries such as these?

But

It has been suggested, that the English liturgy, from which the American is chiefly compiled, contains no office for private devotion, no family prayer I am unable to comprehend the bearing of this suggestion, having already shown that "prayer meetings" are more frequently of a publick than of a private character But what have we to do with the English liturgy, more than with those of Sts. Chrysostom, Peter, James, or Basil; of the Maronites, or of the Cophtæ; or with the Armenian. Roman, Gallician, Ambrosian, African, or Spanish. The word Typy literally means a publick work, but, in a restrained signification, among Romanists, signifies the mass. whatever its etymological, or its appropriated meaning, in other countries, with us it can only mean our American Book of Common Prayer, which is enjoined upon us by the convention; and in which we are supplied with family and other prayers, sufficient, in my humble opinion, for all our wants. If your correspondent, or the advocates of prayer meetings, think otherwise, I cannot but consider their wants unreasonable. At any rate, to amend, vary, or augment, beyond the limit prescribed, lies with the convention alone; and, until such alteration be made, I cannot consider any man, lay or clerical, who departs from the liturgy, a consistent member of the Church.

If I am not greatly in errour, there is much more put at hazard, in any deviation from the path of uniformity in religious worship, than our gratuitous lay preachers imagine. We are not unfrequently, by our attachment to some darling measure, completely blinded to its ultimate operation on a whole system of things; and we are too apt to be reduced, through our personal vanity, or that desire for novelty, which is inseparable from the character of man, to abandon the beaten

road, for by-paths of perplexity and errour. No great evil may result from one instance of departure from rule; but the integrity of the rule must be preserved; for if the first deviation be permitted to pass with impunity, a second and a third may follow. And finally you may find it less easy to oppose a long continued series of deviations from your liturgy, than to resign it altogether. If the clergy feel themselves authorized, on such occasions, to pray extemporaneously, shortly they may gather sufficient confidence to introduce this novelty into the pulpit; and, perhaps, in due time, in case of sickness of the rector, some gifted sister may then display the extempore eloquence of Jemima Wilkinson.

Uniformity has been the object of constant solicitude from the very foundation of the Church. In the infancy of the Church, the liturgy in every diocese was formed by its bishop. He had the arrangement of all ordinary circumstances, keeping to the analogy of faith and doctrine. Afterwards the whole province followed the metropolitan church, whose example became the rule; and, as Lindwood admits, the common law of the Church: "intimating, that the use of several services in the same province, as was the case in England, was not to be warranted but by long custom."

Clergymen are punishable in England, for using any other publick prayers, than such as are prescribed in the Book, of Common Prayer. Stat. I. Eliz. cap. 2. If forms of prayers, for private family worship had been established in the English liturgy, can any one doubt, that the statute of Elizabeth would have comprehended private family prayers, as well as publick prayers? In our own country, the Church is not thus dependant on the state; but the clergyman, who violates its rules, is "in danger of the council." Does it not naturally follow, that, if the meetings and proceedings, to which we object, can be construed to be private, which I contend they seldom are, does it not fol low, that the use of extemporaneous prayers, in private meetings, is no less censurable than in publick?

I have attempted to show the strict impropriety, on the part of Churchmen, of extemporaneous prayers, publick and private. They can also be shown to be inexpedient on the ground of inferiority to such as are in the liturgy. I have endeavoured also to prove the impropriety of prayer meetings such as your correspondent approves; and in which, laymen, as I contend, "preach in publick," in violation of the xxiii canon of the Church, or in private, in opposition to the requirements of the convention, adopting other prayers, than such as are contained in the liturgy.

When your correspondent shall have convinced me, that such prayer meetings as he advocates, are not adverse to the canons of the Church, and to the spirit of the bishops, clergy, and laity, expressed in convention, I will endeavour to prove such meetings supererogatory, if not militant against the true spirit of Episcopacy. And when he shall have shown the right by which the bishop or a clergyman of any diccese, can in any common case, adopt his own extemporaneous prayer, in place of a prayer in the liturgy, which is required to be used, in

every diocese, not only in publick, but altogether; then I will attempt to offer a few reasons to show how much may be lost, by his presumption to exercise that right.

