The Bishops and the Prayer Book
THE Bishops have handsomely fulfilled their promise to explain the Prayer Book Measure at points where further explanation seemed necessary. There is now a definiteness on certain points which was lacking before ; and, as far as is possible within the range of such adapta- tion, it meets the most important criticisms of the House of Commons.
The objectors in the House of Commons said that Clause IV. vested the Bishops with a general power to make rules, having the force of rubrics, governing the entire public worship of the Church of England. That was the unexpected interpretation of the provision that the Archbishops and Bishops of each Province might make such rules as were required to implement any rubric of the Deposited Book. In order to prevent all mis- understanding the clause has been bodily removed.
The new Prayer Book contained the three prayers for the King provided by the old Prayer Book and added a new one among the Occasional Prayers, but it left the use of any one of them to the discretion of the minister. The intention was to prevent undue repetition, not, of course, to exclude prayers for the King. The Bishops have now met the strong feeling in the House of Commons that too much was left to the discretion of the minister by providing that prayer for the King shall be offered every morning and evening.
What is known as the Black Rubric in the old Prayer Book—the rubric which explains that the act of kneeling at the. Holy Communion does not imply or justify adora- tion of the bread and wine—was excluded from the new Book for the simple reason that the whole Communion Service was supposed to be governed by the rubrics of the old Book. As, however, critics in the House of Commons regarded the Church's doctrine of the Sacrament as insufficiently protected, the Black Rubric is now printed also in the new Book.
Such explanations seem to us to be perfectly clear and satisfactory. The same thing may be said about the more explicit rules for Reservation which have been intro- duced, but we have to recognize that the real controversy is about Reservation in any form. The rubrics of the new Book were intended to make it clear that the consecrated bread and wine when reserved were for the Communion of the sick and for no other purpose whatever, and that there must be no service or ceremony in the Church in connexion with the reserved elements. Nevertheless, the new Book gave the Archbishop and Bishops of the Province authority to determine by rules "other questions " that might arise. It was argued that such special rules might override the rubrics. This could not have happened if the draft rules prepared by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces—they were issued together with the Deposited Book—had been observed, but fresh assurance is now given in the very practical form of incorporating the rules with the rubrics. The objection that the reserved elements might be placed on or over the altar is met by the unequivocal regulation that they are to be kept in an. aumbry, or safe, in the north or south wall of the church, or, if need be, in the wall of the vestry.
. It is important to remember that these explanations and these stricter regulations .do not necessarily represent the final form of the Measure. On February 6th the Church Assembly will meet to consider the amended Measure. Each of the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity will be invited to give a general approval to it. If this general approval is forthcoming there is then to be a detailed discussion in the Houses of Clergy and Laity. Next the House of Bishops will review any amendments which have been made by the other Houses. Then the Archbishops will present the Measure to the Convocations, who will be asked to approve of it in its finished form. Last of all, the Church Assembly will be asked for its approval. It is hoped that the new Measure may be presented to Parliament before Whitsuntide.
The Bishop of Birmingham, the Bishop of Exeter, and some of the other irreconcilables have already announced their dissatisfaction with the amendments which we have summarized. They think them wholly inadequate to prevent abuses and, of course, no compromise is to be expected in these quarters. On the other hand, it is most encouraging to note the restraint which has governed the actions and statements of those who led the attack on the Measure in the House of Commons. It is obvious that these opponents sincerely and fully appreciate the gravity of the consequences if there should be a second rejection. It cannot be denied that a tendency towards Disestablishment, or at all events a tendency not to deprecate Disestablishment, is observable among many of the clergy who have long resented the unskilled intervention of Parliament in spiritual affairs ; but practical politicians, especially those who are Members of Parliament, genuinely shrink from the long and difficult disputes and adjustments which would be made necessary by Disestablishment. A whole session of Parliament would hardly be enough to consider the question. It would be a wholly superfluous interruption of normal life. We may be sure, therefore, that there will be more readiness next time for agreement if the critics—whose sincerity we never doubted, though we questioned their judgment or knowledge—find that their conscientious scruples are in any reasonable sense removed by the new Measure.
The Times has made the important comment that the concession of continuous Reservation was in fact even more an " ecclesiastical compromise " than a recognition of the needs of the sick. The Times thinks, therefore, that it might have been " wiser " to admit that there had been divisions and illegalities and to appeal for support of the compromise on the ground that it was justifiable in itself rather than on the exclusive ground that it was in the interests of the sick. Certainly we are prepared ourselves to defend continuous Reservation on those grounds, for in no other way, as it seems to us, can the Church continue to comprehend Anglo-Catholics as well as Evangelicals.
If it be admitted that the supreme cause of peace requires give and take, as we are sure it does, and if a sufficient number of Members of Parliament can be brought to admit that there will be no change of doctrine except through the implications of illegal practices, everything will depend upon the actual ensuring of discipline. And surely the new Book gives us a vastly better prospect of discipline than there ever was before. It is a real contribution to that urgent cause.
Previous page
