aids, and vindicated the right of personal freedom. Whether rightly or wrongly, whetlier as a remnant of the old bondage which they could not all at once throw off, or the dictate of that divine conservative wisdom which in most things so marvellously guided them in reforming, not new founding, the Church, having re- gard also, perhaps, in some measure, to the circum- stances and necessities of their times, the fact, at least, is historically certain that with one consent they aimed rather at the combination and mutual co-operation of both elements than the exclusive predominance of either. AVhile not confining their churches to any unbending ritual, they yet deemed it their duty to provide for them such fit and solemn forms of common praj'er as should serve at once as a model and as an aid in the public worship of God. This was the prin- ciple alike of Knox and of Cranmer, of Calvin equal- ly with Luther and Melancthon. At Geneva, at Zu- rich, at Wittenberg, at St. Andrew's — wherever the great leaders of the Eeformation were at liberty to carry out their views, the solemn service of the house of God proceeded according to a certain normal order, which was designed to regulate and assist, not to re- strain, the free outpourings of the heart. England was an apparent, but only an apparent, exception to this rule. In her case the more rigid enforcement of an unvarj-ing ritual was rather the result of urgent circumstances than of the personal convictions of her leading divines. The principle of comprehension on which her reformation was l)ased rendered a certain restraint necessarj- in the interest, not of ritual uni- formity, but of Protestant truth. The object of sus- picion then was the Roman priest, not the evangeli- cal pastor, and the design of ritual restriction was rather to curb the license of the one than to fetter the liberty of the other. Ave Marias must be silenced, even though at the sacrifice of free prayer; the com- munion service must be prescribed bj'^ imperative ru- bric, or it will be turned bj' many into a mass. But for this adventitious, and, in their view, probably tem- porary necessity, there is every reason to believe that the liturgical ordinances of the English reformers would have been much less fixed and stringent, and that in the matter of worship, as well as in other ele- ments of her constitution, the Cliurch whicli they founded would have been Itrought into much nearer conformity with the general model of other Reformed communions. Be this, however, as it may, the real and essential point of difference, even in practice, be- tween Canterburj^ and Geneva was not the use, but the exclusive use of forms. The one confined, the other permitted and encouraged, the spontaneous ut- terances of devotion. The one supplied an aid, the other ordained a law. In truth, in the Scottish form at least, while much was provided, nothing was pre- scribed. Instead of the Anglican 'then shall the priest say,' its gentler and wiser language is 'the min- ister useth one of these two confessions,' or 'this praj'- er following, or such like.' The accustomed order, in short, was ratlier observed as a rule than obeyed as a Lnv ; worn as a dress than borne as a burden ; followed with free and willing heart in the spirit rather than tlie letter — as a law of liberty, not a yoke of bondage" (p. 600 sq.). AVe cite also the Princeton Review as follows: "As to stated forms of prayer, their value must vary with circumstances. In no case ought the liberty of extemporaneous prayer to be taken from the minister in the pulpit. As well might preaching be confined l)y authority to prescribed fomis of words. The discretion of the niinistr)' maj' be trusted as frcelj'- in the one as the otlier. But if, in the solemn office of leading the united devotions of the assembly, the ministry might exercise a judgment better informed by approved examples set forth for that end, and if it might even have an election between extemporaneous prayer and a form appointed to be used at option, the standard of extemporary prayer itself would rise, and
FORMS OF PRAYER
625
FORNICATION
the edification of our people in public worship would he enlarged. We must not make our lilierty a cloak of licentiousness. There are few of our most able and eminent ministers who come as near the true standard of pulpit praj'er as they do that of the sermon. When we hear it said of such a man as Robert Hall that liis prayers were felt by his hearers to be strikingly un- equal to his sermons, we seem to discern in a mind keenly sensitive to the proprieties of puipit prayer an aversion to making prayer the work of genius, and at the same time some lack of zeal in cultivating the pe- culiar talent for its just and most useful performance. But among our brethren of the lower grades of ability and industry we not unfrequently observe habits in this service from which many of our sensible and pious people would gladly take refuge in a book of pra3-ers. When we sometimes hear the intimation that the Book of Common Prayer, could it be quietly introduced, would be an improvement upon the present forms of devotion in many of our pulpits, we know this prefer- ence not to be for written prayers in general, but as an alternative and a way of escape from peculiar and unnecessary faults in prayers with which the observ- ers are often afflicted. We cannot assent to such a remark, but we have a deep impression of the needless imperfection of our present standard, and desire to spealv that impression with emphasis. We are confi- dent that our standard may be so raised that all would feel the transition from extemporaneous to written prayers as a descent and a defection. When we ob- serve the special satisfaction of tliousands of devout wori-hippers with what appear to us the indefinite and comparatively barren forms of the English liturgy, we see the great power of a few striking points of pro- priet}' in public prayer to engage the heart of true de- votion" (Januar}-, 1847, p. 81, 82).