PRAYER BOOK REVISION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5227, 16 January 1928, Page 4

PRAYER BOOK REVISION.

PETITION OF SYMPATHY.

MANY CLERGY WILL NOT SIGN.

A large majority of the Anglican clergy in the diocese ofi Sydney, is >t said, are, not likely to sign the petition to, the Archbishop of Canterbury which has emanated from the diocese of Gioulbpum and. which expresses sympathy with the English Primate in the rejection of the Prayer Book measure, by the House' of Commons. “From the communication forwarded to the plergy it is difficult to un-, derstand what particular authority the promoters of the,' petition have for acting in the name, or on behalf, of the bishop and clergy of the, Church in Australia,” said tlhe Rev. S. J. Kirby, organising secretary of the Bush Church Aid Society, in discussing the matter.

“In-any case, tide inadequacy of the petition or vote of sympathy stands revealed. Lay people are not given any part or lot therein. Surely the Church in Australia is much bigger than the bench of bishops and the clergy together, and a petit on containing even a good number of their signatures will not be at all represeintative of the whole.church. ? Dean Talbot thinks that there will be many of. the clergy who, while sympathising with the Archbishop of Canterbury from a personal point of view, will hesitate tq sign the expression of sympathy and goodwill which has just been circulated. The petition expresses “ deep regret at the rejection ofl Parliament of a measure passed and presented by the Church Assembly and Houses of Convocation.” COMMONS “ WITHIN ITS RIGHTS.” “ We may regret the, action of Parliament in any particular instance, but why should we regret its acting within its constitutional rights as, set forth jn the Church off England Assembly (Powers) Act, and avcepted by the Church itself. ? It was clearly never meant that the resolutions of Parliament should be simply a rubber stamp upon whatever the Church should present,” tihe Dean contends. “It is very sad indeed that the Archbishop ofi Canterbury, who has in the past shown himself so grejat a statesman and so sagacious a. leader, should at this advanced stage of his episcopate suffer so severe a setback, but whilst t'he personal sympathies of ■many of us are in this with the Archbishop our regret is not that the Prayer Book measure was rejected by tlie Commons, but that the Church authorities should have jeopardised what in many respects is an admirable revision by the incorporation off one or two very questionable and dangerous changes. GROUNDS FOR MISGIVING. “The alternative order of. the Communion,” it is pointed out by the Dean, “contains words which to many of us suggest a, change in thei elements off bread .and wine which has no place in our present. Prayer Book. Further, the provision for the Reservation of the Sacrament, ■ though for Communion only, and hedged round with safeguards many of us feel will be abused, and there is ample justification for such misgivings in What lias been going on in the Church for many years past. The promise of the bishops that (Helpline will. be’ exercised, though made in good faith, does not reassure us. i

“It has been said that many .of the members of the House of Commons who voted for the rejection of the Prayer Book measure are not membejrs of the Church of Eingland. It should not be forgotten, however, that many have been driven, from the Church in years past by those vejry things which are now in> dispute-

“The great work of revision need not be wasted. Lett the Church authorit’es revise the Revision, removing the few objectionable change's, and no further difficulty should be raised by the Commons.”