BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER

Evening Star, Issue 19745, 21 December 1927, Page 5

BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER

REJECTED REVISION SIR JOYNSON-HICKS REPLIES TO CRITICISMS. I’reii Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, December 19. Sir William Joynson-Hicks, contesting the argument that non-English votes outweighed those of English Commoners in the Prayer''Book division, says that Protestantism concerns Scotsmen and Welshmen .equally with Englishmen. Britain wants to remain Protestant, and docs not want to light the battles of tho sixteenth century. Replying to the complaint that Nonconformists and others helped to defeat the book, lie points out that similar people voted in the affirmative. Mr Kosslyn Mitchell (Labor, Paisley), in reply to the Rev. R. J. Campbell, stated 'that ho is a member et the United Free Church of Scotland, iliougn ho belongs to the Tbeosophist Society. —Sydney ‘ Sun ’ Cable. MEETING OF BISHOPS. LONDON, December 20. The Archbishop of Canterbury, at the Lambeth Palace meeting, invited all the bishops to state their views before the general discussion. After this one after another stood up and spoke witu warmth and fervor. Personal expressions occupied nearly tho whole of the session. _ . Tho archbishop remained for an nour closeted with the Bishop of Norwich, who led the attack in the House of Lords. VIEWS OF THE BAPTISTS. NOT REJOICING, BUT GRATEFUL. LONDON, December 20. (Received December 21, at 8.25 a.m.) “ We sympathise with tho bishops, nnd are asking for special prayers on their behalf in all the Baptist churches on Christmas Day,” states Mr M. Aubrey secertarv of the Baptist Union. He adds that the Baptists are not rejoicing, but are grateful for the defeat of the book. They realise tho bittci disappointment to the revered Anglican leaders, but the new book meant the destruction of the hopes of a Protestant reunion. Tho Baptists trust that the rejection will demonstrate the country’s ingrained Protestantism, thereby opening the way to co-operation. Lord Parmoor, who is regarded as a high authority on ecclesiastical law, expresses the opinion that disestablishment would not affect the King s accession oath. The Act of 1534 made the King head of the English Church. The only change in the oath was the deletiou of the reference to the Roman Church prior to the present King s accession.—Sydney ‘ Sun ’ Cable. COMMONS DEBATE TOO SHORT. ' LONDON, December 20. (Received December 21, at 9.45 a.m.) Tho ‘ Daily Telegraph’s ’ ecclesiastical correspondent says that among the suggestions at tho Lambeth Conference was one that tho Convocation be invited to give full Synodical approval to the book. This, however, was felt to have too much of the appearance of a challenge to tho State’s authority. Another suggestion was thc_ withdrawal _ol tho amendment by omitting temporarily tho offices of communion. This course would necessarily need much time, involving its passage by tho various church legislative bodies. The view generally held was that one night’s debate in the Commons was too short, leaving no opportunity for correcting obvious misunderstandings. Tho Archbishop ot Canterbury set the tone of the meeting by deprecating criticism of those wno felt it their duty to vote for the rejection. Ho took tho view that they had relied on spiritual guidance. INTERIM STATEMENT BEFORE CHRISTMAS. LONDON, December 19. (Received December 21, at 9.45 a.m.) The political correspondent of ‘ Tho Times ’ says that tho majority of the bishops present at the Lambeth Conference received many communications, chiefly in urging tho ruling out of disestablishment and non-interference with tho balance book. Although it was suggested that the Prayer Book might be made clearer on certain points, it was also suggested that the prayer for the King be obligatory at the morning service. The seriousness of the issues probably precludes anything but an interim statement before Christmas, and the bishops will later give a clear exposition of their aims, showing the necessity for the book to preserve unity.— ‘The Times.’ LORD BIRKENHEAD’S VIEWS. BOOK HAS GREATER FORCE THAN IF ACCEPTED. LONDON, December 19. (Received December 21, at 9.40 a.m.) In connection with the P.rayer Book controversy Lord Birkenhead writes; “ The bishops cannot take disciplinary measures regarding matters the new book sanctions; therefore the commoners’ hysterical decision under the influence of the crudest ‘no Popery’ sjaeeches, which ought not to have influenced a schoolboys’ debate, has already perished stillborn. Instead of destroying the book it has given it a greater force than if it had been accepted. Every clergyman can with impunity employ the book, and will, in my judgment, be wise in so doing.”—

BISHOPS NQT DOWNHEARTED. LONDON, December 20. (Received December 21, at 9.45 a.m.) “ I dare say you are expecting me to say how the bishops are getting on at Lambeth,” said the Bishop of London at the Duplex movement dinner. “Wild horses could not drag a statement from me. 1 can only say that we are not a bit downhearted, and arc determined to ensure that the church keeps its self-respect.” The latter necessitated selt-support, which was why he believed in the Duplex movement, whereby Captain Watson (the, founder) raised £2,500,000, producing an income of £500,000 yearly. The movement is capable ot adding £oU,000,000 to the church’s resources.— ‘ The Times.’