HL Deb 13 March 1871 vol 204 cc1853-67

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

, in moving that the Bill be now read, the second time, said, that it was identical with that passed by their Lordships in the last Session of Parliament. It was confined to that part of the labours of the Ritual Commissioners which was devoted to the Table of Lessons in our Prayer Book. At the very dawn of the Reformation, by those anxious for its promotion, one of the earliest steps taken was to secure the reading of the Holy Scriptures in a tongue understood by the people. Accordingly, in the first compilation of the Prayer Book, printed by authority, a Table of Lessons was inserted, so that the people might be instructed by hearing the Word of God read in the then existing translation. This Table had only been twice revised—first, in the reign of Elizabeth, and next, at the passing of the Act of Uniformity, in 1662. It had, for some time, been thought very desirable that there should be a further revision. One reason was, that no less than 144 Lessons were taken from the Apocryphal Books; another was, that some books—such as Chronicles—were wholly omitted, which would be both interesting and instructive. There were also chapters read which it was thought, by many (with whom he himself concurred), could be omitted with rather more profit than would attend their continued retention in the Table. The Evening Lessons, moreover, were taken exclusively from the Epistles, no other part of the New Testament being read in the afternoon or evening. Thus domestic servants and others unable to attend morning service never heard the Gospels read. All these points had been alluded to by a Committee of the Ritual Commission, by whom it had been recommended that the number of Lessons from the Apocrypha should be reduced from 144 to 32, those which were retained being chiefly taken from Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom, both of which contained much that was highly instructive and incentive to the improvement of morals. Portions of the Books which hitherto had been omitted altogether had been introduced into the Lectionary, and all chapters which it was thought undesirable to continue to read publicly had been omitted, the length of certain Lessons had been curtailed, and arrangements had been made by which those who attended evening service only would have the opportunity of hearing portions of the Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles read. Were he to state the names of those acting upon the Committee, he was quite sure the House would repose the utmost confidence in their recommendations, and feel satisfied with their labours. The Report of the Committee had been adopted not only by the Convocation of Canterbury, but also by a Committee of the Convocation of the Province of York. The measure had now been before the public for nearly two years, and he had not heard a single objection raised to it as a whole, although, no doubt, objections had been taken to some of its details. The subject was one that must be dealt with once and for all, and therefore it was that the present measure was identical with that which had been introduced into their Lordships' House last year. He had heard it objected against the measure that it did not proceed far enough, inasmuch as it did not carry into effect all the recommendations of the Commissioners. There were, however, many reasons why it would have been undesirable to carry the measure further. Thus a great many of the alterations suggested by the Commissioners had relation to the mode of conducting the service, with the object of introducing a more general uniformity in the outward ceremonials of the Church; but, owing to a recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, such proposed alterations had become unnecessary; because it tended in the direction desired by the Commissioners, and it was far from desirable at present to attempt independent legislation which would probably fail in securing uniformity of opinion. With reference to the Report of the Ritual Commission, he was aware of the great discrimination, the forbearance and care with which that body had proceeded; but, at the same time, their last Report had not been so fortunate as to secure unanimous support. No less than 17 out of the 27 members of which the Commission consisted had protested against the Report—a circumstance that was to be explained by the fact that when the Report was agreed to all the Members of the Commission were not in attendance. Under these circumstances it was thought undesirable, at the present moment, to attempt to carry out by this measure the recommendations contained in that Report, more especially as no less than 26 different objections, each signed by more or less of the Commissioners, had been taken to certain of those recommendations. The measure before the House was one that it was desirable to pass as speedily as possible, because the impending change in the form of the Lectionary had thrown a serious impediment in the way of an important branch of trade by preventing the printing of new Prayer Books.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

