LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
PRAYER BOOK REVISION.
[To the Editor of the SrEeraTon.] Sia,—! have been hesitating as to who would be the most brave and trusty champion of the Church as a national institution to see that the nation is not disinherited in any way by the Prayer Book Revision, and I have finally fixed on you
I think you will agree with me that the nation has Inherited in the fabrics of her cathedrals and parish churches, In her Bible and her Book of Common Prayer (as well as in the wherewithal to support living agents), a quite priceless endowment for her spiritual culture. The " Life and Liberty " Movement, well meaning though it has been, has done much to denationalize the nation's spiritual inheritance and to divert it to the use of " the section of the nation at the moment professing conformity to the established liturgy."
I am quite sure that you, Sir, see clearly what danger there is lest the nation should cease to feel interest in, or responsi- bility for, the National Book of Common Prayer at this juncture. Of course, if you merely take your stand• as a militant Evangelical opposing militant Romanizers you only challenge battle on party lines. My point is that you should in season and out of season champion the Prayer Book as declaratory and illustrative of Christian worship as the nation has received it and desires to hand it on.
We are a law-abiding nation. We understand (as a nation) the liberty that depeudi on loyalty to law and order. The humility of the conformist, as he enters his parish church, gives him rest of soul. He lays aside self-will and argumentativeness • and accepts the established order: The non-conformist, on the other hand, claims that he cannot worship except with those who share his opinions. It is a wonderful rest to him to enter, when staying from home, a parish church or cathedral and to claim the privilege that tie has voluntarily neglected of really public worship, which is his right as an Englishman. The nation's love for its National Church is not dead, though in large sections of the community it is dormant owing to the disloyalty to the. Reformation which some of the Bishops have been coun- tenancing for two generations. If refusal to conform loyally to established order had been punished by suspepsion instead of imprisonment in Sir W. Harcourt's time, the course of our Church history would have been different.
May I suggest that you should organize a really strong movement of the laity in the National Assembly of the Church of England to protest against any narrowing of the appeal in the National Prayer Book in the (vain) attempt to satisfy that disloyal and self-satisfied group soi-disant " Anglo-Catholic."
So far from regretting the great Reformation Movement, Church and State (as a whole) are quite determined to move forward from it, not backward. At least half the nation has lost the habit of conformity, chiefly owing to the signs of crude superstition and sacerdotal " temple-worship " which have been creeping back into the services of the Church. Why not treat the non-conforming members of the National Church as His Majesty's Opposition, who may at any time claim a dominant voice in the establishing of our liturgical services ? Determine that this critical time of Prayer Book Revision shall eliminate confusions (like the sponsorial system in Baptism) and get rid of verbosities and anachronisms ; but unhesitatingly shut the door against any recrudescence of Pagan or Jewish temple worship (such as " Reservation "), which simply contradicts both the letter and spirit of Christ's teaching. May I count on your [We gladly publish Canon Daustini Cremer's letter, though it must be clearly understood that in doing so we cannot, for a variety of reasons, undertake to organize the move- ment which he suggests. We are, however, of course, strongly with him in his demand that the national position of the Church shall be maintained and that nothing shall be done to forfeit the rights of Nonconformists in the Church. Those rights in the Church as by law established must be maintained firmly and irrevocably. In law the Nonconformist is not banished from the Church, nor has he forfeited any of his rights therein—the right to attend the services of the Church, including the Communion Service, and all other rights. He is in fact what he is in name—merely a person who does not happen to conform to the services of the Church of England, but who at any moment and at his own choice can conform to its usages. The Church of England,
that is, the true Church of England as by law established, and• not the undefined and hypothetical Church of the Anglo- Catholics, is comprehensive in the highest degree, as Jeremy Taylor and the Latitudinarians expounded. No man who wishes to be comprehended can be driven out because of his interpretation of Christian doctrine. But though the Church is absolutely comprehensive as to doctrine, the comprehension had to be narrowed in the matter of public services, and a
sound via media was agreed upon in the final drawing up of the Book of Common Prayer and a set of services agreed upon in which the majority of Christians could participate. As long- as those services are maintained we would give a large latitude in additional services to the Anglo-Catholics, and to the Broad Churchmen, and to the Evangelicals, provided always that these additional services met with congregational support. We have not only no desire to drive the Anglo- Catholics from the Church, but, on the contrary, wish to include and comprehend them, no matter how much we may personally differ from their views. Indeed, there is almost' no limit to the comprehension which we would extend to• them, provided that they did not make their comprehension a ground for excluding others. The comprehended must' comprehend. The only negative comment that we must make on Canon Daustini Cremer's letter is with regard to his• remark about the " Life and Liberty " Movement. When that• Movement started we feared, as he apparently still does, that• its effect might be " to denationalize the nation's spiritual inheritance " and in some measure to deprive the Noncon- formists of their absolute and indefeasible rights in the nation's Church. We feel bound, and are also very glad, to say that our fears have turned out to be baseless. The " Life and Liberty " Movement has done nothing to narrow the Church or to disinherit the Nonconformists, while it has strengthened the lay element in the Church, which is all to the good. As long as the Movement keeps on its present excellent lines, as we feel sure it will, there is nothing to be feared from it, but a great deal to be gained.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
