And notice:first, the Church; then, the Bible—first the Society, then its Publications; first the Writers; then the Writings; first the Messenger, then the Message; first the Agent, then the Agencies.
This is the Divine Order. Preaching, not writing, was the Apostolic method. Oral teaching preceded the written word. Then, later on, lest this oral teaching should be lost, forgotten, or misquoted, it was gradually committed tomanuscript, and its "good tidings" published in writing for the Church's children.
It is very important to remember this order ("first the Church, and then the Bible"), because thousands of souls lived and died long before the New Testament was written. The earliest books of the New Testament (the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians) were not written for twenty years after the Day of Pentecost; the earliest Gospel (St. Mark) was not committed to writing before A.D. 65. And, even if the Bible had been written earlier, few could have read it; and even then few could have possessed it. It was a rare book, wholly out of reach of "the people". The first Bible was not printed until 1445.
But, thank God, the Church, which wrote the book, could teach without the book; and we may be sure that no single soul was lost for the want of what it could not possess. "Without a Bible," says St. Irenaeus, writing in the second century, "they received, from the Church, teaching sufficient for the salvation of their souls."
Then, again, the Church alone could decide which books were, and which books were not, "the Scriptures". How else could we know? The society authorizes its publications. It affixesits seal only to the books it has issued. So with the Divine Society, the Church. It affixes its seal to the books we now know as the Bible. How do we know, for instance, that St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians are part of the Bible, and that St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians is not part of the Bible? Because, and only because, the Church has so decided. If we had lived in the days of persecution it would have made a considerable difference to us whether this or that sacred book was included in the Christian Scriptures. Thus, when the early Christians were ordered by Diocletian to "bring out their books," and either burn them or die for them, it became a matter of vital importance to know which these books were. Who could tell them this? Only the society which published them, only the Church.
Again, the Church, and only the Church, is the finalinterpreterof the Bible—it is the "witnessand keeper of holy writ".[1] The society which publishes a statement must be the final interpreter of that statement. Probably no book ever published needed authoritative interpretation more than the Bible. We call it "the book ofpeace"; it is in reality a book of war. No book has spread more discord than the Bible. Every sect in the world quotes the Bible as the source and justification of its existence. Men, equally learned, devout, prayerful, deduce the most opposite conclusions from the very same words. Two men, we will say, honestly and earnestly seek to know what the Bible teaches about Baptismal Regeneration, or the Blessed Sacrament. They have exactly the samedatato go upon, precisely the same statements before them; yet, from the same premises, they will deduce a diametrically opposite conclusion. Hence, party wrangling, and sectarian bitterness; hence, the confusion of tongues, which has changed our Zion into Babel. Indeed, as we all know, so sharp was the contention in the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, that translations of the Bible were actually forbidden by two local Church Councils.[2]
An interpreter is as much needed now, as in the days of the Ethiopian Eunuch. "Howreadest thou?"[3] is a question second only inimportance (if, indeed, it is second) to "Whatis written?" Upon "how" we read, will very largely depend the value of "what" we read. We go, then, to the Church to interpret the book which it gave us.
And notice—to say this, is not to disparage the Scriptures because we exalt the Church. It is to put both Church and Scriptures in their true, historical place. We do not disparage a publication because we exalt the society which issues that publication; rather, we honour the one by exalting the other. Thus, when we say that the creeds interpret the Bible, we do not disparage the Bible because we exalt the creeds, any more than we disparage the Church when we say that the Bible proves the creeds. Take the "Virgin Birth," as a single illustration. Are we to believe that our Blessed Lord was "born of the Virgin Mary"? Church and Bible give the same reply. The Church taught it before the Bible recorded it; the Bible recorded it because the Church taught it. For us, as Churchmen, the matter is settled once and for all by the Apostles' Creed. Here we have the official and authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church, as proved by the New Testament; "born of the Virgin Mary".
It is this Bible, the Church's Manual of doctrine and devotion, that we are to think of.