desired to reiterate the opinion he had expressed last year—that this measure, as far as it went, would prove a great boon; but, at the same time, he did not see why it might not have gone further and have altogether excluded the Apocrypha from the Table of Lessons. He regretted the exclusion from the Lessons for the Sunday of the 14th chapter of Joshua, nor had any reason been assigned for the removal of it from the Sunday to the Week-day Lessons. The Commissioners had gone through a great deal of labour, and had shown the utmost impartiality and fairness in framing their Reports, and he thought their recommendations entitled to the highest respect; but, considering the ability of the Commissioners, he thought it a pity that their Report should have had so small a result as the present measure. He wished, for the sake of the peace of the Church, the Commissioners had found some way of settling the question as to the Athanasian Creed. Had the suggestion been adopted of preserving that Creed in the formulary of the Prayer Book, without requiring it to be compulsorily read, a good deal would have been effected towards reconciling those who objected to the service in its present form. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had urged their Lordships to use speed with respect to this measure, on the ground that an important branch of trade was suffering from the uncertainty that existed at present as to the form of Lectionary that would be finally adopted; but he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) must protest against that observation as being capable of being construed into a pledge that no further alterations would for the present at least be proposed in the Prayer Book. He, for one, sincerely hoped that many of the important changes which had been recommended by the Commissioners would become law before long. Had the changes recommended in the Report of the Commissioners been formerly carried into effect, much would have been done to smooth many difficulties that now existed and to secure the safety of the Church, which during every hour of its existence was drifting into greater danger.

THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL

said, he could assure the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that the recommendations to which he had referred had not received by any means unanimous support from the members of the Commission. In reference to the Athanasian Creed, if the noble Earl had been present at the meetings of the Commissioners, he would have found that it was not thought expedient to make any Report regarding it, although there were many members of the Commission to whose mind this Creed did not commend itself. He did not agree with the optional method suggested by the noble Earl, for he thought that there were other means by which a satisfactory adjustment of the difficult question could be arrived at. He concurred with his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack in urging Parliament to adopt this Bill as soon as possible. He had stated in detail last year, and so would not now repeat the care and pains that had been taken by the Commission to make the Table of Lessons as perfect as possible. More recently, objections had been raised to the general principle on which the Lessons had been drawn up; but directly they were stated fairly, they would be found to result from a mistaken view being taken of the matter. A current objection to the provisions of the Bill was that they proposed to substitute a totally novel Lectionary for one dignified by age, of ancient precedent, and, in outline, very generally adopted both in the East and West. It has been urged, then, that the Church of England, by adopting this new Table, would in this respect separate herself from Continental and other Churches, and so would interpose another obstacle to union. The truth, however, was that any Table of Lessons was, comparatively, a new introduction. In the ancient Church no fixed Lectionary existed until about the 11th or 12th century. The Church of Rome in the 4th century had no Lessons but such as were taken from the Epistles and Gospels. He found that, in the early Christian Church, the privilege was allowed, or at any rate assumed, of altering the Lessons according to the subject to which the sermon was to be addressed. St. Augustine more than once alludes to changes which he had himself prescribed, and for which some excellent discourse of his own was apparently responsible. We know a few leading facts as to the choice of Lessons, but nothing more. For instance, in the ancient Church the custom was that the Book of the Prophet Isaiah should be read before Whitsuntide; after Whitsuntide followed the reading of the Books of Samuel and Kings; later on came the reading of the Books of Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes; towards the latter period of the Church year the Books of Tobit and Judith were read very near the time of Lent. If the reader would turn to the Table of Lessons now before the House, he would see that in these particulars, as also in other details, it is carefully maintained in accord with the usage of the ancient Church, and he thought it would be found that all similar objections, founded on mistaken comparisons of the present with an assumed past, would, if considered fairly, at once disappear. He had alluded to this as objections had been recently urged which it seemed proper now, thus briefly, to notice. He trusted, in conclusion, that the Bill would meet with the reception at their Lordships' hands which it obtained last year.

