Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

pains to keep the sanitary or the commercial fire burning than to get wood for the fire of the spiritual life, although they admit this to be of infinitely graver

moment.

Take another test. Suppose the place of worship selected, and well selected; there is wholesome teaching to be had, and the stimulating fellowship of kindred minds: the fire is kept so well burning that you never feel you need run to some neighbouring copse to beg a little wood. In what spirit do we enter on the Services of the Sanctuary? A place of worship is surely and before all things a place for worship, i.e.; a place in which the worship of God is the first duty and should be the supreme charm. Yet how many do you suppose attend our sanctuaries only, or mainly, to enjoy the common praise of their Father in heaven, and to make their common supplication before Him? It is notorious that at least with the majority of Dissenters, the sermon is the chief attraction; that though we use common forms of praise, we cannot tolerate common forms of prayer; and that many of us take little pains to bring a devout mind to chapel with us, to gather up our thoughts, to search out our faults and sins, to reflect on our blessings, and so to induce that frame of mind of which thanksgiving and supplication are the natural expressions. It is obvious and notorious that many of us, and these not those for whom home pieties might be a sufficient excuse, put off coming to the house of prayer to the very last moment, although when we go to a concert we can be there half an hour before the music begins; that we often enter even after the last moment, instead of securing some brief space for self-examination and private devotion before we take part in the public worship. Nay, there are places among us into which the congregations enter, early or late, in a

noisy irreverent manner utterly unsuited to the gracious exercises in which they are about to engage, exercises for which they prepare themselves, not by quiet reverent intercourse with God, but by loud whispered conversations with each other. And, then, when the service has commenced, unless the minister have fervour enough for us as well as for himself, our hearts hardly ever rise to the level of true devotion, to the height of an intimate communion with our heavenly Father unprepared and uninterested, we sit cold and unmoved. Let him hew the wood, and cast it into our cold grate, and fan it to a flame, or the fire dies out, if indeed it was ever so much as lit.

Even when we get to the Sermon, which we are reputed, and perhaps justly reputed, to make the chief attraction: how do we use that? Some criticise it, and praise or condemn it according as it comes up to their notion of orthodoxy or falls short of it, theology being the one only science which men are supposed to understand without having studied it. Others, who pique themselves on their " breadth," approve or disapprove, in proportion as the discourse savours, or does not savour of novelty, if not of heresy. Some relish any stroke of wit or humour, and find all the salt of a discourse in its epigrams: others care to have their fancy fed with sweet similitudes and chiming verse. Some love to have their hearts dissolved in tender emotions, and others to have a strong chain of logic put into their hands. Now logic is good, and fancy is good, and wit and pathos, breadth and orthodoxy, are all good. They should all, so far as possible, be pressed into the service of truth. But we should care for truth more than for these. Do we? Do we not rather, unless our hearts be touched or our fancy fed, or our special taste whatever it is be indulged, go away dissatisfied,

not with ourselves for our indifference to truth except it come in certain forms, but with the preacher who has not, who possibly could not and ought not, to have given it to us in the form we prefer?

Do not suppose, brethren, that I wish to shield the pulpit from criticism any more than the pew. Criticisim is as wholesome for the preacher as for his hearers. Only one would like that the criticism should be of the right kind. No sensible manly preacher but would be thankful to have that, if only he could get it. The pity is that the loudest and most damnatory critics are very commonly those who have no conception of what a sermon should be; and still less any conception that it takes at least two good people to make a good sermon, viz., a good hearer as well as a good speaker. "What should a sermon be ?" Surely it should be, on the preacher's part, an earnest and studious endeavour to expound, in the happiest words he can command, that passage of Holy Writ which he has taken for his text, to bring out its meaning and to apply it to the conscience of those who listen to him; while, on their part, it should be a studious and prayerful endeavour to receive the truth and to test their lives by the standards it suggests. Now is not that the common sense view of what a sermon should be to both speaker and hearer? Yet how many of us, think

you, speak and listen in that fashion? how many of us are content with a sermon if only it brings out the truth of the text and enforces it, even though it be not embellished with any grace of eloquence, or although it taxes our mental powers to follow it and make it our own? I fear there are many among us who, so far from making truth our first consideration, and being willing to purchase it at some expense of thought, care very much more for manner and style, or even for our

comfort and ease: we do not object indeed to have a few casual sticks thrown on our fire, but we must have no trouble, or as little trouble as possible, in cutting and carrying them. There are many, I fear, even 1 of those who do seek truth, who do not seek first the bare wood of truth, but are something too much occupied in criticising the elegance or inelegance with which the woodman of the moment wields the axe, and are disposed to reject any log which is not hewn precisely to their mind. The preacher is to do all our thinking for us, or most of it, and to be very careful both to throw it into attractive forms and not to give us too much of it at a time. Indeed the most frequent compliment some ministers receive is this, or some variation on this--"I like your sermons, sir, they're so short." Now that, if it mean, press so much thought into a few words," is a very genuine, and no doubt welcome, compliment to the preacher: but if it mean, "I don't care to think about divine truths longer than I can help," it is surely a very poor compliment to the hearer. It indicates no wholesome state of things when a Christian congregation is drawn together mainly to hear a sermon: it indicates a still more unwholesome state when, being mainly drawn together to hear a sermon, they can't even listen to that without impatience if it extend beyond a few minutes.

