PRAYER BOOK REVISION.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 163, 25 June 1928, Page 6

PRAYER BOOK REVISION.

(To' The Editor.) Sir, —In view of the fervent interest displayed iu England by every section of the community, does it not seem strange that my questions regarding Draper Book revision in NeeZealand should still be unanswered? Like myself, many "laymen!' probably are waiting patiently for further information. Aly questions are; (a) Why should the Book of Common Prayer be altered? (b) Is the present manner of making bishops, etc. invalid? If so, why; if not, then why alter it? (c) What “Articles of Religion” are to be substituted for the “39 articles” which so clearly define the doctrine of thereformed Churcn of England (d) What are the new "formularies” to be adopted? (e) What is wrong with the Authorised Version of the Bible? (f) What version is to be used instead? (g) What portions of the Holy Scriptures are to be altered or cut out (h) Who is to be auhorised to censor the Bible? Now, Sir. I was baptised and con firmed in the Church of England, ami until the present controversy began 1 was not only happy as a member, but I was also perfectly content with 'he Old Piayer Book and with the Old Bilile. Surely there are many earnest people who still treasure these two heritages of the Reformation, and who desire to be told exactly why they must be changer’ and definitely what they are going to be given in place of them. I particularly want to stress the two questions (c) and (f), which deal with the 39 Articles, and the Authorised Bible, or rather, with their substitutes. From time to time vague statements are made that “the doctrines of the Church of England are not going to be changed.” Assurances, however, are not always reassuring ; and it is wise for people to “look before they leap,” and to hold the substance rather than reach aftei elusive shadows!

This is a political matter (as well as religious), and though the Bill to be presented to Parliament is entitled “private,” it is no less a public matter. Our legislators will have to pass it, or reject it; and unless the members of Parliament know the wishes of their constituents, how ire they to decide what to do? It will be a grave responsibility for them, and so. in the interests of all, is it not right that, the public be given full information, and every facility for expressing their opinions and.desires? In times of peace, I believe “the freedom of the Press” is an inalienable right of the British public; so let ns have “the truth,” the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so as to be able to judge the merits of the Bill.—l am, etc., VERITE SANS PEUR. Riwaka, 18th June,