PRAYER BOOK REVISION.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 437, 20 February 1909, Page 14

PRAYER BOOK REVISION.

IMPORTANT PROPOSALS. EXPLANATION BY. BISHOP WILLIS. ' v ; In - elucidation of tho; liturgical changes • recommended in: connection - with t.lm Anglican Church at' Homo/ a cabled summary of which" was published yesterday, tho Anglican Bishop of Wellington (Dr. Wallis) . . -made a . very interest-in^.-Statement '.'to a" : vUoinNlON.representative;yosterday; >" ■■ "Tho changes mentioned belong t-6 a rel-: •. port of a Committed of-Convocation," said -■'..tbo; Bishop,;; y "So faras -I: know," Ithey ; have not yet been iconsidercd by- Convocation, and are,. of: courso, inot' yet ■ part; of tho law of ■ - the Church-, of England. If they becomo part of .tho law, they do' not affect • our ~ church >in Now Zealand, to which any such ,-law does not apply;; tho church here has , r power, to makfl its own laws. Taking the : changes .in detail, tho' first; recommendation' is for a revision of the Lectionary (the 001. . lection of those passages, of Scripture which ar<j read as lessons at divino sorvico). It ■; >has: been thought that in some cases other -y, Sunday ; lessons . than those ; at- present appointed would serve for' greater edification ;■ . - that on,-'.week-days, .-■ special •;'daily- lessons should bo. read at particular seasons; and that .the use. of tho Revised Version of the Bible should bo permitted - by authority. ."As regards .the '. second /proposal, for the ■- : optional:-.-use of; Eucharistio vestments, - -the Privy Council, which ■ hasbeen asked to in- '

v. terpret the law of tho -church, has ruled that the; uso of Pro-Deformation vestments i : at. tho .Holy a Communions-is 'illegal. ' The words of the presont rubric are: 'Suet ornaments of tho churoh, and of the minis- • . tens thereof,* at all'.timos-of.their. miniEtra- . * t-ion, bo' retained, and.ba'-in usejiaf VC-" wer o in this Chureh of/England)' by the' authority of Parliament/' in : the second year of the lteign of; King Edward- ,tho Sixth.' v'; :: JtVis: questioned'.-(IV:' What;: th&e ; vestment: really were; (2) What ia the force of the words 'shall bo retained?' Wh&tevei , answer might, bo ..given .in ..the light of;, re:yi. cent, research if.' the : matter ' camo' agair ; before, .-.the. Privy. Council, the <</: question .. arises," Sliould.thero not bo a new rubric? " "In respeot'of-t'ho proposed-optional use ■ cf . the Athanasian: Creed, -r I- • may > mention that;at .the Goneral Synod., of' our -.owi ■..■.■church : in 1901, .it was proposed''T'hatv'it] . the opinion of this , jt ; >is" d&irabk : 1 ;■■..:■ that the roading of the Crec<l of St. Athanri'; ;• PS;^. 6 ' in' tho riibrio . should .be optional.'. A. ma- . iority -of :tho bishops and - of tho lay -mombers voted in :favour of- this motion, bnt 'r; majority: ;of . the.. clerical members voted

ana iz was lose "Another recommendation .• provides • for , the optional ; omissioni,from; the-. Communion . Service, whon thcro are; a ; largo number of communicants, of tho words: 'in .. remem- : : branco - that Christ died for thee, and feed 1 - on.Him m i thy -heart <by faith with 'thanks- .-. S'ying)'' in administering tho' bread; and of tho words 'in remembrance-.'that Christ's : • Blood was shed, for-t-heb, aiid be' thankful,' in administering tho . wine. - -As this ■ in- ; • volves no question • ofprinciple) I : havo . rthdmglit yit l ;; righttol' ;give; ;r'permissibn . myself for • clergy in this : diocese"' to. make the above omissions." ; "L do <not .understand the recommendation thatHmmersibii.-Miould bb-'optional in" ■:i 1 "tho. : baptismal-jservice..;. .'Alread.y ...there' is a" yui. our service, of ; baptism? •immersion if it .bo desired. But .several fonts are'not large i enough for this, and ; possibly, it is proposed to: make a change-in : .regard to; such f0nt5..".... v. 1,■ "The proposals are also said to include V' j' a;neTv f : : alternative burial-;ibfviw:fdf :;: :great' • beauty and simplicity,; which has also boen compiled by the committee. It has been ife thought that, th?^presenti burial seirico < % not;: th.6" bestl hat • could > be v framed,' for.' {the" burial of children, and that it is' unsuit- ; able for. use;,m: cases where the: persons to' w... buried; has committed . suicide : when v'in • an uiisound : state of -mind.- In these cases- ., .Jf 1 ® .'; c * lurc s New. Zealand , has. perputtcd tho use or another { sorvico." 1 11 ; Tho. bishop added that doubtless the' rei cabk&v'.were-'^ ing • with ;a •- great, many ; otheff matters. : probablo that-a reconnncndatioiv was ..v included .for ot least, tho optional* substitu- : . tion of,other , passages; of :Scnpture for' cer ; tain psalms or portions ot psalms of i with- ancient' Judaism than,later Christian- • »..it^. : . At ;j tho, recent Pan-Anglican." Congress ' Vi was.; unanimous., favour of; this reform. .» *' i

