“LET US STAND FAST”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 231, 19 December 1927, Page 1

“LET US STAND FAST”

Appeal by Bishop of Ripon IGNORANCE OF THE LAITY Prayer Book Rejection Stirs Nation

By Cable.—Press Association. — Copyright. Received 9.5 a.m. LONDON, Sunday. “f ET us concentrate our thought on the political happenings and not alter spiritual facts,” says the Bishop of Ripon, appealing to the supporters of the new Prayer Book to stand fast. “If we love and believe in the Church, let those ready to make the sacrifices by the which the Prayer Book will be validated, still move to the centre, proving their attitude is due to God’s unchanging spirit in the Church, not, as our opponents suggest, to indifference to truth ” TTE continues: “Let us bravely learn the lesson. The fruit of our toil was lost o.wing, firstly, to the rank and file, the laity’s ignorance and prejudice, which teaching might have done more to dissipate; secondly, a suspicion of anything suggesting a surreu der of the heritage of the Reformation; thirdly an extremist intolerance, which is a negation of the spirit of Christ.

contentious proposals may speedily become law. Simultaneously, there must be reform in church law and the church courts, so that when a man breaks the solemn oaths and promises which he made at his institution into the living he can be deprived of it.” HEAVY BLOW AT CHURCH The Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. W. S. Swayne, said: “The vote is simply deplorable. It is so serious that I prefer silence, pending mature consideration.” The Suffragan Bishop of Plymoutn, Dr. J. H. B. Masterman, said it was the heaviest blow struck at the Church in his lifetime. The Bishop of Ely, Dr. L. J. WhiteThomson, said it was a blow to unitv, discipline, progress, and reality in Church worship. The Bishop of Hereford, Dr. Linton Smith, said “The rejection of the motion raises the most serious questions, but 1 hope the rule of charity will not be forgotten.” The Bishop of Sodor and Man, Jr. C. L. Thornton-Duesbery, said: “ ,r te kingdom of God does not depend on human statesmanshi We shall be heavily handicapped, but we must bravely carry on.” “SPIRITUAL DISASTER”

“If the spiritual forces which end 20 years’ labour and prayer have drawn churchmen closed to survive the trial, the Church will soon qualify to give the spiritual lead which the House of Commons declined to accept.” He urges prayers for the bishops, and especially the archbishops, for whom the blow is the most crushing of all. VIEWS OF DR. BARNES Commenting on the position, the Bishop of Birmingham, Dr. E. \V. Barnes, said that the House of Commons had shown that it would not surrender the heritage of its Reformation. He said “I urge the majority of the bishops to show magnanimity, and so to ensure that the non-

Dr. George Frodsham, formerly Bishop of North Queensland, and now vicar of Halifax, said the rejection will make iittle difference to public worship. It means rather the p>- .- ponement of a practical attempt to unite and strengthen the episcopal administration.

The Bishop of Liverpool, Dr. A. A. David, said: “The decision means spiritual disaster. The Church must be gravely weakened for many years by the refusal of Parliament to endorse the policy of its leaders.” The Bishop of F»-dford, Dr. A. >V. Perowne, said he was greatly disappointed. but quiet consideration was needed to discover the best course to promote the welfare of the Church and of the nation. VOICE OF THE LAYMEN REASON FOR THE REJECTION CANON JAMES'S VIEWS THOUGH Anglo-Catholic and 1 evangelical extremists were against the revised Prayer Book, its defeat in the House of Commons was really the result of the opposition of the laity of the Church. In giving this opinion at St. Mary’s Cathedral yesterday, Canon James said that certaip amendments and the enforcement of discipline on priests who had openly said they would disobey the Book would probably remote the ban.

The responsibility laid on the House had been given it by a recent Act of Parliament promoted by the Church of England itself. A large majority of the members belonged to the Church. The House had undoubtedly been influenced by the strong opposi tion within the Church to the alter native order for the administration of Holy Communion, and by stronger opposition to the alternative order tor the Communion of the sick. Through these the way was open for claiming legal sanction for alien devotions and cults in connection with the reserved sacrament, which seemed to imply not only a "change of emphasis,” but also a fundamental change of doc trine. There was a real fear within the Church that teachings and practices would be legalised which the mass of English Church people al*horred. It was said that if these alternative services were dropped the rest of the book would pass withhardly any opposition. For this purpose it would probably not be necessary to drop the alternative orders, but simply to amend them. NEED OF DISCIPLINE Prayer Book revision had been undertaken with the purpose of putting an end to disorders in the Church and enforcing discipline. Many of the clergy had proclaimed that r hev would not obey. Many of the bishops had said openly that they would ••or take legal proceedings against disobedient priests. What —as thj good of having the book under these >nditions? It had already failed in its main purpose.

The measure would finally pass into law if it were accompanied by provisions for enforcing, if need be, the obedience of cler ' high and low degree. Perhaps this r-vild be <1 >te only bv the reform of the ere! "'slas’’ical courts: perhaps other means more proper and effectiv- -ould be found. Dean Inge, who had consistently supported the Prayer Book measure, truly said that disobedience would disappear “if it were an ac pted principle that a e’ergyman who has wi aionhe—eu pic fiinhop is to be under censure, and incapable of ho d ing office in any diocese.”