A CRISIS IN THE CHURCH

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 226, 13 December 1927, Page 1

A CRISIS IN THE CHURCH

Historic National Test on Revised Prayer Book EXCITEMENT IN THE LORDS ALL England is stirred with interest in the fate of the revised Prayer Book at the hands of the British Parliament. The measure is now under debate in the House of Lords, which cannof amend it, but may accept or reject it. A record attendance of bishops and peers marked the opening of the debate, and the Archbishop of Canterbury made a fighting speech. By Cable.—Press Association. — Copyright.

Reed. 12.3 p.m. LONDON, Monday. As a result of the -widespread interest in the Prayer Book debate, there was a long queue of the public in the outer lobby of the House of Lords, clergymen and women predominating. The public galleries were crowded to capacity, including the portions reserved for peeresses and members of the House of Commons. The Archbishop of Canterbury, rising from a full bench of bishops, moved that the Prayer Book measure be presented for the Royal Assent. He gave it as his opinion that the new

book would promote good order in the Church and the welfare of the En,. -ish people. He did not agree with the view that Parliament’s only duty was to accept the Church’s decision in the matter. Every member had an absolute right to vote freely on the question. * Those submitting the revised book had been charged with dreadful things, such as being false to their ordination vows, being renegades subtly trying to bring back to English homes the obscurantism from which the Reformation set England free. A STARTLING LESSON It was startling to learn that that large sums were subscribed in order to spread this sort of charge. “I am absolutely unconscious of any departure from the principles of the Reformed Church of England, to which I declared allegiance 53 years ago. I have striven to maintain that ever since. If I thought the present proposals were calculated to controvert or impair these principles, 1 should not be standing here; but I believe nothing Of the kind.” The House was entitled to demand answers to thrse questions: (1) Are there adequate reasons for desiring the Revised Prayer Book? (2) What are the outstanding differences between the present and the proposed rules of worship? (3) What good results are to be expected as a l-esult of the change? The great majority of the Church Assembly supported the new Book as well as SO per cent, of the members of the Diocesan Conference. “I hope I have shown conclusively that this is not a plan or phantasy of the bishops. It is the Book of the Church, drawn up by the laity and clergy, and finally approved by the bishops. I maintain that every available means of securing the corporate voice of the representatives of the Church have been The new Book, he said, recognised the more devotional spirit noticeable in all the churches of the country. The changes in the order of services of the churches of Scotland are greater than in most of the churches of England. Prayers for the Empire, if dustrial peace, and of the League ot Nations were an enlargement and an enrichment of the present Prayer Book. RESERVATION QUESTION The Archbishop said he hoped the House would not exaggerate what the new Holy Communion was offered. It was rearranged rather than rewritten. If he were a parish priest he would certainly use both books, for he believed both to be perfectly sound in faith, English, and reformed in character.

Many regarded their restricted use and the reservation of the consecrated elements for the sick, as the crux of the problem. He confessed that when first he sat on the committee on this subject, he hoped it would not be necessary to sanction reservation at all, owing to the danger of superstition, but sheer weight of evidence convinced him of the need for i something of the kind, if it were regulated to prevent abuse. They had taken pains, by every bit of language possible, to guard against abuse.

He believed it was right to allow a restricted use. In his deliberate judgment, nothing now suggested in anywise a changed doctrinal position in a church which wanted a book belonging, not to 1662, but to 1927. The new book would liberate ihe church from petty strifes and conduce firm progress, and *he doing of better work at home and overseas. The bishops were determined to enforce obedience to it. He hoped their Lordships would bid tfe Church to go forward »ewli'-ec£ipped» disre-J_

garding the clamour of the sections on either side.' POWERS OF THE LORDS The peers must either approve or reject the Book; they have no power to amend it. If the Lords reject it, there will be no debate in the Commons. The “Daily Express” says that many peers and Commoners are of the opinion that this is the most important Parliamentary struggle, concerning the doctrinal principles of the Church, since the Reformation. If the Book is rejected, a crisis between the Church and State is inevitable; but favourable majorities are anticipated in both Houses. The “Daily Herald” says there has been a busy whipping up of peers. For the division, there will probably be the largest attendance since the days when the backwoodsmen mustered to tight Lloyd George’s “People’s Budget.” An amendment to be moved by Viscount Stanhope in the House of Lords urges that the Revised Prayer Book should not be accepted until it is accompanied by a measure ensuring order and discipline in public worship. TENDENCY TOWARD ROME The Rev. Alfred Garvie, principal of New College, Hampstead, and a former president of the National Free Church Council, in a letter to “The Times” while deploring the conjunction of the free churches generally with the disorder into which the Church has drifted, expresses regret that some changes in the Prayer Book can be interpreted as sanctioning the tendency of Anglo-Catholics toward Rome. He adds: “I disapprove of hostile action by Parliament in view of the assurance of the Archbishop of Canterbury as to the bishops’ intentions to ensure faithful observance. If the Prayer Book is faithfully administered there is prospect of a better condition of things. “On the contrary, if the administration is ineffective the Church will be faced with a serious responsibility. Noncomformists would then be justified in claiming that disestablishment is necessary to prevent the Romanising of the National Church.”—A. and N.Z.—Sun.