REVISED PRAYER BOOK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20282, 15 December 1927, Page 11

REVISED PRAYER BOOK

HOUSE OF LORDS’ DEBATE. OPPOSITION TO THE MEASURE. »Pr e» Association— By Telegraph—Copyright.) LONDON, December 13. The House of Lords was again crowded. Earl Stanhope, resuming the debate on the Prayer Book, regretted that he must oppose the Primate. He would not do so if he felt that the new book would restore order and discipline in accordance with the recommendations of the 1906 Commission. He felt that the bishops’ powers under the new regime would be most inadequate. The measure ought to be postponed till the ecclesiastical courts were reconstituted and their powers increased. The delay ne~rl not be prolonged. If the Church Assembly desired this, legislation might be introduced in 1928. In order not to limit the scope of the debate, he would rot press his own amendment in favour of not proceeding further till the measure was accompanied by provisions ensuring order and discipline.—A. and N.Z. and Sydney Sun Cable. LORD CARSON’S SPEECH. GRATEFUL TO GLADSTONE. IRISH CHURCH NOT BOUND. LONDON, December 14. (Received Dec. 14, at 5.5 p.m.) Earl Stanhope said that the bishops ought to be anxious to allay the fears of those who felt that this was only the first step towards making the services of the Church less Protestant, and should therefore agree to a measure of discipline. Viscount Halifax pointed out that half a century ago five clergymen were imprisoned for practices which the new book both legalised and declared to be in accordance with the practice of the Church of Bugland. He was apprehensive that the book would not bring peace and order, but. owing to his regard and affection for the Primate he would not vote against the measure. The Bishop of Worcester, in opposing the measure, said that the impression that the bishops had been almost unanimous in their support of the new book was vastly delusive. If the figures of the bishop’s divisions on the subject wer- published the House would realise that it could not be claimed that divine inspiration guided the result. He was convinced that changes in the communion service involved corresponding changes in the doctrine. The purpose of the movement, which brought the Church of England into being was to turn mass into communion service for the people. During the past few days there had been a powerful effort to get the bishops once more to reassimilate communion into mass. The new prayer book followed suit as far as it dared. He said; “ I would rather join in the protest against the errors of transubstantiation than find fault with Bishop Barnes’s methods of exposition.” Tbe Bishop of Chelmsford said that no bishop who had voted for the new book approved of everything therein, but thankfully accepted it as a contribution to peace and effective working of tbe Church, Lord Carson said: “I want to confess that I am now, for the first time in my life, grateful to Gladstone for disestablishing the Church in Ireland, because the new prayer book will in no way bind the Irish Church, which can continue to cherish its precious heritage from the reformation. The introduction of the new book is a triumph for those who have set at nought the rubrics of the Church during the past 30 years. It is the product of illegalities which the bishops have done nothing to check. The house does not represent the mass of the people, who do not favour alterations in the prayer hook. Do reflect what you are doing. Doubtless tbe aristocracy or the bureaucracy of the Church favours the measures, but have the people no rights? ■ Are these to he set aside because discipline cannot be enforced in the Church?” The debate was adjourned. —A. and JST.Z. Cable.