An Anglo-Catholic on the New Prayer Book
The Prayer Book : What It is, and What it may be. By Sidney Dark. (Skeffington and Son, Ltd. 2s. 6(1.)
Tins little book, with its slightly ambiguous sub-title, presents Its with a summary of the salient features of the Alternative Services contained in the Deposited Book, as finally passed by the Convocations. The wording of this Deposited Book differs, in a few important particulars, from the Composite nook's rubrics ; it is as well to make this clear, for already sOrne slight confusion has occurred between the earlier form of February 7th, and the later draft of March 22nd. Mr. Dark rightly takes the latter as his text, and (we quote him), " I criticize from a definite point of view, and have estimated the proposed Alternatives as they affect that large party in the Chureh of England . . . which is generally e,-.11ed Anglo- Catholic." The advantage of ." constant consultation with men of learning and authority," and Mr. Dark's well-known position and work, make his pages something of a manifesto, and as such we propose to consider them.
The work, he tells us, had to be done hurriedly. That is plain from the misprints, " 1827," " St. Prita," " St. Lucien," " St. Evertius," on p. 29, " placct " for " place " on p. 45, and, we suppose, " affecting " instead of " effecting" in a quotation from the Church Times on p. 53. But the work has not been done so hurriedly as to prevent several serious issues being deliberately raised in the way of interpretation. Before we draw attention to these, let us make our own position plain. It is that, whatever Parliament may now decide, the approval of the Convocations has given the New Use suck sanction that it must inevitably possess unique authority in the minds of Churchmen. Thanks to its many additions and enrichments, expressed with rare liturgical grace, it is to be welcomed for its own sake ; and, whatever be the opinions as to the policy of Alternative Canons, the die is now cast. For the sake of order and of peace, the New Use must be furthered and encouraged by all legitimate means.
Now we do not think that Mr. Dark, any more than Evan. gelieals who follow Bishop Knox, is with us in this. But it is in no open opposition to the Book that we are bound to combat his summary. Rather, it is the perilous introduction of certain interpretations which, we feel sure, the Bishops never for a moment meant to make possible. For let us try to take a statesmanlike view of the Church of England at the present crisis. There arc parties and parties—why seek to blind our- selves to the fact ? A most delicate poise has been achieved by the acceptance of this Book as a synthesis, not a mere via media, on the part of many who, not by training and tradition seeing eye to eye, yet pray and work for the peace of Jerusalem. This condition of poise may well be stabilized into a real and lasting" peace of the Church." But on certain conditions. And they arc the conditions of our own warm approval and support of the New Use. For we cannot forget
the many who do not love change, the many who have yielded to the uttermost where conscience and convictions were concerned, so that the labour of twenty-five years might not be in vain, and the Church have to own itself a mere arena of warring parties. But they have yielded on the under- standing that finality in the declaration of doctrine and doctrinal use is now attained, and that a real enforcement of order will ensue.
What, then, do we find in Mr. Dark's book ? As reganm finality, he quotes the Bishop of Winchester as suggesting that the " Alternative need only be experimental, and that aftei five years the whole matter might be reconsi.lered " (how, and under what sanctions, we fail to understan(l). And lie. adds, " As a matter of fact, nothing is final, as what one generation creates, the next may destroy." With regard te order, he announces that " there will exist in the Chard' of England, not only two authorized Orders of Services, but an almost unlimited number . . . an endless variety." Yet it is in the matter of interpretation that his exposition is most dangerous.
He uses the term " the Mass " freely throughout ; this, of course, we are accustomed to, though how far the terni is endorsed by authority and by the English Church in general is quite another matter. He finds that the third Rubric, forbidding a Celebration "unless there be a convenient number to communicate with the Priest," will mean, "if it be enforced, that at the Sunday morning High Mass at least one communicant must be persuaded to fast until one o'clock," and that "time priest's private Masses will be illegal unless the server will fast and make his communion." The phrases employed, the facts revealed, seem to show an absolute gulf - between Anglo-Catholic practice and the Bishops' knowledge • and intentions. Again, if anything can be made clear by words, we should have thought that the new Rubrics authorising Reservation distinctly enjoin an Aumbry. Mr. Dark adds "or Tabernacle," writes of" Communion from the Tabernacle," and finally deduces that, "where tabernacles are already authorized, their use may be continued." It is not surprising, after this, to learn that the Bishops "cannot enforce their general ban on Devotions unless they boldly denounce Benediction and Exposition as idolatrous. And they cannot do this while publishing" the New Communion Office.
In the Commemoration of the Faithful Departed there is, we are assured, "an unmistakeable reference to purgatorial cleansing." Now we are not concerned to challenge the quite legitimate theological meaning which may underlie such a phrase ; our point is that the phrase itself has become entangled in the English mind with conceptions of Indulgences and Pardons, that it is perfectly plain that such conceptions are not to be uprooted, and that it is the height of unwisdom to advance expressions of this sort, we suppose of set purpose, as indicative of Anglo-Catholic thought.
We venture to plead for more than mere wisdom. We are certain that, to his own apprehension, Mr. Dark is making the best of a Use of which the Canon, Services and Rubrics do not in several particulars meet the ideals of his school of thought. And we grant that there are doubtful points, as in the Epiklesis, over which theologians may well differ yet. We wish, in fact, that an authorized Latin translation could be issued to throw light on at least one of these, the expression, "with Thy Holy and Life-giving Spirit." But this is not to the present purpose. The objections we have made to Mr. Dark's glosses are based on their partisan attempts to import ideas, doctrines and practices into the Alternative Use of which its compilers never conceived, nay, which they have endeavoured to counteract. If such interpretations were allowed to go unchallenged, the prospects of the New Book would be gravely compromised.
Previous page
