« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Education when this measure is adopted. Dr. Stoughton predicts important modifications in their plans, when the Universities opens their dignities and emoluments to Nonconformist students. "Some day, at least with a certain class of men, it will be found advisable that their literary culture should be pursued in the national universities, and their theological training should be conducted in well-appointed divinity halls." This will bring about the long-desired reduction of the number of English Congregational Colleges, and the transformation of one or more of them into a Theological Seminary of the higher sort, on the American plan. For village pastors, evangelists, and home missionaries, the Bristol and Nottingham "Institutes," and a college or two, will still be needed.
BOOKS FOR A THEOLOGICAL STUDENT.-We are occasionally requested to give a list of books for theological students of very limited means, to be bought as they are able. The thing is not easy to do satisfactorily to either party. The compiler wants a larger range. It is easier to indicate $2,000 than to select $200 worth of books. One feels a little as did Dustan of Haverhill when endeavoring to decide which of his children to rescue from the Indians. He concluded to take them all. Such is the "catalogue of books for a Pastor's Library" prepared at Andover, New Haven and Chicago two years since, containing a list that costs several thousand dollars. But alas! the poor young pastor can not take them all, nor the fourth part of them. Few pastors can ever afford the whole.
The attempt is also somewhat unsatisfactory to the student. It omits so many things that he wishes f r, and suggests even then so many that are costly. Still, important suggestions can be made.
We proceed, then, on the important principle that the student should purchase the books that furnish him the fundamental materials for thought— books of ultimate authority and helpful suggestion. A book to read he can get anywhere; the book to refer to, sometimes nowhere. For his ownership the one is worth a dozen of the other. What he wants is working implements and materials. Let this principle guide his purchases. A list to own and a list to read are different things. We shall assume his possession of ordinary class text-books, both of the College and the Seminary; also that bis fancy and his inclination will lead him occasionally to smuggle in a book not on the list-for his wife, of course. Fixing, then, on about the sum of $200 to work towards, the student, even if he can do better, can not do ill in aiming at the following: Concordances-Hitchcock's Analysis, Hudson's Greek Concordance and perhaps the Hebraist's Vade Mecum, Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, Thomson's The Land and the Book, Colemaa's Historical Geography of Palestine, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (American edition)—a library of itself,-Cony beare & Hewson's St. Paul, John's Archæology, Winer's New Testament Gra umar, Fairbairn's Hermenentical Manual, Rawlinson's Historical Evidences (perhaps also Wilson's or McIlvaine's), Hanna's Life of Christ, Ellicott's do, Young's Christ of History, Stanley's Lectures on the Jewish Church, Smith's Old Testa
ment History, Schaff's Church History, Shedd's History of Doctrine. As to Commentaries-we should get Alford's Greek Testament as early as possible, for its many excellencies and constant use, and strengthen it, as we found necessary, by Lange on Matthew, Alexander on Mark, Hackett on Acts, Lange on Romans, and Lightfoot and Ellicott on Paul's smaller epistles, and Arnot on the Parables. In the Old Testament no one work answers the purpose of a complete commentary. On some portions of it, better books will be appearing soon. Alexander on Isaiah (unabridged), Lange on Proverbs, Solomon's Song and Ecclesiastes (1 vol.), Delitzsch on the Psalms and on Job, Henderson's Minor Prophets and Ezekiel, the forthcoming Lange on Daniel (if rightly edited), and Kiel on the Historical Books, are good (perhaps also Lauge on Genesis and Murphy on Exodus); and while waiting to get these, one by one, the need of a continuous commentary on the whole Bible may be supplied by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's compressed commentary, which is modern and good, though capable of improvement. Coleman's Primitive Church and Dexter on Congregationalism are desirable; also Newcomb's Cyclopedia of Missions. In the line of Metaphysics, Morell's History of Speculative Philosophy, Murray's Outline of Hamiltou's Philosophy, and Porter's Human Intellect. In Doctrinal Theology, Knapp-for the want of a much better one. In English Literature, Shakspeare, of course, next after the concordances; Bryant's Library of Poetry and Song-a real library (or Dana's Household Book of Poetry), for the present; Craik's English Literature, French on the Study of Words, Whitney on Language, (we would like to add Macauley's Miscellanies, Recreations of Christopher North, Charles Lamb-and where shall we stop?) For solid thoughtfulness, Butteer's Works, Bacon's Essays (Whately's Edition), John Foster's Es-ays. As to sermons, we hardly dare begin. Fish's Masterpieces of Pulpit Eloquence gives specimens. Shall we mention South, Melville, Robertson, Bushnell, Shepard— or have we exceeded our mark? But we have not dared to mention secular histories nor scientific works, nor works of nearly or fully equal value with those we have mentioned. We may return to the subject; but we have mentioned enough for young men to select from for some time to come.