P.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE.

SAUL AND JONATHAN,

THE first chapter of the second book of Samuel, from the 19th verse inclusive, to the close, contains the lamentation of David over Saul and Jonathan. This beautiful fragment of holy writ I have attempted to paraphrase, and am now assured, by experience, of the justice of Bossu's remark, that simple ideas are diminished, in proportion as the pomp and parade of language are increased. No form of expression, prosaick or metrical, and no power of language, however splendid, can surpass the simple and unpremeditated eloquence of David's lamentation over Jonathan and Saul. Permit me to observe, that the three first stanzas are no part of the paraphrase, but matter of induction, comprising facts, gathered from the first part of this chapter, and from the last chapter of the preceding book.

Philistia triumph'd, and Israel fled;

King Saul, upon Gilboa, slept with the dead.

Three princes, who follow'd, and fought in his train,
Lay, cold as their armour, confus'd with the slain.
When tidings to David were brought of their fall,
Confirm'd, by the crown and the bracelet of Saul,
In the first burst of anguish, he could not lament,
But arose, and, in silence, his garments he rent.
With the chiefs and the people, till even he wept;
They mourn'd, and their fast, until even, they kept.
Then David lamented for Saul and his son,

Whose banners were fallen, whose battles were done.
Weep, Israel, weep, for the depth of thy wo,
Thy mighty are fallen, thy valiant are low!
Thy boasted high places of refuge how vain!
Thy beauty is, ev'n upon Gilboa, slain !

In Gath, tell it not, nor in Ascalon tell,
Where idols are worshipp'd and infidels dwell;
Whose daughters, exulting, shall chant, as they go,
Philistia's triumph, and Israel's wo.

Ye mountains of Gilboa, ne'er may the rain,
Nor the soft dews of Heaven refresh you again,
Where lies, all dishonour'd, and cast on the ground,
The shield of thy monarch, anointed and crown'd.
The sharp sword of Saul, from the blood of the slain,
The fat of the mighty, return'd not in vain:

L.

Nor back from the battle came Jonathan's bow,
Till his far-flying arrows had routed the foe.

In their lives, O, how lovely and pleasant were they!
In death, undivided, together they lay!

They were stronger than lions, and swifter they were,
Than broad spreading eagles, that triumph in air.

O, weep, that a prince of the people should fall!
Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul!
Who adorn'd you with jewels, and bade you enfold
Your beauty, in garments of scarlet and gold.
In their places of strength, upon Gilboa's height,
The mighty are slain, in the midst of the fight!
O, Jonathan, great is my sorrow, for thee!
How pleasant, my brother, thou wast unto me!
Thy hand and thy heart, O, my brother, were mine;
The love ev'n of women was nothing to thine.
But the mighty have fallen th' ungodly have won
The sword of the sire, and the bow of the son.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE.

THE CHRISTIAN HERALD.
BRIGHT is the star of the east that arose
O'er Beth'lem of Juda's plains;
And pure is the flame of love that glows,
Where Christ, the Redeemer, reigns.
And bright is the eye that faith inspires,
As a lamp to pilgrims giv'n ;

And warm is the breast whose holy fires,
Like incense ascend to heav'n.

And soothing the voice, that in accents sweet,
The tidings of peace proclaim;

And welcome the hymning strains, that repeat,
The great Jehovah's name.

And blest is the Herald, that bears the call
Of the Saviour to distant lands;

Who leaves his country, his home, his all,
To go where Christ commands.

O! calm is that saint's expiring hour;

The star of the east illumes

The shadows of time that gather and low'r
O'er the path that leads to the tomb.

When pensive he views fond memory's chart,
And the tear bedims his eye;

And the thoughts of his home assail his heart,
Still he feels that God is nigh.

« AnteriorContinuar »