VIEWS OF BISHOP JULIUS. THE FUNDAMENTAL CLAUSES OF'THE CONSTITUTION. . . (BY.TELEGRAPH—PRESS ASSOCIATION.) ■ _ t Chrlstohurcft, February 19. : :'f ; v•-'position • of'^th6' Anglican./ Churc- 'in • a :.mwv%l a nd ;r€la^7 e :,to; s tho changes ih v tie yhiircfi serriws :• recommendedbythe!.: ComZ,.mitteo:, of • the. .Canterbury Convocation - was ; : . defined-to-day by,Bishop"!Julius in'discussing tho. subject, with, a "Press'* representative. was also goodenough to 'express-' •, . his personal opinions on • tho alterations' proposed. "I do not know," ho said, "what the value /•': recommendation • of; the I :••• be, .but the.-Ghurch: cannot-act upon it.* 'All 1 ' •'*: happen ? at : present]"! so [far rasl kn •' V; v -&riy,<'pais.sf^^^ Canterbury and York, would be that repre--f *'an&rthe sanction :: That/. hbwevfer/ wpuld only .affect ;_the. Church for , it .would bo - open to any -province to make ; OT;^-'othe^cha^a^ifJit' : BMM' think: . fit. Quito independently of, tho Church inEngland;, 'with tho - exception: 'of 'the Church .-.;cr : - tho. province of Nefr-Zea]&nd;* v TJnder'-the' jt;! original £ the" Churdh^'in^New ; . . Zealand, adopted in' Bishop Selwyn'sijitime,, l ;Vvf <^^ftM:; ,dinses.^f:.{her6Mstitttioh ? iw«r6 > 'd©T ; clarod fundamental and beyond tho power of any. general or diocosan isynod .to. alter, <r0..... ..... vocate, add, to, or These ;• clauses among other-matters, to tho use of ... the Rovised Version : oftho , Scriptures and . ,tho present. Book of Common .Prayer, and , until-, the. Church- in Now Zealand- obtains i, complete powers or self-government - from the Parliament ofthis country' it is not in our . power to adoi;t any of ' thoso proposals." Tho Bishop explained further thattho appeal to Parliament -.did' not in any way involyo aiiy , - (juestion- of the doctrine. of Vtho Cliurch. It } va _ s really .tlio only .legal way to. obtain re- ■ lief..from.tho fundamentals without :)■ jeopardising tho property. of the Church- On ; niatter of _ : the> proposed' alterations,' ' Bishop Julius'saidho';was;'ndfc; prepared'toex- ! press his approval of all of-.them. In somb ' respccts they did not appear to him to go far - enough, as in tho use; of the Psalter and .... greater variety m the sorvices of the Church. Ho heartily approved of the optional use of Eucharistic vestments, the Athauasian Creed, vand:. he; -thought that arevised lection'ary and revised :'\iise;of - the'Psalter.:.w i ere':much,;to. . . Ho,objected to tho] proposed change in tho ■ ." in:mher rof -tho administration- of . Holy Com- ; munion. As far - as :immersion'-iri * Baptism : . was concerned,; that was tho rule, but'-not'tho' > practice of ; ,tho. Church. .. . ; •-• . ' . i A BURNINC QUESTION. THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC AND HISTORICAL EESEAROH. .. The question of vestments, the optional use' ■ of; which has been recommended by. the- com-' mitteo of the Convocation of Canterbury, is ■ governed; by tho ornaments rubric.' ■; the in- ! torpretation of-.which has caused a groat deal of discussion. ' , , ;: •< It sconis be generally, admitted, tliat, ; taken as it ? stands, . tho .. rubrio l<;gal- : : ises at least the chasuble, the principal, eucharistio vestment; but in the Prayer; Book' ' I of ldo9 and in tho Act of : Uniformity of the .' same year.; the following'words aro added: • .- ."Until other order shall bq, thorein ta(cen ■ by tho authority of tho Queen's Majesty.", This addition has raised the; question, as. to ' whether Queen Elizabeth did take such 1 " j''dther order", ;as .would, supersede: the. direc- • tions of the-rubric.-. It has -been-'contended-that'this'ijas dono m:1566 when Archbishop, Parker,-asMod^the' : ; ''Adverti^menfe' )<: ::in: : i which the uso' of- tho .sjirplioe only .was in- i aistod upon;; On tho 'other Bide, ft is utepd i

