REVISED PRAYER BOOK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19947, 16 May 1928, Page 11

REVISED PRAYER BOOK.

LETTER FROM DR. INGRAM. / REPLY BY HOME SECRETARY. Australian Press Association—United Service (Received May 15, 9.40 p.m.) LONDON. May 14. The Home Secretary, Sir William Joyn-son-Hicks, has replied to an open letter written by the Bishop of London, Dr. A. F. Wilmington Ingram, and privately circulated among members of the House of Commons, urging reconsideration by those members who voted against the revised Prayer Book.

The Minister says:—"l am convinced that the passage of the revised Prayer Book by the House of Commons would be far more grievously regarded by quiet Church people throughout the country than its rejection. You perhaps do' not understand the deep vitality of the Protestant laity's feelings." Sir William adds that the Bishop's letter refers to the large majority with which the Church Assembly passed the book, but he does not state that the majority was 141 less than on the former occasion. It also makes no mention of the fact that two more bishops seceded and now oppose the book.

When the letter refers to the report of the Royal Commission, in which it is said that it is impossible to produce order within the Church with antiquated rales, the Bishop overlooks, says Sir William, that the commission decided that any matters are amenable without a revision of the rules.

He further says: "The fact that the bishops made no efforts to comply with the wishes of the commission makes the mass of 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 the Reservation of the Sacrament it would be fairer to say 'reservation at present illegal.' But the object of the revision is to placate that section of the Church which believe in transubstantiation. Although you may say the elements will be reserved for the sick and dying only, you cannot tell me you do not think anybpdy will worship before them. "I wonder how you are going to enforce the restrictions on adoration, when you admit at your Diocesan Conference that you are sorry the reservation is only for the sick. "Finally, you say that nearly all the objections urged in the House of Commons against the new book have been met. Yet you sent a letter to the newspapers stating that there is no alteration in principle between the amended and the deposited books, but only explanations." J3ir William concludes:—"l make no comment on these—to the lay mind — apparent discrepancies."