Tract No. 3
Thoughts
Respectfully Addressed to the Clergy
On Alterations in the Liturgy
{1} ATTEMPTS
are making to get the Liturgy altered. My dear Brethren, I beseech you,
consider with me, whether you ought not to resist the alteration of even
one jot or tittle of it. Though you would in your own private judgments
wish to have this or that phrase or arrangement amended, is this a time
to concede one tittle?
Why do I say this? because, though most of you
would wish some immaterial points altered, yet not many of you agree in
those points, and not many of you agree what is and what is not
immaterial. If all your respective emendations are taken, the
alterations in the Services will be extensive; and though each will gain
something he wishes, he will lose more from those alterations which he
did not wish. Tell me, are the present imperfections (as they seem to
each) of such a nature, and so many, that their removal will compensate
for the recasting of much which each thinks to be no imperfection, or
rather an excellence?
There are persons who wish the Marriage Service
emended; there are others who would be indignant at the changes
proposed. There are some who wish the Consecration Prayer in the Holy
Sacrament to be what it was in King Edward's first book; there are
others who think this would be an approach to Popery. There are some who
wish the imprecatory Psalms omitted; there are others who would lament
this omission as savouring of the shallow and detestable liberalism of
the day. There are some who wish the Services shortened; there are
others who think we should have far more Services, and more frequent
attendance at public worship than we have.
How few would be pleased by any given
alterations; and how many pained!
But once begin altering, and there will be no
reason or justice in stopping, till the criticisms of all parties are
satisfied. Thus, will not the Liturgy be in the evil case described in
the well-known story, of the picture subjected by the artist to the
observations of passers-by? And, even to speak at present of
comparatively {2} immaterial alterations, I mean such as do not infringe
upon the doctrines of the Prayer Book, will not it even with these be a
changed book, and will not that new book be for certain an inconsistent
one, the alterations being made, not on principle, but upon chance
objections urged from various quarters?
But this is not all. A taste for criticism grows
upon the mind. When we begin to examine and take to pieces, our judgment
becomes perplexed, and our feelings unsettled. I do not know whether
others feel this to the same extent, but for myself, I confess there are
few parts of the Service that I could not disturb myself about, and feel
fastidious at, if I allowed my mind in this abuse of reason. First, e.g.
I might object to the opening sentences; "they are not evangelical
enough; CHRIST is not mentioned in them; they
are principally from the Old Testament." Then I should criticise the
exhortation, as having too many words, and as antiquated in style. I
might find it hard to speak against the Confession; but "the Absolution,"
it might be said, "is not strong enough; it is a mere declaration, not
an announcement of pardon to those who have confessed." And so on.
Now I think this unsettling of the mind a frightful
thing; both to ourselves, and more so to our flocks. They have long
regarded the Prayer Book with reverence as the stay of their faith and
devotion. The weaker sort it will make sceptical; the better it will
offend and pain. Take, e.g. an alteration which some have offered in the
Creed, to omit or otherwise word the clause, "He descended into hell."
Is it no comfort for mourners to be told that CHRIST
Himself has been in that unseen state, or Paradise, which is the alloted
place of sojourn for departed spirits? Is it not very easy to explain
the ambiguous word, is it any great harm if it is misunderstood, and is
it not very difficult to find any substitute for it in harmony with the
composition of the Creed? I suspect we should find the best men in the
number of those who would retain it as it is. On the other hand, will
not the unstable learn from us a habit of criticising what they should
never think of but as a divine voice supplied by the Church for their
need?
But as regards ourselves, the Clergy, what will be
the effect of this temper of innovation in us? We have the power to
bring about changes in the Liturgy; shall we not exert it? have we {3}
any security, if we once begin, that we shall ever end? Shall not we
pass from non-essentials to essentials? And then, on looking back after
the mischief is done, what excuse shall we be able to make for ourselves
for having encouraged such proceedings at first? Were there grievous
errors in the Prayer Book, something might be said for beginning, but
who can point out any? cannot we very well bear things as they
are? does any part of it seriously disquiet us? no—we have before now
freely given our testimony to its accordance with Scripture.
But it may be said that "we must conciliate an
outcry which is made; that some alteration is demanded." By whom? no one
can tell who cries, or who can be conciliated. Some of the laity, I
suppose. Now consider this carefully. Who are these lay persons? Are
they serious men, and are their consciences involuntarily hurt by the
things they wish altered? Are they not rather the men you meet in
company, worldly men, with little personal religion, of lax conversation
and lax professed principles, who sometimes perhaps come to Church, and
then are wearied and disgusted? Is it not so? You have been dining,
perhaps, with a wealthy neighbour, or fall in with this great Statesman,
or that noble Land-holder, who considers the Church two centuries behind
the world, and expresses to you wonder that its enlightened members do
nothing to improve it. And then you get ashamed, and are betrayed into
admissions which sober reason disapproves. You consider, too, that it is
a great pity so estimable or so influential a man should be disaffected
to the Church; and you go away with a vague notion that something must
be done to conciliate such persons. Is this to bear about you the solemn
office of a GUIDE
and TEACHER
in Israel, or to follow a lead?
