The Revised Prayer Book

Evening Star, Issue 19893, 15 June 1928, Page 8

The Revised Prayer Book

Measure Debated in Commons

Many Serious Speeches

Terrific Gale in New South Wales

Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst Dead

J'ress Asfociation—Py Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, Juno 14. In tho House of Commons on the delate on the Prayer Hook measure Major J. D. Hirchail claimed that the measure ■was supported by a majority of the laymen of tlie Church of England. (Cries of “No.”) They believed that unless changes were made they would not have peace ami happiness. If only the Anglo-Cathohcs would drop the use of the. word ■“Mass” it would be a gesture, and go a Jong way towards preventing misunderstanding. Many people wore opposing the measure through groundless fears. Lady Ivcagh asked members to get lack to realities. Tho young people ol tho country were looking to religion for guidance, but as a result of this controversy the young people would turn away disappointed, and say that religion was only a wrangle over formalities. “ What matters,” she said, “is tho .spread of the Kingdom of God upon earth.” Major Sir A. H. Boyd-Carpentor said that if the measure wore passed it would cut olf from the church many earnest men, and there would be a Jar greater demand for disestablishment, ifo asked if the promoters of the book could not withdraw from the position they had taken over the Sacrament, in attempting to define tho indefinable. Sir W. Circavcs-Lord said lie belonged to neither of the extreme schools of the Church of England. Tho Prayer Book bad served tho purposes of centuries so completely that anyone who laid hands on that book was undertaking a task fraught with the greatest danger. It was clear that the revision had done noticing to meet the objections voiced in December.

Tho Duchess of Athol said she wished to approach the question Irom a different angle. Believing that Scotland could give definite guidance in the matter, she asked the Scottish members to recall their own national church and her great freedom, and think twice before they made it impossible for the national Church of England to obtain the liberty that the Church of Scotland enjoyed. There was no attempt to go back upon the priceless gains of the Reformation, which were the open JBible, the English Prayer Rook, and an audible service. Moreover, doctrine .was safeguarded by a prayer alter the administration of tho elements. Dispassionate examination showed that the church did not accept the doctrine of a carnal presence. With these safeguards what did vestments matter, and what did it matter if the elements were reserved in the form of simple bread and water?

Mr H. Snell (Labour) said he 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, hut had a deep reverence for their spiritual heritage. 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 it would have the right to religion as it pleased, but it was not a free body. The Prayer Book was in the nature of a State document. He resented the language in which members of the church had thought it right to address members of Parliament because of the rejection in December. They called them “a mob of Athiests, Communists, Unitarians, and Agnostics.” The time might come when it would be necessary to tell such people that the State was going to be master of the country. Mr C. Ct. Ammon (Labour) asked the House to pass the measure. There must he a place for the revision of a book which had been in existence for 400 voars.—Australian Press Associa-tion-United Service. DIVISION ON THURSDAY. LEADING SPEAKERS IN RESERVE. Press Association —By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, June 14. Parliamentary sketch writers agree that the first day’s debate in the House of Commons did not reach the heights of the memorable debate of December. The House was well filled to-day, and the galleries wore uncomfortably crowded. The speeches were marked by seriousness and careful preparation. Many observers express the opinion that 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 was. Both sides are holding their lending speakers in Thursday, when the division will be taken. It is generally agreed that the fate of the book rests on the 100 odd members who abstained from voting in December. —Australian Press Association