THE SIXTH REVISION OF THE PRAYER BOOK
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The revision of our magnificent Prayer Book is a difficult and delicate matter, which requires much learning and a philosophical mind to deal with justly. After twenty years of labour, it has been very well done, without the removal of any part of the old Book; and has been approved by 517 votes to 133 in the National Church Assembly. Avoid- ing all controversy, may I bring before your readers a few of the main facts ?
The Reformation made the Service Book a living and growing thing, printed for the use of all and in the language of the people. Therefore it had to be revised as time went on, to keep _ it from becoming static instead of dynamic— in other words, to prevent it getting out of date. During the last two centuries a grave danger has grown up of this dynamic character being lost—the danger of the present Prayer Book (of 1662) becoming stereotyped like those of the Latin, Greek, and Russian Churches. • This danger has mercifully been averted by the present revision.
Such revision is not a new principle. It is of the very essence of the Reformation. The present Prayer Book (of 1662) is not the first English Book of Common Prayer, but the fifth. The first was in 1549: there was a second book in the same reign of Edward-- VI., another revision in that of Queen Elizabeth, a fourth in that of James I. (when England got also the Authorized Version of the Bible), and the last at the Restoration in 1662. This last revised Book is the one we still use, and another revision is long overdue. It is worth remembering that each former revision was preceded by acute controversy. This is natural, because extremists of all kinds take advantage of the occasion to push for all they can get. The position is described in admirable prose—with an under- current of grave humour—in "The Preface" which stands at the head of our present Prayer Books. The words show that conditions were much the same in 1662 as in 1928; as, for instance :—
" Yet so, as that the main Body and Essentials of it (as well in the chiefest materials, as in the frame and order thereof) have still continued the same unto this day, and do yet stand firm and unshaken, notwithstanding, all the vain attempts and impetuous assaults made against it, by such men as are given to change, and have always discovered a greater regard to their own private fancies and interests, than to that duty they owe to the publick." "In which review we have endeavoured to observe the like Moderation, as we find to have been used in the like case in former times. And therefore of the sundry Alterations proposed unto Us, .,we have rejected all such as were either of dangerous consequence (as secretly striking . at some established Doctrine, or laudable Practice of the Church of England, or indeed of the whole Citholick Church of Christ) or else of no consequence at all, but utterly frivolous and vain." , "Our general aim therefore in this undertaking was, not to gratify this or that party in any their unreasonable derliands ; but to do that, which to our best understandings we conceived might most tend to the preservation of Peace and Unity in the Church ; the procuring of Reverence, and exciting of Piety and Devotion in the publick Worship of God; and the cutting off Occasion from them that 'seek occasion of CAVil or quarrel againiit the Liturgy
of the Church2.! . . . .
"And having thus. endeavoured to discharge our duties in this weighty affair, as in the sight of God, and to approve our sincerity therein (so far as lay in ifs) to the consciences ofall men ; although we know it impossible (in such variety of apprehensions; humours and interests, as are in ,the world) to please all-; nor can expect that men of factioub, peevish, and perverse spirits should be satisfied with any thing that Oast be done in this kind by any 'other than theraselves'; yet we have good hope, that what is here presented, and bath been by the Convocations of both Provinces with great diligence examined and approved, will be also ..well accepted and approved by all sober, peaceable, and truly conscientious sons of the Church of England.'
This present Prayer Book of ours came before the House of Commons on April 16th, 1662—two hundred and sixty-six
years ago, next Monday. It was then decided by the narrow majority of 96 to 90 that the new Prayer Book as revised by Convocation and accepted by the House of Lords, should not be debated. And the Book was accepted.
Possibly it might have been a good thing if the House Of
Commons in 1927 had followed the example of its predecessor of 1662. The lack of experts to explain the measure, owing to the absence Of bishops and clergy alike from the Lower House (though their place was courageously filled in the best spirit by a Baptist minister, Mr. Dunnico), was a grave weak- ness in the debate ; as was the fact that the House had to decide in seven hours a highly complex matter which had occupied historians, theologians, philosophers, and liturgical scholars for twenty years.
But the enornious interest taken by Parliament and the public was an encouraging sign. The earnestness of the debate was admirable, and so was the patience and restraint
shown afterwards by the Bishops. I cannot help feeling hopeful about the next debate when I remember the genius of our nation for wise and fair-minded compromise.—I am, University of London, King's College.
Previous page
