NEW PRAYER BOOK CONTROVERSY.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19669, 12 July 1929, Page 11

NEW PRAYER BOOK CONTROVERSY.

DEBATE ON BISHOPS' PROPOSALS.

DK. TEMPLE URGES CHANGE IN LAW.

(VNITED pases ASSOCIATION—BT K.ECTBIC TELEGRAPH—COPYRIGHT.) (Received July 11th, 7 p.m.) LONDON, July 10. Yet another stage was reached in the Prayer Book negotiations when the Convocations of lurk and Canterbury assembled to debate a motion giving otlie>ai sanction to the proposals outlined by the Bishops last year. Jhe Primate (the Most He v. Dr. Lang), in moving the motion m the I'pper House of the Canteroury Convocation, postponed his full statement until he audie.sses the Lower House. ihe Bishop ot London (the lit. Rev. Dr. Ingram), in seconding the ruction, made the principal speech. He said the State iiad rejected their pians to overcome th-3 diuiculties, but something must be done or everybody would be a law unto himself. He denied that they were Hying in Parliament's face; they were not proposing to authorise the 11)23 Book for use in every parish, and it was untrue to say they were forcing the ritual on reluctant congregations, because parish councils must assent thereto. Mo solution would ever be satisfactory to the extremists of both sides, especially regarding the Sacrament. The agitation in that connexion had wrecked both Books. These proposals were only temporary. He hoped Parliament would yet assent to the new Book. The debate, which was adjourned, did not reveal any changes in the individual viewpoints of Bishops. The Bishop of Birmingham (the Rt. Rev. Dr. Barnes) suggested the addition of a rider to protect the minority Bishops. The Most. Rev. Dr. Temple, Archbishop of York, in moving the motion at the York Convocation, said the Church might yet have to seek Dis-es-tablishmer.t, but at present there was no clean-cut conflict between the Church and the State. It was deplorable that any member oi" the Church should appeal to Parliament against the Convocation. He hoped the next Assembly would appoint a commission to study the Church's relations to the State. The Church's law at present was hardly observed anvwhere. and nobody seemed to wish that it should be observed. The Bishops contended that the law should be altered in order to bring inside certnin practices which were now outside the law. —Australian Press Association, United Service.

[ln September, 1928, at the conclusion of a conference of all the Bishops, the Archbishops of York and Canterbury issued a statement "setting forth the principles the Bishops were generally prepared to follow in admini3 trative action necessitated by the acknowledged inadequacy of the existing law and the varieties of usage which already prevail." The Bishops made recommendations concerning the use of the Consecration Canon in the 1928 Book, and the giving of permission for the use of Reservation for the sick. The statement said that until further order the use of such additions and deviations in the 1928 Book as fell within the limit of their proposal could not be regarded as inconsistent. In no case should any departure from the 1662 Book be made unless the Parochial Council agreed with the incumbent. The opponents of the New Prayer Book described the recommendations as a defiance of Parliament and the nation's wishes.]