NEW PRAYER BOOK.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19162, 19 November 1927, Page 20

NEW PRAYER BOOK.

DISCIPLINE BY THE BISHOPS. STATEMENT BY THE REV. H. D. A. MAJOR. (rROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) LONDON, September 30. The Rev. Henry D. A. Major, previously of Auckland and now principal of Ripon Hall, Oxford, enters into the controversy on the new Prayer Book. "There are two main points," he writes in a letter to "The Times," "on which wc desire precise and convincing statements from those in a position to make them. "What will the liturgical powers of the Episcopate be under the provisions of the Deposited Book or the proposed Prayer Book measure? We know that the English Bishops in pre-Rcformation times exercised large liturgical powers. This jus liturgicum was, for very good reasons, greatly restricted at the Reformation, and has remained restricted ever since. Since then the Bishop's liturgical authority has been confined to providing that the Prayer Book services and none other arc duly perfcrmed by his clergy in their official ministrations in his diocese. He was further empowered in cases of doubt to interpret the Prayer Book rubrics, subject always to the right of appeal to the Archbishop, and if needs be from the Archbishop to the Crown. Is this liturgical power of the Episcopate increased under the provisions of the Prayer Book measure, or is it restricted exactly as it has been ever since the Reformation? This, it will be clear, is a most important question and demands a decisive and definite answer. Enforcing Liturgical Obedience. "The second point concerns the powers of the Episcopate to enforce liturgical obedience from the clergy. To secure liturgical loyalty and order was one of the main purposes of Prayer Book revision. The Bishops complained that they were powerless to secure it for at least two reasons: (a) the prosecution of recalcitrant clergy was a very prolonged, troublesome, and expensive business; (b) the penalty inflicted on the recalcitrant clergyman—namely, imprisonment for contempt of Court—was quite wrong. Suspension and deprivation were what was needed. Have the Episcopate taken steps to secure for themselves powers by which in simple", inexpensive fashion they can enforce liturgical obedience? This is again a most important question, and we need a clear -and convincing answer to it. It is vain to tell us that the Episcopate unitedly and severally are pledged to enforce liturgical obedience; it is also vain to tell us that they look to moral suasion, public opinion, and a new sense of loyalty and order in the clergy to enable them to secure liturgical obedience. Unless they have got a short and simple legal method of dealing with liturgical law-breakers these things cannqt secure liturgical order. And the reason is this: a powerful section of the clergy are convinced on principle that they owe liturgical obedience not to the local Episcopate but .to Catholic practice. "Our authorities (ecclesiastical and legal) would do much to strengthen the hands of those who seek the authorisation of the Deposited Book if they would give us precise and _ convincing information on these two points- May we not Irok to those who alone can speak with authority to do so? Challenge of a New Age. In the course of a leading articleon "Parliament and Prayer Book," "The Times" says:— '•'The Bishops declare that no change of doctrine is intended, and competent divines in non-episcopal churches avow that in so far as a change has been made it is in a non-Roman direction.' That the new book gives expression to a nobler conception of God and matches the experience of religious men to-day more closely than the book of 1662 is apparent. That it offers a richer store of the ancient prayers of the Church in the East as well as in the West is acknowledged. What in these alterations and enrichments is in conflict with the doctrine of the Church of England? The permission to reserve the Sacrament for the sick has as its sole purpose the desire to help men and women at the time of their great need The fear that permission to reserve the consecrated elements for any purpose may lead to superstition may be natural; but the regulations laid down by the Bishops are explicit enough, and their purpose is plain. The anxiety expressed again by the Executive Committee of the National Free Church Council, as to the Bishops' ability to secure obedience to, their regulations admittedly has its justification, but to refuse assent to tho new book on that account would be to make both Parliament and the Church the victims ot fear. Does anyone believe that its rejection by Parliament would be in the interests of the religious life of the country ? Certainly Protestantism could gain nothing by such an affront to the Church of England. Faced by the challenge of a new age, troubled by the diverse ideals and methods of its members, who, though differing among themselves', are still loyal in their love to it, the Church of England after twenty years' anxious discussions has accepted this book as the expression of its corporate life and worship, in the belief that it will serve to secure order and quicken the spiritual life of its members. What justification is there for asking Parliament to reject so sane an endeavour or to destrov so fair a hope?"