The Prayer Book
THE extremists have prevailed. Their tactics were not co-ordinated, but in effect no two bodies could have egged on one another more successfully to defeat the moderate counsels. of those in authority. Let us not be supposed to doubt for a moment the earnest piety of " black " Protestants or advanced Anglo-Catholics when we deplore the narrowness of their vision and the trucu- lence or insubOrdination of their actions. It was reason- able that moderate and intelligent Churchmen should wish that the text-book of their oral worship, a compila- tion " devised by the wit of man," frequently changed in bitter controversy and in some respects by order of secular powers before 1662, should be examined and undergo modifications after serving the Church for two and half centuries. How else could a Church avoid a charge of stagnation in that sphere at any rate ? With the translators of the Authorized Version the compilers of the Prayer. Book may claim a literary triumph unequalled in history through the sustained affection of the English- speaking races for their work. A scholar might see in last week's history the abiding influence of such masters of English as Cosin, Gunning, Sanderson, and their fellows. Yet these men were innovators and Bishop Sanderson himself wrote the Preface which has never been surpassed as a justification of such reasonable change as the representatives of the Church have proposed in our time.
But moderate opinion was not to prevail. The Evan- gelical leaders were immovable upon the recognition of Reservation. We regret this on behalf of the sick only. To avoid strife we would ask great sacrifices of hard- woiked clergy, but do the Protestant spokesmen in Parliament realize the position of a clergyman in a populous parish who is called upon to give, say, their Easter Communion to scores of parishioners who cannot get to church ? It seems incredible that they could really refuse, if directly asked, to approye of the Rubric of 1549 attached to the service of the Communion of the Sick. The restoration of that Rubric which carries on the tradition of the primitiye Church in bringing the absent into a share of the service should be a basis of agreement. The Anglo-Catholic view was not conspicuous in Parliament, but we believe that the provocative mani- festo issued by the English Church Union just before the debate did more than anything else to stiffen the House in support of the Evangelicals. It sounds illogical that the extreme Anglo-Catholic opposition to the measure should help the Evangelical opposition, but it produced a strong, * natural instinct to support the Protestant side. The Protestants readily took advantage of what was in effect co-operation, and thus by a tortuous path shared the responsibility for increasing the difficulty of enforcing that discipline which they professed anxiety to promote. It is of no use to rail against Pa lament. The House of Commons was within its rights, and we do not believe that any member voted against his conscience. The history of the last twenty years, the Commissions, the Letters of Business, the Enabling Act, the proceedings of Bishops, Clergy and Laity on the lines laid down by Parliainent and so on, down to the Report of the Ecclesi7 astical Committee a few days ago, might have justified a formal acceptance of the measure last DeCember without debate. That would hive been an -easy course, but we should have dreaded lest, it was dictated by apathy. There Would have lain the real ,thseat Dis- establishment. HOW could we detend Establishment against a facile cry that this collection of Jews, Turks, Infidels and Heretics, with Christians from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, can not be bothered to discuss the Church of England ? Five-sixths of the House of Commons have proved themselves to be not apathetic about the Church, with not a few conscientious abstainers. That is one great encouragement that we draw from the debate, although we regret the result of the voting. There are yet other causes to hearten the most disappointed. The nation, Anglican and Nonconformist, has shown itself rather ignorant perhaps but concerned with the Church and its services and most willing to study these religious questions. Let the Church seize an opportunity here. And on the whole the tone of the debate has been high. Has the old English cry of " No Popery " ever been raised so loudly or sustained so long without more bitterness ? The friendly respect shown by the pro- tagonists for each other has never failed. Christian tolerance has indeed advanced since the last Prayer Book revisions.
Lord Selborne wrote a precipitate letter to the Times, practically asking for Disestablishment as the next im- mediate step, but was answered by an equally devoted Churchman, Major Birchall, whose views we greatly prefer. Disestablishment is an aim of the insubordinate Angio-Catholics who see no merit in a comprehensive National Church. We would ask them where they draw a certain line between the dictates of conscience and personal opinion, a line for ever clouded by the fogs of self-deception. They laud the loyalty of his priests to the Holy Father. Where is their loyalty to the Primate of their Church ? We should deplore Disestablishment for the sake of the Church which would be split into earnest sects among whom strife would be inevitable. Our moderate Erastianism (if it be so called) sees in the Church not only a spiritual body but also subordinately a huge organization of human beings which needs a bal- ancing control on its human side, its business side, its legal side, in its contact with worldly matters at all points where a National Church differs from a group of mystics or hermits. The reports of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament have seemed to us admirable illustrations of sound and moderate Erastianism. But the Church is not the only partner, nor must she be .'a selfish partner in the Establishment. It is for the sake of the State even more than for the Church that we hold to the Establishment. Look around the world and study the secular States. No religious man will compare them with England without thankfulness for our present condition, and a sorrowful repulsion from those States which make no outward recognition of any Power above themselves.
Previous page
