'Mysterious obscurity': the 1662 lectionary and scriptures not read in the congregation

Continuing with extracts from John Shepherd's A Critical and Practical Elucidation of the Morning and Evening Prayer of the Church of England (1796), in his discussions of the reading of scripture in these offices, he carefully notes Cranmer's words:

For it must be observed, that though "the most part of the Bible is read through every year once,"  [emphasis added] yet some chapters of particular books, and three whole books, are left unread and unnoticed.

Cranmer's phrase is itself suggestive that not every part of scripture was to be read in "the Common Prayers in the Church", as Shepherd goes on to acknowledge:

yet some chapters of particular books, and three whole books, are left unread and unnoticed. What were the reasons, why these parts were omitted, I now proceed to enquire.

In his review of the passages of scripture not included in the daily lectionary, Shepherd highlights the wise reasoning involved in not including such passages and, indeed, most of three whole books:

LEVITICUS treats chiefly of Jewish sacrifices and ceremonial observances, of clean and unclean beasts and birds, of lepers, &c. Of this book we therefore read only four chapters, and two of the four, 18 and 20, were perhaps better omitted. They contain prohibitions against Canaanitish usages and impure practices, of which, in a mixed congregation of Christian worshippers, it may not be so proper to speak ...

The history contained in JOSHUA, from chap. 11 to 22 inclusive, is not read. It treats of the destruction of petty kings ...

Both the Books of CHRONICLES are entirely excluded, probably because they principally consist of details of facts, which are in general more fully related in the preceding historical books ...

The SONG of SOLOMON is totally omitted. The spiritual meaning of this most beautiful, but mysterious composition, exhibits, like psalm 45, the union that exists between Christ, and his spouse, the church, which numbers in a mixed congregation cannot be supposed to be capable of understanding [a footnote states, for reasons sufficiently obvious the Jews permitted it to be read by none under thirty years of age] ...

EZEKIEL is divided into 48 chapters, of which only 9 are read. For the numerous exceptions to this book we may assign the same reason, that is given for the omission of almost the whole of the Revelation [to John]. To a considerable degree it consists of visions, the sense of many of which is confessedly obscure even to the learned ... There is likewise in the style and language of Ezekiel, as well as in the subjects of which he treats, and the form in which his prophecy is presented, something, that occasionally makes this book less eligible for public reading, than those of the other prophets.

Having reviewed the parts of the Old Testament not included in the daily lectionary, Shepherd notes "the New Testament is read over orderly three times a year in our daily Common Prayer".  This, however, has an exception, which he has already indicated in his discussion of Ezekiel:

Excepting the greater part of the book of Revelation, of which, on account of its mysterious obscurity, three chapters only are read in the church, 1, 19, and 22.

Shepherd, therefore, provides a useful overview of why certain passages of scripture need not be read in the congregation: mysterious obscurity, imprudent to read in a mixed (age, maturity in faith etc.) congregation, and not edifying to such a congregation (we might particularly think of the 'texts of terror'). This, he states, reflects the wisdom and prudence of those who devised the Prayer Book liturgy:

From this cursory examination of the contents of the parts omitted, we in general discover very satisfactory reasons, why they were excluded from the calendar ... which in general we find due to the care and wisdom of the compilers and reviewers of our Liturgy, should lead us to suppose that they had reasonable grounds for these omissions.

We might think of two issues here worthy of contemporary reflection.  The first concerns contemporary lectionaries: their omissions of certain parts of scripture are no innovation.  Deciding what passages should be omitted does, yes, require prudence and wisdom. And, vitally, they should not compromise the theological coherence of the scriptural proclamation.  

Secondly, this issue does raise the broader matter of why scripture is read in the congregation. As Hooker puts it in his defence of what the Puritans condemned as "bare reading", the reading of holy Scripture in the congregation is "the ordinance of God", and "there is in this ordinance a blessinge, such as ordinarilie doth accompanie the worde of life":

And I hope we may presume, that a rare thinge it is not in the Church of God, even for that verie worde which is readd to be both presentlie theire joye, and afterwardes theire studie that heare it (LEP V.22.13).

If one of the scripture readings at Morning and Evening Prayer in the congregation - let us say, at Morning Prayer with a small group of parishioners on a Monday morning or Choral Evensong in a cathedral mid-week - is characterised by mysterious obscurity, addresses imprudent subject matter, or consists of texts of terror, we can, I think, say that the 'ordinance of reading' at least runs the risk of not being duly, diligently administered.

This brings us back to the "care and wisdom" which Shepherd identified being exercised by the compilers of the Prayer Book daily lectionary. Care and wisdom are required, in order to ensure that - while wisely, prudently passing over that which can obscure or mislead in the congregation (and, of course, wisdom and prudence are required in order to determine that which can obscures or could mislead) - 'the most part' of the Bible is read, faithfully administering the word of life.