LIVELY PREACHING.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5012, 17 April 1877, Page 3

LIVELY PREACHING.

(From the Saturday Rcvieiu.)

There has always been a great complaint of the du I ness of sermons, and it must be admitted that, as a g ueral rule, it is not without foundation. Tlie difficulty is, that the ordinary subjects of discourse are essentially of a grave and solemn character, and that this naturally affects the manner of treating them. On tho whole, however, it may perhaps be doubted whether it is altogether a sound objection to sermons that they are dull, or whether real sermons can be otherwise—that is, dull in the sense of being confined to religious instruction and exhortation, and not directed to the mere entertainment or amusement of an audience. A church is, under its natural conditions, not a place for recreation in any form, but for the cultivation of a state of mind which requires, in order that justice should be done to it, a certain degree of serious attention and reflection. There are, however, some lively preachers, and with different kinds of liveliness. There are some who, by their earnestness, eloquence, and impressive power of deliberation, can keep their hearers deeply interested without in any way deviating from the gravity of their task ; while there are others, like Mr. Spurgeon and Air. Aloody, who make a point of being funny, and who are not very particular how far they push their jokes. There is another class who, without descending to such vulgar expedients, aim at securing popularity by a choice of topics which deal not with the doctrines of religion in its ordiuarr sense, but with questions of the day in which there are openings for familiar talk and pungent remarks, and for introducing matters of move immediate worldly interest than the usual substance of pulpit deliverances. Within tho last week or two a story has been going the round of the papers as to a well-known clergyman, who in giving notice of the subject of a future sermon, either did not speak very distinctly, or at least was not clearly heard, so that the congregation went away under the impression that they were to have a rich treat in a sermon on “ ’l’he Sanitary Aspects of Hell.” The preacher had already shown his cleverness in dealing with such questions by the way in which ho had some time before disposed of the Devil, and there was therefore much curiosity to hear his views on another aide of a question which has a great fascination for many people. There was accordingly a large attendance at the appointed time, and much disappointment was caused when it became known that a misapprehension had occurred, and that the subject of tlie sermon was not what it was expected to be, but the more prosaic question of the “ Spiritual Aspects of Health.” This story is a small one in itself, but it illustrates the tastes of a certain class of church-goers, which naturally have an effect on the habits of preachers. There are a great many people who, apart from any keen religious enthusiasm, like to go church. It is a break in the monotony of what to them is apt to be a dull day, and it is not everybody who can console himself at home with the Observer or Bell's Life. There is usually something more or le -s exhilarating in the sense of being in a multitude, and this is felt in church as elsewhere, while the appearance of the congregation, including the costumes of the ladies, is often not without interest for certain minds. From time to time a discussion springs up as to Sunday amusements, and there can be no doubt that some kinds of religious service are included in the category. Some people, overlooking tlie meaning and spirit of religious symbolism, go s mply for the sake of seeing a brilliant display of vestments and other decorations, and of hearing good music, which supplies them with much the same sense of gratification as they find at a theatre, and which they would probably seek at a theatre if any were open on a Sunday. There is another class, whicli does not care for such things, but desires to be tickled and amused during the period of what is supposed to be divine service. They do not object to morning prayer, if it is only a prelude to a smart and stirring discourse ; and, indeed, they rather like it as an appearance of respectable piety. But what these people go for is the sermon, if sermon it can be cal ed, and the highest praise which they can bestow on a preacher to their taste is to say that he is “ as good as a play.” The relation between supply and demand is thus observable in the clerical as in other professions ; and a tendency is evidently developing to provide services which, while conforming to the external aspects of religious worship, shall be of a more stirring and entertaining kind for people of the world. One distinguished preacher of this class, observing that his hearers were getting rather tired of the Bible, took to the modern poets, whose works were found more piquant when recited from the pulpit; and it is satisfactory to think that, having done Shelley and others, he has still Swinburn in, reserve. We find in a less daring shape something of tho same kind in a volume of sermons and lectures which Mr. Haweis has just published. Of course it is not called sermons, for that is rather an unpopular title. “ Current Coin ” takes it out of the ordinary rut and excites curiosity. The cover is adorned with scattered coins of various kinds, and there is a quotation, not from the Psalms, but from the Laureate, at the head of the preface. The author of this volume does not pretend to much originalty in its composition, and acknowledges very frankly that the materials have been obtained from well-known books. In fact, the discourses are, when read, obviously crude and superficial; but it is easy to imagine that in delivery they are agreeable to a congregation such as we have described. It is not so much what the preacher has to say, which is often commonplace and empty, as his way of saying it, that gives point to these addresses which are collectively termed “pulpit discourses and platform speeches,” though there is no means of distinguishing one from the other. They are all in fact letters, and not in the ordinary sense sermons at all. Indeed, the main object seems to be to get lid of the ordinary topics and conditions of sermons, and to lead the congregation into fresh woods and pastures new, much more refreshing than stale Scriptural dogmas ; and rather to amuse and enliven than to edify them in an serious way. “ Materialism ” is the first subject we come to in “ Current Coin,” and this, as is well known, is one of those questions which a large number of people, being as a rule ignorant of what is really meant, approach with a curious feeling of mingled alarm and a sense of seductive temptation. They are rather afraid of it, as of a ghost; but they would like to see whether there is not, after all, something in it. This is a common frame of mind at the present day, not only about this question but about many similar ones, such as Spiritualism. There is a feveri-di and morbid love of loose speculation which leads many persons to take an interest in matters which to them ceom delightfully mysterious, and beyond the ordinary prosaic experiences of the world. In this way they enjoy at once not only the gratification of an idle and unwholesome curiosity, but a sense of elation at their superiority over other people which they fancy they derive from their familiarity with those great problems. In “ Current Coin ” tho appetite for this kind of stimulant is cleverly appealed to. The author acknowledges that what he has to say about materialism is '“is little more than an attempt to give a still wider currency” to Mr. Alartineau’s speculations on this subject; but any one who turns to Air. Afartineau’s articles will see at once the difference between the deep and concentrated study, and carefully stated conclusions, of that writer, and the vague, scrappy, and superficial mystification which is here made of this subject. Air. Haweis also says that he has “ used freely Bain, Herbert Spencer, Alaud.dey. Buchner, G. Lewis, Croll, Crookes, A. Piotou, and others,” just as if ho had their works at his fingers’ ends; but his detached fragmentary quotations from scientific writers, and his vague summary of what he supposes to be their views, certainly'