But consider what are the concessions which would
conciliate such men. Would immaterial alterations? Do you really think
they care one jot about the verbal or other changes which some
recommend, and others are disposed to grant? whether "the unseen state"
is substituted for "hell," "condemnation" for "damnation," or the order
of Sunday Lessons is remodeled? No;—they dislike the doctrine
of the Liturgy. These men of the world do not like the anathemas of the
Athanasian Creed, and other such peculiarities of our Services. But even
were the alterations, which would please them, small, are they the
persons {4} whom it is of use, whom it is becoming to conciliate by
going out of our way?
I need not go on to speak against doctrinal
alterations, because most thinking men are sufficiently averse to them.
But, I earnestly beg you to consider whether we must not come to them if
we once begin. For by altering immaterials, we merely raise
without gratifying the desire of correcting; we excite the
craving, but withhold the food. And it should be observed, that the
changes called immaterial often contain in themselves the germ of some
principle, of which they are thus the introduction:—e.g. If we were to
leave out the imprecatory Psalms, we certainly countenance the notion of
the day, that love and love only is in the Gospel the character of ALMIGHTY
GOD and
the duty of regenerate man; whereas that Gospel, rightly understood,
shows His Infinite Holiness and Justice as well as His Infinite Love;
and it enjoins on men the duties of zeal towards Him, hatred of sin, and
separation from sinners, as well as that of kindness and charity.
To the above observations it may be answered, that
changes have formerly been made in the Services without leading to the
issue I am predicting now; and therefore they may be safely made again.
But, waving all other remarks in answer to this argument, is not this
enough, viz, that there is peril? No one will deny that the rage
of the day is for concession. Have we not already granted (political)
points, without stopping the course of innovation? This is a fact. Now,
is it worth while even to risk fearful changes merely to gain petty
improvements, allowing those which are proposed to be such?
We know not what is to come upon us; but the writer
for one will try so to acquit himself now, that if any irremediable
calamity befalls the Church, he may not have to vex himself with the
recollections of silence on his part and indifference, when he might
have been up and alive. There was a time when he, as well as others,
might feel the wish, or rather the temptation, of steering a middle
course between parties; but if so, a more close attention to passing
events has cured his infirmity. In a day like this there are but two
sides, zeal and persecution, the Church and the world; and those who
attempt to occupy the ground between them, at best will lose their
labour, but probably will be drawn back to the latter. Be practical, I
respectfully urge you; do not {5} attempt impossibilities; sail not as
if in pleasure boats upon a troubled sea. Not a word falls to the
ground, in a time like this. Speculations about ecclesiastical
improvements which might be innocent at other times, have a strength of
mischief now. They are realized before he who utters them understands
that he has committed himself.
Be prepared then for petitioning against any
alterations in the Prayer Book which may be proposed. And, should you
see that our Fathers the Bishops seem to countenance them, petition
still. Petition them. They will thank you for such a proceeding. They
do not wish these alterations; but how can they resist them without
the support of their Clergy? They consent to them, (if they do,) partly
from the notion that they are thus pleasing you. Undeceive them. They
will be rejoiced to hear that you are as unwilling to receive them as
they are. However, if after all there be persons determined to allow
some alterations, then let them quickly make up their minds how far
they will go. They think it easier to draw the line elsewhere, than as
things now exist. Let them point out the limit of their concessions now;
and let them keep to it then; and, (if they can do this,) I will say
that, though they are not as wise as they might have been, they are at
least firm, and have at last come right.
THE BURIAL SERVICE
WE
hear many complaints about the Burial Service, as unsuitable for the use
for which it was intended. It expresses a hope, that the person
departed, over whom it is read, will be saved; and this is said to be
dangerous when expressed about all who are called Christians, as leading
the laity to low views of the spiritual attainments necessary for
salvation; and distressing the Clergy who have to read it.
Now I do not deny, I frankly own, it is sometimes
distressing to use the Service; but this it must ever be in the nature
of things; wherever you draw the line. Do you pretend you can
discriminate the wheat from the tares? of course not. {6}
It is often distressing to use this Service,
because it is often distressing to think of the dead at all; not that
you are without hope, but because you have fear also.
How many are there whom you know well enough
to dare to give any judgment about? Is a Clergyman only to express a
hope where he has grounds for having it? Are not the feelings of
relatives to be considered? And may there not be a difference of
judgments? I may hope more, another less. If each is to use the precise
words which suit his own judgment, then we can have no words at all.
But it may be said, "every thing of a personal
nature may be left out from the Service." And do you really wish this?
