THE 1928 PRAYER BOOK
SIR,—A discussion of Anglican Orders, which is what Mr. Thomson's letter in your issue of June 27th appears to invite, is of course impossible in a letter. An entire issue of The Spectator would hardly provide suffi- cient space. The matter was brought forward during the years 1894-6, and accounts of what happened can be found in the Life of Archbishop Benson and A Roman Diary by T. A. Lacey. The Bull of Pope Leo XIII was published on September 13th in the latter year, and the Answers of the Archbishop of England, addressed to " All Bishops of the Catholic Church," on March 29th, 1897. Its appearance had been delayed by the unexpected death of Archbishop Benson in October, 1896. Together, the two documents fill some sixty pages octavo. They were reprinted in 1932 by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, together with English translations, so that anyone who wishes to acquaint himself with the real facts can do so without difficulty.
I will only add : (1) To say that " the Ordinal was quietly removed from the Prayer Book " is really nonsense. It has never been part of the Prayer Book, though for convenience sake the two are usually bound together in one volume, with the Articles. But in all official documents (e.g. Declarations of Assent, with which I am probably more familiar than Mr. Thomson can be) the three are always specified separately. There can be no reason why the University Presses should not publish them separately at any time, if they thought it worth while. The act would have no religious significance of any kind. (2) When he called the 1928 Prayer Book " unauthorised," I imagined that he meant " by Parlia- ment." But it has been authorised by the Convocations of both provinces, which are also part of the legislature. This fact is certainly not negligible, to say the least, and therefore to call the book " unauthorised " tout court
Previous page
