REVISED PRAYER BOOK.

Wairarapa Daily Times, 22 December 1927, Page 5

REVISED PRAYER BOOK.

CRITICISM DEPRECATED. AN ARCHBISHOP’S ATTITUDE, Press Ajsociation-Electvic Telegr.iph-Copyiigh't-, LONDON, Wednesday. The "Daily Telegraph’s” ecclesiastical correspondent says that suggestions were made at the Lambeth Conference of Bishops that Convocation should be invited to give full Synodical approval to the rejected Prayer Book. This, however, was felt’to have too much of the appearance -of a challenge to the authority of the State. The view generally held was that one night’s debate in the House of Commons was too short, leaving no opportunity for c-orrccjiug obvious misunderstandings. The Archbishop of Canterbury set the tone of the meeting by deprecating criticism of those who felt it their duty to vote for rejection of the Prayer Book measure. He invited all the Bishops to state their views before a general discussion. After this, one after another rose up and spoke with wayntli and fervour. The personal expressions occupied nearly the whole session. The Archbishop remained for an hour closeted with the Bishop of Norwich, who led the attack in the House of Lords. "The Times” says that a majority of the Bishops present .at the Lambeth conference received many communications, chiefly in the direction of urging the ruling out of disestablishment and non-interference with the balance. of the book, although it is suggested that the book might be made clearer on certain points. It was also suggested that the prayer for the King should be obligatory at the morning service. The seriousness of the issues will pfobably preclude anything but ail interim statement being made before Christmas. The bishops will later give a clear exposition of their aims, showing the necessity of the book to preserve unity.

THE BIRKENHEAD VIEWPOINT. LONDON, Wednesday. In eoiuiection with the Prayer Book controversy, the Earl of Birkenhead, -a former Lord Chancellor, writes to "The Times” that the bishops cannot take disciplinary measures regarding the matters the new Book sanctions, therefore the members of the House of Commons had made an hysterical decision under the influence of the crudest "no Popery” speeches, which ought not to have influenced schoolboys. The debate, instead of destroying the Book, had given it a force greater than if it had been accepted. "Every clergyman,” he says, "can with impunity employ the Book, and will, in my judgment, be wise in so doing.” —"Tho Times. ’ ’