CANADA AMD CHURCH UNION

Evening Star, Issue 18668, 24 June 1924, Page 6

CANADA AMD CHURCH UNION

RIVAL FACTIONS AROUSED. Siege was laid to the House of Parliament in Ottawa for several days during the hearing of evidence from supporters of church union who hud stormed the legislative headquarters from all parts of the Dominion (writes the Vancouver correspondent of the Auckland 1 Star ’ under date of May 21). They came by special trains from Toronto, Montreal, and other cities to urge passage of the Bill now before Hie Private (Bills Committee of the House of Commons to incorporate Hie United Church of Canada, into which Urn Methodist, and Congregational Churches seek to merge. Dominion police around the Parliament Buildings were unable to restrain them. They compelled the Sergeant-a.t-Arms to open (he. doors of the Commons galleries thal they might bold a- meeting to adopt resolutions insisting the Rill he passed. On the second day an equal annv of anti-unionists arrived in tne Dominion capital, and from the outset it was evident that the entire Methodist sentiment of the, country was in favor of union; but the Presbyterian Church was strangely divided. In towns and villages life-long friends have parted company over the issue. Presbyterian anti-union-ists, who comprise at leant a large minority of the adnerents of the church, insisted that they were being deprived of their property, their creed, and the name of the church.

The Rill provides that any congregation may vote itself out of the union withh six months after proclamation of the Rib but the minority of the congregation that stays in, it war; asserted, would have no where to go. They would not be entitled to use the name ■* The Presbyterian Church.”

Sir Robert Falconer, president of the Toronto University, was the leading S]*oaker of the unionists before the committee. Roth factions fought Hie issue through (he leading lawyers of Canada. The committee was divided deuomina tionally as follows ; Roman Catholic 21 Presbyterian 21, ('thumb of England !) Methodist R. Congrcgationalist 2. Union Church 1. Christian Church 1. The decision rests largely in (he hands oi French Canadian Roman Catholics. The unionists represented 1-hat in Western Canada 3.000 union c.biircbm have been formed and arc waiting for incorporation of the central body. (MEMORABLE -SCENES. Not in the recollection of any present at tin opening bearing has so many people attended the" sitting of a committee of Parliament, and seldom had the chairman of a committee experienced so much difficulty in enforcing the rule of Parliament forbidding expressions of approval or disapproval of statements made in the discussion of a Bill.

The attendance included 800 people from various -parts of Canada, principally from Ontario and the western part of Quebec. Arguing that to reject the Bill would be to strike a serious blow at- properlyconstituted authority and good government. in Canada, Sir Robert Falconer ip his leading address enumerated the various votes taken on ohnrch union in the Presbyterian Church, and stated that these votes were carefully and deliberately recorded, and that the large majority of members of the church, being lovers of good government- and lawfully constituted authority, would stand behind their leaders in the project. He supported the Bill, as it would further Christian religion and be for the great advantage arid development of Canada. He had, been a member of the Union Committee since 1904, and said that one of the great benefits that would he conferred by this measure would be to “ check denominational zeal, which hi many places has approached proselytisrn.” “The stejrs by which the Presbyterian Oliurch. had decided for union were thoroughly constitutional, and,” he added,

“ this is one of the movements of a country that cannot, hr. stopped.” Regarding the opponents of t.ho Bill. Sir Robert. said ; “I do not like to say anything harsh, hut those in the larger Presbyterian eongreca.tions opposing this Bill are acting .selfishly, nr, they will not be afforded, lot the religious element in the smaller places be as unified aa possible.” SECOND DAY’S HEARING. On the second day the population of Ottawa, lin.d 1 .swollen by some 2,000 owing to further visitors arriving, and a, tense situation centred around the capital as (he arguments increased in head. Alme GeolTrion, K.G., of Montreal, one of (lie leading counsel for the Bill, argued that if the action of those opposed a.n.l instituted in flic oouiis was successful no church union -vliich implies change of doo trine was possible. But that action, he argued, would occupy about five years, with D ” i'rivy Council as the final stage, and rise “antis” won it would Vie nc- . :iy for Parliament to legislate in oppo;eion to it. His intention was that Parliament could obtain no guidance by waiting for five years. The minority were trying to make themselves the majority, and were trying to exercise a minorliy veto on the proceedings. The Presbyterian Church had rnoro than once before shown its power to oliange its doctrine by actually changing it. THE OPPOSITION. Rev. Stuart Parker, of Toronto, ma la a plea against the Bill on behalf of “a largo number of women, court and ami opposed ” to it. He said ( lie unionists were “ standing ruthlessly on a uinuicality.” The Bill, lie said, would lake away both the name and (he properly of the Presbyterian Church of Canada, and would defraud those not wishing to enter the union of their connection with their church.

.Several delegates were later heard, and generally they did not concede i hat. it would bo for the good of the Prshyterian Oliiirch or for the good of (iwi.'tda that. Ihe three churches with their traditions should bo merged in one mass, losing many of ihcir characteristics in the process.

Dr Scott described the Church Union Bill jus “ tyranny,” and! said the unionists had asked Parliament to ho gunmen and do the robbing for them in taking away the rights of the opponents of the_ Bill. An outstanding incident of the sixth day was Bov. W .Cv. Brown’s quotation of Rev. Pr Gaudier as having said; “This is the beginning of a National Protestant Church. No Government, would dare resist it.”

A vast volume of other evidence was taken, and subsequently the ease for the opposition closed, Liter the committee adjourned for three or iour days, during which time the counsel for and against the Bill engaged in socking some compromise. Various forms of compromise were mentioned after the closing of the taking of evidence, but neither side appeared prone to give way. In summing up the case against the Bill, Mr T. B. M'Qncstcii, of Hamilton, gave the result 'of card votes in a large number of congregations, shoudng a total in Ontario against union of 47,979, Quebec 6,921, New Brunswick 3,921, Nova Scotia* 3.356, Prince .Edward Island 316, Prairie Provinces and British Columbia 5,066, making a total of (2,577. lids total came from 299 congregations, anil compared with a total vole against union

of 75,755 in ITIS. He said the Presbylerian Church would not go into (he union as a whole without a mandate, and there was no mandate at pre.wnt. Hev. T. W. (lunn, secretary of the Congregational Cnion, presented the united, opinions of Ins rlinnh. in favor of union. ”Yfc helicon,” ho said, ‘‘the union of those churches would result in a better policy than any one has hod in the past. Rev. Hr Janie.'' Kndicoft, of the Methodist Church, said the .Methodists backed (he case for union. Against, the Bill. Mr George A. Campbell, K.C., asked for its rejection on tho ground that it. w r as unconstitutional, was not supported by the Presbyterian Church, the members of (he church court;, agreeing to the Bill exceeded their jurisdiction, and, furthermore, tho Bill obliterated three historic bodies, and there, was no provision for the congregational minorities. Tho Hill was ‘‘unjust, confiscatory, and coercive.” In, the lirra.l .speech for union Hr Pidgeou said Canada, was leading the, way, and better conditions would result.