Part 16 (1/2)

It may be true, as some allege, that a revision of the Prayer Book would shake the Church, but it is more likely that half a dozen patchings at triennial intervals would shatter it. After twenty years of this sort of piecemeal revision, a _variorum_ edition of the Prayer Book would be a requisite of every well furnished pew.

The late Convention has been twitted with inconsistency on the score of having negatived outright the proposal for a Commission to overhaul the Const.i.tution of the Church while consenting to send the Prayer Book to a committee for review. Discernment would be a better word than inconsistency, for although on grounds of pure theory the Const.i.tution and the Prayer Book seem to stand in corresponding att.i.tudes as respects methods of amendment, in practice the difference between the two is very wide. Triennial changes in the letter of the Const.i.tution (and these have often been made) involve no inconvenience to anybody, for the simple reason that that doc.u.ment must of necessity be reprinted with every fresh issue of the Journal. Old copies do not continue in use, except as books of reference, but old Prayer Books do hold their place in parish churches, and the spectacle of congregations trying to wors.h.i.+p in unison with books some of which contained the reading of 1880, others that of 1883, and still others that of 1886 would scarcely edify. Theoretically, let it be freely granted, the ”driblet method” of amendment is the proper one for both Prayer Book and Const.i.tution, but the fact that the Convention had eyes to see that this was a case to which the maxims of pure mathematics did not apply should be set down to its credit, rather than its discredit.

[10] Reprinted together with a supplementary Letter in the Journal of the Convention of 1868.

[11] Dr. Coit's Letter of 1868, also reprinted in Journal of that year.

[12] See _Book of Common Prayer according to the use of King's Chapel, Boston_. Among the rhetorical crudities of this emasculated Prayer Book (from the t.i.tle-page of which, by the way, the definite article has been with praiseworthy truthfulness omitted) few things are worse than the following from the form for the Burial of Children, a piece of writing which in point of style would seem to savor more of the Lodge than of the Church: ”My brethren, what is our life? It is as the early dew of morning that glittereth for a short time, and then is exhaled to heaven. Where is the beauty of childhood? Where is [sic] the light of those eyes and the bloom of that countenance?” . . . ”Who is young and who is old? Whither are we going and what shall we become?” And yet the author of this mawkish verbiage probably fancied that he was improving upon the stately English of the Common Prayer. It is a warning to all would-be enrichers.

[13] A list of the more noticeable Anglican works on Liturgies published during the period named, arranged in the order of their appearance, will serve to ill.u.s.trate the accuracy of the statement made above, and may also be of value to the general reader for purposes of reference.

1832. Origines Liturgicae, William Palmer. 1833-41. Tracts for the Times. 1840. Conferences on the Book of Common Prayer, Edward Cardwell. 1843. The Choral Service of the Churches of England and Ireland, John Jebb. 1844. The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England, William Maskell. 1845. Pickering's Reprints of the Prayer Books of 1549, 1552, 1559, 1603, and 1662. 1846. Monumenta Ritualia, William Maskell. 1847. Reliquiae Liturgicae, Peter Hall. 1848. Fragmenta Liturgica, Peter Hall. 1849. Book of Common Prayer with Notes legal and historical, A. J. Stephens. Ma.n.u.script Book of Common Prayer for Ireland, A. J. Stephens. Tetralogia Liturgica, John Mason Neale. 1853. Two Liturgies of Edward VI., Edward Cardwell. 1855. Principles of Divine Service, Philip Freeman. History of the Book of Common Prayer, F. Proctor. 1858.

History of the Book of Common Prayer, T. Lathbury. 1859.

Directorium Anglicanum, J. Purchas. 1861. Ancient Collects, William Bright. 1865. Liber Prec.u.m Publicarum, Bright and Medd.

1865. The Priest's Prayer Book. 1865. History of the Book of Common Prayer, R. P. Blakeney. 1866. The Prayer Book Interleaved, Campion and Beaumont. 1866. The Annotated Book of Common Prayer, J. H.

Blunt. 1870. The Liturgy of the Church of Sarum, Translated, Charles Walker. 1870. The First Prayer Book of Edward VI. with the Ordinal, Walton and Medd. 1872. Psalms and Litanies, Rowland Williams. 1872. Not.i.tia Eucharistica, W. E. Scudamore. 1875-80.

Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, Smith and Cheetham. 1876.

First Prayer Book of Edward VI., compared with the successive Revisions, James Parker. 1877. Introduction to the History of the successive Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer, James Parker.

1878. Liturgies--Eastern and Western, C. E. Hammond. 1880. The Convocation Prayer Book.

[14] Tract No. 3. _Thoughts respectfully addressed to the Clergy on alterations in the Liturgy_.

[15] One of the most curious ill.u.s.trations of the spread of Anglican ideas about wors.h.i.+p now in progress is to be found in the upspringing in the very bosom of Scottish Presbyterianism of a CHURCH SERVICE SOCIETY. Two of the publications of this Society have lately fallen in the present writer's way. They bear the imprint of Wm. Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh, and are ent.i.tled respectively, _A Book of Common Order_, and _Home Prayer_. With questionable good taste the compilers have given to the former work a Greek and to the latter a Latin sub-t.i.tle (_Evxolioyiov_ and _Suspiria Domestica_). Both books have many admirable points, although, in view of the facts of history, there is a ludicrous side to this attempt to commend English viands to Northern palates under a thin garniture of Scottish herbs which probably has not wholly escaped the notice of the compilers themselves.

[16] See _The Guardian_ (London), February 9, 1881.

[17] Unless ”finally to beat down Satan under our feet,” be reckoned an exception.

[18] _Lectures on Justification_, p 380.

[19] The rationale of this curious lapse is simple. The American revisers, instead of transferring the Commination Office _in toto_ to the new book, wisely decided to engraft certain features of it upon the Morning Prayer for Ash-Wednesday. In the process, the fifty-first Psalm, which has a recognized place in the Commination, dropped out, instead of being transferred, as it should have been, to the proper psalms.

[20] See the Convocation Prayer Book.

[21] _Prayer Book Interleaved_, p. 65.

[22] A curious ill.u.s.tration of the sensitiveness of the Protestant Episcopal mind to anything that can be supposed even remotely to endanger our doctrinal settlement was afforded at the late General Convention, when the House of Deputies was thrown into something very like a panic by a most harmless suggestion with reference to the opening sentences of the Litany. A venerable and thoroughly conservative deputy from South Carolina had ventured to say that it would be doctrinally an improvement if the tenet of the double procession of the Holy Ghost were to be removed from the third of the invocations, and a devotional improvement if the language of the fourth were to be phrased in words more literally Scriptural and less markedly theological than those at present in use. Eager defenders of the faith instantly leaped to their feet in various parts of the House, persuaded that a deadly thrust had been aimed at the doctrine of the Trinity. Never was there a more gratuitous misconception. The real intrenchment of the doctrine of the Trinity, so far as the Litany is concerned, lies in the four opening words of the second and the five opening words of the third of the invocations, and these it had not been proposed to touch. In confirmation of this view of the matter, it is pertinent to instance the _Book of Family Prayers_ lately put forth by a Committee of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury.

This manual provides no fewer than six different Litanies, all of them opening with addresses to the three Persons of the adorable Trinity, and yet in no one instance is the principle advocated by the deputy from South Carolina unrecognized. Every one of the six Litanies begins with language similar to that which he recommended.

[See also in witness of the mediaeval use, which partially bears out Mr. McCrady's thought, the ancient Litany reprinted by Maskell from _The Prymer in English_. Mon. Hit. ii. p. 95.] If the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, fondly supposed by us Anglicans to be the very citadel of sound doctrine, be thus tainted with heresy, upon what can we depend?

Polemical considerations aside, probably even the most orthodox would allow that the invocations of the Litany might gain in devotional power, while losing nothing in august majesty, were the third to run--_O G.o.d the Holy Ghost, Sanctifier of the faithful, have mercy upon us miserable sinners_. And the fourth as in Bishop Heber's glorious hymn, _Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord G.o.d Almighty, have mercy upon us miserable sinners_. But all this is doctrinal and plainly _ultra vires_.

[23] A very natural explanation, by the way, of the fact, often noticed, that there is no pet.i.tion in the Litany for an increase of the ministry.

[24] Here, _i_. _e._, in connection with Saints' Day services, would be an admirable opportunity for the introduction into liturgical use of the Beat.i.tudes. What could possibly be more appropriate? And yet these much loved words of Christ have seldom been given the place in wors.h.i.+p they deserve.