PRAYER BOOK

Hokitika Guardian, 15 June 1928, Page 1

PRAYER BOOK

DISCUSSION IN COMMONS. Australian Press Assn.—United Service LONDON, June 13. In the Commons there was an electric atmosphere during the prayer book debate. Many Commoners were compelled to seek seats in the side galleries. Commoners have been bombarded with letters, post-cards and petitioners to the last . moment. A large proportion are framed on models supplied by societies. Air Merriman introduced the measure in the House. He said he did not regret the rejection which had been recognised as an expression of indignation by Parliament and laity against the more lawless extravagances of certain clergy and the failure in certain quarters to restrain those extravagances. (British Official Wireless). RUGBY, June 13. Mr Merriman, introducing the Prayer Book measure in tho Commons, emphasised the two vital matters in regard to the revised Prayer Book, were dis-

cipline in the church and the underlying doctrines of the new book, whiclq be declared it impossible to give undue weight to certain extravagances within the Church of England in proportion to the general body of loyal servants, faithfully doing their duty. Tho Prayer Book was not designed to legalise these illegalities in regard to Church discipline. Mr Merriman asked what chance would there ho if the measure were rejected of retaining loyal clergy who had already been adopting ceremonies which were permitted in the book and which were so permitted with the knowledge that behind them was an overwhelming majority of bishops and clergy. If tho measure were rejected how could the bishops possibly demand that those who were exceeding the proposed limits should come within those limits! He submitted on the grounds of restoration of discipline that there was an overwhelming case for passing the measure. He further contended the book maintained the Protestant character of the Church of England, and that tho additions or amendments which had been instituted made the position abundantly clear. Defending the reservation of the sacrament, Mr Merriman reminded the House of those padres to whom the army owed so much during the war. Those padres who never practised reservation before, reserved sacrament which had been consecrated in battery or battalion headquarters, carried on under gas helmets into the front line of trenches or gunpits and there administered it to men who were in greater peril than those who were in hospital. Were these men, lightly going to give up tho practice which had such sacred associations and of which they have realised the spiritual benefit. Mr Merriman, continuing, said side by side with the doctrine of the Church of England whereby the rite of Communion was a commemoration of sacrifice on the cross was that the Church of England might hold as members of the Catholic Church, which was not tli'<~ Roman Catholic Church at all. That was a perfectly legitimate desire to use all that was permissible in traditional liturgy of the church. Samuel Roberts, opposing, said the book set up two standards of doctrine. Everyone in the church would have to be labelled as one who believed in the new service or old. Tho new book

type of man would shine in the light of episcopal blessings and the others would not. The new prayer book was going to be a great detriment to young evangelicals joining the church. Commander Ken worthy said the changes in the prayer book were great, but if acted upon, as the goal of all religion, the changes were small. There was no reason for rejecting the book. Hakes (a Labourite) said the Commons decision in December found a warm endorsement in all sections of the community. He could find nothing but a whole-hearted opposition to the measure. There was a feeling of amazement when it was discovered how. mncli the repesentatives of the Church of England were prepared to surrender, at Malines.

Air Rosslyn Afitchcll (Labour) said this measure was admittedly before the House because of lawlessness and chaos in the Church of England. As the hook gave no fresh poweis hoi\ could it be argued the bishops would in future curb the lawlessness that the bishops continued to - encourage and practise. They deplored the continued appointment to living men whose services could he forecasted. Tlie only reason people acquiesced in the Church of England was because the doctrine outlook remained fundamentally protestant. The new book was the outward sign of an inward movement to overthrow protestantism in England, and as Cardinal Manning said once: “Protestantism conquered in England is conquered in the whole world.” LONDON, June 14.

Major J. D, Birehall (Conservative, Leeds) claimed that the measure war supported by tlie majority of the laymen of the Church of England. Cries of “No.”

"Major Birehall said they believed that unless changes were made, they would not have peace and happiness. If only the Anglo-Catholic® would drop the use of the word “Mass,” it would be a gesture, and would go a long way towards preventing any misunderstanding. Many people were opposing the measure through groundless fears. Lady Iveagh aslied the members to get hack to realities. The young people of the country were looking to religion for guidance. As the result of thiis Controversy, 'the young would turn away disappointed, and would say that religion was only a wrangle over formalities. “What matters,” she said, “is tlie spreading of the Kingdom of God upon earth.” Major S. A. Boyd Carpenter (Conservative, Coventry) said that if this measure were passed, it would vu ' from the Clnuch many earnest men, and there would be a far greater demand for disestablishment. He asked if the proihters of the new Prayer Book could not withdraw from the position they had taken over the sacrament in attempting to define the indefinable. , ' . Sir W. Greaves Lord, K.C. (Conservative, Lambeth) said he belonged to neither of the extreme schools of the Church of England. The Prayer Book had served the purpose of centuries so completely that anyone who laid hands on that Boole was undertaking a task fraught with the greatest danger. It was- clear that tlie revision had doiie nothing io meet the objections voiced in December. . ' The Duchess of Atholl said she wished to approach the question from a different angle, believing that Scotland could give definite guidance in this, .matter. She asked- the Scottish members to recall the if own National Chiircli aiicl tlilirJttat .freedom; iha to.-think tydee bpforp they made it

impossible for the National Church of England to obtain the liberty that the church of ScoUland enjoyed. There was no attempt to go back upon the priceless gains of the Reformation which were an open Bible, an English Prayer Book and an audible service. Moreover, their doctrine was safeguarded by the jH-ayer after the administration of the elements. A dispassionate examination- showed that the Church did not accept the ooetrines of the carnal presence. With the safeguards what did the vestments matter? .'What did it matter whether the elements were reserved in the form of simple bread and water? Air Harry Snell (Labourite, Woolwich) said lie intruded into the debate only to state the attitude of the “unchurched multitude,” who did not belong to church or chapel, and who were neither mystics nor rationalists, but who had a deep reverence for their spirtual heritage. These people looked to the House of Commons to preserve the religious liberties their fathers had won. Tf the Church of England were a free and voluntary body, it*would-have the right to such a icligon -as it pleased, but it was not a free body. The Prayer Book wa.s in the nature of a State document. He resented the language in which members of the Church had. thought it . right to address to members of J .ly House of Commons, because of the rejection of the Book in December. They had called them “a mob of atheists, Communists, Unitarians and agnostics.” Such language, he said had not been heard since the days of Wolsey. The time might come when it would be necessary to tell such people that the State was going to be the master of they country. Air C, G. Ammon (Labour, Camberwell) asked the House to pass the measure. There must, he said, be a place for the revision of a Book which had been in existence for four hundred rears. FATE OF THE BOOK. LONDON, June 14. The Parliamentary sketch writers agree that the first day of the debate on the Prayer Book in the House of Commons did not reach the heights of the memorable debate of December. Tlie House was well filled to-day, and t)ie galleries were uneomfortably crowded. ? - The speeches were marked by high seriousness and careful preparation. Many observers express tlie opinion tliat, so far, there is no sign of the second version of the revised Prayer Book being regarded in a more favourable light than, the first. Both sides are holding their leading speakers in reserve for Thursday, when the division will be taken. It is generally agreed- that the fate

of the Book really rests on one hundred odd members who abstained from voting in December last. PRAYER BOOK REJECTED. BY .SIX VOTES. (Received this day at 11.15 a.m.) LONDON, June 14. The Prayer Book was rejected by 226 votes to" 220.