THE PRAYER BOOK
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—There seem to be two alternatives in the present dilemma : It is proposed to give permission under certain safeguards for the use of variations from the 1662 Book within the limits of the Revision set out in the Book of 1928. This suggestion. seems open to several objections. It will undoubtedly be said that (1) the authority of Parliament is being openly flouted,- since the House of Commons has on two occa- sions refused to sanction the Book. (2) That such a policy being itself illegal will not have the effect of restoring discipline within the Church. (3) That the right of refusal by the House of Commons having been acknowledged by the Arch- bishop of Canterbury it is now impossible without flagrant inconsistency to. act as if no such refusal had occurred. (4) That there is no pronounced indication in favour of this _adoption of the Book as a standard, as there was a mandate for the acceptance of the Book in 1927, and (in a slightly lesser degree) in 1928. (5) That no explanation will disabuse the vopular mind of, the idea that the Bishops are attempting to correct illegalities by illegal methods ; therefore the Church
will bear the blame. .
But there is an alternative. May I briefly recall the facts ? In 1904 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the alleged prevalence of breaches or neglect of the law relating to the conduct of divine service in the Church of England," &c. In November, 1906, the King's " Letter of Business " was issued, desiring the Archbishops and Clergy, &c., to " . . . . debate, consider, consult and agree . . . upon the desirability and the form and contents of a new rubric . . ," &c. The long inquiry, and consequent revision, reached its final form in the Revised Prayer Book of 1927.
That Book was received by the whole Church with a won- derful unanimity. It was rejected by a small majority by the free (individual) vote of the House of Commons. The Book, slightly revised, with slightly reduced majorities, was again presented to the Commons, and again rejected by a free vote with a slightly increased majority. The Archbishop of Canterbury at the time acknowledged the right of the House to act as they did.
Now what is the alternative to the proposal to use this Revision as the Standard or limit of variation from the Book of 1662 ? This Revised Book is the instrument forged during twenty-four years with patience and caution, by which it was proposed to restore order and discipline in the Church. It is the instrument accepted by the Church as a whole for the imposition of this self-discipline. But the House of Commons twice refused to allow the use of this instrument ; they have refused to allow the Church to attempt to rule itself. Therefore, it can be fairly said that the onus of the disorder which is in the Church rests on the House of Commons. Surely, then, it will be wise if the Bishops and the leaders of the Church Assembly and Convocations decide to rest in status quo. " Their strength is to sit still " for, say, such a period as the life of the next General Assembly and House of Commons ; and by then there may be some hope of finding the more excellent way.—I am, Sir, &e., J. W. BRADY MOORE
Previous page