EARL STANHOPE

said, that with reference to the points of detail pointed out by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) he thought their Lordships would feel that if a reform of the Table of Lessons was to be carried out at all, it must be done by placing a measure of confidence in those who had had the supervision of its details. Such details would never be suitably discussed or decided in that House. The well-chosen Committee of the Commission to whom that matter was referred were unanimous in their recommendations, as the Lord Chancellor had already stated, and it might be added to his statement that the Commission at large were equally unanimous when the question was whether those recommendations should be adopted and confirmed. He (Earl Stanhope) had, the other night expressed a hope that the measure of the Government might comprise not only the new Table of Lessons, but certain other matters in the Prayer Book. He admitted the difficulty that might have been found in attempting that course. Since, however, the measure was before the House, he thought their Lordships were—especially those who had been Members of the Commission—at liberty to express their sentiments; and he certainly shared in the regret expressed by the noble Earl, that the Athanasian Creed had not been dealt with. It was true that to deal with it, though most desirable, was also not a little difficult. The difficulty lay in the divided state of opinion among the Commissioners, and not among the Commissioners only, but among the Churchmen at large; and although it might be open to the House in Committee to move Amendments in the Bill on this and on other points of great importance, yet, thinking the measure as it stood was an undoubted good, and being anxious to secure that good, he did not wish to hazard it by proposing or supporting Amendments on other points, however desirable they might be in themselves. It was wholly repugnant to English feeling, while upholding and affirming one's own religious belief, to declare the eternal condemnation of all who did not accept it in every particular; and it was, he thought, impossible that a formula like the Athanasian Creed, as it now stood, could long retain its place in the public services of the Church. He might add that although much diversity of opinion had been expressed by the Commissioners as to the manner of dealing with this Creed, there was a decided majority in favour of some change from the present practice. The Archbishop of Canterbury — now unfortunately absent from the House on account of his state of health—had expressed a strong opinion to that effect, and when his Grace returned to England he hoped that the subject of the Athanasian Creed would receive from him, and from others of the right rev. Bench, the attention it deserved. He did not, however, wish to risk the defeat of the present Bill by attempting to remove any other grievance than the one it sought to remedy, and he trusted that the measure would speedily become law.

LORD CAIRNS

said, he did not rise to offer any objection to the Lectionary proposed by that Bill. He agreed that if a change was to be made the substituted Lectionary must be accepted as a whole; and as a whole he believed the Lectionary now proposed was a great improvement on the one we at present possessed. But he desired to repeat now the protest he made last year against the manner in which Convocation was connected with the Bill. The recital of the Bill was that those "revised Tables of Lessons have been considered and approved by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury and by a committee of the Convocation of York." He protested, in the first place, on the minor ground, that if it was right to take notice of Convocation and to have its assent, the assent they required was not that of a committee of the Convocation of York, but that of the Convocation of the Province of York itself. But, further, the manner in which Convocation was referred to in the Bill was entirely without precedent. On former occasions, when the assent of Convocation had been noticed, there was a distinct statement that Convocation had received from the Crown that licence without which the assent of Convocation could not be noticed in any Act of Parliament; and now, for the first time in that Bill, they had a recital of the approval of Convocation without any mention of the licence of the Crown to express that approval. They were told last year that no such licence had been given, and that there was such urgency in passing the Bill that any delay would be very injurious. As, however, the measure had stood over for another Session, there was no good reason for departing from the old constitutional practice requiring the assent of Convocation, if it was to be expressed at all, to be duly expressed by both branches of Convocation in pursuance of a licence from the Crown. He did not wish to impede the progress of the measure, but simply to renew his protest on the point he had described; and if no sufficient explanation were given, he hoped that in Committee that part of the recital would be struck out.

