Prayer Book Defeat

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 382, 16 June 1928, Page 8

Prayer Book Defeat

VIEWS OF THE PRIMATE

Not Surprised, But Sorry

' I AM not surprised, but I am very, very sorry. 1 “The curious thing about the new Prayer Book is that the opposition has come from the extreme high church and the extreme low church—the main body of church people is willing to accept it.”

r pHESE remarks were made by Archbishop Averill. Primate of New Zealand, yesterday afternoon when he was approached and asked to express an opinion on the rejection of the new Prayer Book by the House of Commons. The Archbishop of Canterbury's own personal appeal and the intimation of his retirement had evidently induced a larger number to vote for the revised Prayer Book, said Archbishop Averill. He felt that their object was to make the Archbishop feel that he had brought a great work to a successful conclusion. The appeal by the Bishops could not have made much difference after the Prayer Book was rejected the first time. The alterations which had been made were so slight that they would not make anyone change his mind on the subject. WHAT OF THE FUTURE? “The great question now is, ‘What will be done in the future?’ ” continued Archbishop Averill. “When the Prayer Book was rejected the first time what we heard seemed to intimate that chaos existed. Personally, on that occasion, I think the bishops were caught unawares. They will not be in the same position this

time, and we should hear shortly what the decision will be for the future.” The Archbishop said it was quite possible that the Bishops and Convocation might authorise the use of the revised Prayer Book and take the consequences. He felt that the Church had her own spiritual rights. From the highest point of view it was not the prerogative of Parliament, which consisted of all sorts and conditions of men, to have the last say in the matter. “I want to make it quite clear,” continued Archbishop Averill, “that Parliament is legally right. Parliament has acted quite within its rights, but those rights, to us, seem to be wrong. If the Church is to claim the spiritual right to authorise the use of the revised Prayer Book, it will be for Parliament to disestablish the Church, if Parliament thinks fit to do so. “At the same time, I feel that the desire in England for disestablishment is feeble. There is no great desire of any great body of church-goers in England to disestablish the Church.” DISENDOWMENT DANGER The Archbishop said that if the Church could be disestablished without being disendowed, then many people would favour such action, but not otherwise. “It is iniquitous,” he said, “that money which was left in generations gone by for the support and work of the Church should be used for any other purpose. Disestablishment with disendowment would mean that the

I Church would have to start all ove»* I again. and this in turn would ; mean much more financial as- ; sistance from church-goers. I !do not say that Parliament would ■ take over the whole of the endowments. It will be remembered that when the Church of Ireland was disestablished. some of the endowments were left to it. “It would be a very unfortunate day for England if the Church were disestablished. I think it is a great thing for England to have some public recognition of religion.” The Archbishop recalled what prominent public men had said after the war—that the only hope of the world was the rebuilding of it on a basis of moral sanctions. It was impossible to build a civilisation without a solid foundation and that foundation was religion. “In spite of what has happened, I should be sorry to see disestablishment, not for the sake of the Church, but for the sake of the State,” he continued. “It does mean something to have a State Church. I think that Parliament has endeavoured to act quite fairly to the Church, and in recent years I think she has kept loyally to her compact.” The Archbishop explained that this compact came about as a result of a law being passed which allowed the ; Church Assembly to draw up its own laws and required that they should be considered by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament and passed by both Houses before being sent on for the Royal Assent. Parliament can reject the laws of the Church Assembly, but it cannot alter them. “Parliament has been quite loyal to this contract,” he added, “though one regrets its action. This forces one to the conclusion. ‘ls it right for a body largely secular to have the last word in the Prayer Book of the spiritual church?* MAY GRADUALLY BE USED “Personally, I feel that a great deal of the revised Prayer Book will gradually come into use. On the whole it is very excellent, though there are some things I would not care to see in it. If the Bishops could have seen their way to delete a few of the things which are new and which the Church could do without, I feel that the Prayer Book would have been passed unanimously.” Regarding the use of the word “mass,” Archbishop Averill said that he considered it the most unmeaning word in the Prayer Book. It appeared in the first book in 1549. It had nothing distinctive, but as it was popularly confused with the Roman “mass** he felt that it was inadvisable to use the word.

Undoubtedly there was a danger in continuous reservation. The objection to this was to reserving the wine and bread in some place in the church for all time. “I am not convinced of the need for continuous reservation,” said the Archbishop. “It is quite all right for the sick if the reservation is made at Holy Communion and taken to them immediately afterwards. I feel that it was a pity to put continuous reservation in the Prayer Book. It would have been better to leave it to individual bishops to deal w’ith, as they thought fit, in cases of necessity.” Archbishop Averill said he thought the new Prayer Book very beautiful. Behind it was the wisdom of the best liturgical scholars in England, who had advised the Bishops. The work had gone on for many years. Personally, he thought that the Prayer Book should be altered.

The decision arrived at in England would not affect New Zealand very greatly. If the revised Prayer Book had been authorised it could have been accepted in New Zealand after it had been passed by General Synod.