FINAL SCENES

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 16 December 1927, Page 5

FINAL SCENES

PRAYER BOOK DEBATE. IN HOUSE OF LORDS. ARCHBISHOP’S TRIUMPH. BY CABLE —PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT. LONDON, Dec. 15. The finaL scene in the House of Lords of the debate on the new Prayer Book will long be memorable. The House was thronged in every corner and the atmosphere rwas one of tense expectancy. It is many years since such an assembly of peers has been seen, while the public galleries could hold scarcely one-third of those seeking admission. The Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. Stanley Baldwin) and a few of his colleagues, were prominent among the privileged persons assembled on the steps of the Throne. It was a great moment for the aged Archbishop of Canterbury when the surprising figures were announced amid cheering, for the majority was far greater than the most confident supporters of the new Prayer Book had expected. The bishops looked radiant and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s face showed several emotions in succession. He tirst appeared devoutly happy, then a little weary from the strain, then abstracted as if offering silent thanksgiving. His bitterest critic could not have grudged the Archbishop that moment of elation and relief. The drama of the debate mounted steadily until the fine win ding-up speech of the Archbishop of York, whose persuasive eloquence it is believed influenced the result. The voting among the bishops was 20 for and two against. BISHOPS NOT UNANIMOUS. OPINIONS ON THE BOOK. LONDON, Dec. 14. Lord Stanhope said the bishops ought to be anxious to allay the fears of those who felt this was only the first step towards making the services of the church less Protestant, and should therefore agree to a measure of discipline. Lord Halifax pointed out that half a century ago five clergymen were irn prisoned for practices which the new book both legalised and declared to i-e in accordance with the practice of the Church of England. He was apprehensive that the book would not, bring peace and order but, owing to nis regard and affection for the Primate, he would not vote against the measure. The Bishop of Worcester, opposing the measure, said the impression that the bishops had been almost unanimous in support of the new book was vastly delusive. If figures of the bishops ’ divisions on the subject were published the House would realise that it could not be claimed that divine inspiration had guided the result. He was convinced that the changes in the communion service involved corresponding changes in doctrine. The purpose of the movement which brought the Church of England into being was to turn the mass into a communion service for the people. During the past few years there had been a powerful effort to get the bishops once ’more to reassimilate the communion into a mass. The new Prayer Book followed suit as far as it dared. He said: “I would rather joiu in a', protest against the errors of trails-' substantiation than find fault witli | Bishop Barnes’s methods of exposi- 1 tion. ” . I

The Bishop of Chelmsford said no bishop who had voted for the new book approved of everything therein, but thankfully accepted it as a contribution to the peace and effective working of the Church. Lord Carson said: “I want to confess that I now, for the first time in my life, am grateful to Air. Gladstone

for disestablishing the Church in Ireland, because the new Prayer ißook will in nowise bind the Irish Church, which can continue to cherish its precious heritage of the Reformation. The inti oduction of the l new book is a triumph for those who have set at nought the rubrics of the Church for the past thirty years. It is a product of the illegalities which bishops have done nothing to check. The House does not represent the mass of the people, who do not favour the alterations in the Prayer Book. Do reflect what you arc doing. Doubtless the aristrocraey or bureaucracy of the Church favours the measures, but have the people no rights? Are these to be set aside because discipline cannot be enforced in the Church?” The Bishop of Durham Said i,t was ridiculously fictional to suggest that the Bishops were guilty of unwarranted intereference. The revision was undertaken solely because the situation in the country" had become intolerable. The Bishops of Norwich and Binning ham, the protagonists against revision, had no parochial experience. Pastoral experience was imperative for sound judgment on the subject of the new book. “Modernised in the best sense,” it expressed what was genuinely describable as scientific thought, but excluded theories merely .describable as “the view, of the hour.” It represented the desires of the majority of the 3,500,000 churchfolk represented by the 'Church Assembly. He believed the new book would lay the foundation of a restoration of discipline. The revision consisted mainly of legalising existing procedure. He said: “Here is the instrument which the church declares to be indispensable. Can the House justify its refusal?” Lord 'Cushendun, opposing the Bill, said he thought the proposals more farreaching than was ever present in the minds -of the electors of the Church Assembly, while the number of the laity who voted at the diocesan conferences was negligible. The alternative services would lead to bitter strife in every parish, especially when a new incumbent was being appointed. The Bishop of London had said that the now book restored the canon which had been broken up at the Reformation, but the canon was then deliberately broken up in order to emphasise the Piotestant interpretation of the Sacrament. Surely the restoration of the pro-Re form a t ion service restored what the Reformation had repudiated. The demand for the new book was almost entirely clerical, and 'Lord Cushenden thought it would produce an anticlerical movement and result, in the Church rapidly ceasing to bo the expression of faith of the nation as a whole. It. was bound to increase the danger of disestablishment and make the reunion of the churches impossible. Lord Cave considered that though Parliament was empowered to overrule the Ohurch Assembly, surely avhen the latter, after all the steps required by V law had been taken, reached a conclu- * sion bv an overwhleming majority, it must have a most overwhelming case

made out against it before the House could reject its decision. Lord Cave thought too much nad beeu made of tec differences between the two books and too little of their essential agreement To him the effect of the revision was like a fresh breeze blowing through the old pages, relieving them of incongruities and substituting words of fresh appeal more congruous to the present time.

The Bishop of Norwich said they were asked to add new forms of worship which might be more Greek or Roman, but certainly were not more English. He believed the decision would dig a deeper trench between the national and other churches in England. Discussions at diosecan conferences were most inadequate, and the vast majority of church people had had the book thrust upon them with no idea of its contents. The Bishop declared: “I believe you are being asked to erect a strong, firm temple of discord, to re-erect the temple of Baal. I ask you not to dissipate the influence of the National Church by making the book optional or alternative on crucial points.” Th ( > Archbishop of York, in winding tip the debate, said the unity of the Bishops in the matter had been most, noteworthy, and the Church Assembly had never been more representative than at present. Only two of the Free Churches opposed the measure, while three conspicuous Noncomformists, Dr. Carnegie-Simpson, Dr. Garvie and Dr. Scott-Lidgctt approved it. Certainly they did not regard it as a blow to closer union. The present Prayer Book remained unchanged as the standard of the Church’s teaching, to which the clergy would have to declare their assint. No Bishop or parochial council could compel any clergyman to use the revised book. The main object of the new book was not better discipline of the clergy, but improved provision for the worship of God. People were concerned. not about vestments and such like, but whether they could see in the Church a greater sense of that peace, unity and goodwill which they were exhorted to bring into their own industrial life. “If,” said the Archbishop. “you reject the book, you send back the' Church to waste its energies. You will divert it from the main stream of national life into a backwater noisy with internal strife. If the House of Lords and the House of Commons by decisive majorities np prove the measure, you will have done something to free the Church for its high task and strengthen the ties bindinf the nation to the Christian faith.”