PRIMATE AND BISHOP

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 4 August 1931, Page 2

PRIMATE AND BISHOP

CONTROVERSY IN ENGLAND BAN ON A CLERGYMAN LONDON, 21st July. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Cosmo Lang, declares, in reply to last w'eek’s letter from the Bishop of Birmingham, Dr. E. W. Barnes, that the latter deliberately placed himself in contempt of the law when lie declined to vindicate his action regarding St. Aidan’s Church in the Courts. The patrons of the living could have applied for a writ of attachment, which might have involved the bishop’s imprisonment. “It seems to he difficult to reconcile your determination to compel some clergy to obey the decisions of the Courts with your refusal to acknowledge such decisions regarding the Sacrament,” the Primate adds.

“Apparently you endorse the opinion that ‘belief that the spiritual presence is to he found in the consecrated element is a superstition properly rejected at the Reformation.’ This opinion is scarcely consistent with Article 28 or the xvords of the Catechism that the body and blood of Christ are verily taken by the faithful at the Lord’s Supper. “Is it charitable or just to brand as mere superstition a belief held, by multitudes of fellow-churchmen which is consistent with the formularies of the Church ? “I have written this with the greatest reluctance, ns it is unseemly that it should involve public discussion with a brother bishop.” The controversy relates to the appointment of the Rev. G. D. Simmonds to the St. A Ulan’s living, Birmingham. The patrons selected Mr Simmonds, but the Bishop of Birmingham refused him u licence, on the ground that lie practised reservation of the Sacrament. The bishop then defied the ecclesiastical court, and declined to contest the matter in the civil courts. His ban was overcome by Mr Simmonds being specially licensed by the Primate.