do not seem to show that he has any thorough acquaintance with the subject. Air. Haweis accuses the clergy generally of tryin" to shut th'-ir eyes against the dangerous tendencies of modern science, and of being afraid to come forward boldly to combat them; but it may bo doubted whether much is o-aiued by such loose and contused language as Is here employed on the subject. He puts the case between himself and the men of science in the form of a conversation, in which of course he has, as he thinks, the best of it. In a public address this method of disposing of an adversary might have some chance of success from the glib confident manner in which it would be delivered ; but when printed in a book its shallowness becomes at once apparent. There is also something equivocal in the preacher’s use of the word “ Spiritualism ” as opposed to “ Alaterialisni. As meaning an abstract theory, the word is no doubt justifiable enough ; hut it is now-a-days usually connected with the operations of those who profess to be in communication with invisible spirits, and to be able to bring them down to earth, and Mr. Haweis, whether he means it or not, seems to give some countenance to these pretentions. He expresses, for instance, an opinion that “many of the miraculous phenomena reported in the Old and New Testaments bear the closets resemblance and affinity to the alleged phenomena of modern Spiritualism ; ” and he adds that “ the important question is, not so much whether or no the tiling looks trivial, or whether or no the dead are trying to communicate —although that is of course important—but whether the phenomena witnessed prove the possibility of intelligence of some kind, human or otherwise, living and acting upon matter without the brain and nervous system, declared by physiologists to be indispensable to the very existence of any intelligence.” And then he goes ou on to say, “ This is the real reason why modern Spiritualism cannot get a hearing with most scientific men.” The truth is of course, that as the matter stands it is purely a question of scientific research, and the Spiritualists, while alleging the existence of certain physical marvels, produce no evidence which can be adequately tested. Again, in a sermon ou the Devil, Mr. Haweis expresses, no'- exactly bis belief, but his readiue.-s to believe, in good and evil spirits operating in the world ; and, after a jumble of remarks about the “ mighty influences of dynamic power,” “ the stra ge and subtle vibrations of heat rays,” electricity and “ its curious connection with nerve force, of which it may be only one subtle modification,” he suggests that “ some such agency as that, being controlled and directed by external intelligence, may be used as an instrument for setting up brain waves, and creating in the mind impulses and thoughts.” He does not distinctly state at what conclusion he himself arrives, but vaguely remarks that “ modern Spiritualism offers to produce intelligence of some kind, acting upon matter, and yet unconnected with a brain and a nervous system and that, if this could be proved, “ God is conceivable.” It cannot be said that this random way of discussing a question depending on exact evidence and scientific knowledge is likely to have a beneficial effect on the minds which ■ are influenced by it. What the preacher seems to be doing is to excite the imagination while confusing the mind as to the conditions which logical and reasonable conclusions can be obtained. He even goes out of his way to speak a good word for that horrible print, the Police News, simply because “ whatever there is unwholesome about it, through it the imagination is exercised, and the people forget themselves.” He is also in favor of Aloody and Sankey, though lie thinks some of (heir doctrines to be untrue and absurd, because they can move tlie people. Another characteristic remark is that “ many of us are beginning to feel that the religious worship of tlie future will be different in fashion from any of our received and time-honored forms,” and that, in his opinion, “it does not seem to matter much what tho form is.” He has, he states, “learned to be almost as happy in the Roman, Greek, or Jewish churches as in the Protestant.” It may be doubted whether efforts of this kind to excite a feverish and restless curiosity as to mysterious problems, to start the mind on delusive trains of thought, and destroy that habit of quiet sober reflection which is the necessary basis of fixed principles, can be included in the category, either of sound religious instruction or of sound instruction of any kind.