REVISION OF THE PRAYER BOOK.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18875, 30 May 1923, Page 5

REVISION OF THE PRAYER BOOK.

EPISCOPAL APPROVAL. NO POPULAR DEMAND. LICENSE IN PUBLIC WORSHIP. (From Ooh Own Corhespondent.) LONDON, April 18. The House of Bishops of the National Assemble of tho Church of England is sitting at. tho Church House, Westminster, under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to consider the Revised Prayer Book (Permissive Use) Measure, 1923, and tho Revised Psalter (Permissive Use) Measure, 1923, at the stage of general approval, this being equivalent to the second reading of a Bill in the House. In the crowded hall were many members of the House of Clergy and tho House of Laity. Tho Archbishop of Canterbury said the meeting had a certain element of novelty, for tho Bishops of tho two provinces were for tho first time sitting in public together. Personally, he had long desired to sec their Convocations thus assembling. There was a widespread wish to know not merely what view the bishops took on the pro posed measure for the revision of their rubrics but also what were the grounds for tho opinions they held. The bishops of to-day were not the same to whom, as a hotly, the Letters of Business were issued in 1906. Of the 37 bishops to whom the letters were issued there were now only eight. They wanted the Prayer Book to correspond with the desires of the souls of the people to whom they wanted to minister.

The Bishop of Chichester moved a resolution giving general approval to tho Revised Prayer Book (Permissive Use) Measure, 1923. The Prayer Book, he said, had never been regarded as irreformable. Tho present measure was entirely permissive, and if it were carried as it stood there would be no legal necessity for compelling any clergy or congregations who dreaded change to adopt any single clause in the schedule. They proposed to sanction an alternative book which might bo used as a whole instead of the existing book; and of which any part might be used instead of tho corresponding part of the existing book.

The Bishop of Truro said the measure did not pretend to be perfect or final. He disliked "the idea of alternative use altogether. The protiosal was for an ordered, elasticity. In "a large measure the proposals were framed to secure order, and to securo it on the broad basis of the Church's will. It would be an ill day for the Church of England if they allowed themselves to be the pale shadow of the Church of Rome, and he believed there was such a. danger. A GRAVE UNDERTAKING. The Bishop of Durham oould only vote for general approval by making important reservations. He believed there was no popular demand for revision at all.—("Oh!") Such demand as there was was almost wholly clerical, and even so curiously limited. The reason was perhaps twofold—a fear that revision would make more difficulties than it removed, and a consciousness that whatever changes might be legalised had been aimost without exception already made, or might be at once made, without legal authority, and with complete immunity from legal consequences, i The effect of revision would therefore be almost imperceptible. They ought to discuss the question without regard to the fact that the revised book was for the present to be permissive only. The Prayer Book was the book of Anglican doctrine and practice. It was not true to say that the Church t of England was committed bv this measure to alternative rites. The revision of the Prayer Book was recommended as. nart of the plan for restoring discipline in the Church of England, and it was associated with a drastic revision of the legal system. That was the solo condition for undertaking the revision, and nothing else could prove an adeauate justification for so grave an undertaking. If the new rubrics were to be no better obeyed than the old, if the authority of the Church to enforce the revised Prayer Book was as insufficient as it had been to enforce the existing book, they would have laboured for naught. The proposed changes were largely of the nature of concessions to the law-breaking party. The so-called Catholio party stood absolutely alone in breaking the law on principle, and in repudiating the law itself. Unless they oould remove the principle of law-breaking they would have gained nothing by approving of tho proposals for revision. He should vote for general approval with the intention of opposing proposals 18 and 27. which affected the handling of the jcioly Communion service, and gave permission for the reservation of the sacrament. The real issue of Prayer Book revision was tho roassertion of the authority of the Churoh of England over its own clergy. Everything else was petty. If they failed there they had better attempt nothing. To spend time and labour in framing new rubrics which would riot be obeyed, and in making new forms which would not be accepted, was simply ploughing the sand. The Bishop of Ripon (Dr Strong) agreed that revision of trie Ecclesiastical Courts was necessary, and he did not think that proper order and discipline in the Church would bo obtained until they got it. He deprecated, though, the suspension of the most important of the provisions of' the measure until they could settlo the very thorny and difficult matter of the courts. Ho thought they tended to exaggerate the importance of the Anglo-Catholic movement. It was, however, an important movement, and obtained a large amount of support. The point _on which they were inclined to criticise it was that it practically denied the authority of the English Church to determine rites and ceremonies. Surely that line of thought would only succeed in the Church if it were ultimately capable of being defended on grounds of reason. There was very little chance of a view radically unsound on grounds of evidence and reason becoming dominant. If, they were going to try and reunite, the first thing was to see where the various bodies diverged, and then they would have a reasonable chance of getting the question considered. —("Hear, hear.") A PERVERSION OF LIBERTY. To the Archbishop of York there now seemed a danger lest the great maes of tne work (hat had been so laboriously done by Convocation during the past 1Y years should be forgotten.—("Hear, hear.") there had grown up a very strong desire for a Liturgy more consonant with the main stream of the Liturgical traditions oi the Church, and the result was, whether they liked it or not, very general dissatisfaction and a certain restlessness, and, what was far worse, an introduction of many unauthorised interpolations and additions to tho existing rites. He suggested that they and the other Housos in tho x\ssembly in their discussions should have in mind the possibilities of permitting a change, if any change wore to be permitted, wh.ch would bring about a real Liturgical gain and a real prospect of meeting tho wishes of those who desired an alternative rite, and whether that <end would not best be mot by frankly permitting tho restoration of the Order of the i'irst Prayer Book of 1549. The Order of 1549 was a legacy of the Reformation, coming at a time when tho movement was most full of promise. He need not remind the House that this permissive restoration would be no new step in the Anglican Commission. The license in public worship which now prevailed in many quarters passed the limits of what were consistent with the self-respect of the Church. Such a condition of things was bad for the nation, bad for tho Church, and bad for the spiritual life of those who yielded to it. It would, however, bo most unjust to involve the whole of the movement within the Churoh which had taken the title of Anglo-Catholic in the condemnation of thoso extremists, however active and vocal they might be. To brand the whole movement as disloyal was the surest way to make it disloyal. Was it not better to appeal to that loyalty as something already there, and 'to acknowledge those who called themselves Anglo-Catholics as having a place of their own in tho Church? PRESENT POSITION NOT . TOLERABLE.

