THE NEW BISHOP.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18412, 19 June 1925, Page 11

THE NEW BISHOP.

TO THE XDITOB :Or "TUB PKESS." « Sir,—Your correspondent' ' Anglican'' seems ve'ry.much. concerned about the appointment of a Bishpp who lias advanced, modern, or liigher-critic theological views, his idea being That this is essential in tho interests of the Church. .>Thcrc. aro many of your readers wiio do not agree "with him. and I am one* of them. A modornist liishop' after the style, say, of Bishop Barnes, of Birmingham wouldy-.if settled here,have a most ruinous effect. Your correspondent suggests that a vote might lie taken of the congregations of tho diocese on the question whether increased" atcntion should be given to modern Biblical criticism;, but it seems to mc this would be a fruitless effort, as I am convinced that a few. people bosides the'clerical staff in eacb congregation, would'understand what the realissue was all about. If, nowever, tho various - congregations were aslced ..to state their opinion ou the question of the fitness for the position of Bishop of such a man as the late Dean of Nelson(Dr. Weeks). I think there would be a hearty and intelligent response in the affirmative. . "When iii New Zealand, Dean Weeks was well known by. the bulk of the people as not only a scholar--ly man, but a sound theologian, above suspicion. With him as Bishop the people in the- diocese would know at once where they wore; with any man, of. the cult to' which our friend "Anglican" evidently belongs, they^would-be totally at sea. /-The higher-critics, or modernists, have now liad a good innings, and I have no hesitation in saying thoy have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. There arc just as great and as learned men outside of and totally opposed to the largo but straggling army of Sritics, as belong to it. Aud what right, I ask, has tha. critic to demand that he is in the right, and everybody else opposed to him in the wrong?' Can he prove that the Scriptural beliefs of 50 years ago are mere legends? - For this is t\hat vour correspondent insinuates. I have waded through the so-called criticisms and dissertations of somo of these critics —men with quite a heap of letters after their name's—and I have never found'such pitiful reading. Sucii a swaying to and fro was surely never indulged in bv intelligent people! One author, especially, recently deceased, "never know anything. Everything was guesswork and speculation, and at the end of all bis display of learning I had nothing left me but this hypothesis and that to chew over. It is the opinion of some writers opposed to the critics that destructive criticism of tho Bible- is "now oldfashioned, superannuated, based on an exploded materialism which could no longer claim to be scientific, had no foundation in historic fact, was wholly unphilosophical, .was false to real experience of life." f I fear that "materialism" is, in most cases, at the bottom-of this highercriticism. Get the people to believe that the world came out of a handfui of protoplasm, and they will soon swalr low anvthing opposed to the records and authority of Scripture.—Yours, etc., - WATCHMAN.; ■ ... June 19-5.