NEW PRAYER BOOK

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 10509, 13 February 1928, Page 5

NEW PRAYER BOOK

BEFORE HOUSES- OF CLERGY AND LAITY.

‘ ‘RESEJi VATION AT PRESENT

UNLAWFUL.” STATEMENT BY CHURCH’S LEADING LEGAL MJND. LORD JUSTICE MILLIMOLE IN TEARS. (United Press Assn.—Wopyright.) (Aust. and N.Z. Press Assn.) LONDON; J)eb. y. The revision stage of the Prayer Book opened to-day in the Houses ol Clergy and Laity, it consists of a discussion of the measure, clause by clause, also consideration of amendments. At least two days will be devoted for this purpose. The bishops do not take part in Hie revision stage but re-enter the debate at a later stage, which -lias not yet been fixed in order to consider any amendments passed by the Lower Houses. The Dean of Westminster presided over tlio House of Clergy and deplored the heavy list of amendments, tie said really the only question was whether the clergy accepted the bishops’ ' proposals. A clergyman,' forthwith moved the desirableness of showing confidence in the bishops by debating only the bishops’ proposals. This motion was defeated. Another motion suggested allowing each province Canterbury and Volk to decide upon the book -separately.

A Yorkshire Archdeacon contended that the proposal amounted to Presbyterianism. He also denied that the bishops wore unable to issue instructions without the clergy's concurrence. It.would change the entire character of the Anglican Church. Tho motion was defeated.

The House quickly disposed of tho Prayers for the King, and insertion of the black rubric. Then began what the chairman called the crucial point of the discussions, namely, the reservation of the Sacrament. The discussion proceeded along theological lines until the gallery applauded a clergyman heartily for denouncing all forms of reservation. Another clergyman appealed .u tne <lir.nnmn to keep the gallery in o" hr and the chairman demanded silence. The House eventually refused by UC to 46 to delete the second rubric, which provides for continuous j< m rvn tiuu The House also accepted the fiist rubric, allowing a daily extension of communion for the bwiafit <■! the sick.

The House of Laity :in not cover the same amount of grou i-J. The reservation rubrics, took up tho entire day, members being engaged in a battle royal.

Uord Selbouriie opened the proceedings and frequent angry scenes interrupted the speeches. first motion favored the rejection oi the reservation. Tho mover said the reservation vtas antagonistic to the Church’s history and doctrines. Sir Lewis Dibden, the Church's leading legal mind expressed the opinion that the first rubric was a necessity but tile overwhelming opinion of the laity opposed it and other forms of reservation. He declared that reservation at present was undoubtedly, unlawful. He did not wish to trouble the House of Commons, but it would be better if the Book broke down there, and then, instead of encountering disastrous rejection in Parliament. Lord Justice Phillimore, as father and grandfather of clergymen appealed to the House, with tears in his eyes not to inflict cruelty ijnd tyranny upon the clergy who iound the reservation for sick absolutely necessary.

Lord Selbourne s heir, \ iscount Walmer, earnestly protested against the-idea of submitting the Book to the adverse votes, of Scottish, Irish and Welsh Commoners. He was repeatedly 7 interrupted by members rising in order to refute allegations, one contending that the majority ol Anglican Commoners voted against the Book. Viscount Walmer concluded. “if we upset the bishops' settlement owing to the Commons’ vote we shall show ourselves as a church, preferring the loaves and fishes of establishment to our convictions.” Lord Daryngton expressed the opinion that no speech was more calculated to make the Commons reject the Book than that of Viscount Palmer’s.

Lord Hugh Cecil said nothing had done the church such harm as yielding to the State’s guidance. Some evangelical speakers appealed to the Anglo-Catholics to accept solely the first rubric. It was a great sacrifice on the part of the evangelicals generally. Mr. A. J. Kelly, as a converted Anglo-Catholic eloquently advocated more warmth and color in the church service in order to attract congregations. The altar needed lights and ornaments. He sat down amidst prolonged cheers lrom the galleries and the chairman threatened to clear the galleries. The House decided by 202 to 52 to proceed with further consideration of Tho first reservation rubric and deckled by 162 to 108 to go on with the second rubric and consideration ol the amendments thereon to-morrow.

SLIGHT AMENDMENTS BY HOUSE OF CLERGY

(Aust. and N.Z. Press Assn.) (Received Feb. 12, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, Feb. 11

Apart from a minor amendment relating to the position of the auiubrv, in Avliieh the reserved sacrament is kept, the only amendment by the House of Clergy gave the clergy the right of appeal to the Archbishop in Synod from a decision bv a bishop in matters concerning perpetual reservation. This Avas carried by an overAvhelming majmity and the House adjourned till February 15. The House of Laity re-assembled and, in the evening session, adopted a resolution similar to the clergy's providing for an appeal to the Archbishop and. the collective bishops o.t each province regarding licenses for reservation of the 'Sacrament. Sir Charles Hurston attempted to obtain revision of the Athauasiau Creed, but Lord Hugh Cecil pointed out that the motion was outside the Assembly’s scope and the motion was rejected. The House of Laity completed the revision stage. Announcing the postponement of the convocation the Archbishop of Canterbury bad arranged to begin on February 15, the .Primate explains that the bishops. ol both provinces arc anxious to proceed, Avith the -revision stage of tile prayer book next Aveek, after receiving reports from the Houses of Clergy and of Laity. LADY SPEAKER ROUSES EMINENT DIVINES. PROFESSOR’S INTERESTING STATEMENT. (N.Z. and Aunt. Press Assn, and Sun.) LONDON, Feb. 10. The chief event of the House ol Laity’s resumed discussion in committee Avas a lady’s success in carrying ..an addendum to the reservation rubric. Mrs Creighorn, widow of a former Bishop of London, said that in order to slioav there Avas no Popish plot (at .which* there was .general laughter) she would move the addition of - words affirming that the new communion for the: sick Avas not intended for uses contrary, to the Church’s historic beliefs. She explained that the idea was to remove misunderstandings and misapprehensions. ‘ ■

The amendment aroused several distinguished laymen. Lord Hugh Cecil said the amendment was unconstitutional and ultra vires, because it purported' tp define the church’s theological doctrine. Mr Cuthbert-Turner, Professor of Divinity at Oxford, said the House of Laity, including himself, knew .next to nothing about theology, which was a matter for the bishops. Mrs Creighton's amendment was 'passed with a preface .respectfully requesting the bishops to consider whether such a declaration could he in glinted iii the Prayer Book. Mr Cuthbert-Turner again protested that -flic amendment was out of order. - ’ ‘