PRAYER BOOK REJECTION

Northern Advocate, 3 July 1928, Page 5

PRAYER BOOK REJECTION

CHURCH ASSEMBLY’S TASK

DISESTABLISHMENT PLANK,

LLOYD GEORGE'S PURPOSE. (Australian Pres? Association.) (Received 9 a.m.) LONDON, July 3. The Church Assembly opens today. The Primate vvill announce the recommendations of the Bishops' Conference, in view 'of rejection of the revised Prayer Book, and probably will intimate his own resignation as operating at Christmas.

The Church correspondent of the “Daily Kxpress” stales that many churchmen, including some bishops, are resenting Parliament's action. .Many Nonconformists, fearful of the Church of England's alleged trend towards Romp, are demanding disestablishment.

Mr Lloyd George will possibly exploit the deep Protestantism evidenced in tho House of Commons debate and make disestablishment a plank in the Liberal platform.

ARCHBISHOP'S STATEMENT,

PLEA FOR CALMNESS,

HOUSE OF COMMONS ERROR.

(Australian Press Assn. —United Service.)

(Received. 3.45 p.m.) LONDON, July 2,

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s pronouncement on the official policy in the Prayer Book deadlock attracted a crowded gathering at Church House, Westminster.

The entire Assembly rose and applauded the Primate, who at the beginning of his address pleaded with the Assembly to view the House of Commons vote calmly and in proper proportions. “Its significance may easily bo exaggerated,” he said. “Its intention may be misjudged. Rome call it a. deliberate challenge and say that the House of Commons is arrogantly claiming absolute control of the Church’s beliefs and worship. That is a mistaken view. No such farreaching challenge was intended. If the House of Commons flouted well proven working arrangement, of the Church of the State, there was constitutional intent. Many who voted a gain sit the book believed, however mistakenly, that they were voicing the underlying wish of the majority of church folk.” <

He considered it a gravely mistaken vote. It might even be deemed disastrous or deplorable, but it was perfectly legal. The Commoners exercised a right conferred by the Act which the Church itself framed, but in. exercising unquestionable legal power they departed lamentably from that reasonable spirit by which alone a balanced relationship of Church and State could bo carried on. While claiming to appraise Church opinion, they deliberately traversed the desires of the Church’s official and representative bodies, namely, the bishops, clergy and laity. The House of .Commons declined to respect the wishes of the solid central body of Church opinion and allowed itself to be influenced by representations of a strange combination of vehement opposite groups and factions, which united only in a desire to get the book defeated.

Speaking advisedly on behalf of the collective diocesan bishops, the Archbishop said: <f lt is a fundamental principle that the Church must retain its inalienable right, to formulate and arrange its forms of worship. It is our firm hope that some strong, capable committee of statesmen and churchmen may lie appointed t>j weigh a fresh existing law and order, and to see whether readjustment is required for maintenance of that principle which we are here now to reassert.”

For himself, he had hoped that the book would be the rallying point far Church' unity, but as things now stood that, hope was thwarted. The spirit, of division and estrangement had raised its head more mischievously than before.

“Xono can escape,” he said, “the feeling to our common shame that groups within the Church, however conscientiously, liavo set themselves to upset and succeed in upsetting the votes of tliis Assembly and the deliberate judgment of the Church as expressed therein, but we are not going to Jose Jieart.”

He believed that unity was possible. He was nnahl.- (o see how the Assembly could be expected to present a further Prayer Book measure to Parliament at the present time. He also expressed the opinion that no measure worthy of the name would avoid controversy. The bishops would meet in .September to further consider the problems and consult the 'Church’s representative bodies.