THE PRAYER BOOK.

Otaki Mail, 4 January 1922, Page 4

THE PRAYER BOOK.

] NEED FOR REVISION. | BISHOP WELLDON'S CRITICISM. j London, November 7. i . Bishop Wellclgn, speaking at Nptting- ■ ham, appealed for a revision of the ' Book of Common Prayer. Excellent as ! the liturgy of the Church of England ' was, he said,ot had never been modified since 1662. It had remained immovable in a rapidly moving world of thought, and faith, and emotion, and conviction. He did not think that a Book of Common Prayer dating back j more than 250 years could be expected I to satisfy the present age. It assumed three facts, to which two were true on- . ly in relation to a small minority of the people, and the third was not true at all to-day. It assumed the small size of parishes, the ample leisure of : the people who lived in them, and their general ignorance of public affairs, j The Prayer Book, so far as it took for granted the personal acquaintance of 5 every clergyman with every one of his J .parishioners, hud become and re- '■ main impracticable in modern life, With regard to the Order for the Burial of the Dead, the only change he would make was the omission of the first of the two prayers after the actual interment, or if it remained, to modify the unnatural expression, "We give hearty thanks that it hath pleased Thee to deliver this our brother (or sister) out of the miseries of this sinful world," and to add a prayer for the soul of the departed, and also a prayer for the mourners. He pleaded also that the Church should provide some simpler prayers, 'alternative or subsidiary, to those in the present Book of Common Prayer, and should allow, under episcopal sanction, the inJ troduetion of extempore prayers in Dii vine worship. He could not refrain from throwing out the suggestion that a good deal of the language of the Book of Common Prayer sounded a little artificial upon the lips of worshippers to-day. PAINFULLY DISTRESSING- TO BRIDES. The preface'to the form for the solemnisation of matrimony was painful-;! ly distressing to many bridegrooms and . brides in the hours of the marriage., Whv should they be told that holy matrimony was "not to be taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly, or wantoriTy, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites like brute beasts that had no understanding." Our forefathers might have spoken so. They did indeed speak so, but who would speak so to-, day. It was simply the laws of his- ' torical perspective which excused sncli I language on such an occasion. He I hoped it would disappear from the rej vised Prayer Book. With.it might dis- ; appear perhaps another passage of the same kind. TOO MANY PRAYERS FOE KING. The Book of Common Prayer reflected some features of U society which I had -passed or was passing away. It J contained too many prayers for the j King, and those prayers were couched| Jat times, in such language as wholly| 'misrepresented the present relation of the King to his people. Whatever (tended to support the theory of the dij vine right, of Kings was, or ought to j-be, as alien from the mind of the Church as of the State. If there were ! too many, prayers for the King, there • were too few for the people. It was essential to pray for the wisdom, jus--1 tice, truth, and righteousness of the people. The speakers complained thatl . little or no account was taken in the i Prayer Book of Empire or of Christian 'mission. He further urged that the clergy should be careful riot to slur over j the prayers by rapid, unintelligible delivery. While it is generally agreed that some revision is urgently called for, there is considerable diversity of opinion as to the form the revision should take. HIGH AND LOW CHURCH. ' "Bishop Welldon has only expressed 'a personal opinion," said a prominent ! churchman, who may be taken to re- , present the orthodox view, in discusI sing the question, "and one which has i been expressed, in similar terms over and over again. It is a matter of opin- ' ion, but I think some of the 7th Cen- | tury language is a little coarse to our ' ears. At the same time, many elergy- ' men who welcome the opportunity which the occasion gives for inculcating the value of personal purity, would S not. dissent from the language at pre

sent in use. The revision of the PrayI er Book, which has been under consecration by a committee for the past 15 [years, has 'hung fire,'because of the difficulty of reconciling two opposite ' currents of opinion—the High and Low ' Church adherents. The committee is j now approaching the end of its ■ and a statement, indicating what is proposed to be' done, will be issued j shortly. Generally speaking, the revision will take the form of (1) the omis- ■ sion of certain words and phrases which are inapplicable in vthe 20th Century: I (2) the enrichment of the text by the j {addition here and there of words, ex-., Fplanatory or otherwise." j; MARRIAGE AND'BURIAL j: SERVICES. j - The Rev. R. A. Young, of St. Mat-.! ihe-v's. Westminister, who voiced the*' . High Chuch attitude, said he had no j j sympathy with attempts to modernise.* the Praver Book or to make Christian-1 ity popular. The Prayer Book needed . revision not to accommodate the views or the general public, to bring it more j into line with the Catholic Church throughout the world. As regards the Burial Service, it was certainly curious that although in it the surviving ['relatives give thanks for the departure i j of the late lamented, it contained no 1 prayer for the _ welfare of the dead. As for the marriage ceremony, "the' ~ sooner people who seek a Christian ! marriage understand that they are oouad by the t.Christian code of ethics

and morals the better," said Mr Young. "Many of those who seek the blessing of the Church on their marriage have no intention of abiding by the Christian moral standard. A marriage in church is respectable—that is ali. Per soually, in view of present-day bondi-, tions, I do not think one can be too plain spoken in regard to the object of marriage, and I do not think, the words of the Prayer Book are a bit too strong.''