No. 3] [Price 1d.

THOUGHTS
Respectfully Addressed To The Clergy
ON ALTERATIONS IN THE LITURGY

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 alter-
ations which he did not wish. Tell me, are the present imper-
fections (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 observa-
tions of passers-by? And, even to speak at present of compara-
<page 2>
tively 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 con-
fess 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 Testa-
ment." 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
<page 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 proceed-
ings 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 princi-
ples, 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 some-
thing 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
<page 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, be-
cause 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 crav-
ing, 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 cer-
tainly 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
<page 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.

&hrule;

THE BURIAL SERVICE

We hear many complaints about the Burial Service, as un-
suitable 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.

<page 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) improve-
ment, 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 Ser-
vice 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 judg-
ment 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 ex- communication, than to alter the words used in the Service.
<page 7>
Surely, if we do not this, we are clearly defrauding the reli-
gious, 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 pro-
fessions 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 re-
storation of that "godly discipline," the resotration of which our
Church publicly professes she considers desirable; but GOD for-
bid 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 pro-
posed? 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 Excom-
munication is impracticable; and that therefore the other alter-
native 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 pros-
pects 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.

<page 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 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 inde-
pendent in his own parish?

[FIFTH EDITION]
&hrule;
These Tracts are continued in Numbers, and sold at the price
of 2d. for each sheet, or 7 s. for 50 copies.

LONDON : PRINTED FOR J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON,
ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD AND WATERLOO PLACE.
1840
&hrule;
GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John's Square, London.


Richy,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
IRC www.irccloud.com/irc/ricksbbs/channel/ricksbbs
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23