We will think of it under five familiar names:—
(I) The Scriptures.(II) The Bible.(III) The Word of God.(IV) Inspiration.(V) Revelation.
This was the earliest name by which the Bible was known—the name by which it was called for the first 1200 years in Church history. It was so named by the Latin Fathers in the fifth century, and it means, of course, "The Writings". These "Scriptures," or "Writings," were not, as the plural form of the word reminds us, one book, but many books, afterwards gathered into one book.[4] They were a library of separate books, called by St. Irenaeus "The Divine Library"—perhapsthe best and most descriptive name the Bible ever had. This library consists of sixty-six books, not all written at one period, or for one age, but extending over a period of, at least, 1200 years.
The original copies of these writings, or Scriptures, have not yet been discovered, though we have extant three very early copies of them, written "by hand". These are known as theAlexandrinemanuscript (or Codex), theVaticanmanuscript, and theSinaiticmanuscript. Where may they be found?
One, dating from the latter part of the fourth, or the early part of the fifth century, is in the British Museum—a priceless treasure, which comparatively few have taken the trouble to go and see. It is known as theAlexandrinemanuscript, and was presented to Charles I by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1628. It consists of four volumes, three of which contain nearly all the Old Testament, and parts of the Apocrypha, and a fourth, containing a large part of the New Testament.
A second manuscript, dating from the fourth century, is in the Vatican Library in Rome, and is, therefore, known as theVaticanmanuscript.It contains nearly the whole of both the Old and New Testaments, and of the Apocrypha.
The third manuscript, dating also from the fourth century, is in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. It was discovered by Prof. Tischendorf, in 1859, in a basket of fragments, destined to be burned, in the Monastery of St. Catherine onMount Sinai; hence it is called theSinaiticmanuscript.
These are the three earliest MS. collections of the Bible as yet discovered—and strange stories, of mystic beauty, and, it may be, of weird persecution, they could tell if only they could speak. Other manuscripts we have—copies of ancient manuscripts; versions of ancient manuscripts; translations of ancient manuscripts; texts of ancient manuscripts. So they come down the ages, till, at last, we reach our own "Revised Version," probably the most accurate and trustworthy version in existence.
"The Scriptures," or "the Writings," then, consist of many books, and in this very fact, they tell their own tale—the tale of diversity in unity. They were written for divers ages, divers intellects, divers nations, in divers languages, by divers authors or compilers. They were not allwritten for the twentieth century, though they all have a message for the twentieth century; they were not all written for the English people, though they all have a truth for the English people; they were not all written by the same hand, though the same Hand guided all the writers. In, and through the Scriptures, "God, at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets"; and in, and through them, He "hath in these last days, spoken unto us by His Son".[5]
Time passes, and these sixty-six books, written at different periods, in different styles, in different dialects, are gathered together in one book, called "The Book," or The Bible.
It was so named by the Greek Fathers in the thirteenth century, hundreds of years after its earliest name, "The Scriptures". The word is derived from the GreekBiblia, books, and originally meant the Egyptianpapyrus(orpaper-reed) from which paper was first made. A "bible," then, was originally any book made of paper, andthe name was afterwards given to the "Book of Books"—"The Bible".
Here, then, are sixty-six volumes bound together in one volume. This, too, tells its own tale. If "The Scriptures," or scattered writings, speak of diversity in unity, "The Bible," or collected writings, tells of unity in diversity. Each separate book has its own most sacred message, while one central, unifying thought dominates all—the Incarnate Son of God. The Old Testament writings foretell His coming ("They are they which testify of me"[6]); the New Testament writings proclaim His Advent ("The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us"[7]). Thus, all the books become one book.
Many the tongues,The theme is one,The glory of the Eternal Son.
Take away that central Figure, and both the background of the Old Testament and the foreground of the New become dull, sunless, colourless. Reinstate that central Figure, and book after book, roll after roll, volume after volume, becomes bright, sunny, intelligible.
