THE PRAYER BOOK

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 12, 9 October 1928, Page 11

THE PRAYER BOOK

BISHOPS’ DECISION TO SANCTION ALTERATIONS CONDEMNED BY HOME SECRETARY '“EXAMPLE OF DISREGARD OF THE LAW” (British Official Wireless.) Rugby, October 6. The decision of the Bishops of the Church of England provisionally to sanction certain alterations in the Prayer Book, recently rejected by Parliament, has called forth a strong protest from Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Home Secretary, who led the opposition to the revised Prayer Book in the House of Commons. Sir William Joynson-Hicks says: “I now find the Bishops have quite definitely said they intend to act upon the new book as if it had been passed by Parliament. They intend to authorise new,services and inferentially new doctrines. This is a very grave decision. I do not want to use harsh words, but after all the Bishops are themselves members of Parliament, they are dignitaries of the State Church, they admit that the Book of Common Prayer cannot be altered without the sanction of Parliament, they suggest that their one desire is to restore law and order in the Church, and now they turn round and set a further example of disregard of the law. Surely they are the last people who should advise the community that if they cannot get what they want legally they may take it, not only without the authority of Parliament, but in direct opposition to its decision.” The Home Secretary adds: “We evangelicals do not want to harm the Church; we want to maintain it and enlarge it, and as for the new Prayer Book, over 90 per cent, of it we desire to have passed into law. But we cannot give up the principles of the Reformation, for which our forefathers fought and suffered, enshrined as they are in the Book of Common Prayer.”

BISHOP BARNES INTERVIEWED PROTESTANT FEELING UNDERESTIMATED ADVICE TO COLLEAGUES (United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copy right.) (Australian Press Association.) (Rec. October 8, 5.5 p.m.) London, October 8. “The Bishops must not be lawbreakers,” declared Bishop Barnes, when interviewed on the question of the Prayer Book. “I would prefer not to criticise, but the situation created is so grave and the end likely to be so disastrous that I still hope that the private remonstrances of men of weight will prevail. The Bishops are appointed by the Crown to maintain sound doctrines and lawful order in the national Church,'’hnd must not be law-breakers. The Book was rejected by the House of Commons with the general approval of the country: (1) Because it permits continuous reservation, and (2) because it sanctions an alternative service at the Holy Communion. If the Bishops permit these they will be breaking the law and flouting the authority of Parliament, and their moral authority to restrain further lawlessness in the Church will end. It would be the same as Judges of the High Court permitting theft up to £lO and severely censuring the theft of larger sums.” Bishop Barnes declared that the Synod could no more empower the Bishops to set aside' the old Prayer Book than confer the right to repudiate the Commandments. He would most strongly urge that in the course of private discussions his Lambeth colleagues should drop the two contentious proposals and resubmit the remainder to Parliament. The reply of the nation to any other course would be disestablishment. The people did not wish to subsidise Catholic innovations, but it would be preferable to the course suggested, which was indefensible. A majority of his colleagues had made a serious mistake in underestimating the Protestant feeling of the country. It would be a worse mistake to challenge regard for law and order, which was one of the soundest instincts of the British race.