CONGREGATIONAL LITURGIES.-The periodical revival of the Liturgy question shows signs of proximity. It is the right of any Congregational church that chooses, to use at large a liturgy as it pleases. A recent writer renews the old argument that we "would [should] there by retain in our own churches many who are now drawn into the Episcopal church," and adds that it is the hankering after a liturgy "which largely accounts for the present rapid growth of Episcopacy in New England."
We greatly doubt. We have watched the growth of Episcopal churches in New England for many years past, both from the nearer and the remoter points of view, and we could mention several reasons,-which we will not -that far more completely explains that phenomenon We will only suggest to our brethren who are sanguine of rivaling " the church" by stealing
liturgical thunder, that there are several large classes of persons who will hardly be moved by any such device on our part.
First, the deeply devout. This class of persons if already in our churches, even though they have strong liturgical tendencies, will assuredly never let that consideration outweigh the adverse spiritual influences of the Episcopal Church. If already in that Church, the same reasons that have kept them there will still hold them. If disposed to leave, they will think their presence needed. One most de vout Christian minister who left the Congregational for the Episcopal Church purely on grounds of expediency, used as an argument to us the need of spiritual men in that ministry and in those churches. Many devout persons in that Church, we believe, recognize the force of the argument; while other truly pious persons, the great majority of them, rest there entirely satisfied with a state of things to which they have always been accustomed.
Secondly, the sentimental-using the word in no opprobious sense. Many are taken with the Episcopal liturgy largely by reason of its quaint phraseology, its historic relations, and its far-reaching alliance with a great body of saints, living and dead. They are associated not only with crowds of living worshipers who utter the same words in concert, but with Cranmer, and Ridley, and Latimer, to say nothing of Laud and the "blessed martyr" Charles; in truth they join the company of Ambrose himself in the "Te Deum," and perhaps of still earlier saints in the "Tersanctus;" while the whole weight of the modern literature of the mother country, with its rank and royalty, its poetry, art and taste, is thrown into the scale. Now here is something impressive to the sentiment and the imagination—a grand unity and a grand history, embellished by all the forms of art. We have known some young persons of taste and impressible imagination greatly drawn by these influences. And we knew one young student, handsome and romantic, equally impressed with Bishop Griswold's spiritual pedigree running back to St. Peter, and with the "peach like bloom" on Miss's cheek, who gave as his reason for leaving the Presbyterian for the Episcopal Church, that he thought "he should feel happier there." We never doubted it. He is now the Rev. Dr.
But each Congregational liturgy will be a separate affair, new and raw. The notion that the freshly composed liturgy of Rev. Jonathan Sleek, of Mechanicsville, should compete with that of the Episcopal Church, seems like putting a bran-new hand-organ, made in Connecticut, (do they make them there?) against the world-renowned instrument at Frey burg.
Thirdly, the laws of order, stability and uniformity. Many persons are strongly bound to the Episcopal Church by reason of its settled ways. It is what they have had from childhood. It is what they find every where. Away from home, they are still at home in church. Here they anchor and rest. They are not liable to be disturbed by novelties and crucities, and abrupt assaults on long cherished associations. This is one great charm of the Prayer Book and its setting. But Congregationalism can never attain into such a settlement. The movement for liturgies is a hopeless receding
from it for we once had a somewhat established Puritan order of services. But now not only the young pastor of Mechanicsville, but he in Shingletown, Painted Post, Buncombe Cross Roads and Creation City will lay himself out on his several liturgy. And moreover, when in three years the Rev. J. Sleek is succeeded by the Rev. Solomon Fast at Mechanicsville, the latter, with that spirit of enterprise which enlarges the church-manuals and shortens the church-creeds, and re-tinkers truth generally, will, perad venture, persuade the Church into an "improved" liturgy. It becomes still another fractional subdivision of Congregationalism. The movement instead of satisfying, will tend to make our system still more unsatisfactory to those who love stability. Indeed the present restlessness of our churches and ministers, the thousand religious nostrums, church patents, and new pulpit fly-fishings, are all that many who were born Congrega tionalists can stand. There are many church members who now feel the continual shock to all their associations. All the innovators and experimenters make haste to our pulpits. Nothing but a strong system could endure it. Many have felt, and not a few have used against us this heterogeneousness of things. We remember when Rev. Mr. preached in a certain liturgico-Congregational church, how he fidgeted, and the congre gation worried, too, lest he should get the psalm or the chant, or the second lesson, or the Lord's Prayer, or the responsive reading out of joint. And he went home inwardly resolved that he would rather wear the surplice than an unknown Congregational harness, and that if he were to have a liturgy, he would as soon take the one genuine, old article as innumerable and ever-changing modern substitutes.