This it is which separates the Bible from every other book; this it is which makes it the worthiestof all books for reverent, prayerful criticism; this it is which makes its words nuggets of gold, "dearer unto me than thousands of gold and silver"; this it is which gives the Bible its third name:—
In what sense is the Bible the Word of God? Almost any answer must hurt some, and almost every answer must disappoint others. For a time, the "old school" and the "new school" must bear with each other, neither counting itself "to have apprehended," but each pressing forward to attain results.
In speaking of the Bible, we commonly meet with two extreme classes: on the one hand, there are those who hold that every syllable is the Word of God, and therefore outside all criticism; on the other hand, there are those who hold that the Bible is no more the "Word of God" than any other book, and may, therefore, be handled and criticized just like any other book. In between these two extremes, there is another class, which holds that the Bible is the Word of God, and that just because it is the Word of God, it is—above all other books—an "open Bible," abook open for sacred study, devout debate, reverent criticism.
The first class holds that every one of the 925,877 words in the Bible is as literally "God's Word" as if no human hand had written it. Thus, Dean Burgon writes: "Every word of it, every chapter of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High.... Every syllable is just what it would have been ...without the intervention of any human agent." This, of course, creates hopeless difficulties. For instance, in the Authorized Version (to take but one single version) there are obvious insertions, such as St. Mark xvi. 9-20, which may not be "the Word of God" at all. There are obvious misquotations, such as in the seven variations in St. Stephen's speech.[8] There are obvious doubts about accurate translations, where the marginal notes give alternative readings. There are obvious mistakes by modern printers, as there were by ancient copyists.[9] There are three versions of the Psalms now in use (the Authorized Version, the Revised Version, and the Prayer-Book Version), all differingfrom each other. The translators of the Authorized Version wish, they say, to make "one more exacttranslation of the Scriptures," and one-third of the translators of the Revised Version constantly differs from the other two-thirds. Here, clearly, the human agent is at work.
Then there are those who, perhaps from a natural reaction, deny that any word in the Bible is in any special sense "the Word of God". But this, too, creates hopeless difficulties, and satisfies no serious student. If the Bible is, in no special sense, the Word of God, there is absolutely no satisfactory explanation of its unique position and career in history. It is a great fact which remains unaccounted for. Moreover, no evidence exists which suggests that the writers who call it the Word of God were either frauds or dupes, or that they were deceived when they proclaimed "Godspake these words, and said"; or, "Thus saiththe Lord"; or, "The Revelation ofJesus Christby His servant John". There must, upon the lowest ground, be a sense in which it may be truly said that the Bible is the Word of God as no other book is. This we may consider under the fourth name, Inspiration.
What do we mean by the word? The Church has nowhere defined it, and we are not tied to any one interpretation; but the Bible itself suggests a possible meaning.
It is the Word of God heard through the voice of man.
Think of some such expression as: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave by His angel unto His servant John" (Rev. i. 1). Here two facts are stated: (1) The revelation is from Jesus Christ; (2) It was given through a human agent—John. God gave it; man conveyed it. Again: "Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. i. 21). The Holy Ghost moved them; they spake: the speakers, not the writings, were inspired. Again: "As He spake by the mouth of His holy Prophets"[10] (St. Luke i. 70). He spake; but He spake through the mouthpiece of the human agent. And once again, as the Collect for the second Sunday in Advent tells us, it is the "blessed Lord Who (hast) caused all Holy Scriptures to be written". God was the initiatingcause of writings: man was the inspired writer. Each messenger received the message, but each passed it on in his own way. It was with each as it was with Haggai: "Then spake Haggai, theLord's messengerin theLord's message" (Haggai i. 13). The message was Divine, though the messenger was human; the message was infallible, though the messenger was fallible; the vessel was earthen, though the contents were golden. In this unique sense, the Bible is indeed "the Word of God". It is the "Word of God," delivered in the words of man.
