PRAYER BOOK REVISION.

[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]

Szn,—The raising of the question of Prayer Book Revision in an acute form has come as a surprise to most Englishmen. They feel that the proposed changes are being sprung upon them ; that they are being taken at a disadvantage and unawares. It will, no doubt, be answered that, if this is so, it is their own fault ; that the subject has been discussed at length in the National Assembly and other nominally repre- sentative bodies ; and that it is their resolutions which it is proposed to carry into effect. But the average Englishman is not what is called in Scotland an " Assembly-man "—he never has been, and never will be. This is why those who know our national character from the first distrusted the Enabling Act ; a measure whose real, as opposed to its avowed, tendencies are now scarcely open to question. In a recent letter (in the Times of April 3rd) on the proposed division of the diocese of Winchester, the Bishop of Gloucester

writes :-

" I cannot help feeling that this is just one of those cases where the dangers which attend our new ecclesiastical organizations are becoming apparent. The officials in charge of the measure are also in charge of the machine ; and it is quite easy for the great body of the clergy and laity in the Church of England, who do not concern themselves much with ecclesiastical matters, to find their opinions over-ridden by the enthusiasm or authority of those of a small minority who hold the reins of policy in their hands."

• The same may be said of Prayer Book Revision. In the one case the object, it is believed, is to create an Anglo-

Catholic enclave by a skilfully engineered division of an his- torical diocese ; in the other it is to legalize the doctrine and ceremonial of the Mass. As things are, it is probably impossible to prevent either this doctrine from being taught,

or this ceremonial from being practised, in our Church. The efficacy of law presupposes a law-abiding disposition in those subject to it ; and this disposition is conspicuous by its absence from Anglo-Catholicism. A bishop, himself a member of this school, deplores its lawlessness :-

" I look upon the effort to force authority by claiming a long- continued disobedience as one of the most fatal things ever attempted. It would only coerce weak bishops ; and I am sure does not impress God." " The greatest enemies of the English Church are within her own borders. . . . I am convinced that a section of the Church is in real danger of swamping the boat."—(Conuersion, Catholicism, and the English Church. Bishop of Bloemfontein. Pp. 63, 27, SO.)

But toleration is one thing, legalization another. No one will " bell the cat " ; this is why the use of the Roman ritual, Reservation, the substitution of " Mass " for Mattins, the Confessional, &c., have become common. But, as the law stands, these practices are illegal ; were they formally sanc- tioned by Parliament, or even by the bishops, they would be adopted by many who now let " I dare not " wait upon " I would " ; and an increasing alienation of the people from the Church would be the result. One is struck, particularly

in the country, by the distrust of Revision entertained by quiet, non-party people, whom one would not have credited with any.strong view on the matter, for or against. They are afraid of the loss of the dignity and repose of the Prayer Book —the English of which they prefer to that of the Sunday 'Pictorial ; they foresee the introduction of absurd services— offices, e.g., for use in connexion with Mr. Hickson's Healings, or Gipsy Pat Smith's Revivals, or Prohibition, or Labour Demonstrations, or Revelations—such as those of Mr. Vale Owen—from the Beyond. Neither the National' Assembly

nor Convocation, they believe, is incapable of authorizing " Uses " of this kind ; and, if what was formerly spoken of as " our admirable liturgy " is not perfect, we may go further and fare worse. Neither do they accept the statements made

by the Anglo-Catholic Press at their face value. If, e.g., Reservation were demanded in the interest of the sick, no sensible person would oppose it. But no sensible person for a moment supposes that this is the reason why the demand for Reservation is made.

There are, no doubt, features in our services which might well be amended. Their length is often excessive—in parish churches, at least, an hour seems to be sufficient for an ordinary Sunday service ; repetitions, such as those of the Creeds and the Lord's Prayer, should be avoided ; the Psalms are too

long, e.g., Psalm lxxviii. ; and the imprecatory Psalms—e.g., Psalm cix.—are obviously unsuited to Christian worship :

the same may be said of the lessons, which are at times singularly infelicitous—the Sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis xxii.) on

Good Friday, and the preparation of the Paschal Lamb (Exodus xii.) on Easter Day, strike a jarring note. Few have now the least idea what these narratives have, or were supposed to have, to do with Christ's Death and Resurrection : the interest of typology is historical and artistic ; except by way of association, we no longer connect the Old Testament with the New in this way. Revision on these lines would give

rise to little or no controversy ; much could be done by common consent, and without legislation. This, however, cannot be said either of the office for Baptism—which suggests some of the worst features of the Augustinian theology ; or of that for the Burial of the Dead—in which the absence of any commemoration of the departed appears incongruous. In the sixteenth century there was sufficient reason for this omission ; in the twentieth there seems to be sufficient reason for wishing to see some such commemoration restored.

A revision of the Prayer Book which had the real needs of the age in view would be useful and opportune ; a revision whose purpose is to find a set of formulas on which the conflicting parties in the Church will either come to terms, or agree to differ, can only make our present confusion worse confounded. To those who are not officials, it seems that the official mind is obsessed by the idea of an impossible uniformity—a uniformity which is unattainable, and would be useless could it be attained. It is because the revision now proposed has taken this shape that, outside official cricles, it is regarded with suspicion. Were it carried into effect, it would give reasonable cause of complaint to " sober, peaceful, and truly conscientious sons of the Church of England " ; and it would assuredly fail to bring the en- thusiasts of Anglo-Catholicism into line. We have lately been reminded—and the reminder was at once wise and timely—that " what thoughtful people are demanding from the Church of England at the present time is not greater activity, but greater intelligence. Our weakness lies in the fact that a great many laymen feel that we often speak without having thought out questions thoroughly, and that what we say is not entirely true."—I am, Sir, &c.,

A LIBERAL CHURCHMAN.