NORTHERN ADVOCATE DAILY THURSDAY, JULY 5, 1928. THE PRAYER BOOK

Northern Advocate, 5 July 1928, Page 4

NORTHERN AD VOCATE DAILY

THURSDAY, JULY 5, 1928. THE PRAYER BOOK

Registered for transmission through the post as a newspaper.

The House of Commons’ two-fold rejection of the Revised Prayer Book has created a crisis in the history of the Anglican Church. When, after many years’ careful consideration by the highest ecclesiastical authorities, the hook was submitted for the endorsement of the British Parliament, very

"keen interest, was aroused. Indeed, ' with the- possible exception of the Irish settlement, no matter before the House of Commons ox cited such wid l spread attrition as the debate last December ' and that concluded a fortnight ago. Tn December the Bill for the adoption of the new Prayer Book, which had previously been passed in the House of Lords by 241 votes to BS, was defeated in the House of Commons by 205 to 228. When it is remembered that the House of Commons consists of (510 members, it will be seen that a fairly substantial -proportion of members did not vote. An analysis of the division in the Commons showed that the Conservatives were evenlv divided. Of the i Labour Party, in whom there is a large Nonconformist element, 2.0 voted fori and of! against the Bill, while the Libj erals were solidly against it. After jthe reception accorded to the measure I jin the Hons- of Lords, the result came | as a surprise, but its advocates, thong,t I disappointed, were not discouraged. I Onlv a short period had been allowed I j for -the consideration of the Bill, and j they hebl that the best use had not | be-ii made of this limited opportunity. ! When the Bill came before the House ( again, however, it was re jected bV an I j even larger majority, the members of I the s-veral parties easting their votes jin much the same ratio as they did in j P’27, although actually fewer Labour j members supported the Bill. The fig-i ' lures of the voting in the various convo- j ’ i cations and national church assemblies I j which have considered the ir w Prayer i i Bied-: disclose an overwhelming major-i ! ity in its favour. On the face of it, I: therefore, it may appear to be anom.i-!i in's that Parliament should have t.hoi. power Pi Interpose its v to in a fpies-j' lion of domestic concern to the Angli-I r •an -Church. This view was taken Lord Denbigh last year. “if -cannot |<i imagine,’'’ lie said, “a more incongru-|i ous body than a modern parliament, j d comprising men of various religions,' d

agnostics, anil free-thinkers, living asked practically to lay down the doctrines and rubrics of the Church of England.” This criticism is nut well founded, for, as the Primate told the Chinvh Assembly in the Church House, Wesl minster, tkis week, “the Hons- of Commons had exercised a right conferred by an Act which the Church itself had framed, but in exercising its unquestionable legal power it had departed lamentably from the reasonable spirit in which alone the balanced relationship between the Church and the State could be carried on.” “At the same time,” added tire Primate, “the Com-

mons, while claiming to appraise j church opinion, had deliberately traversed the desires of the Church's officials and representative bodies, namely the bishops, tire clergy and the 1 laity. The House of Commons had declined to respect the -wishes of the solid central body of Church opinion. It had allowed itself to be influenced 'by the representations of a strange combination of vehement and opposite groups of factions which wire united only in their desire to get the book defeated.” What will the Church do next? Speaking advisedly on behalf rf the collective diocesan bishops. 4ho Primate is reported to have said: “It is a fundamental principle that the Church must retain her inalienable right to formulate her faith and arrange her forms of worship. It. is onr firm hop'e that some strong and capable committee of statesmen and churchmen may be appointed, to weigh afresh the existing law and order, and to see whether a readjustment is required for tire maintenance of that- principle, which we here and now reassert.” ft has been pointed -out that there are three courses open to the bishops. They can defy Parliament and authorise the rejected book, a -proceeding which would almost certainly lead to disestablishment. They can abandon their project altogether and continue upon existing lines. Or they can adopt farther modifications which will deprive the hook of its contentious chamfer. The Primate, in his speech this week, indicated fairly plainly an entirely new departure in poliey, whereby, in the language of the London “Daily Tele graph,” the new Prayer Bonk, which was rejected as a whole, is to be adopted piecemeal. The bishops will me-et again in September further to consider the problem, ami pending that meeting there will be 'probably be something in the nature-of a truPe.