Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ful Churchman would wish to deny it, and yet most Churchmen would cordially recognize the desirability of a change in the language of the Prayer Book. Original sin was one of the glories of medieval theology. The first chapters of Genesis, when written into abstract theological language, became a rock of the Church, although few were willing to go the full length of Calvin in asserting the total depravity of man. But there is no doubt that the scientific doctrine of Evolution has undermined much of the old mediæval theological building. It is not so easy now to say, as if it settled everything,

In Adam's fall

We sinned all.

The evolutionist keeps telling us that there was not any fall, and that by natural selection we are, as Tennyson put it, to

"Move upward, working out the beast,
And let the ape and tiger die."

Christian theology will, of course, never accept this. Whatever we may think of evolution, we are saved by grace and not by natural selection. The Christ is the Second Adam, a new Creation. By one Spirit we are all baptized into Christ and become new creatures. The doctrine of original sin remains a solemn and unalterable truth. But all the same we are no longer willing to accept the presentation of it prevalent in the Middle Ages, when, amongst the celibate theologians, there was always a prejudice against the marriage relationship. Sin was concupiscence or, as the IXth Article calls it, "Mind of the flesh." We have advanced beyond that now, and we do not want to begin the Baptismal Office by telling the young mother, "Forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin." That is true in one sense, but it is not true in another, and the Commission has been united in its desire to simplify that opening exhortation and to omit also such unfortunate phrases as "crucify the old man" and "utterly abolish the whole body of

sin." This is certainly dealing with doctrine, but it is a wholesome change in language and a purifying of thought.

Another illustration of a needed change in doctrinal expression is to be seen in the whole treatment of the sick and the afflicted. It would seem as if those old compilers of the Prayer Book had not the sense of humor or else had not read the Book of Job. It is Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite all over again. The young Priest, as soon as he hears his parishioner is sick, is to go to him and upbraid him for his sins. "They that plow iniquity and sow wickedness reap the same," Eliphaz said, and the visitor of the Prayer Book would read very much the same kind of comfort. It would be of no use that the man who has gotten his pneumonia by sticking to his post in bad weather to do his duty by his family professes his innocence, and might even call his young Rector's attention to his neighbor Brown, who plays golf all day Sunday and drinks a good deal at dinners and yet is sound and healthy. The Prayer Book tells him the sickness is God's visitation and perhaps sent to strengthen his faith or rouse his repentance. In essence the Visitation of the Sick does not differ very widely from the Visitation of Prisoners. The Clergy have not used it very much.

And as with the sick, so also with the afflicted. It is Biblical truth, a truth which can, rightly interpreted, bring to the faithful heart genuine strength, that the Lord chastens and corrects us; but it is dangerous for other people to point to the unfortunate as if they were the special recipients of God's wrath. "Think ye," our Lord said, "that those eighteen on whom the tower of Siloam fell and slew them were sinners above all the men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you Nay." When Willie Lincoln died at the White House during the darkest period of the Civil War, and when President Lincoln's heart was torn with grief and he was seeking his comfort from God, there were people who did not scruple to say that it was because he and Mrs. Lincoln had been living worldly lives that this sorrow had come to them. A few stupid State receptions and a daily drive

in their carriage were probably the extent of their worldliness. So it has grated on the feelings of many of us to have to say of the poor widow and the fatherless children at the funeral of the husband and father, "Thou hast seen fit to visit them with trouble and to bring distress upon them. Sanctify thy fatherly correction to them." The language is unreal. It is not true to our present way of looking at things. The Prayer Book will be strengthened by having such passages as these eliminated, for they are the remnants of a somewhat Pharisaic theology.