"You com

Again we put the Bible on the preacher's desk. It lies also on our own tables, not always without a little dust on its covers. We confess that it contains the very truth of God. Well, with all our reading and all our preaching, how many of us have really studied the volume which is able to make us wise unto salvation? Have we not most of us another book somewhere—a grammar, a ledger, a poem-to which we have given more hard consecutive

thought, and of which we have a more accurate and complete conception than we have of the Gospel of the grace of God? For ever boasting that "the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible is the religion of Protestants"-how much of this "religion" do you think we know? If the old Puritan plan were revived, and one service on the Sunday were given to a Catechetical Lecture, how many of us could stand an examination even in the history of the Lord Jesus Christ? how many, for example, could say in what year of His ministry, or at the prompting of what touch of circumstance, this parable was spoken or that miracle wrought? Yet no ledger or grammar is so well worth studying as the Holy Gospel-the ledger of our spiritual traffic, the grammar of conduct for our spiritual life.

Besides a Teacher and a Book, the House of God has Sacraments,— sacraments which, if the Word of God be true, are very direct and potent means of grace. Yet surely there are some of you who have not been baptized, and others who do not commemorate the dying of the Lord Jesus. You say, perhaps, that you can be just as good Christians without observing the ordinances to do them. Yes but do you take quite that tone when other than spiritual interests are concerned? Do you ever say, "I shan't die, if I

don't eat this meal or take that

medicine:" or, "I shall have something to wear, even if I don't buy that new bonnet or this pretty dress;" or, "I shall do well enough

in

my business, even though I neglect yonder great opening for trade?" Is that the tone you take about temporal things? And if not, why take. it for the spiritual interests which you confess to be supreme? health's sake, or appearance' sake, or business' sake, you pile on the wood as fast as you can, that the

For

fire may burn briskly; but when your spiritual life is in question the fire is left burning so low that it is always in danger of going out!

But, finally, it may be asked, "What would you have? We want to do right-to feed and nourish our spiritual life, to keep the fire in. Much of what you have said is true enough, and too true. We do know our ledgers better than our Bibles. We don't think so much of our spiritual interests as we ought and would like to do. But we must live; we must provide for our families. And to do this is very hard work. It absorbs nearly all our time and strength. Would you have us leave our ledgers unposted that we may read the Bible, or neglect our honest necessary work to look after our souls ?"

Surely not, my brethren. There is much truth in this side, your side, of the question, as well as in that which I have tried to put before you. But shall we together try to look at both sides of the question for a moment, and see whether after all they really disagree?

The point from which we start is this, that a man should not be less bent on providing for his spiritual life and interests than for any of the lower and more temporary forms his life assumes; and that here, in the House of God, are certain “ means of grace" which are specially adapted to nourish his spiritual life and advance its interests. Very well: our first onward step is to inquire whether or not you are using these means to the best of your very power. If you are, it is well with you, and nothing more can be required at your hands. But are you? Some of you might surely come oftener or earlier to God's house than you do. Some might prepare themselves more carefully to profit by its worship. Some might learn to come mainly for worship; and other some might learn to listen to

sermons, rather for that which instructs them in the truth than for that which strikes their fancy or gratifies their taste. Most of you, I dare say, if you were very much bent on it, might give a little more time and thought to the study of the Scriptures; and some of you surely ought to call in the help of the Sacraments. Remembering that where no wood is, there the fire goeth out, you might perhaps use more strenuous endeavours to gather wood for your fire in every copse which God has thrown open to you.

This is one side of the question, and now for the other. The best part of worship is obedience; the best knowledge of truth that which shows itself in service.

And you may serve and obey God, that is, you may worship Him, in everything

you do. You may eat and drink, you may post your ledger or buy your bonnet, you may sweep a room or sell your goods, to the glory of God. All that busy and overbusy life of yours may become a discipline of holiness. Do all you do as unto the Lord rather than as before men, and in all you do you will be serving the Lord Christ; you will be confirming yourselves in habits of holy virtue which God will accept as your devoutest worship, and from which you will derive your best help to a vital knowledge and love of the truth. And therefore, my brethren, however numerous your engagements, however harassing your cares, however exhausting your toils, the pure flame of a divine worship need never go out, since you may throw a fresh stick on it every moment, if you will.

CONCERNING VISITING.

