BAPTISTS GRATEFUL

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 21 December 1927, Page 5

BAPTISTS GRATEFUL

DEFEAT OF PRAYER BOOK.

SYMPATHY WITH BISHOPS. LAW AND DISESTABLISHMENT BY CABLE—PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPY RIG U i Received 9.20 -a.m. to-day. LONDON, Dec. 20. “We sympathise with the bishops and are asking, tor special prayers on thenbehalf at all Baptist Churches on Christmas Day,” states the Rev. M. A. Aubrey, secretary of the Baptist Union. He adds: “Baptists are not rejoicing, but are grateful for the defeat of the new Prayer Book. Tliey realise that it is a bitter disappointment to the revered Anglican leaders, but the new book meant the destruction of hopes for Protestant reunion. Baptists trust that the rejection will demonstrate the country’s ingrained Protestantism and thereby open a way to co-operation.” Lord Parmoor, who is regarded as a high authority in ecclesiastical law, expresses the opinion that disestablishment would not affect the King’s Accession on Oath Act, 153-1, winch made the King head of the .English Church. The only change in the oath was the deletion of the reference to the Homan Catholic Church, prior to the present King’s -accession.—“ Sydney Sun” cable. BISHOPS STATE THEIR VIEWS. LONDON, Dec. 20. The Archbishop of Canterbury at a Lambeth Palace meeting invited all the bishops to state their views before a general discussion was held. After this one after unothev rose up and spoke with warmth and fervour. These personal expressions of opinion occupied nearly the whole session. The Archbishop remained for an hour closeted with the Bishop of Norwich, who led the attack on the new Prayer Book in the House of Lords.

CONFERENCE AT LAMBETH. DISCUSSION ON THE NEXT MOVE Received 10.45 a.m. to-day. LONDON. Dec. 20. The “Daily Telegraph’s” ecclesiastical correspondent says: Among the suggestions made at the Lambeth conference was one that a convocation should be invited to give full synodical approval to the book. Thij?, however, was felt to have too much, of an appearance of a challenge to the State’s authority. Another suggestion was the withdrawal of the amendment by omitting temporarily the offices of the communion. This cause would necessarily need much time, involving the passage by various church legislative bodies. The view generally held was that one night’s debate in the House; of Commons was too- short, leaving no opportunity for correcting obvious misunderstandings. The Archbishop of Canterbury set the tone of the meeting by deprecating criticism of those who felt that it was their duty to vote for rejection of the book. He took the view that they had relied on spiritual guidance. “1 dare say you are expecting me to say how the bishops are getting on at oambeth,” 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 down-hearted and are determined to ensure that the church keeps its self-respect.’ The tatter necessitated self-respect, which was why he believed in the Duplex movement, whereby Captain Watson, its founder, had raised £2,500,000 producing income of half a million yearly. The movement is capable of adding fifty millions to the resources of the church. CLERGY CAN USE THE BOOK SAYS LORD BIRKENHEAD. Received 10.45 a.m. to-day. LONDON, Dee. 19. In. connection with the Prayer Book controversy, Lord Birkenhead writes: “The bishops cannot take disciplinary measures regarding matters in the new book sanctions, therefore the hysterical decision of members of the House of Commons under the influence of the crudest no-poperv speeches, 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 hook and will, in my judgment, be wise in so doing.”—“Times.” DISESTABLISHMENT NOT DESIRED. COMMUNICATIONS TO BISHOPS. Received 10.45 a.m. to-day. LONDON, Dec. 19. The political correspondent of “The Times” says that the majority of bishops at present, at the Lambeth conference received many commulibations, chiefly in urging the ruling out of dis- , establishment and no interference with , the balance of the book, although it was suggested that the book might be made clearer on retrain points. It was also suggested that pravers for the Iv mg be obligatory at morning ser- , vice. The seriousness of the issues probably precludes anything but an , interim statement before Christmas. The bishops will later give a clear exposition of their aims, showing the necessity for the book to preserve . unitv.—“Times.”