THE PRAYER BOOK.

Hokitika Guardian, 15 June 1928, Page 3

THE PRAYER BOOK.

DEBATE ITESU-MED

(British Official Wireless)

(United Press Association. —By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.)

LONDON, June 14. The galleries of the Commons wore again packed for tho Prayer Book debate. Almost, every fourth person in tho galleries was a cleric, including the Archbishops of Canterbury, Bishops and Peers. Sir Joynson Hicks re-opened tho debate. Following tho Home Secretary, Cyril Atkinson immediately threw the House into an uproar by stating the campaign against the prayer book would go down in history as a classical example' of that advocacy which consited of abuse of one’s opponent and misrepresentation. (Loud cries of “Withdraw”). Atkinson was not permitted to proceed owing to the rising disorder,' silence only being obtained when the .Speaker arose and appealed to tho House to give the member an opportunity of explaining. Atkinson: “I am speaking of tbo campaign against the prayer book. I do not know tbo extent tbo Home Secretary is responsible. I make no charge of any want of good faith, hut the campaign is based on misrepresentation.

Cries of “No.” “This campaign is responsible for baseless fears of many people. Twentytwo years ago a Royal Commission said the law of public worship was too narrow and needlessly condemned much ill which the church people believed. The genius of the now prayer book was that this report of tho book is tho answer which the church presents to the demand of the Royal Commission. There is absolutely no doctrinal change. Tho demand for a reservation came, not from Anglo-Catho-lics but those who wanted it for the sick and dying.’’ Australian Press Assn.—United Service RUGBY, Juno 14. When the House of Commons resumed the debate on the revised Prayer Book measure Sir W. Joynson Hicks, opposing the measure, said he did not do so lightly because he was convinced the" question at issue was not one of a few ceremonies, vestments or ornaments, but that of a definite change of doctrine was embodied in this hook, nor was this merely a domestic matter of the Church-of England. Sir W. Joynson Hicks reviewed the history of the Prayer Boole, which, he pointed out, was originally set up and established by Parliament. It was Parliament that abolished the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Romo in these islands. The first and second Prayer Books of King VI were established by Parliament in the years of 1549 and 1552. Forms of worship, doctrines ■ and ~ discipline of tho church had all been settled by Parliament. He and his supporters asked Parliament to reject the Prayer Book, because they believed it made it easier, rather than more difficult to swing back to prc-Refor-mation ideas. There was in tlic hearts and minds of men a. feeling that alterations in the Prayer Book had been made in response to the demands of Anglo-Catholics. The reservation of the sacrament was still the crux of the whole matter, as it

■as, when the new Prayer Book was ejected by the House last December. * f they had a reservation they could ' ot prevent adoration. During the lf ist twenty-five years, the number of s (lurches in which reservation and I doration were practised had grown ' rom thirty to nearly seven hundred, ho number would undoubtedly inrease when a reservation was auhorised. The revised Prayer Book c •ould not bring peace in the' land. 1 he life of the church was at stake. Lord Hugh Cecil (Conservative) tie- •' larcd it was perfectly clear there was c ransubstantiation in the new Book. < Te denied the Book embodied a new ok-trine/ Reservation of the sacra- f nent had been practiced for eight 1 uindred years, r.ml it was untrue to < ay that reservation had always been • ollowed by adoration. He denied < here had been a gain in priestcraft < nd said the progress made by the aity in the Church of England onid not have taken place in the Jhurch of Rome. To-day the real lifference between the Church or tome and the Church of England we; hat one was the church of authority r as we might say of despotism, and he other was the church of liberty, ’he whole body of clergy of this counry from the extreme Anglo-Catholic o the Evangelistical were divided in 1011-essentials, but in essentials ue.c ■eally one. , , LONDON, June 14. George Tliorne said Non-Con form i.sts laid the price for their Non-Confor-nity. Let those contrary to the feeing of the church pay the same price. Applause). Those who could not obey lie church should have a church of ■heir own. Lord Hugh Cecil said very little m Sick’s speech had any bearing on the neasure. If the speech were locally jursued it would lead to the driving iut of the whole high church party' 'rom the c-hurch. If anybody were to eave it would be the Home Secietary, because he was the person who lid not agree with the church. Lord Cecil emphasised the alterations of the measure to- meet the criticisms in December Thus the inclusion of the black Rubric averted the danger of those who had fears regarding trans-substantiation. Cecil ‘ emphasised that the policy of Bishops was the only possible one and the provision of appeal by Laity to Bishops was a valuable safeguard. Mr Ponsonby urged that as the Church Assembly had passed the book by a considerable majority, tlio House was wrongly discharging its duties by ontering into a discussion upon- the most sacred mysteries. Sir it. Home, as a member of tlic Church of Scotland was unprejudiced to some extent. The Bishops brought trouble oft their own heads when they would n6t take -action upon definite offences which the Royal Commission pointed out, but it was no langer possible to'base a prosecution upon the old prayer book.' If the new were rejected there would lie no authority on which bishops could proceed. Two thousand Anglo Catholics would be left absolute freedom to do what they wished. Horne, for his part, declined to say what form of worship members of the Church of England must use, when they went on their knees he-

fore their Maker. Hon AV. Churchill wished to examine the question from a. definitely more se- ' cure angle. Personally he did not like the new prayer book n.nd would fee! bound to vote against it if presented separately, and he could do so without injury to the church. Moreover, from sentimental grounds he regretted the departures from Archaic wording to which he had been accustomed since childhood, especially the marriage service. (Laughter). On 'the last occas- . . ion. he had abstained from voting, hut the development of controversy had raised an issue of a larger and graver character,' outweighing his personal feelings.