Fourthly, the elegant and fashionable. It must be admitted that the history and the connexions of the Episcopal liturgy savor of what is aristocratic and elegant, and perhaps, refined. The foreign origin and national establishment of that Church, its array of dignitaries, its regard for what is "ecclesiological" and venerable, its many wealthy attendants, its partial establishment in our own army and navy, its special regard for what is seemly, and, we must add in fairness, its high pretensions, all give it an air of pre-eminence. It is "the Church." It affects taste and culture, and despises what is plebeian. And not only are lackadaisacal, cream cheese, and aspiring Mrs. Potiphars attracted to it, but very many persons of real refinement view it as their proper spiritual home, and a large number of fashionable persons regard it as the Sunday side of respectability. These persons will not be led or held by any parvenu liturgy of conventicles. Were the thing itself-as it will hardly be-equally acceptable, it is but the Black Swan against the Swedish Nightingale, or unhistoric cat-gut against the veritable Cremona.
Fifthly, the merely worldly. If religious wives have offered their irreligious husbands the choice of a place of worship on condition of regular attendance, and they have chosen the Episcopal Church; if corrupt politicians, especially in anti-slavery times, fled in squads to the same shelter from a pungent gospel; if others have resorted thither because there all
the forms and respectability of worship still leave the life unrestrained, and the conscience undisturbed; these persons and the like will never be caught by a Congregational liturgy, unless all the other privileges they now enjoy go with it.
Sixthly, those who have found particular reasons for dissatisfaction with other churches. This applies to ministers whose experience of other systems operates adversely to them personally. Young. . . . . . was a man of high religious character and remarkably clear mind, but no corresponding popular ability. When he left his own Church for the Episcopal, his best friends supposed he viewed it as offering him a better chance of success than a Church that made more of the sermon, and threw him upon bis extemporaneous powers. And perhaps he was right. Rev. was dismissed six times from Congregational churches, and could hardly be blamed for trying the experiment of a different system. Rev. Dr., while in the Seminary, had some doctrinal peculiarities, and he remarked that if a Congregational Association would not license him, he should "take orders." We only know that he took orders. So when Rev. left Unitarianism for orthodoxy, it was hardly to be expected that he would join the Church all whose ways and views were in direct antagonism to his past relations, rather than one which was a kind of neutral territory. Neither these, nor a multitude of other persons with similar personal reasons, will be in the slightest degree affected by the presence or the absence of a Congregational liturgy.
If none of these classes will be reached or retained, who will be? We confess we have little confidence in the attempt, for the good reason that the inducement is too slight. We affect a weapon with which the Episcopal Church can beat us every time. It offers a liturgy more ancient, more high bred, more elaborate, more showy, more tasteful, more complete, more wide-spread, more elegantly, wealthily and aristocratically connected. Ours will be, at best, but a hybrid. The Episcopal and the Congregational Churches are formed on two very different models. It is a doubtful measure to cut a patch out of that venerable tapestry and sew it upon our modern serviceable garment, or to put our brisk Congregational wine into any ancient skin-bottle.
In its own line only the Roman Catholic can surpass the Episcopal Church. We must beat it, if at all, on the same principle on which John Robinson and George Whitefield did, or which Spurgeon and Newman Hall do. It calls for consideration whether a radically false notion of Church success is not creeping through the community and the ministry. Congregationalism, if not strong spiritually, is strong nowhere. It is the most helpless of systems, when it is treated chiefly as a form; it is the strongest of systems when filled with the spirit. We believe in using properly all the legitimate accessories of taste, learning, eloquence, social power, but never on placing undue stress upon them. And as for much of the paraphernalia, not to say saturnalia, of modern Christianity,—we wait for the issue.