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 worship 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 worship 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 worship they deserve.
They do find recognition as an antiphon in the _Liturgy of St.
Chrysostom_. To rea.s.sert a usage a.s.sociated in the history of liturgies with the name of this Father of the Church and with his name only, would be to pay him better honor than we now show by three times inserting in our Prayer Book the collect conjecturally his--a thing the Golden-mouthed himself, when in the flesh, would not have dreamed of doing. "Once," he would have said, "is enough."
[25] The Priest"s Prayer Book has 688 (!!) mostly juiceless.
[26] In connection with this clause there sprang up an animated and interesting debate in the House of Deputies as to the wisdom of thus seeming to cut off every opportunity for extemporary prayer in our public services. Up to this time, it was alleged, a liberty had existed of using _after_ sermon, if the preacher were disposed to do so, the "free prayer" which _before_ sermon it was confessedly not permitted him to have--why thus cut off peremptorily an ancient privilege? why thus sharply annul a traditional if not a chartered right?
At first sight this distinction between before and after sermon looks both arbitrary and artificial, but when examined there is found to be a reason in it. The sermon, especially in the case of emotional preachers, is a sort of bridge of transition from what we may call the liturgical to the spontaneous mood of mind, and if the speaker has carried his listeners with him they are across the bridge at the same moment with himself. The thing that would have been incongruous before, becomes natural after the minister has been for some time speaking less in his priestly than in his personal character.
The notion that the points at issue between the advocates of liturgical and the advocates of extemporaneous worship can be settled by a promiscuous jumbling together of the two modes, is a fond conceit, as the Reformed Episcopalians will doubtless confess when they shall have had time enough to make full trial of the following rubrics in their Prayer-book:
_Then shall the Minister say the Collects and Prayers following in whole or in part, or others at his discretion_.
_Here may be used any of the occasional Prayers, or extemporaneous Prayer_.
This is bad philosophy. It need not be said that such directions are undevotional--for doubtless they were piously meant; but it must be said that they are inartistic (if the word may be allowed), at variance with the fitness of things and counter to the instinct of purity. Formality and informality are two things that cannot be mingled to advantage. There is place and time for each. The secret of the power of liturgical worship is wrapped up with the principle of order. A certain majesty lies in the movement which is without break. On the other hand the charm of extemporaneous devotion, and it is sometimes a very real charm, is traceable to our natural interest in whatever is irregular, fresh, and spontaneous.
To suppose that we can secure at any given time the good effects of both methods by some trick of combination is an error--as well attempt to arrange on the same plot of ground a French and an English garden. If indeed Christian people could bring themselves to acknowledge frankly the legitimacy of both methods and provide amicably for their separate use, a great step forward in the direction of Church unity would have been achieved; but for a catholicity so catholic as this, public opinion is not yet ripe, and perhaps may not be ripe for centuries to come. Those who believe in the excellency of liturgies, while not believing in them as _jure divino_, would be well content in such a case to wait the working of the principle of the survival of the fittest.
[27] The able and fair-minded jurist who first hit upon this ingenious scheme for patching the Ratification has lately, with characteristic frankness, said substantially this under his own signature.
"The proper place for the amendment," he writes, "is at the end of the first rubric preceding the sentences of Scripture for both Morning and Evening Prayer, after the word Scripture, as everyone can see by looking." He adds: "This, however, is only a question of form, and ought not to interfere with the adoption of the amendment at the next Convention. It is to be hoped that the resolution for enrichment, so called, will present a variety of additions out of which an acceptable selection can be made; and when they are finally carried that the Book of Common Prayer will be not only the standard book, but a sealed book, so to speak, for as many generations as have pa.s.sed since the present book was adopted."--Letter of the Hon. J. B. Howe of Indiana in _The Churchman_ for January 29, 1881.
[28] See page 578 of _Evangelical Catholic Papers_. A collection of Essays, Letters, and Tractates from "Writings of Rev. Wm.
Augustus Muhlenberg, D. D." during the last forty years.
The failure of this devout and venerated man to secure sundry much desired liturgical improvements (although it yet remains to be seen whether the failure has been total) was perhaps due to a certain vagueness inherent in his plans of reform. A clear vision of the very thing desired seems to have been lacking, or at least the gift of imparting it to others. But even as no man has deserved better of the American Episcopal Church than he, so it is no more than right that his deeply cherished wishes should be had in careful remembrance.
[29] Now a "black-letter day" in the English Calendar.
[30] The Convocation Prayer Book, _in loc_.
[31] Originally only an explanatory rubric. See Procter, p. 397.
[32] Let us hope that before long there may be devised some better way of providing relief for our Widows and Orphans than that of the indirect taxation of the singers of hymns.
[33] The Greek Office Books, it is said, fill eighteen quartos.
[34] In that naive and racy bit of English (omitted in our American book) ent.i.tled _Concerning the Service of the Church_, one of the very choicest morsels is the following: "Moreover, the number and hardness of the Rules called the Pie, and the manifold changings of the Service, was the cause, that to turn the Book only was so hard and intricate a matter, that many times there was more business to find out what should be read than to read it when it was found out."
[35] It may be wise to b.u.t.tress the position taken with a quotation out of Dr. Coit.
"We really, however, do not see any necessity for either of these Services in American Books, as with us the Ordinal always, now, makes a part of the Prayer Book in all editions. It would be a saving to expunge them and no change would be necessary, except the introduction of such a litanical pet.i.tion and suffrage with the Services for Deacons and Priests, as already exists in the Service for Bishops. The Church of England retains the Litany in her Ordinal, for that, until latterly, was printed in a separate book, and was not to be had unless ordered expressly. And yet with even such a practice she has but one Communion Service. We study cheapness and expedition in our day. They can both be consulted here, _salvafide et salva ecclesia_."--Report of 1844.
[36] First printed in _The Church Review_, 1886.
[37] The Rev. Dr. Orlando Hutton.
[38] _Priest"s Prayer Book_, Fifth edition, pp. 238, 243, 281.
[39] The _Prayer for Imprisoned Debtors_ is believed to be the only formulary actually dropped.