PRAYER-BOOK REVISION.
[TO TUB EDITOR OF THII .SPR0TATOR.1 SIR,—The Church of England claims and strives to be a national Church, and the organisation is in some measure adequate to the claim. There are, I suppose, over twenty- two thousand clergy and considerably more than twelve thousand parishes. Every man living in England is in some ecclesiastical parish and has a claim on the services of one or more of the parochial clergy. Nor is this mere machinery. There is a noble human side in high spiritual endeavour. Large numbers of the clergy are devoted, self-sacrificing parish priests, who for small pittances live lives of ceaseless and uncomplaining toil. But the question must be asked: Are the results commensurate with this vast spiritual machinery ? While much diversity exists as to causes, all agree as to the fact that the results fall short of reason- able expectations. And the reason ? Having watched the signs of the times for the last twenty years, I would answer without the slightest hesitation.—Want of adaptation of the formularies to present intellectual conditions. While we cherish the profoundest reverence for the Prayer-book as the loftiest expression of our spiritual needs and aspirations in the English tongue, we must admit that certain parts have been altogether superseded by the progress of science and thought. This is, of course, no disparagement of the wisdom of the compilers. They did all that was humanly possible. Indeed, all that can be reasonably claimed for any formillaries is that they are on the level of the best knowledge of the age in which they were compiled. It will inevitably follow that certain phases of thought and certain statements of fact will become obsolete.
Now I would ask, How far is this appreciated P I have made it my business to discover the sentiments which prevail amongst serious, well-educated Christian laymen. Their verdict at once decides the best type of young men for or against taking Holy Orders, and reacts on the attitude of the clergy towards the Prayer-book, because we clergy naturally feel in honour bound to keep ourselves level with the conscience of the laity. I think the prevailing opinion of well-informed laymen is something like the following :— (1) The clergy are "bound to believe" all the formularies of the Church. In particular, they ought to believe the literal interpretation of the three Creeds. This was the view of the late Professor Sidgwiek.
(2) These formularies contain some statements doubtful, or even incredible, to educated minds. For instance :—(a) The anathemas of the " Athanasian " Creed in their plain natural sense are offensive to the humanitarian feeling of our age, and are untrue in fact; and some of the statements even in the body of this Creed are unintelligible. (b) The Resurrection of the " flesh " (see Baptismal Office) is, not credible, and might even be held to be impossible. (c) The Virgin Birth cannot be positively proved as an actual historical fact. (d) It is quite impossible to believe in any literal, or even natural, sense the following tremendous assertion in the Ordinal " Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained."
(8) Yet these formularies are unchangeable, irrevocably fixed for all time, because (a) the clergy, being bound in honour to believe them, ought not to seek to alter them; and (b) it is no part of the business of the laity to revise the formularies of the Church.
Am I right, Sir, in stating that these sentiments prevail largely amongst educated laymen ? If so, much might be said ; but I will only now urge that the last proposition is plainly indefensible. Laymen being an integral part of the Church, the revision of the Prayer-book does concern them. It is a false humility for a highly educated layman who knows more of these subjects than many, or most, of the clergy to plead that he has no right to be heard in the matter of Prayer•-book revision. The question presses for solution. It is evident that we are rapidly approaching something like a revolution in Church matters. We have overwhelming evidence that the most highly educated young men show an increasing indisposition to take Holy Orders, and the inevitable consequence is a want of intellectual thorough. ness and of straight thinking on the part of the clergy. Any one who will take pains to inform himself on the subject will easily discover that the growth of extreme ritualism and sacerdotaliem is due to no lack of educated Protestants, but to the fact that the most strenuous and intellectually forceful Protestants consider themselves debarred by their " broad views" from taking Holy Orders. If this state of things is to continue, the ministry of the Church of England will be more and more abandoned to sacerdotalism and the extravagances of ritual, and will more and more completely lose touch with the national life. As this subject is of vast and growing importance, I earnestly trust that you will find space for this plea for revision.—I am, Sir, &a, GEORGE W. CLARK.
Beoley Vicarage, Redditch, Worcestershire.
[We sympathise strongly with the spirit of our correspondent's letter, but we cannot feel sure that general Prayer-book revision in existing circumstances might not have an effect exactly opposite to that which he desires, and might not end in a narrowing, rather than a widening, of the Church. The late Master of Balliol once reminded Liberal Churchmen that "old chains gall less than new," and this truth is one well worth remembering. We must not forget that men so high- minded and so scrupulous as Jewett, Stanley, Maurice, Kingsley, and Colenso felt able to remain in the Church in spite of the technical and pedantic objections raised. to their Churchmanship. It must also be remembered that
the law gives the amplest protection to those who believe that they have a right to remain in the Church, even though their views seem liable to challenge for• want of orthodoxy. In the last-Published volume of Jowett's remains there is a most interesting and convincing letter addressed by the Master of Balliol to a young man who desired to become a clergyman, but doubted whether his views on certain points of doctrine would allow of his being ordained. The Master held, and we think rightly, that the desire for spiritual ministration and good works should not be defeated on points of doctrine necessarily doubtful and obscure.—En. Spectator.1
Previous page