LORD EBURY

said, he was perfectly astonished when he heard from the Lord Chancellor that the various recommendations made by the Royal Commissioners on other points than the Lectionary would not be included in the Bill. Were the Commissioners to understand that all their recommendations, excepting these, were to be set aside? If so, he was bound to say that was a very unsatisfactory state of things; and although he approved the Table of Lessons as proposed, he could not give his assent to the Bill without entering his protest against the neglect of recommendations of the greatest importance. Reference had been made to the protests made against the last Report; but these so-called protests were scarcely more than qualifying documents, for in only one was the word "protest" used, and out of the 26 remonstrances 11 or 12 related to the Athanasian Creed.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

said, he somewhat sympathized with the noble Lord who had just spoken in regretting that the Bill did not include other important recommendations of the Commission than those relating to the Lectionary; but he presumed the passing of this Bill would not preclude action at some future time with reference to those recommendations. The great advantage of the course adopted was that this Bill having been well canvassed and generally supported, both by clergy and laity, it might be passed without being submitted to minute examination, and so very speedily become law. It could not have been hoped that this would have been the case had the Bill included some other of the recommendations of the Commissioners. He feared there was some possibility of misapprehension from the words used by the Lord Chancellor with reference to the difference of opinion among the Commissioners. Excepting the vexed question of the Athanasian Creed, he believed that, of the 66 recommendations made in the Report, exactly one-half were agreed to unanimously; nine had only one vote recorded against them; 20 passed by majorities varying from 6 to 1 and 2 to 1; and there were only four which were not carried by a majority of at least 2 to 1. The difficulty of the Commissioners was not so much the want of unanimity within the Commission as the want of unanimity without it. It appeared probable that many of the recommendations on which the Commissioners themselves had agreed would excite much disagreement in passing through Parliament; and it was thought that while this Bill, upon which little difference of opinion existed, would pass rapidly through Parliament, public opinion upon other points should have time to consolidate. The real difficulty was the Athanasian Creed. He believed that there were thousands of men, laity as well as clergy, who would not part from the use of that Creed without deep feelings of regret and, he would almost say, indignation. He might be sorry it should be so; but so, no doubt, it was. Besides this, it was doubtful—at least, so it appeared to him—whether the Royal Commissioners, considering they had been appointed to deal with the Rubrics alone, had any power to touch the Athanasian Creed. He, for one, felt strongly that in dealing with the Prayer Book they had no right to remove from the Prayer Book one of the three Creeds which it was declared by the authority of the Thirty-nine Articles ought thoroughly to be received and believed. How far this, the main difficulty, might be removed by time and consideration he did not venture to prophesy; but if in the present Session it had been attempted to carry out the recommendations of the Ritual Commission—especially, if it had been proposed to remove the Athanasian Creed from the Prayer Book — he was convinced that such a measure would not have passed without paining deeply many whose opinions were most highly valued. It would probably have met with strong opposition, and the result might have been that this Bill, which was generally desired, and would meet the wishes which the Church had expressed for many years, would have been lost.

