PRAYER BOOK.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 December 1927, Page 2

PRAYER BOOK.

DEBATE IN LORDS. (Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, Dee. 12. As the result of widespread interest in the prayer-book debate, there was a long queue of the public ill the outer lobby of the House of Lords, clergymen and women predominating. The public galleries were crowded, including portions reserves for Peeresses and Commoners. The Archbishop ol Canterbury, rising from a full bench ol bishops, moved that the prayer book measure be presented lor the Royal assent. He expressed the opinion that the new book would promote good order in the church and welfare of the English people. He did not agree with the view that Parliament’s duty was to accept the Church’s decision in the matter. Every member had ail absolute right to vote freely on the question. Those submitting the revised book had been charged with dreadful things, such as being talse to tlieir ordination vows, being renegades and subtly- trying to bring back to English home's the obscurantism from which the reformation set England iree. The Archbishop of Canterbury said it was startling to learn that large sums were subscribed in order to spread this sort of charge. “ I am absolutely unconscious of any departure from me prin ciples of the Reformed Church in Eng land, to which t declared allegiance fifty-three years ago. I have striven to maintain that ever since. Ii 1 thought the present proposals calculated to controvert and impair these principles, 1 should not he standing here; but 1 believe nothing of the kind.”

The House was entitled to demand answer to three questions: firstly, “Are there adequate reasons for desiring the revised prayer book”; secondly, “M hat are the outstanding differences between present and proposed rules of worship thirdly, “ AY lint good results are to be expected as a result of the change.” A great majority of the Church’s Assembly supported the new book, the Bishop of Wells, and 80 per cent ol members of the Diocesan Conferences. J'|,e Archbishop of Canterbury proceeded : “ 1 hope I have shown conclusively that this is not a plan or phantasy of the bishops. It is a book ol the Church drawn up by the laity and clergy and finally approved by the bishops. I maintain every available means of securing the corporate voice of representatives of the church has been taken.” The new hook recognised the more devotional spirit noticeable in all churches in the country. The changes in the order of services in the rlpireiies of Scotland wore greater than in most church in England. Prayers for Empire, industrial peace and the League of Nations wore an enlargement of the present prayer hook. LONDON, Dee. 12. The Archbishop of Canterbury hoped the House would not exaggerate what the new Holy Communion offered. It was re-arranged rather than re-written. If lie were a parish priest lie would certainly use both. He believed both were perfectly sound in faith, English and reformed" in character. -Many regarded the restricted use and reservation of consecrated elements for sick as the crux of the problem. He confessed that when lie first sat oil the Committee on the subject, he hoped it would not he necessary to sanction the reservation at all, owing to the danger of superstition, but the sheer weight of evidence convinced him of the need of something of the kind, if regulated to iirevent abuse. They had taken pains by every bit of language possible to guard against abuse. LONDON, Dec. 12.

The Archbishop of Canterbury continued—He believed it right to allow a restricted use. In his deliberate judgment nothing was now suggested that in any way challenged the doctrinal position of the church, which wanted a book belonging not to 1662 but to 1927. The new hook would liberate the church from petty strifes and conduce to firm progress, doing better work- at home and overseas. 'I lie Bishops were determined to enforce obedience to it. He hoped their Lordships would hid the church go forward, newly-equipped, disregarding the clamour of sections on either side.

“CHURCH AT WAR WITH ITSELF ’ LONDON, Dee. 13.' Lord Ham worth hoped the House would unequivocally reject the motion He said the opponents of the measure desired the rubric to include a permanent safeguard binding the Episcopal Bench for a generation to come. They particularly objected to ail alterative Communion service, in "hieh thev contended it was vital to have unity. Discipline could not be enforced when there was an alternative. Earl Beauchamp said it was the extremists on both sides who opposed the measure. They ought to give way on personal points for the good ol the book, which abolished nothing, hut enriched everything.

The Marquis of Lincolnshire, opposing the motion, declared the Church wn"s at war with itself. They saw the use of vestments, confession, mass and reservation of sacrament, which could not he dissociated from adoration, being practised in the Church of England. “1 think we have the right to demand,’’ declared the Marquis of Lincolnshire, “that in matters ecclesiastical, as well as temporal, every Englishman should be made to obey the law. We, who are conscientiously opposed to the measure, are standing shoulder to shoulder by the Old 1< aitli and English traditions, for which our forefathers fought and .John Hampden died.’’

Lord Denbigh said none of the Roman Catholic peers intended to take part either in the debate or in the division. He could not imagine a more incongruous body than the modern Parliament, comprising men of varying religions, agnostics and free thinkers, being asked to practically lay down the doctrines and rubrics of the Church of England. Lord Phillimore supported the measure ns leading to order through liberty, without a change of doctrine. It was only, at most, a change in emphasis. The debate was adjourned. LONDON. Dec. 12.

“The passage of the Prayer Book bv Parliament will give implicit approval to the erroneu.s doctrines perpetuating discord, and will prevent the Church from profiting by the next religious revival,” said Bishop Barnes at the Birmingham Dinocesan Conference. “The Archbishop of York 'says that chaos will ensue if the revised Prayer Book is rejected. I feel that eliaos is far more likely in the event of its approval, because of contentious rubrics, loosely drafted. The Bishops are given dangerous and unprecedented powers to make subordinate rubrics possessing the force of law; consequently the Bishops do not know where they stand. Naturally, I shall try to continue to lx? loyal to my duties, but uncertainty will render it impossible to restore discipline. If the measure rejected the reservation o f ’bo Hoiv Communion, changes could easily be carried out. enabling the Church within thirty years to restate theology in harmony with modern knowledge.’*