NO FURTHER PRAYER BOOK

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 396, 3 July 1928, Page 9

NO FURTHER PRAYER BOOK

ANNOUNCEMENT BY PRIMATE OPPONENTS OF MEASURE REBUKED “ALL MUST SHARE COMMON SHAME" DESCRIBING Parliament’s rejection of the Prayer Book as disastrous and deplorable, the Archbishop of Canterbury intimated to the Church Assembly that it could not be expected to present another Book to the House of Commons. The Bishops will meet in September to face the problem again. (United P.A.—By Telegraph — Copyright) (Australian Press Association.) (United Service)

Reed. 11.48 a.m. LONDON. Monday. The Archbishop ot Canterbury’s pronouncement on the official policy in the Prayer Book deadlock attracted a crowded gathering to the Church House, Westminster. The entire Assembly rose and applauded the aged Primate at the beginning of his address. He pleaded with the Assembly to view the House of Commons vote vote calmly in its proper proportions. ‘‘lts significance may easily be exaggerated ; its intention may be misjudged. Some call it a deliberate challenge, and say the House of Commons is arrogantly claiming absolute control of the Church’s beliefs and worship. That is a mistaken view. No such far-reaching challenge was intended.” If the Commons flouted the wellproven working arrangement of Church and State, there was no constitutional intent. Many who voted against the Book believed, however mistakenly, that they were voicing the underlying wish of the majority of Church folk. He considered it a gravely mistaken vote. It might even be deemed disastrous and deplorable; but it was perfectly legal. The Commoners exercised the right conferred by an Act which the Church itself framed, but in exercising their unquestionable legal power they departed lamentably from the reasonable spirit in which alone the balanced relationship of Church and State could be carried on. “While claiming to appraise Church opinion, they deliberately traversed the desires of the Church’s officials and representative bodies, namely, the bishops, the clergy and the laity. The House of Commons declined to respect the wishes of the solid central body of Church opinion, and allowed itself to be influenced by the representations of a strange combination of vehement opposite groups and factions, which were united only in their desire to get the Book defeated.” CHURCH’S INALIENABLE RIGHT Speaking advisedly on behalf of the collective Diocesan Bishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury said it was a fundamental principle that the Church must retain an inalienable right to formulate its faith, and arrange its forms of worship. “It Is our firm hope that some strong and capable committee of statesmen and churchmen may be appointed to weigh afresh the existing law in order to see whether readjustment is required for the maintenance of that principle, which we are here now to reassert.” For himself, he had hoped the Book would be a rallying-point for Church unity, but as things now stood that hope was thwarted. A spirit of division and estrangement had raised its head more mischievously than before. “OUR COMMON SHAME” “None can escape feeling our common shame, that groups within the Church, however conscientiously, set themselves to upset and succeeded in upsetting the

vote of this Assembly, and the deliberate judgment of the Church as expressed therein, but we are not going to lose heart.” He believed that unity was possible, but he was unable to see how the Assembly could be expected to present a further book to Parliament at the present time. He was also of the opinion that no measure worthy of the name would avoid the controversy. The bishops would meet in September to further consider the problems, and consult the Church's representative bodies. MEETING OF BISHOPS A British OSicial Wireless message says at the summer session of the Church Assembly to-day, the Archbishop of Canterbury made his eagerly-awaited statement on the situation caused by the rejection of the Prayer Book measure by the House of Commons. It was, he said, too early to judge that step finally, although he considered the Commons’ vote to be mistaken and deplorable in its incidence and consequences. He could not see

how the Assembly could be expected to present a further Prayer Book measure to Parliament. The bishops would have to consider what variations from the old prescribed law they could or ought to sanction. The bishops, who were in session last week, would meet again in September for further consideration of these problems. The central deliberative bodies of the Church must also in due course be consulted. The Church correspondent of the “Daily Express” says many churchmen. including some of the bishops, resent Parliament’s action. Many non-conformists who are fearful regarding the Church of England's alleged trend toward Rome demand its disestablishment. The Liberal leader, Mr. Lloyd George, will possibly exploit the deep Protestantism evidenced in the debates in the House of Commons and make disestablishment a plank in the Liberal platform. VIEWS OF BISHOP SPROTT SECOND REJECTION UNWISE INTO HANDS OF LAWLESS Press Association. WELLINGTON, To-day. The Wellington Diocesan Anglican Synod opened this afternoon. Most of Bishop Sprott’s address was concerned with the revised Prayer Book. The supreme need of the moment, he suggested, was an accurate knowledge of the course of events. It might be asked, perhaps with some impatience, why should not the Church determine its own formularies without any outside dictation whatever. The answer was that the Church in England fulfilled a dual function. It was part of the Church universal, and also (as it was not in New Zealand) the national organ of religion. It must be noted that the right of Parliament was not unlimited. The right of initiating or drafting the revision was reserved to the Church. Parliament could not of itself altex any revision prepared by the Church; it could only accept such a revision as a whole or reject it as a whole. After traversing the power' of Parliament in regard to the Prayer Book* Bishop Sprott referred to its rejection last December, saying he gathered the ground of its rejection was that there was a serious departure from the doctrinal position of the Book of Common Prayer, this being found in the rubric permitting continuous reservations of consecrated bread and wine in the alternative order for communion of the sick. The archbishops reconsidered the second rubric, amplifying it by ways of explanation, and providing more stringent safeguards while yet retaining its substance unchanged, but he thought it remained true. AN ADMIRABLE SPIRIT Parliament rejected the 1928 measure for the same reason as it rejected that of December. There did not seem to have been any attempt to exploit the question for political or sectarian ends. There did not seem to be any antagonism, to the Church manifested On the contrary, there was entire goodwill. Parliament had dealt with the question in an admirable spirit. In regard to the first rejection. Bishop Sprott was of the opinion that it was not altogether an unmixed evil, but in regard to the second, he did not think it altogether wise. It might play into the hands of the lawless whom it was desired to restrain, for being negative it merely barred out the remedy for lawlessness, which was put forward by the bishops, without suggesting any more effective remedy. The vote in Parliament might simply have undermined the constitutional authority of the Church. He trusted the Church would never take the initiative in the secularising of the State, for that was the ultimate meaning of | disestablishment.