Tracts for the Times No. 3, by John Henry Newman
THOUGHTS ON ALTERATIONS IN THE LITURGY
Respectfully Addressed To The Clergy
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 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 say 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 the 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 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
remodelled? 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 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 the 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 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.
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 go-
vernance, 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. 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 resotration 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. 10,11. 2 John 10,11. </pre>
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 the Episcopacy.
Your celebrated Presbytery, worthy of GOD, is 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 those 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 men. 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?
<a href="tract03.html">Tracts for the Times No. 3</a>
Provided courtesy of:
The Catholic Resource Network
Trinity Communications
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
The Catholic Resource Network is a Catholic online information and
service system. To browse CRNET or join, set your modem to 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit and no parity, and call 1-703-791-4336.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
