[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR"]
Sin,—Every reader of the Spectator believes that if the editor "is a beast, he is a just beast," and will not allow the old Head-Master of Rugby to be credited with the adulation of the prayer sanctioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Your suggestion of " hurry " in the choice of this prayer is doubtless correct ; for where, under the pressure of the hour, should a Bishop turn for a model of prayer but to his Prayer- book, and there find the identical petitions which have stirred the soul of Mr. Fox ? I quite agree with you in disliking the prayer, and when it was suggested to me for use in our church on the Sunday after the Queen's death, I joined the law-breakers and omitted many of the phrases,—sanctioned, as they have been, and imposed by Parliament upon the Church for centuries. The prayer is in perfect keeping with the spirit that prevailed in the darkness that was illu- mined by " that bright, occidental star, Queen Elizabeth." We hope it may never in our day be dragged from its obscurity again. But, in the meanwhile, it is curious to note how the s.seva indignatio which formerly found expression in satirical verse now has its safety-valve in letters to the editor. I do not defend the expression our "sinful passions," but what makes us accuse men of doing what they have never done, and assert that a book never " condescends to such a tone of abject submission" when it has contained the words in question for years? Is it our " most up-to-date " system of rash assertion F—I am, Sir, &c., N. E.
[We deeply regret to have given publicity to Mr. Fox's groundless attack on the Archbishop. To the maxim " Verify your references " must, we suppose, in the case of an editor, be added " Verify the references of your correspondents." We can only plead " pure ignorance," but may note that a clerical friend who has been nearly fifty years in Orders admits that he, like us, failed to notice the origin of the prayer. On the merits our opinion is quite unshaken. The prayer is not fitly worded for use by a free people. One correspondent reminds us that it belongs to the Stuart epoch, and was used at the accession of James II. It certainly breathes the spirit of the servile jure divino Royalists, and suits with the notions of the upholders of passive obedience. If nothing short of an Act of Parliament can remove it from the Prayer-book, such legislation would be highly commendable.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
