Mr. Ivor Bulmer Thomas of London did not care much for the message of the world Anglican Congress held last summer in Toronto and rudely said so in the Church Assembly at Westminster when a bishop formally moved that the message be commended. Full of pious clichés, scoffed Mr. Bulmer Thomas, heaping “inanity upon inanity.” He had other objections too, and he put them together in an amendment which, according to the workings of the Church of England, had to be voted on by the three houses separately. The clergy carried his amendment easily, the laity more narrowly, but it was vetoed by the House of Bishops (from which no voting figures were supplied).

A hardy annual reappeared when an archdeacon raised the question of the church commissioners whose income from extensive property interests often brought the accusation of “dirty money.” A bishop rose and said that such lies should be nailed—the commissioners did not grind the faces of the poor as was popularly supposed; to say so was virtually an attack on the church itself.

Another familiar scene was re-enacted in the House of Laity when the evangelicals sought once more to remove all barriers between Christian people at the Lord’s Table. The strictures of the 1604 canons, pointed out Mrs. C. Tebbutt of Peterborough, were aimed against notorious evil livers and schismatics, not against fellow Christians; by its vote the house would stand in the judgment of history and of God. Another lady cited an appalling situation where an Anglican incumbent was compelled to turn away his own father from Communion because the latter was a Baptist minister. The suggested amendment foundered on the rock of the legal point that only those confirmed “or ready to be confirmed” were to be admitted, ...

Subscriber access only You have reached the end of this Article Preview

To continue reading, subscribe now. Subscribers have full digital access.

Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.

Tags:
Issue: