Letters to the Editor
THE REVISED PRAYER BOOK [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The Spectator's habitual readiness to make room for the expression of opinion at variance with its own views emboldens me to explain the grounds on which some of us differ from you. You very rightly emphasize the importance of unity. You call it the greatest of all doctrines. You deem it hardly credible that now, when the Bishops are practically in complete agreement, their revision should not be accepted.
But on what point are the Bishops agreed ? Not on substituting a new and better book for the old, but on putting a new book beside the old, and leaving it to ministers and congregations to decide between the two. Surely this is not the way to secure the unity which you so justly value, but to establish diversity. It brings into each parish the duty of deciding between two rival offices with all the heart- bumings attendant thereon. If the doctrine of the two books is practically the same, would it not be the duty of the Bishops to order the use of the better of the two ? The fact that they fail to do so is conclusive evidence that they themselves recognize that any such order would be a serious act of intolerance, because the variations between the two books are serious.
From this it is evident that there is some ambiguity in their declaration that the " proposed alterations imply and involve no departure from the sacramental teaching of the Church as drawn up at the Reformation." The ambiguity, of course, lies in the words " the Reformation." The Reformation was not a single event but a process.
There was a marked and deliberate departure between the First Prayer Book of Edward VI and the Second. The Composite Book follows generally the lines of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. Our present Prayer Book is practically the second. It made the line of cleavage with Rome more deep. It adhered more closely to the principle that the Church had no authority to decree rites and cere- monies contrary to the Word of God. The first book was a timid and tentative variation from Rome, the second was a parting of the ways. The Church is now invited to " streddle " between the two positions.
In one notable instance the Bishops' proposals go further towards Rome than even the First Prayer Book. That book at the critical moment after consecration of the elements contained this rubric, " These words before rehearsed are to be said turning still to the altar without any elevation or showing the Sacrament to the people." Why are they not in the Composite Book ? Not because they are not true to Reformation principle, but because the insertion of them would wreck the Composite Book.—I am, Sir, &c., E. A. KNOX, Bishop (formerly Bishop of Manchester).
18 Beckenham Grove, Shortlands, Kent.
Previous page
