PRAYER-BOOK REVISION

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18174, 21 August 1922, Page 3

PRAYER-BOOK REVISION

CHURCH ASSEMBLY DEBATE. ' "WHO ARE A NOLO-CATHOLICS?'' A LIVELY DISCUSSION* [FRO 11 OUR OWK CORKKSPONDENT.'J LONDON. July 1. The National Assembly of the Church of England has resumed the discussion on the reception (if the report of tho Prayer-Book Sovisicm Committee. The debate opened briskly. The Bishops of Exeter and Newcastle "had assorted that the competence to reconstruct the Prayer-book resides with convocation alone.' Mr. King ranged himsel£ with the two bishops. The assembly's report on the projected revision and all the outcome of the debate were ouly to many suggestions. Tho laity had an inherentright to participate in counsel. They did not aspire to prescribe; the spirit-bear-ing body is tho Church as a. Avhole, not a, section of it, nor a class within it. Lord Hugh Cecil said much the same thing toward the end of tho debate, and the declaration of these two representative laymen has served to clear the air. Tho dclimination of the functions of the assembly and convocation is proceeding in this casual fashion. Eucharistic OfSce. Mr. Athelstan Rilev, tho member of tho committee who presented a minority report, said that the proposed changes in the Eucharistic Office would not be accepted, because they caino 20 years too late. They had on thousands of altars of the Church of England the Roman Missal in some form. Sometimes they had the whole, sometimes little books with the Canons of ; the Roman Mass ■wero inserted in the Frayer-Book. Those who were behind him, and who wero more rash than he was, had no intention of compromising on the subject of the Eucharistic Office. Their demands had to be met. Mr. Riley contended that the work of the bishops to-day was to keep the Church from falling to pieces. " They are well equipped for the task," he proceeded, " because they arc past masters in the art of compromise. The real division in tho Church of England is between those who believe that God camo down from heaven to offer a sacrifice for sin and those who do not believe that God was incarnate or that a sacrifice for sin is necessary at all." The Rev. E. G. Selwyn said the Anglo-Catholics did not share Mr. Riley's pessimism, and they did not think there was anything substantial in what he said about " too late." The Eucharistic Service was the most technical and the most difficult of their • doctrines. There wero difficult people in every section of the Church as well as among the AngloCatholics. A Voice: Who are the AngloCatholics ? Tho interjection was followed by loud laughter, and a further interjection, "And a very proper question!" -After a pause the Rev. E. 0. Selwyn replied, \ " I think everybody here, Your Grace, and left tho platform amid cheers. « What Law?" The Bishop of Durham (Dr. Hensly Hensori) said ho was going to vote the acceptance of the report because, though hi 3 mind was full of fears, he did not think they could longer postpone the great issues they would raise if they received the report. Almost ail the changes were for the better, ana ne hoped they would ultimately be adopted. The f real issuo was Prayer-Book enforcement, and that raised "the ultimate question of the character and claim of the Church England itself. Was it a go-as-you-please church, definitely accepting the position of having no principles or rules? In such a church two conditions must be fulnllea —the people to whom the clergyman-min-istered must accept the position, and t'ne clergy would have to tolerate one another. Ho would vote- for the resolution . on the understanding that behind it would lie a resolute effort to restore the regune of law. (A member: What law?) The law of the church arid realm of England^ There was a whole world >of revelation opened out in that cry. " What law . in the oldest, law-abiding community w the world—that a man holding his benenee under law, having repeatedly dedared his adhesion to law, should yet interject the question, " What law . journalists Better Qualified. Professor Beresford Pito thought they had very much -better leave, things alone and uso the Prayer-Book on Church had live/1 through the centuries. Ho doubted whether the clergy were as qualified to write a new prayer-book as The of Canterbury said it was wholly To the good that the .discussions had taken place. They must ha e in their minda by what mode effect would ■ultimately be given to what they were proposing to make possible -withm the , Church, and what were the limits bevoad which liberty must not extend. A solemn responsibility rested upon the m this matter. Every year of tive work deepened in his mind the sense of the gravity of the responsibility, but also strengthened his sens.b of tho posMj bilitv of discharging it. Nothing ha seemed to him in recent years more important than to press upon people tho difference between what were really great things and what, while stilly imported/« were minor and subsidiary things. beb'ef was that the report- before them enabled bishops, clergy and laity to realise better than before what changes rightly be made, and what changes were desirable or inexpedient. The report was accepted, but, the Bishop of Gloucester moved that the changes recommended be embodied in the volume or schedule for'optional use, and that the changes should not be introduced into the Book of Common Prayer at present. This was agreed to. The Bishop of Gloucester further proposed that if any question arose between the minister and the people over the use of the new volume embodying the sanctioned changes, it should be referred to the bishop of the Thicknesse contended that freedom should be allowed the incumbent in the use of the new volume. What was wanted in the Church was more gospel and less law. t Canon Scott Moncnef described it to be the shepherd's duty to lead his flock, and not the prerogative of this flock to drive the shepherd.