CHURCH AGAIN FACES CRISIS

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 380, 14 June 1928, Page 9

CHURCH AGAIN FACES CRISIS

PRAYER BOOK BEFORE COMMONS GALLERIES CROWDED FOR DEBATE SOLICITOR-GENERAL PRESENTS MEASURE British Official "Wireless Reed., Noon. RUGBY, Wednesday. THE galleries of the House of Commons were crowded to-day, when Sir Boyd Merriman, the Solicitor-General, introduced the revised Prayer Book measure. The Archbishops of Canterbury and of York, and several bishops, were in the Peers’ Gallery.

There was an electric atmosphere during the Prayer Book debate. Many Commoners were compelled to seek seats in the side galleries. They have been bombarded with letters, postcards and petitions to the last moment, a large proportion framed on models supplied by the societies. Sir Boyd Merriman emphasised that the two vital matters in regard to the revised Prayer Book were discipline in the Church and the underlying doctrines of the new Book. He declared that it was possible to give undue weight to certain extravagance within the Church of England, in proportion to the general body of loyal servants faithfully doing their duty. The Prayer Book was not designed to legalise these illegalities in regard to church discipline. Sir Boyd asked what chance would there be, if the measure were rejected, of obtaining the loyal clergy who had already been adopting the ceremonies which were permitted in the book, and which were so permitted with a knowledge that behind them was the overwhelming majority of the bishops and of the clergy. And if the measure were rejected, how could the bishops possibly demand that those who were exceeding the proposed limits should come within those limits. OVERWHELMING CASE He submitted that, on the grounds of a restoration of discipline, there was an overwhelming case for the passing of this measure. He further contended that the book maintained the Protestant character of the Church of England, and that the additions or amendments which had been instituted made that position abundantly clear. Defending reservation of the Sacrament, Sir Boyd Merriman reminded the House of those padres to whom the Army owed so much during the war—those padres who had never practised reservation before the reserved Sacrament, which had been consecrated in battery or battalion headquarters, and carried it under their gas helmets Into the front line trenches or gunpits, and there administered it to men who were in greater peril than those who were in the hospital. “Are these men lightly going to give up the practice which has such sacred associations for them and of which they have realised the spiritual benefit?” he asked.

Sir Boyd Merriman said he did not regret the previous rejection, which had been recognised as an explosion of indignation by Parliament and the laity against the more lawless extravagances of certain of the clergy, and the failure in certain quarters to restrain those extravagances. Side by side with the doctrine of the Church of England, by which the rite of communion was a commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross, was another which those of the Church of England might hold as members of the Holy Catholic Church, which was not the Roman Catholic Church at all. There was a perfectly legitimate desire to use all that was permissible in the traditional liturgy of the Church. FIRST OPPONENT Sir Samuel Roberts (Conservative!, who opposed the motion, argued Drat the new Prayer Book would put back any chance of reunion with the great Noncomformist churches of this country. He declared that the belief in the Real Presence, whicli was indi cated in the book, was not tile Protestant religion. Sir Samuel said the Book set up two standards of doctrine, and everyone in the Church would have to be labelled as one who "believed in the new service or the old. The 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 deterrent to young evangelicals joining the Church. Commander Kenworthy said if one thought only of outward forms, and prepared to damn a man because he preferred a clergyman to wear a chasuble, the changes in the Prayer Book were great; but if one kept one’s eyes upon the goal of all religion, the changes were small. There was no reason for rejecting the Book. Mr. J. H. Hayes (Labour) said the House of Commons’ decision in December found warm endorsement in all sections of the community. He could find nothing but whole-hearted opposition to the measure. There was a feeling of amazement when it was discovered how much the represen-

tatives of the Church of England were prepared to surrender at the Malines conference. MR. MITCHELL AGAIN Mr. E. Rosslyn Mitchell, Labour member for Paisley, whose eloquence had much to do with the previous rejection of the book, said this measure was admittedly before the House because of the lawlessness and chaos in the Church of England. As the book gave no fresh powers, how could it be argued that the bishops would in future curb the lawlessness. The bishops continued to encourage the practices that they deplored. They continued to appoint to the livings men whose services could be forecast. The only reason why people acquiesced with the Church of England was because the doctrine and 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 is conquered in England, it is conquered in the whole world.” Commander J. M. Kenworthy (Labour) said the Church of England was a Catholic as well as a Protestant church, and it had to be a comprehensive church, and to open its arms and receive all those brethren and priests who had accepted this compromise for the sake of peace. For the sake of the ultimate peace which would enable the Church to get on with its work, social as well as religious, the c >mpromise was justified. Mr. Harry Snell (Labour) intruded to the debate, only to state that the attitude of the ‘unchurched multitude, who did not belong to church or

chapel, who were neither mystics nor rationalists, but who had a deep reverence of their spiritual heritage.” These people looked to the House of Commons to preserve the religious liberties their fathers had won. If the Church of England were a free, voluntary body, she was right to have what religion she pleased, but the Church was not a free body. The Prayer Book had the nature of a State document. He resented the language of members of the Church, who thought it right to address the Commoners because of their rejection of the book in December, and called them a mob of atheists, Communists, Unitarians and agnostics. Such language 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, not the Church, was going to he the master of the country. Mr. C. G. Ammon (Labour) asked the House to pass the measure. There must be a place for revision in a book which had been in existence for 400 years.