And still one other doctrinal change is to be found in the Burial of the Dead. This Office has sometimes been criticized as "cold." It is not cold, but neither is it exactly emotional. Howells, in one of his novels, speaks of it as "the refuge of the homeless dead." It is that and it is more. It gains warmth

and beauty when read over the body of the saint, and is not incongruous when heard at the funeral of the acknowledged sinner or heretic. In her splendid charity the Church leaves to our Father in Heaven the questions of judgment and mercy and buries all her children in the hope of the Resurrection. Why the excommunicated and the suicide should be invariably excluded from this privilege of burial, I have never been able to see. Surely we can not dogmatize as to the future of many, who have been driven outside the pale or have lost their reason amid the awful sorrow of their fate. But there is one criticism of the Burial Office which is of force. It lacks any direct prayer that the departed may rest in peace. Just when we think that such a petition is coming the prayer switches off with a request that "we" may be found acceptable, and may rest in Christ. It seems as if the compilers of the Prayer Book had taken Longfellow's sentiment as their own

"Why for the dead who are at rest?
Pray for the living in whose breast
The struggle between right and wrong
Is raging terrible and strong."

Some Churchmen have felt, however, that the principle of the

Burial Office is that the dead are praying with us, and that thought does help out, but it is rather refined and there are few who have grasped it. This loss of direct prayers for the dead the Commission proposes to supply in a very beautiful way. One simple prayer at the grave is the best example of its work: "Incline, O Lord, thine ear to our prayers, and of thy mercy bring this thy servant into the place of peace and light and admit him to the fellowship of thy saints; through Jesus Christ our Lord." Surely if we believe in the Resurrection and that Christ taught the value of each individual person in the sight of our Father in Heaven, then we must admit this principle of praying for the departed into our Book of Common Prayer. It was one of the evils of Protestantism that it sought to kill this natural craving of the human heart to speak the names of loved and departed ones in prayer. Unless, therefore, we want to see our people follow Sir Oliver Lodge into the darkened chambers of spiritualistic mediums, we should put back into our Liturgy and into our Office for the dead some words which will help to bind up the broken hearts and to give assurance that the dead are not shut off from our worship but are still united to us in the Communion of the Saints.

The Revised Prayer Book, as presented in the Report of the Commission, is not only, as I have indicated, more adaptable to the needs of this age, but it will be a more flexible book in the hands of the Clergy. The Psalter, for instance, need no longer be read according to the day of the month, but the officiant may choose the Psalm or Psalms which are most appropriate for the occasion. With the Lectionary the Commission has nothing to do; but it would be a wise provision to give to the Clergyman the same liberty of choice in the reading of the Scriptures which is granted in the Psalter. The old Prayer Book Lessons could be left as his guide, but each Sunday when he comes to the Service he should be able to select chapters which would be in harmony with the sermon. Thus the whole Service would have a unity which it too often lacks at the present time, and the people, instead of knowing just what the

service was to be, would find their attention arrested at the very beginning, and would look forward with especial interest to the great truth which, illustrated and enforced by Psalms and Lessons, would be spoken from the pulpit. That this would entail more work on the part of the Clergy is true, but that it would help to make the services real is equally true.

These are some of the principles which have controlled the Commission on Revision and Enrichment of the Book of Common Prayer. Those who were convinced of the reasonableness of these principles and desired to see the Report adopted came away from the General Convention of St. Louis with a feeling of profound disappointment. It was not that the Convention did not give a generous proportion of its time to the subject. Several days were spent by both houses in considering the Report, but little real progress was made. It was plain to most thoughtful observers that, under such a method of procedure, it would take perhaps half a century to complete the process of revision and that, if something were not done to prevent it, we should have every three years to issue new editions of the Prayer Book to the great confusion alike of clergy and congregations. Such a condition of affairs would be a real calamity. It is of prime importance that the necessary changes should be made at one time and that the Revised Prayer Book should be adopted by the General Convention and presented to the Church, not piecemeal, but in its entirety.

Is history to repeat itself at Detroit? Or will the Convention follow an entirely different procedure from that at St. Louis? No one wishes to see the tyranny of the cloture introduced into our debates. That would not be tolerated for a moment, and least of all in dealing with the Book of Common Prayer. But some change of procedure could be made without at all infringing on the rights of members or encouraging hasty action. The Report of the Commission will have been in the hands of the Bishops and Deputies at least five weeks before the Convention. That Report could be received on the opening day and a period of three days granted in which any two members of either house

« AnteriorContinuar »