REJECTED PRAYER BOOK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20290, 24 December 1927, Page 11

REJECTED PRAYER BOOK

SECRET NEGOTIATIONS. ANGLO• CATHOLICS PERTURBED. (Frem Association—By Telegraph—Copyright ) LONDON, December 22. The Daily Express understands that the church leaders have been engaged in unofficial secret negotiations with Sir William Joynson-Hicks and his parliamentary supporters with the object of reaching an agreement satisfactory to the House of Commons. This is stated to be an explanation of the delay in the issue of the church pronouncement. The negotiations have been carried on by a sub-committee, consisting of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishop of London, which will report on Thursday. The bishops will then con. sider whether the terms of the negotiations are acceptable. If approved steps will be taken to revise the measure to the extent necessary to secure a parliamentary majority. The Anglo-Cathohcs, who have learned of the negotiations, are disturbed over what! they describe as the secret diplomacy of Lambeth Palace. —A. and N.Z. Cable.

REASON FOR THE REJECTION

THE BISHOPS TO BLAME,

DEAN INGE’S OPINION,

LONDON, December 22. Dean Inge, in the Evening Standard, says that the bishops brought defeat upon themselves. If they had stuck to the first undertaking not to disturb the doctrinal balance of the Church of England and confined themselves to removing the archaisms and stumbling blocks to the moral and intellectual conscience of today, they might have had more difficulty in steering the measure through the Church Assembly, but the Prayer Book would have met with no opposition in Parliament. The bishops, however, conceived a curious notion that they might discourage burglary by legalising petty larceny. As soon as the reservation of the sacred elements is legalised the Church of England ceases to be Protestant. The Rubicon is crossed and the Reformation is repudiated. Four bundred years ago our ancestors went to the rack and the stake for Protestantism.—A. and N.Z. Cable.

BISHOPS TO DISCUSS CHANGES. REMOVING MISAPPREHENSION. LONDON, December 22. The bishops will discuss the changes on January 11, and will submit them to the Church Assembly in February. They are designed fo remove misapprehension in the House of Commons, arid more clearly and explicitly outline the book’s intentions and limitations. —A. and N.Z. Cable.

THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE.

ADJOURNED TILL JANUARY 11

STATEMENT BY ARCHBISHOPS,

LONDON, December 22. (Received Dec. 23, at 5.5 p.m.) The Archbishops of' Canterbury and York have issued the following statement:—“The House of Commons’ rejection of the Prayer Book has produced a position of difficulty and anxiety in the life of the church and- the nation. While exaggeration must be avoided, and there is certainly no ground for panic, it cannot he denied that the crisis is grave, lay. ing a heavy responsibility on the bishops, to whom the church is entitled to look for counsel and guidance. The Lambeth Conference maintained -the unity marking the deliberations for two years. It is impossible within a few days of the House of Commons’ vote to determine the obligations thereby imposed on the church, therefore the conference adjourned till January 11 to enable further thought and prayer in the hope of presenting considered proposals to the Church Assembly Convocations in February. Nevertheless, a word of counsel and reassurance must immediately be spoken. After a consultation of the bishops wo address the church in this measure. The House of Commons was within its right in rejecting the measure, but, on the other hand, mere acquiescence in the decision would be inconsistent with the church’s responsibilities as a spiritual society. The bishops recognise that there are circumstances in which it would be their duty to act in accordance with the church’s inherent spiritual authority. We realise our duty and are ready to tulhl it if it is essential, but we believe that the House of Commons’ decision was due to certain unavoidable misunderstandings, therefore we cannot take the responsibility of accepting the decision as final. The bishops have accordingly resolved to reintroduce the measure at the assembly, with only such changes as will remove apprehensions and make "the intentions and limitations more explicit Meanwhile we are appealing to the whole church for corporate loyalty with which alone we can meet the dangers which rise with the op portunities of this critical time.” —A. and N.Z. and Sydney Sun Cable. “ With ail the authority of our office we earnestly ask none to avail himself of the Prayer Book’s provisions, alter the services, or introduce new usages until the church has fully authorised the book. If the usages have been adopted we ask the clergy to discontinue them for the sake of peace and unity. We also believe that churchmen conscientiously opposed to the measure will not do or say anything to increase the difficulties. Self-restraint and self-sacrifice will be the truest loyalty, and calmness is the highest form of courage when the church’s well-being for many generations may specially depend on the things we do and refrain from doing. Let hasty words and acts not disturb the holy season of l Christmas, but let us enter the New Year, fraught with grave issues, in a spirit of united prayer. “ In these happenings God must have some purpose for the church. May we have humility and faith to discern and strength and steadfastness to obey it. We believe these anxieties will set a new tide of eager, generous devotion moving within the church. Let it raise and bear along new love of loyalty as a thing itself true and beautiful, new care for unity, new constraint of charity within the fel lowship of Christ, new zeal in His Kingdom at home and abroad, and then the tide may prove the means that God will use to cleanse and defend his church.” Sir William Joynson-Hicks says; “ I have read with the deepest interest and considerable happiness the archbishop’s statement. 1 think there could not be a wiser decision than to accept the fullest appeal at present to do nothing to divide the parties. The future largely depends on the nature of the proposed alterations.”—A. and N.Z. and Sydney Sun Cable.