Thus, as Dr. Sanday puts it, the Bible is, at once, both human and Divine; not less Divine because thoroughly human, and not less human because essentially Divine. We need not necessarily parcel it out and say such and such things are human and such and such things are Divine, though there are instances in which we may do this, and the Scriptures would justify us in so doing. There will be much in Holy Scripture which is at once very human and very Divine. The two aspects are not incompatible with each other; rather, they are intimately united. Look at them in one light, and you will see the one; look at them in another light, and you will seethe other. But the substance of that which gives these different impressions is one and the same.
It is from no irreverence, but because of the over-towering importance of the book, that the best scholars (devout, prayerful scholars, as well as the reverse) have given the best of their lives to the study of its text, its history, its writers, its contents.
Their criticism has, as we know, been classified under three heads:—
(1) Lower, ortextualcriticism.(2) Higher, ordocumentarycriticism.(3) Historical, orcontemporarycriticism.
Lower criticismseeks for, and studies, the best and purest text obtainable—the text nearest to the original, from which fresh translations can be made.
Higher criticismseeks for, and studies, documents: it deals with the authenticity of different books, the date at which they were written, the names of their authors.
Historical criticismseeks for, and studies,datarelating to the history of the times when each book was written, and the light thrown upon that history by recent discoveries (e.g. in archaeology, and excavations in Palestine).
No very definite results have yet been reached on many points of criticism, and, on many of them, scholars have had again and again to reverse their conclusions. We are still onlyen route, and are learning more and more to possess our souls in patience, and to wait awhile for anything in the nature of finality. Meanwhile, the living substance is unshaken and untouched.
This living substance, entrusted to living men, is the revelation of God to man, and leads us to our last selected name—Revelation.
The Bible is the revelation of the Blessed Trinity to man—of God the Son, by God the Father, through God the Holy Ghost. It is the revelation of God to man, and in man. First, it reveals Godtoman—"pleased as Man with man to dwell". In it, God stands in front of man, and, through the God-Man, shows him what God is like. It reveals God as the "pattern on the mount," for man to copy on the plain. But it does more than this: it reveals Godinman. So St. Paul writes: "It pleased God to reveal His Soninme";[11] and again, "God hathshinedinour hearts".[12] The Bible reveals to me that Jesus, the revelation of the Father, through the Eternal Spirit, dwells in me, as well as outside me. He is a power within, as well as a pattern without.
Yet again. The Bible reveals God's purposeforman. There is no such other revelation of that purpose. You cannot deduce God's purpose either in man's life, or in his twentieth century environment. It can only be fully deduced from Revelation. Man may seem temporarily to defeat God's purpose, to postpone its accomplishment; but Revelation (and nothing but Revelation) proclaims that "the Word of the Lord standeth sure," and that God's primal purpose is God's final purpose.
Lastly, the Bible is the revelation of a future state. Things begun here will be completed there. As such, it gives man a hope on which to build a belief, and a belief on which to found a hope.
We must believe,For still we hopeThat, in a world of larger scope,What here is faithfully begunWill be completed, not undone.
Thus, we may, perhaps, find in these five familiar names, brief headings for leisure thoughts. In them, we see theScriptures, or many books, gathered together into one book calledThe Book. In this book, we see theWord of Goddelivered to men by men, and these meninspiredby God to be the livingmediaof theRevelationof God to man.
Our next selected book will be the Church of England Prayer Book.
[1] Art. XX.
[2] The Council of Toulouse, 1229, and the Council of Trent, 1545-63.
[3] St. Luke x. 26,
[4] The first division of the Bible intochaptersis attributed either to Cardinal Hugo, for convenience in compiling his Concordance of the Vulgate (about 1240), or to Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury (about 1228), to facilitate quotation.Verseswere introduced into the New Testament by Robert Stephens, 1551. It is said that he did the work on a journey from Paris to Lyons.
[5] Heb. i. 1, 2.
[6] St. John v. 39.
[7] St. John i. 14.
[8] Acts VII.
[9] The University Presses offer £1 1s. for every such hitherto undiscovered inaccuracy brought to their notice.
