THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.

Shannon News, 10 January 1922, Page 4

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.

NEED FOR REVISION. ■BISHOP WELLDON’S CRITICISM. London, November 7. Bishop Welldon, speaking at Nottingham, appealed for a revision of the Book, of Common Prayer. Excellent as the liturgy of the Church of England vr; be said, it had nevep- been modified rinee 1002, It had ramuined immovable in a rapidly moving world of thought, and faith,'and emotion, and conviction. Ito ..did., not think that a Book (gi Common Prayer dating back more than 250 years could be expected, to satisfy the present age. It assumed throe facta, to which two wove true only in relation to »i .small minority of the people, and the third was not true at nil to-day. It. assumed the sinal size of parishes, the ample leisure of the mm pie who lived in thorn, and their . gone ml ignorance of public a hairs The Prayer Book, so far as it lock foi granted the personal acquaintance of overy clergyman with every one of his parishioners, had become aud must remain impracticable in modern liie. With regard tp tho Order for the Burial of the Dead, the only change hr would make was the omission of the first of the two prayers after thoriw tual intorment, or if it remained, to modify the unnatural expression, “l\i give hearty thanks that it hath pleas-, cd Thee to deliver this our brother (or sister) Onf of the miseries of this sin ful world/’ and to afid a prayer for tho soul of the departed, and also a prr.ver 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 introduction of extempore prayers in Divine worship. He, could not refrain from throwing out the suggestion that a good deal of language of the I Book of Common Prayer sounded a little artificial upon the'lips of worshippers to-dar. PAINFULLY DISTRESSING TO BRIDES. The preface to the form for the solemnisation of matrimony was painfully distressing to many bridegrooms and brides in the hours of the marriage. Why should they lie told that holy matrimony was “not to be taken in hand unadvisedly,' lightly, or wantonly, 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 today. It was simply the laws of his-' torical perspective -which' excused .such language on r-ueh an . dccasion. He hoped it would 1 disappear from the revised Prayer Book. "With it might disappear perhaps another passage of: the same kind.

1 TOO MANY PRAYERS FOR KING. The Book of Common Prayer reflected some features of a society which had passed or was passing away. It contained too many prayers for the King, and those prayers were at times in such language as wholly misrepresented the present relation of the King to .his people. Whatever tended to support the theory of the divino right, of Kings was, or ought to 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, justice, truth, and righteousness of the people. The speakers complained that little or* no account was taken in the Prayer Book of Empire or of Christian mission. lie further urged that the clergy should be careful not to slur over 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, f> said a promineni- ’ churchman, who may be taken to represent the orthodox view, in discussing the question, *‘und one which has been expressed in similar terms over and over again. It is a matter of opinion. but I think some of the 7th Century language is a little coarse to our ears. At the same time, many clergymen who welcome the opportunity which the occasion gives for inculcating the value of personal purity, would not dissent from the language at. present in use. The revision of the Prayer Book, which-has been under consideration by a committee for the past lo voars, lifts Cuing fire.’ because of the difficulty of reconciling two opposite currents of opinion—the High and .Low Church adherents. The committee is now approaching the end of its labours, and a statement, indicating what is proposed to be done, will be issued shortly. 'Generally speaking, the revision wiH'take the form of (1) the omis- \ *

sion of certain words aud phrases which are inapplicable in the 20th Century; (2) the enrichment of tho text by the addition here and thcro of words, explanatory or otherwise?.’ ’ MARRIAGE AND BURIAL SERVICES.

The Rev. R. A. Young, of SL Matthew’a. Westminister, who voiced tho High Ohuch attitude, said he had no sympathy with attempts to modernise the Prayer Book or to make Christian-; ity'popular. The Prayer Book needed revision not to accommodate the views of the general public,'-to bring it morr into line with the Catholic Church throughout the wofld. As regards the Burin! Service, it was certainly curious that although in it the surviving relatives givo thanks for the departure of tho late lamer.ted, it, contained no prayer for the welfare of the dead. As for tho marriage ceremony, “the sooner people who seek a Christian mniringo understand that they' are ’bound by the 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 all. Personally, in view of present-day conditions, I do not think one cun be too plain spoken in regard to the object of marriage, and I do not think the words of the Prayer Book are u bit too •hong. ”