PRAYER BOOK.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 231, 29 September 1928, Page 9

PRAYER BOOK.

BISHOPS' DECISIONS.

No Departure From 1662 Book Without Parish's Consent.

FEESH EFFOET FOE PEACE. (Australian Press Assn.—United Service.) (Received 1 p.m.* LONDON, September 28. The Archbishops of Canterbury and of York, at the end of a three days' conference of all the bishops at* Lambeth Palace, issued a statement regarding the new Prayer Book, "setting forth the principles which the bishops generally are prepared to I'olloAv in administrative action necessitated by the acknowledged inadequacy of the existing law and the varieties of usage which already prevail." They wish it clearly understood that their conclusions are at present only informal and provisional, and intended for their own guidance in consulting the clergy and laity. Formal action, whether diocesan or general, must be postponed until the bishops obtain the results of these consultations and until the question of full official sanction lias been considered.

The statement begins: "During the present emergency and until furth'er order the bishop's cannot regard as inconsistent with loyalty to the Church's principles the use of such additions and deviations as are contained in the 1928 book, and fall within the limit of their proposals, but must regard as inconsistent with such loyalty any other deviations and additions to the 1602 book. Accordingly, the bishops are exercising legal administrative discretion and will' endeavour to secure that practiccs inconsistent with both the 1602 and 1928 books shall cease. Further, the bishops regard it as a governing principle that no departure from the 1662 book shall be permitted at public services unless the parochial council agrees with the incumbent.

"The bishops recommend, firstly, that permission to use 'the consecration, canon contained in the -1928 book should only be granted provisionally and in exceptional circumstances, subject. to such conditions as the bishop determines. They regard the sanctions in accord* ante with the alternative order in the 1928 book as irregularities which must cease.

"Secondly, the rubrics for reservation will further be considered by the committee of bishops. Meanwhile, the bishops recommend that while cxistiug permissions affecting reservation for the sick, as contemplated" in the alternative order, should continue, further permissions should be provisional only."

The statement concludes: "In view of the whole situation the bishops frankly recognise that they are not without a share in the blame for the difficulties in recent yearn. They appeal to churchmen, clerical and lay, for loyal ee-opera-tion in thi;. fresh endeavour to restore peace, so that the whole body may devote itself more wholeheartedly to its tasks."'

PARLIAMENT DEFIED ?

Virtual Authority Given For

Revised Book.

FIRST ENGLISH COMMENT.

(Australian and >\Z. Press Association.)

(Received 1.30 p.m.)

LONDON, September 28,

An authority on church law, writing to the "Daily Herald," asserts that the archbishops' decision means defiance of Parliament's refusal to legalise the 1928 book, which is made usable so long as certain "Komanish practices" are stopped.

The "Daily Telegraph's" ecclesiastical correspondent, pointing out that the billions have virtually authorised the l'J-28 book. asks. "Are the bishops above tlie law T