hat ,the. : purpose of the Advertisements was o enforce a minimum as regards vesture, .in could ii6t ovoride the.statuto law, that they wero never ssued in', tlia provinco - of York, and that ilioy conld i not , inany case override tlu Lboveiiientiorifed rnbrio when it was 'deliber itelv .reinserted: by; tho revisers of thePrayo 3ook in 1662, with the exception of tha wrfcion which ■ referred to tha taking o 'other order.". However, the Privy Coun iil. has, held that '''other 1 order" wastakei n , tho and-, has declared 'cstmenta illegal—a decision-which has. beei leKberately' ignored,;:by .:the ; '" High ,; Churc) larty. Subsequent '.historical, investigatioi )y-experts .who have' examined all the orig .nil authorities has - brought to light man; [aots. that were not known to tho Priv; Council, ;when-:itgave' its judgment on ; th' juestion, and the recent report of / a com nitteo of .bishops, after going into the whol juestion ;-in. the dry- light of historj jives - weighty ; reasons.against the- conten lion ,-;that the Advertisements were' identi 3a1.--.with''the'.'taking . other: order;". ■ /The; ooint, out that-at the Revision of the. Praye Book in ■ 1661-62 '.-'the words of tho rubri ivero deliberately,: altered so as to mak them correspond - with tho words of th Elizabethan Act of Uniformity, stoppin; short of; the: reference to tho ; taking • o 'other order.'. This of' itself seems to ex plude any. reference to the 'Advertisements a authoritative' in' the ' future,' whatever "ma; have been the case in the past." __"We adhere," the bishops say, "to th view that the A'ct and rubric alike ordered return- to / the'i use of. the ' ornaments of th' . First. Praye Book of Edward VI. .It is, however, quit clear that from tho first tho rubric wa never fully obeyed, and that no attempt wa ever- made ? to- enforce its. requirements as ■': whole" - . < ,;X';V „ rcferenco to tho judgment of tho Priv; Council, on thoquestion of' vestments, Mr F. p. Eoles,/Fellow of the Royal Historica Society, -states: ; ; f ,'Tliese Privy.; Council judg ments, are- geheraDyidiscredited by historica scholars,' even by those who ; ziro not desirou of elaborate ceremonial. , Th. Privy Council- has,;, in fact, contradicted it self on several occasions, and in wurse o time, has come to dajlaro legal certai; which it had previously condemned When-it ;deolared the Eucharistic - vestment '3?S4lvin;.l^e..case; i df .:Mphiristone r. Purchas the .ruling was grounded. on tho. amazinj argument that the. Advertisements 'of 15& oveiTode < the- revised rubric of' 1 ; ninety-si: later. It was, as .Lord. Chief- Baroi Aeuy .i.3 said-to hayo rentarked, a judginen <£'pMidy raiidv no.t, of; law,\'he arid two dthef "ftft/finvy/Council ..desired,.that itheir dis sent jrom the: judgment should be -public!recorded,.but Lord Cairns refused to allov it Tho late: Bishop of Oxford, Dr. Stubbs one -, of; the. greatest of -modern / historians ' .elabdrate; ceremonial wa o vestment^bjf'ther ; 'Cohncil 4 OTj^ ent:ia^ lisu .I ~ do. not care about th y^ s^ n -nor for a : mistali 'in.the. integration; of the; law,.'but ther .'mjatake vliere) it is a; falsification, i y-\