EARL GREY

My Lords, I have no intention of offering any opposition to the passing of the Bill, but like my noble Friend who spoke last but one (Lord Ebury), I acquiesce in its being passed, with much doubt and reluctance, not bebcause I am insensible to the value of the improvement which will be made by substituting the proposed Table of Lessons for that now in use, but because I think that that improvement, great as I admit it to be, would be dearly purchased if it were obtained at the price of throwing a new obstacle in the way of the more extensive improvements which are urgently wanted; and there is some reason to fear that this may prove to be the case. I think, with my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Shaftesbury), that the argument used by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that the early passing of the Bill is necessary, in order that the trade in Prayer Books may be relieved from suspense, is open to the interpretation that when this Bill is passed we must look for no farther improvements in the Prayer Book; and that printers and publishers may proceed to bring out new editions without apprehension that it will again be changed. In my opinion, to determine that this is to be the end of improvements in the Prayer Book would be most fatal to the interests of the Church of England. There are many of the improvements suggested by the Commissioners which it would be very desirable to adopt, and there is one which they have not recommended, which I regard as far more important, and more urgently necessary, than any which they have proposed. I refer to some alteration in the Rubric for the purpose of putting an end to the necessity of reading the Athanasian Creed in the regular services of the Church. I heard with great regret what was said on this subject by the right rev. Prelate—my right rev. Friend, if he will allow me to call him so—who spoke last. He told us that this Creed could not be omitted from our services without giving great pain to a large number of excellent clergymen; but surely he must be aware that its retention gives still more pain not only to a larger number of clergymen who are compelled to use it, but also to nine-tenths of the laity. For my own part, I do not hesitate to say that I never hear that Creed read without a feeling of horror and disgust, regarding it, as I do, as being utterly inconsistent with the reverence due to the Supreme Being, and with a sense of devotion. It is now universally admitted that this Creed, which goes by the name of Athanasius, was not written by him, but centuries after his death. It is the barbarous production of a barbarous age; and I can conceive no more shocking presumption, or more gross irreverence to the Creator, than that men should take upon them to define His nature, which is so far above all human comprehension, by words which, as applied to this subject, certainly cannot be understood in their ordinary sense, and convey no real meaning to the mind. I wish the advocates of this Creed would explain what meaning they attach to such words as "begotten," or "proceeding," when applied to the person of the Trinity, and whether they even profess to understand the distinction drawn between them. I would ask those who attach so much value to this Creed how they can justify dealing in this manner with such awful mysteries, and then having the presumption to affirm that all who decline to adopt words and definitions which they do not themselves understand, will, beyond doubt, be condemned to eternal torture? The attempt to maintain this Creed in the services of the Church, in spite of its general condemnation by the reason and feelings of the great body of the people would be as unwise as it certainly would be unsuccessful in the end. If it would otherwise have been possible to retain it, the publication of the proceedings of the Commission has now clearly made this impracticable. It is true that the Commission has not recommended that the use of the Creed should be given up; but as my noble Friend (Earl Stanhope), himself one of the Commissioners, has pointed out to us, it has been unequivocally condemned at different times by so large a majority of the whole body as 17 out of 27; and the minority of the body, who were accidentally a majority of the Commissioners present when the final decision on this subject was come to, only agreed to advise its being retained, with the addition of a note to the Rubric, declaring that the most obnoxious words in the Creed were to be understood in a sense directly opposed to their plain, grammatical meaning. We have heard of "Jesuitical proceedings," and of the want of respect for truth they show; but to my mind nothing in that way could be more shocking than that we should be advised to retain the Creed, but, at the same time put into the Prayer Book a note declaring that it is not to be understood according to the plain meaning of its language. I cannot doubt that, to retain the Creed in this manner, would be most injurious to the Church of England, and would tend to alienate from it a very large number of persons. At the same time I recognize the difficulty in which the Commissioners were placed by the strong opinion in favour of the Creed of many of the clergy; but I think this difficulty might have been overcome by adopting the suggestion of my noble Friend (Earl Stanhope), and substituting the word "may" for "shall" in the Rubric directing the Creed to be used. No violent or sudden change would thus have been made. Those clergymen who think it right to persevere in declaring that all who differ from them on most abstruse metaphysical questions as to the nature of the Deity will, beyond doubt, be condemned to eternal torture, would have been at liberty to go on using the Creed, while those who take what I think a more charitable and a more Christian view of the subject would have been equally at liberty to omit it. Had reading the Creed been thus made optional I am convinced that the common sense and good feeling of congregations would in a few years have caused it to fall into disuse.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said, he looked with great satisfaction at the Bill now before the House; and he should not have risen to address their Lordships had it not been for the speech of the noble Earl who had just sat down. Their Lordships were not now discussing a Bill for the abolition of the Athanasian Creed, which as the noble Earl had said would perhaps have commanded a very doubtful assent; but after the noble Earl had said that the Commissioners had taken a Jesuitical course, he thought it necessary to speak on behalf of the Report which a majority of the Commissioners had adopted. He would not follow the noble Earl in the interpretation he had put upon the Athanasian Creed further than to say it did not accord with that given by some of the most eminent authorities in the Church of England. The note which it was proposed to append to the Creed was in the very words of the Royal Commissioners who sat in 1689, and were presided over by Archbishop Tillotson—and he left their Lordships to decide whether they were likely to adopt a Jesuitical mode of interpretation. Their Lordships had been told that a majority of the Commissioners were opposed to the retention of the Creed in the services of the Church. If that were so, and the question had been argued three or four times over, how was it that the majority hostile to the Creed had never been able to make itself felt? The fact was that the opponents of the Creed had never been able to define—to themselves even—what it was they wanted, and hence they never had been able to secure harmonious action; accordingly, their various proposals had been defeated in detail. That would show their Lordships the difficulty of bringing forward any proposals as to the Athanasian Creed likely to meet with the approval of the nation at large. It was all very well to talk about nine-tenths of the people of England being opposed to the Creed. He disputed the accuracy of that statement. On the contrary, he believed that the Athanasian Creed had been a source of comfort to thousands who did not put upon its language the exaggerated interpretation which had been placed upon it by the noble Earl. He warned their Lordships against further interference with the formularies and services of the Church of England, as to which, at the present moment, a very strong feeling existed. The Protestantism of the Church had been strained to an alarming extent; and the peace of the Church of England would be best secured and its permanence maintained by abstaining, at present, at all events, from further interference in this direction. Rough handling at the present moment was very likely to bring about danger and disaster, and, instead of leading to those measures of comprehension which everybody desired, might very possibly end in disruption and disestablishment.

THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

said, that, as he understood, the Government by no means intended to throw aside the other recommendations of the Commissioners, but meant to take their time, and feel the pulse of the country, and bring forward remedial measures when they saw that the proper moment had arrived. As to the denunciation of the Athanasian Creed by the noble Earl (Earl Grey), uttered with a vehemence unsuited to the sacred character of the subject, he need only point out that the two expressions "proceeding" and "begotten," on which the noble Earl had laid such stress, were the very words Scripture applied to the Holy Ghost and to the Son of God. Accordingly, if the other criticisms of the noble Earl had no greater weight than this, they might be allowed to pass without further observation. His own opinion was that the Athanasian Creed ought not to be used in congregations without due explanation by the clergy. The Athanasian Creed was an exposition of the true sense of Scripture; but the argument that the Creed was intended only to be recited, not believed, went a great deal further than the noble Earl intended, for it would equally apply to the Nicene Creed and to the Apostles' Creed. As regarded the change in the Table of Lessons, that he believed to be a great improvement, and one which was much needed. He rejoiced, however, that the Committee and the framers of this Bill had been courageous enough to retain the noble chapters from the Apocrypha.

LORD LYTTELTON

said, he had only understood the observations of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to apply to the present Session. He trusted that hereafter it would be possible for the Government to give effect to many other of the recommendations of the Commissioners.

EARL GREY

very much doubted whether the word "proceeding" was to be found in Scripture applied in the sense mentioned by the right rev. Prelate; but what he most objected to was the attempt to define by words what was beyond all human intellect and comprehension.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he would not continue the discussion as to whether the Athanasian Creed ought to be retained or done away with in the services of the Church; but he rose to explain the position in which the Government stood in regard to the Bill. The action of the Government had been misunderstood. The Government had been complained of for not going more fully into the recommendations of the Ritual Commissioners, and especially for not having dealt with the Athanasian Creed. There would have been no unwillingness on their part to deal with that question also had there been any reasonable amount of unanimity among the Commissioners themselves with regard to the Athanasian Creed. The declaration of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had been limited simply to this—that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared at present to deal with a question the difficulties of which was shown by the want of union among the Commissioners. As to the point with which the Government did propose to deal by this Bill, there was almost entire unanimity of opinion. As to the mention in the recital that the revised Tables of Lessons had been considered and approved of by Convocation, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was prepared to yield to what appeared to be the very general opinion of their Lordships on that point, and to strike out the recital in Committee.

Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.