More Books • of the Week
(Continued from page 830.) In The Prayer-Book Crisis (Putnamns, 2s. 6d.) Sir William Joynson-Hicks presents his case against the revised Prayer Book with force and dignity. It reads like the speech of a barrister speaking to a brief. History is invoked where it will come in•useful, and aspects of the matter that seem to tell the other way are quickly passed by. The main point made is that the new Prayer Book is only concerned to promote Roman Catholic doctrines and practices, and to legalize what the Royal Commission of 1906 declared to be either illegal or inexpedient. Some of the points that the author overlooks are the permission to make use of the Athanasian Creed volun- tary, the removal of the assertion that a child is born in sin in the baptismal service, and the omission of Old Testament references—all changes much disliked by many Anglo- Catholics. He quotes Father Woodlock to show that the Anglo-Catholics ought to like the new Communion Service ; he forgets to say that large numbers of them are violently opposed to it. He finds that the latest regulations regarding the Reserved Sacrament are an improvement. But when he is referring to the debate on the 1928 Prayer Book Measure in the Church Assembly, he points out—as an argument against the book—that the majority fell by 141 ; he quite forgets to say that this was wholly due to the withdrawal of Anglo- Catholic support. He treats historical matters cavalierly, as when, for example, he writes in regard to the Ornaments Rubric that the claim that it " countenances nearly all that the ritualists have introduced . . . has never been able to face any serious examination successfully either at the bar of history or of law." He seems never to have heard of the important report of the sub-committee of the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury (No. 416) published twenty years ago, which contains the judgment, in entirely the contrary sense, of such scholars as Dr. John Wordsworth, Dr. G. F. Browne, Dr. E. C. S. Gibson and Dr. F. H. Chase. But a broader question emerges. Sir William regards the whole High Church movement since the days of Keble and Pusey as a movement towards Rome of increasing volume and velocity ; in his view it has no plade in the Church of England. He wants the House of Commons to reject the book because he believes that its acceptance would set the seal of national recognition on much that that movement has done and desires. He nowhere faces, or even mentions, the point that the extreme members of that movement are as opposed to the new book as he is. He nowhere shows how the rejection of the new book will hinder the progress of a movement which, on his own showing, has flourished under the old book. He denounces the government of bishops as useless, but is without any alternative suggestion.
Previous page