They must set themselves to make a real effort in the Church of England to restore the very principles of order and authority. It might be that that would moan recourse to the Ecclesiastical Courts, though he hoped not. The present position was really not tolerable. Over a largo tract of ecclesiastical matters the Ecclesliastical Courts had ceased to function. The result was not merely a licence which was a perversion of liberty, but, what was worse, it meant the loss of the whole conception of law as an essential moral principle in the life of the community. Many thought that the reform of the courts ought to have preceded the reform of the Prayer Book. The reform of the courts was a corollary to the reform of the Prayer Book. Every effort should first be made to complete a reasonable and generous rivision. Ho hoped the goodwill thus created would greatly ease the thorny problem of the ■ courts. There was no chance of ever accomplishing the reform of file courts and obtaining the acceptance of their jurisdiction unless the support of ail pvillcti were received.

A RECOGNISED REVISION ESSENTIAL. The Bishop of Ely (Dr Chase) said that they had reached a condition of things which was dangerously irregular. The habit of independence and neglect of rules rapidly became far too familiar. It was essential that there should be a recognised revision of the Prayer Book so that the position of worship shuid bo made clear, stable, and ethically sound. He based Ids desire for general approval on three grounds —the time and thought spent over tho work; the untair position in which those were placed who hud to boar the heavy burden of administration and government; and the inherent necessity of periodic change if tho ule ot the Church was to bo healthy. No one could study the proposals and doubt that the fashion of alternatives in worship had advanced greatly. DR POLLOCK OPPOSES. The Bishop of Norwich (Dr Pollock) did not propose to support the measure. The most important parts of tho measure wore the Holy Communion office and tho rubrics connected with it, and ho could not believe that in that service alternatives hod any place. He w > not asliamed of Ids own perfect cons la .—.cy on tho question, but he was sorry that whereas in Convocation he used to be in a glorious majority he was now hi a oonteiiiptiole minority. Referring to the question of alternatives, lie said, amid laugnter, that if they had alternative Prayer Hooks, they might go a step further and have alterative Bishops. The Bishop of Manchester (Dr Temple), in supporting the measure, held there was an urgent need for the enrichment of the Prayer Book. There was in that book no direct reference to evangelising wont;, there was no reference to industrial peace and goodwill, or to the -maintenance of international peace. The Prayer Book seemed to look on war as a natural state of things, whereas they were longing to escape from that state.

