THE PRAYER BOOK.

Hokitika Guardian, 4 July 1928, Page 2

THE PRAYER BOOK.

ARCHBISHOP’S STATEMENT. Australian Press Assn.—United Servioe LONDON, July 2. Tlie Archbishop of Canterbury’s pronouncement on tho official policy following the Prayer Book deadlock, attracted a crowded gathering at Church House. Westminster. The entire assembly rose' and applauded l the Primate who, at tho beginning of his address, pleaded with the Assembly to view the Commons’ vote calmly, and in proper proportions. “Tho significance may easily he exaggerated,” he said. “It’s intention ■may be misjudged. Some call it a deliberate challenge, and sav the Commons nre arrogantly claiming absolute control of the Church’s beliefs and worship. That was a mistaken view. No such far-reacliing challenge was intended. If the Commons flouted the/ well-proven working arrangement of the Church and State there was a constitutional reply. Many who voted against the Book believed,- however mistakenly, that they were voicing the underlying wish of a. majority of the Church folk.”

lie considered it was a gravely mistaken vote, and it might even be deemed disastrous and deplorable; hut itwas perfectly legal. The Commoners exorcised the right conferred by the Act which tho Church itself framed, but in exercising the unquestionable legal power, they departed lamentably from the reasonable spirit wherein alone the balanced: relationship of Church and State could be carried on. While claiming to appraise Church opinion, they deliberately traversed the desires of the Church’s officials and representative bodies, namely, bishops, clergy and laity. The House of Commons declined to respect the wishes of the solid central body of Church opinion, and allowed itself to he influenced hv representations of a strange combination of vehement opposite groups and factions, which united only in the desire to get the Book defeated. Speaking advisedly on behalf of the collective diocesan Bishops, the Archbishop said: “It is a fundamental principle that the Church must retain an inalienable right to formulate its faith, and arrange its forms of worship. It is our firm hope that some strong, capable oommittce of statesmen and churchmen may bo appointed to weigh afresh the existing law, in order to see whether readjustment is required for the maintenance of that principle, which we here and now reassert.”

For himself, lie said, he had hoped the Book would be a rallying point for Church unity, but ns things now stood, that hope was thwarted. The spirit of division and estrangement had raised its head more mischievous than before.

“None can escape feeling our common shame, that groups within the Church, however, conscientiously, set themselves to upset, and succeeded in upsetting the vote of this Assembly, and the deliberate judgment of the Church, as expressed therein, but we are not going to lose Heart.” He believed that unity was possible. He was unable to see how the Assembly could ue expected to present a further Book to Parliament, at the present time. Ho also expressed the, opinion that no measure worthy of the name would avoid controversy. The Bishops would meet in September to consider the problem and consult- the Church’s representatives bodies.

PRAYER BOOK DEADLOCK

LONDON, July 3

The Archbishop’s statement indicates an entirely new departure in the policy of the Bishops, says the Daily Telegraph. Tlie I’rayer Book, which was rejected a.s a whole, is to be adopted piecemeal. The Act of Uniformity is a dead letter. Every parish priest has been a lawmaker to himself, tho Bishops will now have the difficult task of confining deviators from the existing Book within the borders of the Revised Book, which ha,; behind it noforce of law. It will mean an effort to bring the extreme clergy into line by prevailing on them voluntarily to accept the limitations contained in the deposited Book. 1 No doubt, tlie Bishops will be accused of defying Parliament; but we are sure it was in a spirit of defiance that they arrived at that decision. Tlie -acutely conscious drift must he arrested, or at any rate controlled. , The Bishops have been compelled to assert authority inherent in their office regarding tlie larger issue, since tno enabling Act failed. The Church’s greatest need is a movement for amending the Act, and this will probably arise.

N.Z. BISHOP’S COMMENT. ' WELLINGTON, July 3. The Wellington Diocesan Anglican Synod opened to-day. Most of Bishop Sprott’s address was concerned with the Revised Prayer Book. The supremo need of the moment, he suggested, was accurate knowledge of the course of events. It might, be asked, perhaps with some impatience, why should not the Church determine its own formalities, without any outside dictation whatever. The answer was, that the Church in England fulfilled a dual function. It was part of the Church Universal, and also, as it was not in New Zealand, a national organ of religion. “It muist bo noted right off that Parliament was not unlimited in its right of initiating and drafting revision. It was reserved to the Church. Parliament could not of itself alter any revision prepared by the Church. It could only accept such revision as a whole or reject it as a whole.” After traveling the power of Parliament in regard to the Prayer Book, Bishop Sprott referred to its rejection last December, saving he gathered that the ground was there. It was a serious departure from the doctrinal position of the Book of Common Prayer, this being found in the Rubric permitting continuous reservations of consecrated bread and wine of an alternative order for the Communion of tlio sick. The Archbishops had reconsidered the second‘Rubric, amplifying it l>v ways of explanation, and providing more stringent safeguards, while yet retaining its substance unchanged. It was true that Parliament had rejected the 1928 measure for the same reason it rejected that ,of December. There did not seem to have been any attempt to ■ exploit the question for political or sectarian ends. There did not seein to be any antagonism to , the Church manifested. On the contrary, the entire goodwill of Parliament had dealt with the question in an admirable spirit. In regard to the first rejection, Bishop Sprott was of the opinion that it was not altogether an unmixed 1 evil, but in regard to the second, he did not think it altogether wise. It might play into the hands of the .. lawless, whom it was desired to restrain ; for, being negative, it merely barred out the remedy for lawlessness put forward by the Bishops, without suggesting any more effeetlye remedy. The vote in Parliament might simply have undermined the constitutional authority of the Church. He trusted the Church would never take the initiative in the secularising of the State, for that was the ultimate meaning of dis-establisliment.

NATIONAL CHURCHES. TE AROHA, July 3. “It is a question whether the Na-

tioual Churches are not an anachronism,” said Bishop Cherrington at the Waikato Synod to-day, commenting on the Home Parliament’s, rejection of the Revised Prayer Book. “Certainly those parts of the Church, such as our own, which are not under State regulations or interference, are second to none in efficiency and power, if not perhaps in prestige.” TEe Bishop made a~ strong plea for re-union of the Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist and Congregational Churches, *•