PRAYER BOOK

Hokitika Guardian, 16 December 1927, Page 2

PRAYER BOOK

THE DEBATE CLOSES. [ Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.] LONDON, Dec. 14. Lord Cushenden said that the Bishop of I/mdnii had said the new Prayer Book restored the canon which was broken up at the Bcformation, hut the canon was then deliberately broken up in order to emphasise the Protestant interpretation of the Sacrament. Surely the restoration of the pre-Bel urination service restored what the Befonnation had repudiated. The demand for a new Book was almost entirely clerical. Lord Cushenden thought it would produce an anticlerical movement, and result in the Church rapidly ceasing to he an expression of the faith ot the Nation as a whole. It was hound to- increase the danger of disestablishment, and make a. reunion of the churches impossible. Lord Cave considered that though Parliament was empowered to overrulethe Church Assembly, surely when the latter, after all the steps required by law had been taken, had reached a conclusion by an overwhelming majority, and must have a most overwhelming ease made out against it betoie the house could reject that decision. Lord Cave thought too much had been made of the differences between the two hooks, and too little of their essential agreement. To him, the effect of revision was like a lresh breeze blowing through the old pages, relieving them of incongruities and substituting works of fresh appeal, more congruous to the present time. The Bishop of Norwich said they were asked to add new forms of worship which might he more Greek or Bounin, hut certainly not more English. He believed the decision would dig a deeper trench between the National and other churches in England. The discussions at the Diocesan Conferences were most inadequate. I lie vast majority of church people had the Prayer Book thrust upon them with no idea of its contents. The Bishop declared: l ’l believe you are being asked to erect a strong firm temple ot discord—to re-erect a temple of Baal. 1 ask you not to dissipate the influence of the National Church by making the Prayer Book optional and alternative crucial paints.” Archbishop of York, winding up the debate, said the unity of the Bishops in the matter has been most * noteworthy. The Clmrc-h Assembly had never been more representative than at present. Only two free churches were opposed to the measure and three conspicuous non-conformists—Doctors Carnegie-Simpson, Garvie and Scottlidgett had approved of it. Certainly they did not regard it as a blow to closer union. The present Pravoi Book remained unchanged as a standard of church teaching to which clergy would have to declare their assent. No bishop or parochial council could compel any clergyman to use the revised Prayer Book. The main object of the new’ Prayer Book was not the better discipline of clergy, hut improved provision for the worship of God. 3 lie people were concerned, not about vestments and .such like, but whether tliox could see in the Church a greater sense of peace, unity and goodwill which they were exhorted to bring into their own industrial life. ‘‘lf you reject the Book you send hack the Church to waste its energies. You will divert it from the main stream of national life into a backwater noisy with internal strife. If the Lords and Commons by decisive majorities approve of the measure, you will have done something to free the Church for its high task and strengten the lies binding te nation to the Christian faith.” 'flic motion was carried by 241 to 88. 'fhe minority included Bishops Norwich and Worcester, the Dukes ol Argyle, Buccleueh, Marquis of Lincoln-

shire, and I -on is Halshury. Arnold, Banbury, Carson. Cushenden, Afeath, Kinnaird, Galway, Strathspey and Sydenham.

THE FINAL SCENE. LONDON, Dec. 15. The filial scene in the House of Lords debate on the Prayer Book will long he memorable. The House was thronged in every corner, and the atmosphere was one of fonse expectancy. It is many years since such an assembly of peers have been seen, while the public galleries could hold scarcely one-third of those seeking admission. .Mr Baldwin and a few of his colleagues were prominent among the privileged persons assembled on the steps of the Throne.

It was a great moment for the aged Archbishop of Canterbury when ihe surprising figures were announced, amid cheering, for the majority was far greater, than the most confident supporters of the new Prayer Book had expected. The Bishops looked radiant, and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s face showed a succession of emotions—devoutly happy though a little weary from the strain, and then abstracted, as if offering n silent thanksgiving. The bitterest critic could not have grudged the Archbishop of Canterbury that moment of elation and relief.

The drama of the debate mounted steadily until tlio final winding up speech of the Archbishop of York, whose persuasive eloquence, it is believed, influenced the result. The voting among the Bishops was twenty for, two against the motion.