STRENGTH OF NONCONFORMITY.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11481, 14 January 1903, Page 9

STRENGTH OF NONCONFORMITY.

TO THE EDITOft OF THE PRESS. Bir, —Tb is a pity' yoor correspondent, *!.," in referring u> tie strength of Nonconformity, has not more respect "for the . «il saying, "Magna cat veritae efc prevalebit," with which the closes hie letter. He *' Jnt» down th« Presbyterians of this colony •' M 13.48 of the population-. Now, the , tsam taken on March 31st, 1901, shows . (knunoer of Presbyterians to -be 176,503, grwinethuig like 22 per cent, of the popu- , Jtiiotu Again, he coolly asserts that in ; Amtr&ksw, the Nonconformists number ' wit 7.06 per cent, of the population. The £■ tbthodiste alone, according to the latest '-' Mlltemk returns, are put dawn at very conBdenAly over that number. Evidently i T.V statistics ore evolved from ''■ 42* uwoesses of his own pervert- ,' #4 imagination. Certainly, if "T." ,* MMQxes <the strength of Nonconformity I A Bozne by such loose methods, no one . tod express surprise at its numerical tWtaesfi. What-are the facts? In 1700 fee proportion of Nonconformists to Ansaua in England , was as one to twenty- • *n>. Then followed the religious revivals jiUVeeley and Whitfield, «nd the proporj«lin 1800 'had risen to one in eight. In cOO it stood ait one to one. So much te tfae vitality of English dissent, which Jeer correspondent labours so assiduously, tat Without avail, to belittle. His asser%o that "for years the Nonconformists . •Wβ raised their voices loudly an oppo9iW i» the taking of a religious census in England" cao only be characterised as v p misrepresentation of facts. Indeed, «• very opposite is tlie case. Carefully [Wtiktoti tretams are presented annually **•« tS»e leading Nonconformist Assem- «■• end Conferences. These returns are ' punished in all the leading ,<*"*> are never called an question - Jf* 0 ? fading 'journal, secular or ecclesiastwtt, Indeed, taking oar New Zealand fcnioe «a a criterion, the authorised re*W» el Nonconformity are admitted to be ; « fflsder, rather than an over, estimate *we teal numerical .strength of English ,<u»wnt. The rest is simply a matter of ' JP*™ 1 A <*d together the returns of .' Churches, and *■ 'Sγ 1 * 01 t^le tota * '* rom population of '• aJL! 0011 , 17 an< * y<)U aye ie resu * t as •"W»*tat*d, namely, a proportion, of Non*wenni«a to Anglicans as one to one. ' ut **?* Nonconformists do all they can •acilrUte, and not to hinder, the tak*n i.* aeLi B ioUe census in England. «s ■" E? y may "' since tlleJ " kn(>w " iimi > tJiev fell! vao^l *° nothing to lose .?* «*e results being made publioly ' fr' "^ ,,8 " further attempt to exclude P*>yt»rians from th«, liste of British "jfcwtfrfonnjty b> a pitiable subterfuge, of Iγ* «» eloquent history of the famous jWuptKjn ia»itself is sufficient refutation. * inclusion, lot me assure "T." that «mv on<, ° ufoini i sts "were never more ■ *^> 154 ijl * numbeis, and in their *&*:?&*, tlian they are to-day.—Yours, ■c,, » . W.D. January 7th, 1903.