THE PRAYER BOOK CONTROVERSY
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SDI, Will you allow me to make a few comments on Professor Relton's letter on the Prayer Book question in your issue of August 13th ? It appears to me to be a most misleading and partisan plea for the cessation of controversy on the subject.
A dominant section of Churchmen has for several years forced " controversy " on the Church, over a very proper and natural desire to modernize " our time-honoured Prayer Book ; instead of, like the Canadian Church, giving us a really valuable " modern " Book avoiding all doctrinal issues. Having secured their ends in a Church Assembly (which most imperfectly represents lay opinion) by undue and unfair official influence and pressure, a grossly partisan plea is now urged for " no more controversy." In effect, it means " We have secured our own party victory and so any further attempt to frustrate our complete triumph is `indecent and dangerous controversy."
We need to bear in mind that the boasted large majorities in favour of the Book are rather apparent than real. For, after all the Episcopal presentations, pleadings and misrepresentations, nearly 50 per cent. of the members of Diocesan Conferences were apathetic or antagonistic and refrained from voting. There is little doubt that a referendum on the new Consecration Prayer would show an overwhelming majority against it.
Moreover, Professor Relton's special points mislead and misstate the real position :-
1. It is incorrect to say that " the controversy is but the reproduction of a larger struggle which has continued in the Church since the Reformation between Catholics and Evangelicals." It is quite a different thing. It is a deliberate attempt to enshrine in our formularies the doctrine of the real Objective Presence in the elements by virtue of consecra- tion, which was never held or taught by any responsible divine of our Church until the Tractarian Movement. There was no such fundamental difference as this between the teach- ing of our Reformers and that of the leading Caroline divines of the next century. Both claimed to be Catholics. In fact the great aim of our Reformers was the restoration of the Catholic Faith in all its primitive purity and evangelical fervour. Thus, Dr. Relton's antithesis between " Evan- gelicals " and " Catholics " is false historically. The Reformers were both Catholics and Evangelicals, and those of us who stand by Reformed teaching claim the same to-day. Those who wish to monopolize the use of the term " Catholic" are, from the standpoint of the very men who gave us our formularies, " Mediaevalists " and not Catholics.
All the Caroline divines were perfectly satisfied with the Eucharistic language of our present Prayer Book. , Bishop Ken, one of the " highest," denounced _ those Non-Jurors, who adopted the 1549 Communion Office, as having departed from the Faith. It should be remembered in this connexion that some six years ago, when the Synod of Ottawa advocated the inclusion of this new Consecration Prayer in the revised Canadian Book, it was judicially ruled out by the. Primate of Canada as contravening the guiding principle that there should be " no change of doctrine."
2. Dr. Relton's statement that the " Book itself is definitely in favour of neither party" wants a lot of swallowing, when we bear in mind that not one single concession has been made in it to Evangelical convictions, while definite doctrinal changes like Reservation and Prayers for the Dead have been introduced with the avowed object of placating the Mediaeval and Romanizing party. Moreover, Bishops, like the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of London, have frankly confessed that the real aim is to supersede the old Book by the new and have only one Communion Office. This will, of course, be easily effected in time through Episcopal preference, patronage, and pressure.
The opposition to this new Book has been largely, and it seems designedly, misrepresented as if it were a mere question of policy and "party" gain. Whereas it is entirely one of principle and loyalty to Scriptural Truth. In fact, of loyalty to the guiding principle of our Reformers, that " it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything which is contrary to God's Word written." This is a far " larger loyalty" than that to Bishops or even to the question of " Establishment," important as this is.
It is because we conscientiously believe that several of the changes are not only without " warrant of Holy Writ," but " contrary to God's Word written," that we are bound to continue our opposition to it while there is the slightest hope of these unscriptural proposals being defeated.
While visualizing and greatly exaggerating the direful Consequences of such rejection by Parliament, its supporters never seem to give a thought to the serious eonsequences to loyal members of the Church, whose only plea is to have the existing standards of doctrine unchanged, if this Measure should be legalized. No regard is paid to their consciences, which in many cases will be strained to the breaking point, so that many good and earnest men will be forced to secede from a Church which is pretending to pass this measure in the interests of " greater unity." In fact, the vast majority of Evangelicals will only have the slenderest and most doubtful of standing grounds if this measure becomes law. It is only because they will not be required to give their " Declaration of Assent " to the " Deposited Book," but to the doctrines " set forth " in the existing Prayer Book only, that they will be able to strain their consciences to remain in the Church with the object of safeguarding, as long as possible,' the true Catholic principles of our Reformers which this Book so seriously challenges.
It would be better if the supporters would try to look at the question a little from the " other side."—I am, Sir, &e., C. SYDNEY CARTER.
B.C.M. College, The Avenue, Clifton, Bristol.
Previous page
