NEW PRAYER BOOK

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 16 May 1928, Page 7

NEW PRAYER BOOK

DEEP OPPOSITION INDICATED.

BISHOP’S CIRCULAR LETTER.

A LAYMAN’S REPLY

(UNITED TRESS ASSOCIATION—BY ELECTRIC

T ELEG R A PH—COP YRIGHT.) (AUSTRALIAN PRESS ASSOCIATION.) LONDON, May 14. “1 am convinced that the passage of t.he revised Prayer Book by the House' of Commons: will be far more greviously regarded by quiet church people throughout the country than its rejection; vou perhaps do not understand the deep vitality of the Protestant laity’s feeling,” says Sir William Joyn„son Hicks, replying to an open letter by the Bishop of London privately circulated among members of the Hopse of Commons,, urging recoinsideration of votes against the revised book. “T'he letter refers to the large majority with which the Church Assembly passed the book,” adds Sir William, “bub it- does not state that the majority was 141 less than on the former occasion. It also makes no mention of tw 0 more bishops who seceded and who now oppose the book. When the letter refers to the Royal Commission’s report that it would be impossible to produce order .within the church with antiquated rules, the bishop overlooks the commission’s decision that any matters are amendable without revision of the rules. ; “The- fact that the bishops made no efforts to comply with the commission’s wishes makes the mass of the people regard with grave suspicion the attempt you are now making to legalise the illegal because, forgive me for saying, it, you have- no courage to- deal with the matter in any other manner. “Moreover, when you refer to reservation it- would be fairer to say ‘reservation at present illegal,’ but the object of the revision is to placate that section of the church believing in trailsubstantiation. Although you may say the elements are reserved only for the sick and dying, you cannot tell me you do not think anybody will worship before them. I wonder how you are going to enforce restrictions on adoration when you admit at your diocesan conference- that you are sorry the reservation .is only for the sick. “Finally, you say nearly all the objections -urged in the House of Commons against the book have been met, yet you sent a letter to the newspapers stating there was no alteration in the principle between the amended and the deposited books, there were only explanations. “I make no comment on what appear to the lay mind to be discrepancies,” Sir William concludes.

MALINES CONVERSATIONS

PROTEST AGAINST DELAY IN

PUBLICATION

LONDON, May 14. The Protestant Reformation Society has strongly criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury for delaying publication of the Malines conversations until the revised Prayer Book had been submitted to Parliament, thereby subjecting the Anglican Chiirch to unnecessary and unwise humiliation.

The conversations were a sinister attempt to unite the Anglican and Roman Catholic Church at the cost of spiritual truth, historical accuracy, spiritual and civil liberty, which the Prayer Book was calculated to facilitate. Sir John Haslam, a member of the Church Assembly, speaking at the society’s annual meeting, said: “We were told to accept the Prayer Book because the Bishops had been' working thereon for 20 years. Only five per cent, qf the bishops officiated during that period, 'consequently one heard the evidence and another gave the verdict. Who were those bishops, thinking themselves fit to follow Knox?” “Bishops of the devil,” answered a voice in the audience.