PRAYER BOOK CONTROVERSY

Hokitika Guardian, 18 May 1928, Page 3

PRAYER BOOK CONTROVERSY

(United Press Association.—By Electric Te leg ra p h. —Copyright.) LONDON. May 17. “You seem to ignore the fundamental fact that the old Prayer Book is still usable in its unaltered state," says the Bishop of London, in a reply to the Home Minister, Sir W. Joynson Hicks, whose letter to Dr Ingram was cabled. The reply deals seriatim with Sir W. Joynson Hicks’s letter.

Dr Ingram continues: “Nobody knows better than inysell, the icoling of the Protestant Laity. 1 believe that you and others have unduly worked on their feeling, under a misunderstanding. Secondly, the Church Assembly s reduced majoirity (in favour of the new book! probably was due to the abslentioii of those dillVring from, not ol those agreeing with you. Some del not vote or voted against us, because they were disgusted with what they regarded as eflorts to placate you. “ Thirdly, regarding disorder in the church, you do not find it easy to produce order in the country, despite the most efficient police in the world. You have not fulfilled your last year’s promise to a clerical deputation to ileal with the night clubs and the drink clubs. 1 don’t now the difficulties owing to the opposition both ol party and of public opinion. Similarly, the public are opposed to prosecution in the case of the Church, which was once tried and failed. You taunt us with a want of courage, hut we have produced the Bill which you have done your best to defeat. AYe would ho more sympathetic if you were officially courageous enough to produce a Club Hill! Fourthly, you hold ‘Receptionist’ views on the Sacrament; but there is the doctrine of Christ’s real objective presence in the Sacrament, which the Court of Arches and the Privy Council have pronounced to he equally tenable. I believe that you do not realise the consideration that is due to many holding this view.” “ Fifthly, my speech at the Diocesan Conference referred to the desiie of liberty to give Communion to night nurses and to Churchgoers who are usually going to work too early to attend service.” “ Sixthlv. 1 deny there is any discrepancy in the statements of the Bishops', as their whole contention was the opposition was due to a misunderstanding, which misunderstanding amendments not involving any breach of principle removed.” . . “Finally, are you and your Irteiuls •limine at driving the Anglo-C nthohes from the Church, and so repeating our ancestors’ awful error of driving out the Wesieyans? Surely, our huge hearted Archbishop’s policy in koepincr the Church comprehensive is the more preferable. Admittedly there are a handful of priests and laity who would he happier with the Church oi Rome; hut the antagonising o thy whole of the loyal Anglo-C atholics is not the way to deal with them. A on, policy, if successful, will lead to a d>. nipt ion which none will deplore more than yourself.”