[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] am grateful for your
kindly notice of my little book the New Prayer Book, but your criticisms seem to me to II for some comment which perhaps you will of your courtesy relit me to make.
You suggest that I have been guilty of inventing certain glosses in my interpretation of the Bishops' proposals. submit that all my " glosses " are either justified by the xt or by speeches that one or other of the Bishops have ade since the Measure was introduced. At the same time, agree that I was anxious to emphasize the concessions e to Ariglo-Catholic_opimion, since there is so much in the k, particularly in the Reservation Rubrics, which many glo-Caffialies cannot possibly accept. You criticize my use of the word "Mass," but you will remember that it appears in the Prayer Book of 1549, and it has been habitually used in Anglo-Catholic churches ever since I can remember. Dr. Selwyn, the editor of Theology and also of the recently published Essays Critical and Catholic declares that the new Canon is "more explicitly Catholic," and he adds that the Invocation is" unequivocal in its witness to the objective aspect of Consecration which carries with it the truth of the Real Presence." The Bishop of Manchester has specifically declared that he entirely agrees with Dr. Selwyn. It is therefore possible for a layman to believe that the new Canon implies what is commonly called the Sacrifice of the Mass, in which "the full perfect and sufficient sacrifice oblation and satisfaction of Christ for the sins of the whole world is pleaded by the Church on earth until lie conies again."
You complain of my statement that while there will be a general order that the Blessed Sacrament shall be reserved in an Aumbry, "where Tabernacles are already authorized their use may be continued." I based the statement on the first rule concerning Reservation printed on pink paper and issued with the Book that was submitted to Convocation on March 29th. The last words *are, "or if need be shall be reserved in some other place approved by the Bishop." Surely these words would justify certain Bishops in permitting the continued use of Tabernacles where they have already been installed with episcopal sanction.
You refer to my statement that the Bishops "cannot enforce their general ban of Devotions unless they boldly denounce Benediction and Exposition as idolatrous," and my further statement that they cannot possibly do this now that they have given permission to reserve, however qualified that permission may be. To reserve for the Communion of the Sick is to admit that the consecrated bread and wine possess certain inherent qualities which they did not possess before they were consecrated. If this is not so, Reservation is a sheer mockery. If it is so, the Elements so consecrated and reserved must demand from the faithful at least respect, and their "inward part" described by the Catechism as "the Body and Blood of Christ which arc verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper," must demand adoration.
You admit that my statement that there is an unmistakable reference to purgatorial cleansing in the Prayers for the Faithful Departed is legitimate. But surely it is more than legitimate; the reference is specific. I quote from the Third Collect for the Commemoration of the Faithful Departed in the Occasional Prayers :—" Multiply, we beseech thee, to those who rest in Jesus the manifold blessings of thy love that the good work which thou didst begin in them may be perfected unto the day of Jesus Christ."
As I have said, the Reservation Rubrics with their definite interference with what have been universally regarded as the rights of the parish priest raise problems which will certainly not be solved if the Bishops' proposals arc accepted by the Assembly, by Convocation and by Parliament. At the same time, it seems to me merely making for confusion to pretend that there is not very much in the book for which Anglo- Catholics should be profoundly grateful.—I am, Sir, &c., SIDNEY DARK. 20 Princes Street, Hanover Square, W. E
Previous page