MAN'S social nature inclines him to visit. All of us have a circle of intimate friends, whom we are always pleased to see; and if they come not to us we are constrained to go to them. These visits, paid at proper intervals and in a prudent manner, may be made exceedingly pleasant and profitable, by endearing friends to each other, and by calling forth their mutual sympathy and help.

The benefits arising from these friendly visits lead us to suppose that it would be an advantage to us if we could introduce into all our churches a good system of visitation. Properly carried out it would exert a good influence on the visited. It would take away from them that sense of religious isolation which so many feel, and would increase their interest in those Christians among whom they worship. Comfort, instruction, and reproof, could be imparted as circumstances might reqnire; and in thus ministering to their brethren and sisters the visitors themselves would be blessed.

To whom should these visits be paid? To the sick, who are deprived

of the ordinary means of grace; to the bereaved, whose loss of one friend will make the visit of another more welcome; to the poor, whose lack of temporal comforts gives them a claim upon the sympathy and assistance of their richer friends; to the indifferent, who have lost their interest in church privileges, and whose neglect of duty proves a stumblingblock in the way of others; in short, to all the members of the church; and, so far as practicable, to all the members of the congregation these visits should be paid.

By whom is this work to be done? I fancy I hear a whole chorus of voices exclaiming, "By the pastor, of course.' Yes, the pastor must visit if he would gain the affections of his flock. The very name he bears seems to imply that this is a part of his work. In the epistle to the Ephesians Paul seems to distinguish between pastors and teachers (Eph. iv. 11). This distinction is recognized by people generally. "He is a good preacher but no pastor," is an expression frequently used in reference to a minister who seldom visits. Those who are placed over

[ocr errors]

the churches of Christ as overseers must have a personal knowledge of all over whom they rule, or they will not be able to give them their meat in due season. To obtain this personal knowledge of them they must visit them.

Let those who ask for apostolic example read Acts xv. 36-"Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do." We are aware that that was not an ordinary pastoral visit; but the spirit of the passage is certainly in favour of pastoral visitation. Paul was not always travelling about. For three years he dwelt at Ephesus. What his manner of life was in that city we learn from his address to the elders of the Ephesian church, in which he states that he had taught them publicly, and "from house to house" (Acts xx. 20). Paul thus combined the pastor and the teacher. The truths he uttered in public he enforced in private. When possible, pastoral visits should be used as means for spiritual instruction. This instruction may be imparted either directly or indirectly. Directly, by catechising or formal exhortation; indirectly, by blending it with ordinary conversation. The former plan, we are aware, would not be tolerated in the majority of families. Where it would be allowed it would be very useful. Those who are very anxious for this part of a minister's work to be done should ever show themselves willing to receive instruction or reproof when they are required, as well as the comfort which they so eagerly seek. "For they be rather bears than sheep, who do not vouchsafe to hear the voice of their pastor unless he be in the pulpit; and cannot abide to be admonished and reproved at home, yea, do seriously refuse that necessary duty." The apostle James seems to recognize the duty of pastoral visitation when he says, "Is any sick? let him call for the elders of the church" (James v. 14). Observe the phrase, "Let him call for the elders." This seems a very reasonable request. As ministers are not omniscient, they must be informed of the illness of their friends, or they cannot be expected to visit them so promptly as they otherwise would. The writer has known

instances in which members have been afflicted for weeks and the pastor has had no knowledge of it whatever, and yet his absence from those sick rooms has been ascribed to his indolence or neglect. Let the friends of the sick remember this direction of the apostle James, and send for their pastor if they wish to see him. Yea, let all who are specially anxious for a visit from their pastor adopt the same plan.

Thus, dear reader, you will perceive that I agree with those of you who maintain that the minister ought to visit his flock. I hope we shall agree equally well when I make the following qualifying statements.

[ocr errors]

"It

Visiting is not a pastor's chief work. To preach is his especial duty. Paul said, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.' The directions which he gives to Timothy have special reference to his public duty. Preaching is the chief means employed by God for the edifying of His church, and for the conversion of souls. pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." The minister is to be an expounder of the Scriptures. He must rightly divide the word of truth. This will necessitate close and continued study, especially in a young inexperienced minister. This study will occupy a considerable portion of his time. In some instances there will not be much time left for visiting. But whatever time can be spared from the study the faithful minister will gladly spend among his flock. Let those who would rob him of his time for study know that by so doing they cripple him, and deprive the church of much substantial food. If a minister can do both kinds of work well, so much the better. If he can only do one kind well, let him devote his energies to preparation for the pulpit, and let visiting be regarded as a secondary work.

Another qualifying statement rcquires to be made. Visiting does not belong exclusively to the pastor. He has sharers in his work and in his reward. Private Christians are to be visitors in common with their pastor. In this as in other things, the pastor may be expected to set the example; but when the example is set, the people should be prompt in imitating it.

The visitation of the fatherless and

« AnteriorContinuar »