[10] This is the Church's description of Inspiration in the Nicene Creed: "Who spake by the Prophets".
[11] Gal. i. 15, 16.
[12] 2 Cor. iv. 6.
We now come to the second of the Church's books selected for discussion—the Prayer Book.
The English Prayer Book is the local presentment of the Church's Liturgies for the English people.
Each part of the Church has its own Liturgy, differing in detail, language, form; but all teaching the same faith, all based upon the same rule laid down by Gregory for Augustine's guidance.[1] Thus, there is the Liturgy of St. James, the Liturgy of St. John,[2] the Liturgy of St. Mark, and others. A National Church is within her rights when she compiles a Liturgy for National Use, provided that it is in harmony with the basic Liturgies of the Undivided Church. She hasas much right to her local "Use," with its rules and ritual, as a local post office has to its own local regulations, provided it does not infringe any universal rule of the General Post Office. For example, a National Church has a perfect right to say in what language her Liturgy shall be used. When the English Prayer Book orders her Liturgy to be said in "the vulgar,"[3] or common, "tongue" of the people, she is not infringing, but exercising a local right which belongs to her as part of the Church Universal. This is what the English Church has done in the English Prayer Book.
It is this Prayer Book that we are now to consider.
We will try to review, or get a bird's-eye view of it as a whole, rather than attempt to go into detail. And, as the best reviewer is the one who lets a book tell its own story, and reads the author's meaning out of it rather than his own theories into it, we will let the book, as far as possible, speak for itself.
Now, in reviewing a book, the reviewer will probably look at three things: the title, the preface, the contents.
"The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the Use of the Church of England."
Here are three clear statements: (1) it is "The Book of Common Prayer "; (2) it is the local "directory" for the "Administrationof the Sacraments of the Church," i.e. of the Universal Church; (3) this directory is called the "Use of the Church of England". Think of each statement in turn.
(1)It is "The Book of Common Prayer".—"Common Prayer"[4] was the name given to public worship in the middle of the sixteenth century. The Book of Common Prayer is the volume in which the various services were gathered together for common use. It is many books in one book. As the Bible is one book made up of sixty-six books, so the Prayer Book is one book made up of six books. These books, revised and abbreviated for English "Use," were:—
(1) The Pontifical.(2) The Missal.(3) The Gospels.(4) The Gradual.(5) The Breviary.(6) The Manual.
Before the invention of printing, these books were written in manuscript, and were too heavy to carry about bound together in one volume. Each, therefore, was carried by the user separately. Thus, when the Bishop, orPontifex, was ordaining or confirming, he carried with him a separate book containing the offices for Ordination and Confirmation; and, because it contained the offices used by the Bishop, orPontiff, it was called thePontifical. When a priest wished to celebrate the Holy Eucharist, he used a separate book called "The Missal" (from the LatinMissa, a Mass[5]). When, in the Eucharist, the deacon read the Gospel for the day, he read it from a separate book called "The Gospels". When hewent in procession to read it, the choir sang scriptural phrases out of a separate book called "The Gradual" (from the Latingradus, a step), because they were sung ingradibus, i.e. upon the steps of the pulpit, or rood-loft, from which the Gospel was read. When the clergy said their offices at certain fixed "Hours," they used a separate book called "The Breviary" (from the Latinbrevis, short), because it contained the brief, or short, writings which constituted the office, out of which our English Matins and Evensong were practically formed. When services for such as needed Baptism, Matrimony, Unction, Burial, were required, some light book that could easily be carriedin the handwas used, and this was called "The Manual" (from the Latinmanus, a hand).
These six books, written in Latin, were, in 1549, shortened, and, with various alterations, translated into English, bound in one volume, which is called "The Book of Common Prayer".
