NEW PRAYER BOOK

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 84, 4 July 1928, Page 5

NEW PRAYER BOOK

CHURCH POLICY.

PLEA FOR CALM OUTLOOK.

NO CHALLENGE INTENDED

LONDON, July 2

The Archbishop cf Canterbury's eagerly awaitedj pronouncement as to the official policy regarding the Prayer Book deadlock attracted a crowded gathering at Churjb House Westminister. The entire assembly rose ami applauded she Primate,

* At the beginning cf Ids address, the, Archbishop pleaded with the Assembly' to, view the House; of Commons* -vote calmly and in proper proportions , “It s significance may easily bo;exaggerated,” he said, “and its intention . may i- <e ‘ misjudged. Same call it a deliberate challenge and say the House of Commons was arrogantly claiming absolute control of the church’s beliefs and worship. That was a mistaken view. Wo such far-reaching challenge was intended. If the House of Common® flouted the well-proven working arrangement of the johurch of Statcj tlwjre was constitutional intent. Many who voted against tile Book believed, however mistakenly, that they wore voicing the underlying wish of the majority of church folk.”

PERFECTLY LEGAL. The Archbishop considered It a gravely mistaken vote wblch might even he deemed disastrous or den'orable, bub it was perfectly legal. Members of the House of Commons exercised a right conferred by an Act which the church itself framed, but in exercising an unquestionably legal power they departed lamentably from, that reasonable spirit wherein alone the balanced relationship of the church and the State could be carried on. "While claiming to appraise church opinion they deliberately traversed the desires of the obitreb s officials and representative bodies namely, the bishons, the clergy ana the laitv. The House of Commons had declined to respect the wishes of the solid central body of church opinion, and allowed itself to be influenced by the representations of a strange combination of vehement opposite groups and factions which were united onlv in the desire to get the Book defeated.

Speaking advisedly on behalf of th© collective diocesan bishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury said: Tit is a fundamental principle that the church must' retain the inalienable right to formulate its faith and arrange its forms of worship. It is our firm hope that some (strong, capable too: nmdttee of statesmen and( churchmen may be ' .appointed toj weigh s,fresh the existing law in order to see whether readjustment is required for the maintenance of than principle which we are here now to reassert, ”■ RALLYING POINT FOR UNITY. For himself the Archbishop said he had hoped the Book would be the rallying point for church unity, but as things now stood that hope was thwarted The spirit of division and estrangement bad raised its head more mischievously than before. “None can escape the teeling or our common shame that groups within) the church, however conscientiously, set themselves to upset and succeeded in upsetting the vote of this assembly and the del berate judgment) of the church as expressed therein, hut we are not going to lose heart, ho said. , ~ , The Archbishop believed that unity was possible. He was unab « to see how the Assembly ccmld expected to present a furtbet to. Parliament' at the presen • He also, expressed the opinion that no measure worthy of the name would avoid controversy. 'H* would meet in September to consider the programme and con the church’s representative bodies.

PTIERS OPINION. “The Archbishop's statement hidi

cates an. entirely new departure in the policy of the bit-hops,” says the Daily Telegraph. “The Prayer Book, which was rejected ais a whole, is to be adopted piecemeal, the act of uniformity is a dead letter. Every parish priest has been a lawmaker to himself. The bishops will now have a, difficult task m confining the deviators from the existing Bcok within the borders of the revised book, which had behind it no force of law. “It will mean an effort to bring the more extreme clergy into line by prevailing on them voluntarily to accept the) limitations contained in the deposited hook. No doubt the bishops will he accused of defying Parliament, but we are sure it was not in a spirit of defiance that they arrived ati the decision. They were acutely the aP ’ rested?'ansWf4*€ehtrallMi ffi ; " . kmk'.'t s • i, -■