Is this the way in which your flock will wish their lost friends to be
treated? a cold "edification," but no affectionate valediction to the
departed? Why not pursue this course of (supposed) improvement, and
advocate the omission of the Service altogether.
Are we to have no kind and religious thoughts over
the good, lest we should include the bad?
But it will be said, that, at least we ought not to
read the Service over the flagrantly wicked; over those who are a
scandal to religion. But this is a very different position. I agree with
it entirely. Of course we should not do so, and truly the Church never
meant we should. She never wished we should profess our hope of the
salvation of habitual drunkards and swearers, open sinners, blasphemers,
and the like; not as daring to despair of their salvation, but thinking
it unseemly to honour their memory. Though the Church is not endowed
with a power of absolute judgment upon individuals, yet she is directed
to decide according to external indications, in order to hold up the rules
of GOD'S
governance, and afford a type of it, and an assistance towards the
realizing it. As she denies to the scandalously wicked the LORD'S Supper, so does she deprive them of her
other privileges.
The Church, I say, does not bid us read the Service
over open sinners. Hear her own words introducing the Service. "The
office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptized, or
excommunicate, or have laid violent hands upon themselves." There is no
room to doubt whom she meant to be excommunicated, open sinners.
Those therefore who are pained at the general use of the Service, should
rather strive to restore the practice of excommunication, than to alter
the words used in the Service. {7} Surely, if we do not this, we are
clearly defrauding the religious, for the sake of keeping close to the
wicked.
Here we see the common course of things in the
world. We omit a duty. In consequence our services become inconsistent.
Instead of retracing our steps we alter the Service. What is this but,
as it were, to sin upon principle? While we keep to our principles, our
sins are inconsistencies; at length, sensitive of the absurdity which
inconsistency involves, we accommodate our professions to our practice.
This is ever the way of the world; but it should not be the way of the
church.
I will join heart and hand with any who will
struggle for a restoration of that "godly discipline," the restoration
of which our Church publicly professes she considers desirable; but GOD forbid any one should so depart from her
spirit, as to mould her formularies to fit the case of deliberate
sinners! And is not this what we are plainly doing, if we alter the
Burial Service as proposed? we are recognizing the right of men to
receive Christian Burial, about whom we do not like to express a hope.
Why should they have Christian burial at all?
It will be said that the restoration of the
practice of Excommunication is impracticable; and that therefore the
other alternative must be taken, as the only one open to us. Of course
it is impossible, if no one attempts to restore it; but if all willed
it, how would it be impossible; and if no one stirs because he thinks no
one else will, he is arguing in a circle.
But, after all, what have we to do with
probabilities and prospects in matters of plain duty? Were a man the
only member of the Church who felt it a duty to return to the Ancient
Discipline, yet a duty is a duty, though he be alone. It is one of the
great sins of our times to look to consequences in matters of plain
duty. Is not this such a case? If not, prove that it is not; but do not
argue from consequences.
In the mean while I offer the following texts in
evidence of the duty.
Matth. xviii. 15-17. Rom. xvi. 17. 1 Cor. v. 7-13.
2 Thess. iii. 6, 14, 15. 2 Tim. iii. 5. Tit. iii. 10, 11. 2 John 10, 11.
{8}
THE PRINCIPLE OF UNITY
Testimony of St. Clement, the associate of St.
Paul, (Phil. iv. 3.) to the Apostolical Succession.
The
Apostles knew, through our LORD JESUS
CHRIST,
that strife would arise for the Episcopate. Wherefore having received an
accurate foreknowledge, they appointed the men I before mentioned, and
have given an orderly succession, that on their death other approved men
might receive in turn their office. Ep. i. 44.
Testimony of St. Ignatius, the friend of St. Peter,
to Episcopacy.
Your
celebrated Presbytery, worthy of GOD, is as closely knit to the Bishop, as the strings to a harp, and so by
means of your unanimity and concordant love JESUS CHRIST is
sung. Eph. 4.
There are who profess to
acknowledge a Bishop, but do every thing without him. Such men appear to
lack a clear conscience. Magn. 4.
He
for whom I am bound is my witness that I have not learned this doctrine
from mortal man. The Spirit proclaimed to me these words: "Without the
Bishop do nothing." Phil. 7.
With these and other such strong passages in the
Apostolical Fathers, how can we permit ourselves in our present practical
disregard of the Episcopal Authority? Are not we apt to obey only so far
as the law obliges us? Do we support the Bishop, and strive to move all
together with him as our bond of union and head; or is not our every-day
conduct as if, except with respect to certain periodical forms and
customs, we were each independent in his own parish?
[FIFTH EDITION.]
———————————————————————
These Tracts are continued in
Numbers, and sold at the price of 2d. for each sheet, or 7s. for 50
copies.
LONDON: PRINTED FOR J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON,
ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE.
1840.
Top | Contents
| Works | Home
Newman Reader Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.
|