Alterations, some good and some bad, have from time to time been adopted, and revisions made; but the Prayer Book is now the same in substance as it always has been—a faithful reproduction, in all essentials, of the worship andteaching of the Undivided Church. As we all know, a further revision is now contemplated. All agree that it is needed; all would like to amend the Prayer Book in one direction or another; but there is a sharp contention as to whether this is the time for revision, and what line the revision should take. The nature of the last attempted revision, in the reign of William III,[6] will make the liturgical student profoundly grateful that that proposed revision was rejected, and will suggest infinite caution before entrusting a new revision to any but proved experts, and liturgical specialists.[7]
Whatever changes are made, they should, at least, be based on two principles—permanence and progress. The essence of progress is loyalty to the past. Nothing should be touched that is a permanent part of the Ancient Office Books; nothing should be omitted, or added, that is outside the teaching of the Universal Church. For the immediate present, we would ask that thePrayer Book should be left untouched, but that an Appendix, consisting of many unauthorized services now in use, should be "put forth by authority," i.e. by the sanction of the Bishops.
(2)The Administration of the Sacraments of the Church.—The Sacraments are the treasures of the whole Church; the way in which they may be "administered" is left to the decision of that part of the Church in which they are administered. Take, once again, the question of language. One part of the Church has as much right to administer the Sacraments in English as another part has to administer them in Latin, or another part in Greek. For instance, the words, "This is My Body" in the English Liturgy are quite as near to the original as "Hoc est Corpus Meum" is in the Latin Liturgy. Each Church has a right to make its own regulations for its own people.
So with "rites and ceremonies". Provided the essence of the Sacrament is not touched, the addition or omission of particular rites and ceremonies does not affect the validity of the Sacrament. For, the title of the Prayer Book carefully distinguishes between "The Church" and "The Church of England," "theSacraments" and the "administrationof the Sacraments". It is foradministrative purposesthat there is an English "Use," i.e. an English method of administering the Sacraments of the Universal Church. It is this use which the title-page calls:—
(3)The Use of the Church of England.—This "Use" may vary at different times, and even in different dioceses. We read of one "Use" in the Diocese of York; another in the Diocese of Sarum, or Salisbury; another in the Diocese of Hereford; another in the Diocese of Bangor; and so on. Indeed, there were so many different Uses at one time that, for the sake of unity, one Use was substituted for many; and that Use, sufficient in all essentials, is found in our "Book of Common Prayer ".
It was written, in 1661, by Bishop Sanderson, and amended by the Upper House of Convocation.
What, we ask, do these preface-writers say about the book to which they gave theirimprimatur?
First, they state their position. They have no intention whatever of writing a new book. Their aim is to adapt old books to new needs.Adaptation, not invention, is their aim. Four times in their short Preface they refer us to "the ancient Fathers" as their guides.
Next, they state their object. Two dangers, they tell us, have to be avoided. In compiling a Liturgy from Ancient Sources, one danger will be that of "too much stiffness inrefusing" new matter—i.e. letting a love of permanence spoil progress: another, and opposite danger, will be "too much easiness inadmitting" any variation—i.e. letting a love of progress spoil permanence. They will try to avoid both dangers. "It hath been the wisdom of the Church of England to keep the mean between the two extremes," when either extreme runs away from the "faith once delivered to the Saints ".
Another object they had in view was to give a prominent place to Holy Scripture. "So that here," they say, "you have an Order for Prayer, and for the reading of the Holy Scriptures, much agreeable to the mind and purpose ofthe old Fathers."
Next, they deal with the principles which underlie all ritualism. In speaking "of Ceremonies, why some be abolished and someretained," they lay it down that, "although the keeping or admitting of a Ceremony, in itself considered, is but a small thing, yet the wilful and contemptuous transgression and breaking of a Common Order and discipline is no small offence before God". Then, in a golden sentence, they add: "Whereas the minds of men are so diverse that some think it a great matter of conscience to depart from a piece of the least of their ceremonies, they be so addicted to their old customs; and, again, on the other side, some be so new-fangled that they would innovate all things, and so despise the old, that nothing can like them, but that is new: it was thought expedient, not so much to have respect how to please and satisfy either of these parties, ashow to please God, and profit them both".
