New Prayer Book Opposed in Lords

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 227, 14 December 1927, Page 9

New Prayer Book Opposed in Lords

DEBATE CONTINUED HOUSE AGAIN CROWDED By Cable.—Press Association. — Copyright. Reed. 9.5 a.m. LONDON. Tues. The House of Lords was again crowded when Viscount Stanhope, resuming the debate on the Prayer Book, said he regretted he must oppose the Primate. He would not do so if he felt that the new book would restore order ami discipline in accordance with the recommendations of the 1906 Commission. He felt that the bishops’ powers under the new regime would be most inadequate. The measure ought to be postponed till the ecclesiastical courts were reconstituted, and their p«. ers increased. The delay need not be prolonged. If the Church Assembly desired this, legislation might be introduced in 1925. In order not to limit the scope of the debate he would not press his own amendment, in favour of not proceeding further till the measure was accompanied by provisions ensuring order and descipline. Rising after the speech of the Archbishp of Canterbury. Lord Hanworth said he hoped the House would unequivocally reject the motion. He said the opponents of the measure desired the Rubric to include a permanent safeguard to bind the episcopal bench for generations to come. They particularly objected to the alternative Communion service, in which they contended it was vital to have unity. Discipline conld not. be enforced when there was an alternative form of service. Earl Beauchamp said it was the extremists on both sides who opposed the measure. They ought to give way on personal points for the good of the new book, which abolished nothing but enriched everything. “AT WAR WITH ITSELF”

The Marquess of Lincolnshire, in opposing the motion, said the Church was at war with itself. They saw the use of vestments, of confession, of the mass, and the reservation of the Sacrament (which could not, he said, be dissociated from its adoration), being practised in the Church of England. “I think we have a right to demand,” declared the Marquess, “that, in matters ecclesiastical as well as temporal, every Englishman should be made to obey the law. We who are conscientiously opposed to tfie measure who standing shoulder to shoulder by the old faith and the English traditions, for which our forefathers fought and John Hampden died.”—A. and N.Z.-Sun. DANGER OF CHAOS DR. BARNES’S WARNING LONDON, Monday. At a meeting of the Birmingham Diocesan Conference the Bishop of Birmingham, Dr. E. W. Barnes, said the passage of the revised Prayer i Book by Parliament would give implicit approval to erroneous doctrines, and would perpetuate discord, and ! prevent the Church from profiting by the next religious revival. “The Archbishop of York, Dr. j Cosmo Lang, says chaos will ensue if the new book is rejected,” he said. “I feel that chaos is far more likely in the event of its approval, because of the contentious Rubrics, which are loosely drafted. The bishops are given dangerous and unprecented powers to make subordinate Rubrics, possessing the force of law. Consequently the bishops do not know where they stand.

“Naturally I shall try to continue to be loyal to my duties, but the uncertainty will render it impossible to restore discipline if the measure should be rejected. “The changes regarding the reservation of the Holy Communion could easily be carried out, which would allow the Church within 30 years to restate its theology in harmony with modern knowledge.”—A. and N.Z.Sun.