REVISED PRAYER BOOK.

Wairarapa Daily Times, 16 December 1927, Page 5

REVISED PRAYER BOOK.

LORDS DEBATE OPPOSITE VIEWPOINTS. Pjsss Association-Electric Telegraplr-Copyrigfc. LOND OX, Thura da y. Continuing the debate in the House of Lords on the Devised Prayer Book, Lord Cushenden said the Bishop of London had said that the new book restored the canon which was broken up at the Deformation, but the canon was then deliberately broken up in order to emphasise the Protestant interpretation of the Sacrament. Surely, he said, the restoration of the pre-Befov-mation service restored what the Deformation had repudiated. The demand for a new book was almost entirely clerical. Lord Cushenden thought it would produce an anti-clerical movement and result in the Church rapidly ceasing to be the expression of the faith of the nation as a whole. It was bound to increase the danger of disestablishment and make the re-union of the church impossible. Lord Cave considered that though Parliament was empowered to overrule the Church Assembly, surely, when the latter after all the steps required by law had been taken had reached a conclusion by an overwhelming major-

ity, it must have a most overwhelming case made out against it before the House could reject the decision. Too much had been made of the differences between the two books and too little of their essential agreement. To him the effect of the revision was like a fresh breeze blowing through old pages relieving them of incongruities and substituting words of fresh appeal, more congruous at the present time. The Bishop of Norwich said they were asked to add new forms of worship which might be more Greek or •Roman, but certainly not more English. He believed the decision would dig a deeper trench between the national and other churches in England. The discussions at the Diocesan conferences were most inadequate. A vast majority of the church people had the book thrust upon them with no idea of its contents. The Bishop declared, “I believe you are being asked to erect a strong, firm temple of discord to reerect a temple of Baal. I ask you not to dissipate, the influence of the national church by making the book optional or alternative on the crucial points.” The Archbishop of York, winding up the debate, said the unity of the bishops in the matter had been most noteworthy. The Church Assembly had never been more representative than at present. Only two free churches opposed the measure. Three conspicuous Nonconformists, Drs. Carnegie Simpson, Garvio and Scott Lidgett, ap-

proved itt Certainly they did not regard it as a blow to a closer union. The present Prayer Book remained unchanged as the standard of church teaching to which the clergy would have to declare their assent. No bishop or parochial council could compel any clergyman to use the revised book. The main object of the new book was not to better the discipline of the clergy, but to make improved provision for the worship of God. People were concerned not about vestments and such- like, but whether they could see in the church a greater sense of the peace, unity and goodwill which they were exhorted to bring into their own industrial life. “If you reject the book you send back the church to waste its energies,” ho said. “You will divert it from the main stream of national life into a backwater noisy with internal strife. If the Houses of Lords and Commons by decisive majorities approve of the measure you will have done something to free the church for its high task and strengthen the ties binding the nation to the Christian faith.”

The motion was carried by 241 votes to S 3. The minority included the Bishop of Norwich and the Bishop of Worcester, the Duke of Argyle and the Duke of Buccleuch, the Marquess of Lincolnshire, Lords Halsburv, Arnold, Banbury, Carson, Cushenden, Meath, Kinnaird, Galway, Strathspey and Sydenham.

MEMORABLE SCENE. LONDON, Thursday. The final scene in the House of Lords’ debate on the Prayer Book will long be memorable. The House was thronged in every corner, and the atmosphere was one of tense expectancy. It is many years since such an assembly of peers has been seen, while the public galleries could hold scarcely one-third of those seeking admission. Mr Baldwin and a few of his colleagues were prominent among the privileged persons assembled on the steps of the Throne. It was a great moment for the aged Archbishop of Canterbury when the surprising figures were announced, amid cheering, for the majority was far greater than the most confident supporters of the new Prayer Book had expected. The Bishops looked radiant, and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s face showed a succession of emotions, devoutly happy, then a little weary from the strain, then abstracted, as if offering a silent thanksgiving. The bitterest critic could not have grudged the Archbishop that moment of elation and relief.

The drama of the debate mounted steadily until the fine winding-up speech of the Archbishop of York, whose persuasive eloquence, it ie believed, influenced the result. The voting among the Bishops was twenty for and two against the motion.