REVISED PRAYER BOOK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20281, 14 December 1927, Page 9

REVISED PRAYER BOOK

HOUSE OF LORDS DEBATE. WIDESPREAD INTEREST SHOWN. PARTIES DIVIDED ON SUBJECT. (Free* Association —By Telegraph Copyright t LONDON, December 12. The debate on the revised Prayer Book opens in the House of Lords to-morrow, and the division must be taken on Wednesday evening. The Peers must either approve or reject it. They have no power to amend the book. If the Lords reject it there will be no debate in the Commons. The Daily Express s a ys that many Peers and Commoners are of the opinion that this is the most important parliamentary struggle concerning the doctrinal principles of the Church since the Reformation. Churchmen and Nonconformists belonging to all three parties, and even the Cabinet itself, are divided on the subject. If the book is rejected, a crisis between the Church and the State is inevitable, but favourable majorities are anticipated in both Houses. The Daily Herald says that there has been a busy whipping up of Peers for the division. There will probably be the largest attendance since the days when the backwoodsmen mustered to fight Mr Lloyd George’s “ People’s Budget.”—A and N.Z. Cable. SPEECH BY THE ARCHBISHOP. DOCTRINAL POSITION OF CHURCH. NOT CHANGED IN ANY WAY. LONDON, December 12. As a result of the widespread interest in the Prayer Book debate, there was a long queue of th© public in the outer lobby of the House of Lords, clergymen and women predominating. The’ public galleries were crowded, including the portions reserved for Peeresses and Commoners. The Archbishop cf Canterbury, rising from a full bench of bishops, moved that the Prayer Book measure be presented for the Royal Assent, He expressed the opinion that the new book would promote the good order of the Church and the welfare of the English people. He did not agree with the view that Parliament’s only duty was to accept the Church’s decision in the matter. Every member had an absolute right to vote freely on the question. Those submitting the revised book- had been charged with dread ful things, such as being false to their ordination vows, being renegades, and with subtly trying to bring back to English homes the obscurantism from which the Reformation set England free. The Archbishop of Canterbury said it was startling to learn that large sums had been subscribed in order to spread this sort of charge. “ I am absolutely unconscious of any departure from the principles of the Reformed Church in England to which I declared allegiance 53 years ago. I have striven to maintain them ever since. If I thought the present proposals were cal culated to controvert and impair those principles I should not be standing here, but I believe nothing of the kind.” He said the House was entitled to demand an answer to three questions : 1. Are there adequate rea-ens for desiring the revised Prayer Book ? 2. What are the outstanding differences between the present and the proposed rules of worship ? 3. What good results are to be expected as a result of the change 1 A great majority of the Church Assembly had supported the new book, and 80 per cent of the members of the diocesan conferences. The Archbishop of Canterbury proceeded : “ I hope I have shown conclusively that this is not a plan or a fantasy of the bishops. It is a book of the Church drawn up by the laity and clergy, and finally approved by the bishops. 1 maintain that every available opportunity of securing the corporate voice of the representatives cf the Church has been taken.” The new book recognised the more devotional spirit noticeable in all the churches in the country. The changes in the order cf the services in the churches of Scotland were greater than they were in most of r.he churches in England. The prayers for the Empire, for industrial peace, and for the League of Nations were an enlargement and enrichment of the present Prayer Book. Th© Archbishop of Canterbury said he hoped that the House would not exaggerate what th© new Holy Communion offered. It was rearranged rather than rewritten. If he were a parish priest he would certainly use both. He believed that both were perfectly sound. Many people regarded the restricted use of the reservation of the consecrated ' elements for the sick as the crux of the problem. Ho confessed that when he first sat on the committee on the subject he hoped it would not be necessary to sanction the reservation at all, owing to the danger of superstition, but the sheer weight of evidence convinced him of the need of something of the kind, if regulated to prevent abuse. They had taken pains by every bi: of language possible to guard against abuse. He continued that, in his deliberate judgment, nothing now suggested in any way changed the doctrinal position of the Church, -which wanted a book belonging not to 1662 but to 1927. The new book would liberate the Church from petty strifes, and conduce to firm progress, doing better work at home and overseas. The bishops were determined to enforce obedience to it. He hoped their lordships would hid the Church go forward, newly equipped, disregarding the clamour of the sections of either side. ROMAN CATHOLIC PEERS. NO PART IN DEBATE. LONDON, December 12. (Received Dec. 13, at 8 p.m.) | Lord Hanworth hoped that the House would unequivocally reject the motion. He said that the opponents of the measure desired the rubric to include a perma nent safeguard binding the epscopal bench tor generations to come. Thev par Hcnlarh objected to the alternative com munion service, in which, they contended, it was vita] to have unity Discipline ; could not be enforced when there was an ; alternative. Ear! Beauchamp said it was th© extremists on both sides who opposed the measure. They ought to give way on per. sonal noints for the good of the book, which abolished nothing, but enriched everything. The Marnuess of Lincolnshire, oppos ing the motion, declared that the Church : was at war with itself. They saw the use of vestments, confession, mass, and reservation of the sacrament (which could not be dissociated from adoration) being practised in the Church of England. “ I think we have the right to demand,” he declared. “ that in matters ecclesiastical as well ns temporal every Englishman should be mad© to obey the law We who are conscientiously opposed to th© measure are standing shoulder to shoulder by the old frith and Enri'sh traditions, for which our forefathers fought and John Hnmnden died.” The Earl of Denbigh said that none of the Ro’vrin Catholic nears intended to take part either in the donate or in the division. He could not imagine a more incongruous body than a modern Pnrlia ment. eomprisi”" men of varying religions. Agnostics, and Freethinkers, being asked nrerticallv to lav down the doctrines and i rubrics of the Church of England. ! Lord Pbillimnre supported the measure ! as leading to order through liberty, with. out a change of doctrine, It was only at I most a change ln emphasis. 1 The debate was adjourned.