THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 111, 8 February 1928, Page 10

THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Sir. —“A Presbyterian Minister’s” remedy for the troubles of the Church of England is to kill the patient. He thinks the Church is sharply divided into two parts—one Catholic and the other Protestant, and that someone ought to cut off the Catholic part and throw it away. What would remain would not be the Church of England, but a narrow, little Protestant sect, which would naturally be swallowed up by nonconformity. There would be nothing to justify its independent existence. 'The idea that one half of the church should expel the other half is too crude for serious consideration. As a matter of fact, there is no line of cleavage in the Church of England. The three parties—Catholic, Modernist, and Evangelical—overlap and intermingle. There are Catholic Evangelicals, Evangelical Catholics, Modernist Evangelicals, and Catholic Modernists. The great central mass—the real Church of England—includes all schools of thought, and they are drawing closer and closer together. A committee representing all parties is at present drawing up a statement on church doctrine, and the amount of agreement already reached is surprisingly large. They are working together with the greatest good-will. Leaders of all sections of the church took part in the production of the new Prayer Book, and the only question about which general agreement could not be reached was the authorisation of perpetual reservation oi the Sacrament. The possibility of a serious split in the Church of England is extremely remote. The rejection of the new Prayer Book by the House of Commons has created a difficult situation, but to refer to the position as “tragic” is gross exaggeration. The church can carry on with the old Prayer Book until it gets its new one. If it cannot get the new ope with the consent of Parliament, it will have to do without the consent of Parliament. It is not the business of Parliament to define the doctrine of the Church of England; but if Parliament disapproves of the doctrine of the church, it has a right to sever the connection between Church and State.. Disestablishment would not do vital injury to the church. It would be welcomed by many Anglo-Catholics. It would strengthen their position, and if the rejection of the new'Prayer Book should result in disestablishment, and the. consequent weakening of Protestant influence in the church, Sir Joynson Hicks and his ultra-Protestant friends must bear the responsibility. The new .Prayer Book has been accepted by the Church of England. It was rejected in the House of Commons mainly by the votes of English Noncm' 'ormists and Scottish Presbyterians. The most fervid no-popery speech against it was made by a tlieosophist. The Archbishop of Canterbury has the sympathy, support, confidence, ’and affection of the great majority of Church of England people in all parts of the world.—l am, CU ” NORMAN BURTON. Auckland, February 2.

Sir,— Although ycu must be getting very tired of letters re “The Crisis in the Church of England,” still, as the subject is a very serious one io many, I crave a little space to again point out that Io many Protestants there is little ' more than one serious point or difference, and that is pertaining to the Holy Connnunion. Most of your correspondents who criticise “Presbyterian Minister,” whoso letters have been a great boon io many, evade his real point. They d-' not seem to recognise tho horror many Protestants have of the Church of England drifting towards Roman practices. To illustrate my meaning. I will relate a true story. It mar shock some, as it did the writer a little at first, but it is belter to have the truth, and so I ment’on it in all reverence and humility. There were two educated gentlemen in India. One a Hindu of good standing, the other a Christian missionary. They were friends, and had manv serious 'conversations together. In the course of time 'ho missionary sought to convert his Hi”dii, friend to Christianity. After some talk the Hindu said unite respeetfnPv, “Sir. do you really maintain that the bread and wine which you use in one of vour practices, when praying to your God. is rea’lv the bodv and blood of your Christ ?” “Yes.” said the missionary. “Then.” the Hindu replied. “Sir. forgive me. but I could never become a Christian, for T do not want to become a cannibal.” Now, sir. T am quite prepared to hear the word blasphemous applied to this by AngloCat.holics. But there is no blasphemy, nor was any meant by tho Hindu. He sroke from his heart. And it may help to show Anglo-Catholic,s the dislike rrfnv Protestants have to what seems to them an abuse of the Lord’s Sunner. and consequent lowering of the reformed Churches. . , — I quite agree with “English Csd.*’o> c' ns to the existence of the British Church prior to Augustine’s time. It is as old ‘as the Church of home. —I am, ft".. F AV. Eketahuna, February 4.