PRAYER BOOK DISCUSSION

Evening Star, Issue 19782, 4 February 1928, Page 5

PRAYER BOOK DISCUSSION

AN ANGLO-CATHOLIC'S VIEWS Pres* Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, February 2. The real Prayer Book issue is whether the evangelicals wish to drive the Anglo-Catholics from the Church of England, said Sir Henry-Slesser, addressing the Catholic Literature Association. " _ . , Sir Henry (who was Solicitor-general in the Labor Government),; was the chief Anglo-Catholic spokesman in the last House of Commons debate. He contended that reservation and the adoration of the sacrament were .inherent parts of the Catholic faith. “If Parliament forbids: it, wo must abandon our Catholic faith or abandon the Church of England. We Catholics claim to be part of the Catholic Church, and we claim the right to conduct ourselves according to Catholic tradition, including definitely belief in an objective Real Presence.” He added that if the Church Assembly approves of reserving the sacrament in the vestry he will be compelled to oppose the book in the House of Commons. —A. and N.Z. and ‘Sun’Cable. REMARKABLE SCENES EMOTION AND ELOQUENCE , ADHERENTS AVON AND LOST. The rejection of the new Church of England Prayer Book by the House of Commons on December 15 was attended, as indicated by the cablegrams published at the time, by remarkable scenes of tense emotion and extraordinary excitement. The House of Commons, says a London paper, assembled in an atmosphere more sensational than it has known since the Great War. A vital question was debated, for once, purely on conscience. All political ties were snapped, colleague opposed colleague, and party boundaries were rooted up. Religion found partisans in political foes. It was still more remarkable that free sentiment swept through the assembly. Oratory was not set to its usual forlorn test of embellishing inevitable decisions. Rhetoric made and unmade adherents to the cause. The public galleries and side galleries were packed. A bent and white-haired figure, the Archbishop of Canterbury sat by himself over the clock in the peers’ gallery, eagerly sensing the clash of sentiment beneath him.

WOMAN SOBS IN THE GALLERY. An unusual depth of emotion stirred the House throughout the debate. Serious and sombre faces were like a mantle of contemplation around each speaker;. A woman was heard to sob in the public gallery, where many persons, without disguise, wiped moist eyes. Mr Bridgeman, First Lord of the Admiralty—the man in the pew,” he described himself in this debate—led the supporters of the measure. The Prime Minister, at his right, was another supporter. A formidable trio of opponents sat near Sir William Joynsdn-. Hicks, the . Horae Secretary, who was the chief spokesman, with Sir Thomas Inskip and Sir Douglas Hogg,’ the two law officers of the Crown, ready to run errands in order to bring ammunition for his speech and to prompt their more militant colleague with further ideas. Mr Bridgeman announced himself as one whom long thought had converted from opposition to support. He fell out pointedly with the Home Secretary, saying almost at the outset that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s opinion, must carry greater weight than—he turned to look for Sir William, and, facing, him, completed his -sentence dramatically with the word “his.” Sir William looked embarrassed. HOME SECRETARY’S SPEECH. A hush fell as the Home Secretary rose. The debate in a moment became a duel between him and the silent witness in the gallery. Sir William agreed that he had the Archbishop of Canterbury against him, but he said he found conscientious support in the Bishop of Worcester and Lord Parmoor. “Reservation of the Sacrament should not be permitted by the church,” he thundered. “It is being done every day. How can the bishops possibly deal with an offence at which they have connived for so many years?” “Why,” demanded Sir William, “ appoint men guilty of such practices, not merely illegal, but contrary to the church’s doctrines? The Bishop of London has filled his diocese with such clergymen. How can the bishops turn round In a fortnight and say to them: * You must give up the practices which we have tolerated so long ’ ? The Archbishop of Canterbury declared in 1903 that tolerance had passed its limits, and that the sands had run out. The sands are still running out to-day, and nothing has been done.” Canon Bullock-Wehster, Sir William continued, after his sensational protest at St. ; Paul’s Cathedral, _went to his church and conducted an illegal service. He quoted a list of the services conducted recently in that church—Mass. Mass for the Departed, Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Adoration of the Blessed Virgin. “The patron of that church,” he said, “ is the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. The man who appoints to this living is the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.”

LABOR MEMBER’S STIRRING SPEECH. For a moment the debate did not grip members, but they came crowding in again as Mr Rosslyn Mitchell (Labor member for Paisley) displayed, as he has displayed before, his immense emotional powers. The 1 Daily Express ’ says: “'He is one of tho smallest figures in the House, but he towers in the imagination as his Scottish fervor transfigures him. A more stirring and impassioned outburst has rarely been heard in the four walls of Westminster. His neat figure seemed to vibrate wiht his own eloquence. The House hung oil his voice as he raised it in denunciation or dropped it to trembling appeal. He seemed to recreate tho presence of a John Knox. Mr Mitchell’s words hissed as he described with Presbyterian horror the observance of Mass—a belief that human materials of bread and wine could recreate in themselves-the blood and flesh of the Saviour. “That is transsubstantiation,” he cried, “hat is the deciding lino between the Church of Rome and the Church of England. If the Church of England thinks that " —there was a loathing accent on “that”—let her have it, and God be with her. But if she does not want it she cannot pass this book. “The Church of England cannot permanently endure if half Reformist and half Roman. If the church so chooses, I, for one, convinced’in ray Protestantism, thanking God from my heart, can do nothing but vote against this Bill.” He paused and dropped his voice to a whisper, “ I do not want to do it,” he added in a low, but intense tone, “ but I can do no other. So help me God.” A new personality was next revealed to the House. Lady Iveagh made her maiden speech. Such a speech is an ordeal at any time. To deliver it in support of the measure and in face of the tide then running at . tho full against it was doubly courageous. Her first words stayed the of a movement of members, from the House. . “.Christian unity, of spirit is. of more importance than seine of the theological divergencies so ably put before the House,” she said. “ I ask the House to do nothing to hamper the bishops in their task of making the

church a real living entity of what I believe to be a deeply religious nation.”

MR BALDWIN’S POWERFUL PLEA. Mr Baldwin’s speech was a powerful, plea for union. “There has always existed a double stream of opinion in the church ou the nature of the sacrament,” he observed. “Both schools have produced saints and scholars. It will be a tragic day for this country if the Church of England is ever so narrowed that these two streams cannot flow side by side.” “The Church of England has come to us with every testimony open to her and with her leaders pledged to remedy disorders which, have been the despair of Christians of all denominations,” said the Prime Minister. “Is the House of Commons going to say, I We will not trust you? We told you to' set your house in order, and we don’t believe you.’ ” This passage, in the most extraordinarily open of all debates, won the deep applause of profound conviction. “ The glory of our church is its comprehensiveness,” Mr Baldwin concluded, with solemn emphasis. “ "Which vote in my opinion will do most to help the religious life of the nation? I have decided clearly and without hesitation in my conscience that the answer is to vote for the measure. The Bill was rejected by 247 votes to 205.