The Bishop of Liverpool (Dr Chevasse) supported tne motion “with very great and grave exceptions.” He would vote lor it because it made for the valuable enrichment of their public worship. It brought it into line with modern thought, and gave an elasticity to their services which at present was lacking. He objected to an alternative Prayer Book, which, he thought would lead to the irritation" of_ the congregation, deepen their present divergences, and’ make “confusion worse confounded.” If they admitted reservation for the sick, and the Elements were Reserved in the Church, it would lead to the Adoration of Christ.

The Bishop of St. Albans (Dr Furse) held no brief for any party in the Church of England, but be thought that the AngloCatholics had received scant recognition, except in the way of abuse. There were impossible people in every ' section of the community, and the Anglo-Catholics were no exception to the rule, but they, as bishops, had to listen to their demands and try to understand them. It was generally assumed that the only lack of discipline oixsted among the clergy. Be believed it existed among the bishops ,and among the laity.—(Laughter.) There was a widespread revolt against rigid uniformity, but there was also a similar demand for unity. In every movement there were cranks, and the Church of England would not be representative of the nation if they got rid ot them.—(Laughter.) The Bishop of Chelmsford (Dr WattsDitchfield), in giving general approval to the measure, expressed the opinion that the proposals did not effect the doctrine of the Church of England. The Bishop of Winchester (Dr Talbot) charactensed the debate as remarkable from the point of view of its level of ability, and the characteristic individuality of the speeches. Putting himself in the place of a lay outsider, listening for the first time to an episcopal conference, he would admit that they had some sense, knowledge, and perhaps other more important qualities among them.—(Laughter.) The Archbishop of Canterbury, reviewing the speeches, mentioned that; he had been very keen on the subject of ecclesiastical courts, but they would be living in a fool’s paradise if they thought they would be getting out of their difficulties if the system of the courts was revised even in 24 hours. VIEWS OF A RETIRED BISHOP.

The Right Rev. E. A. Knox (formerly Bishop of Manchester), who took part in the Bishop's work of revision until his retirement, has since had leisure to consider the effect of the proposed changes. The result is that he urges upon the Bishops the following five points:— Not to have any alternative Book of Common Prayer. Enrichments may find their place in a supplement or appendix, but alternatives should be embodied in the text. Not to tamper with the text of the Bible, but where scholarshiD domajids retranslation or the. omission of words clearly inadmissible by MSS. evidence, to introduce such changes, and such only, into the text. By alternative, provision can bo made for passages which some consider unsuitable for congregational use. To admit no alternative of prayers, ornaments, or ceremonies that raise cpntrovesial issues, but resolutely to banish controversy from a book of devotions. 'Steadily to keep in mind that public prayers can only be written for the devout, and to provide only what may assist their devotions., To purge the calendar of some 50 saints unknown to any but histdrical scholars, some of them saints whose teaching was vitally opposed to Scripture. ' FLAGS OF DISCORDANT PARTIES. In conclusion, Dr Knox writes: "Your aim has apparently been to provide such a number of alternatives as to legitimatise the various and conflicting uses that have grown up in the Church of England. As the clorgy will not fit themselves to the rubrics of the Church, you have tried to devise rubrics that will fit them. In so doing you have overlooked the very reasonable plea of many of the laity that the confusion of uses does not help, but disturbs, their devotions. Your desire to include as many variations as possible has led you to tamper, at several points, with the doctrine of the Church, a work for which neither you nor the National Assembly have any authority. But so far as the Counter-reformation party is concerned your labour has been in vain. They tell you plainly that your concessions are insufficient. Even if the two Prayer Books were sanctioned, could any Church present a. more pitiful front to the world than one which had authorised two books of public prayer with the knowledge that they would be flags of discordant parties, whom it had failed to teach or reduce to harmony, oven in the Sacrament with which our ' Blessed, Lord sealed His new Commandment?"