Finally, whilst wishing to ease men from the oppressive burden of a multitude of ceremonies, "whereof St. Augustine, in his time, complained," they assert the right of each Church to make its own ritual-rules (in conformity with the rules of the whole Church), provided that it imposes them on no one else. "And in these our doings we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe anything but to our own people only; for we think itconvenient that every country should use such ceremonies as they shall think best."
It is necessary to call attention to all this, because few Church people seem to know anything about the intentions, objects, and principles of the compilers, as stated by themselves in the Prayer Book Preface.
These a reviewer might briefly deal with under three heads—Doctrine, Discipline, and Devotion.
The importance of this cannot be exaggerated. The English Prayer Book is, for the ordinary Churchman, a standard of authority when theological doctors differ. ThePrayer Bookis the Court of Appeal from the pulpit—just as the Undivided Church is the final Court of Appeal from the Prayer Book. Many a man is honestly puzzled and worried at the charge so frequently levelled at the Church of England, that one preacher flatly contradicts another, and that what is taught as truth in one church is denied as heresy in another. This is, of course, by nomeans peculiar to the Church of England, but it is none the less a loss to the unity of Christendom.
The whole mischief arises from treating the individual preacher as if he were the Book of Common Prayer. It is to the Prayer Book, not to the Pulpit, that we must go to prove what is taught. For instance, I go into one church, and I hear one preacher deny the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration; I go into another, and I hear the same doctrine taught as the very essence of The Faith. I ask, in despair, what does the Church of England teach? which teacher am I to believe? What is the answer? It is this. I am not bound to believe either teacher, until I have tested his utterances by some authorized book. This book is the Prayer Book. What does the Church of England Prayer Book—not this or that preacher—say is the teaching of the Church of England? In the case quoted, this is the Prayer Book answer: "Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, thatthis child is regenerate".[8] Here is something clear, crisp, definite. It is the authorized expression of the belief of the Church of England in common with the whole Catholic Church.
Or, I hear two sermons on conversion. In one, conversion is almost sneered at, or, at least, apologized for; in another, it is taught with all the fervour of a personal experience. What am I to believe? What does the Church of England teach about it? What does the Prayer Book say? Open it at the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, or at the third Collect for Good Friday, and you will hear a trumpet which gives no uncertain sound.
Or, I am wondering and worried about Confession and Absolution. What does the Church of England teach about them? One preacher says one thing, one another. But what is the Church of England's authoritative utterance on the subject? Open your Prayer Book, and you will see: you will find that, with the rest of the Christian Church, she provides for both, in public and in private, for the strong, and for the sick.
This, at least, is the view an honest onlooker will take of our position. A common-sense Nonconformist minister, wishing to teach his people and to get at facts, studies the English Prayer Book. This is his conclusion: "Free Churchmen," he writes, "dissent from much of the teaching of the Book of Common Prayer. Inthe service of Baptism, expressions are used which naturally lead persons to regard it as a means of salvation. God is asked to 'sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin'. After Baptism, God is thanked for having 'regenerated the child with His Holy Spirit'. It is called the 'laver of regeneration,' by which the child, being born in sin, is received into the number of God's children. In the Catechism, the child is taught to say of Baptism, 'wherein I was made the child of God'. It is said to be 'generally necessary to salvation,' and the rubric declares that children who are baptized, and die before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved'."[9] What could be a fairer statement of the Prayer-Book teaching? And he goes on: "In the visitation of the sick, if the sick person makes a confession of his sins, and 'if he heartily and humbly desire it,' the Priest is bidden to absolve him. The form of Absolution is '... I absolve thee from all thy sins in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'. In the Ordination Service, the Bishop confers the power of Absolution upon the Priest." Nothing could be fairer. It is precisely what the Churchof Englanddoesteach in her authorized formularies which Archbishop Cranmer gathered together from the old Service-books of the ancient Church of England.
The pulpit passes: the Prayer Book remains.