The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20. 1927. THE REVISED PRAYER BOOK.

Hokitika Guardian, 20 December 1927, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20. 1927. THE REVISED PRAYER BOOK.

Tke great controversy which has raged round the revision of the Prayer Book at Home has reached an anti-climax by reason of the House of Commons reflecting the Revised Prayer Book. The effect of the rejection is likely to lrn'o far-reaching results. As the Established Church, and hound up with the State, Parliament had authority in the matter, and it lias exercised that authority in such a manner as to excite the most serious consequences. Naturally, in matters affecting the religion of the State, there is at Home a very serious view taken of the issue. Left to the Church itself, the Prayer Book was devised as was thought desirable, though not without much, in fact, pronounced opposition. The Mouse of Lords it would appear was moved to accept the Revised Prayer Book mainly by the eloquence of the Lord Bishops, j in actual fact by one Lord Bishop. It was thought that the end was in sight, hut the House of Commons lms reversed

the verdict of tlio Lords, nnd a chaotic situation has resulted. Tt is too late to question the wisdom of the Commons or to throw douht a.s to the ability of such a mixed religions gathering as the Commons offers, to pass judgment on the work of the high officers of the Church. The fact is the Commons had the power and authority to deal with the matter, and hence the seriousness of the general situation. Tt is sufficient that Parliament was warned as to the true position, and yet despite that warning of the possibilities of rejection.

the veto has taken place. The points at issue as regards doctrine and ritual were not considered in any detail, hut the completed work was rejected. As to tlio general situation now. Parliament had an intimation of what was possible to happen. The position was set forth recently with groat dearness and force by Bishop Knox. “While Parliament in untiringly and not untruly reminded of its theological incompetence,’’ it was warned that if it did nothing “the Church will ho reduced to chaos, and the English Episcopacy hopeleslv discredited.” Til other words, “under threat of ecclesiastical disaster” Parliament was called upon “to uphold to England and the Empire as the type of public worship, and as ‘the pure profession of the Gispel,’ a Book which it has had no time to examine, no [lower to amend, and no competence or training to estimate.” It may well he asked, should not Parliament have declined to accept so grave a responsibility? As to the theological issues involved. there were and are differences of opinion within the Church itself, hut a substantial majority favored the changes proposed as being essential to the well-being of the Church. Modern

thought has had its play and it would appear it was necessary to deal with certain aspects of belief in a more liberal manner. In other words, greater freedom of thought was necessary. As against this the Commons pronounced indefinitely for the strongest strain of Protestantism, without deviation from the time of Reformation It was remarkable that in this attitude the voting of many of various religions coincided, while as one speaker remarked even “agnostics and free thinkers” made their voice heard in regard to the “doctrines and rubrics of the Church of England.” This aspect is a. reminder more than ever that the Anglican Church is the established Church of England, and so far as the mere laxity is concerned, there is the expression of more or lees considered opinion that it is to remain such on the line originally fixed. The general effect of this restriction may lead to a hreak in the Church more or less serious. The leaders of the Cli”rch hold definite views as to the'Peed for the revision, nnd it remains to he seen how matters can progress in harmony with time views so manifest in the directing minds. Therein is the crisis of the times, and at the moment there is no suggestion as to the form for escape from th<j impasse. Perhaps

ome form of modification or compromise may meet the general situation, but at the moment the whole question is pregnant with momentous possibilities for the future of the Church and State, and their inter-relations.