“THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND”

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 115, 13 February 1928, Page 10

“THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND”

Sir, —I regret that I cannot let Air. Norman Burton’s letter in your issue of to-day puss without notice. I do not seek to disturb his profound satisfaction at the contending factions in the Church of England, and he reminds me of the man in a church that said: "AVe are all brothers—like Cain and Abel 1” But I object to his holding up to scorn and contempt a good Presbyterian and a good Scotchman who will never see his letter. Air. Rosslyn Alitchell, ALP. for Paisley, under a deep sense of the responsibility resting on him, spoke and voted against tho Revised Prayer Book. Mr. Burton does not attempt to quote and refute Air. Alitchell’s speech, which for religious fervour, moral passion, eloquence, and high intelligence places him alongside tho great orators of the past. No! Mr. Burton does not do this, but he suggests that Mr. Alitchell was blinded by an anti-Christian bigotry, for he says: "The most fervid no Popery speech against it was made by a theosophist."

Air. Burton cuts no ice by imputing wrong motives to tho men that formed tho great majority led by Sig Joynson Hicks. Air. Rosslyn Alitchell is neither a bigot nor an infidel. He has lived his life in an environment of intelligent religious interest. His father is the secretary of the Glasgow Evangelisation Society, and no divine is held in higher respect than he in Jhc West of Scotland. Air. Alitchell himself is a member of the Presbyterian Church, and has won distinction as a lay preacher, as a journalist, and as a lecturer on literary and general subjects. His private life is without reproach, and he is described as an implacable “foe of drink and gambling.” He is an educated man, and has taken his ALA. and LL.B, degrees. He is the senior partner in a leading firm of solicitors in Glasgow. His wife is the .sister of Air. J. J. Bell, the wellknown novelist. He is M.P. for Paisley, and in 1924 defeated Mr. Asquith (now Lord Oxford) in the contest for that seat. Such is the man Air. Burton discredits in your columns this -morning. Air. Alitchell had a. hard and trying duty to discharge in the prayer book debate. Ho came of a stock that had shed blood fighting for the spiritual independence of the church against the tyranny of the disciples of Archbishop Land that shot down the Covenanters on the Aloors of Scotland as though they were beasts of prey. Air. Alitchell anil every so-called 'non conformists” believed in every religious body having the fullest freedom under its own constitution and title deeds but the revised prayer book movement meant to then: violence to the constitution of the Church of England and they must vote against it. Since the vote was cast, the adverse vote has been justified. AVithout a blush, Anglo-Catholics now stand up for the reservations and adoration as if a God of material things that all our senses say are bread and wine. They have done so in your columns, and’Sir Henry Slessor has sent this cry round the world. Air. Alitchell saw the truth, and he said: “I can do nothing but vote against this measure. I do not want to do it. I can do no other. So help me God.” I have nothing to say against the ridiculous charges flung at me by several critics in your columns, but I crave space to defend one of Air. Burton’s victims in old Scotland.—l am, " A PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER. Wellington, February 9.

Sir, —There has been a considerable amount of correspondence in connection with the crisis in the Church of England, forms of worship, modern thought, education, intelligence, ignorance, etc., being stressed. Now, can any clergyman of the Churches concerned in the argument prove which form has mattered to the souls of the departed? If so, by all means go on with the argument; if not, remember that thinking people, who are to be found even amongst the poorly educated, will not be helped by a continuance of it.

What did form matter to the many brave men and women who gave their lives in rhe Great War, in other wars, or to the countless millions who have crossed the border? .Surely our Just God will not condemn to everlasting darkness the souls of those who did not worship Him according to "a certain form”?

I can quote no historic facts regarding the different stages through which religion or Christianity has passed, but as an ordinary member of the "Catholic” Church of England I would say: Be sportsmen, worship God —as your special faith or conscience directs, and respect the faith of others. —I am, etc., LEAVE WELL ALONE. February 2.

Sir, —“F. AV.” gives us an Indian story ip his letter in your issue of to-day. Surely "F. AV.'” recognises the fact that in the English language the same word is often used in more than one sense. “Real” may be used in a physical or spiritual sense. The question in his story is a case in point. “Do you really maintain that the bread and wine which you use in one of your practices when prayin" to your God is really the body and blood of your Christ.” Obviously the missionary should have asked in what sense he (the’ Hindu) was using the word "really.” If physically, the answer was obviously “No.” I am inclined to think that the story does not relate an actual occurrence, though I have no desire to accuse “F. W.” of fabrication. I have never met anyone who believed in the “Real Presence” in a physical sense, and have only seen it stated in controversy, and then either as an accusation or referred to for reputation. Students are searching for the “ultimate reality,” and manv tell us that it is spiritual. The Christian faith teaches that what we term physical reality finds its source in and is sustained by the spiritual reality who is God. If the story is true, and as it seems to imply, the Hindu was left in his mistake, the missionary should have been taught the Christian faith and incidentally the English language before he was allowed to teach others.—l am, etC ” . G. X. Wellington, February 8. Sir, —Again I must beg a little of your valuable space to correct some erratic impressions of your correspondent “LXX.” In the first place, I am not a ‘ twentieth century cleric." but a humble layman, and sb all the ridiculous cant of “LXX" re ignorant clergy is misapplied. Unfortunately, I have not my extract from Tub Dominion of the morning, when “LXX” so thoughtfully spoke of my ignorance. If I dared to, reply to so competent a person as "LXX” I should very much like to reciprocate his many compliments. But to my point concerning the ignorance of the majority. “LXX" seems astounded that I should_ say they are, in a good measure, very ignorant of the main points of the controversy. (One need only look, for instance, on the letters appearing above the signature “LXX" to understand explicitly what I mean). But what does the average man know of Anglo-Catholicism? Let “LXX” make this experiment. Let him select ten of his intimate friends and ask each to tell him on the spot everything he knows about Anglo-Cath-olicism. I tried this myself, and the following are the results I got:— One was very well informed. Four knew that we were a party in the Anglican Church and that we were (falsclv) reputed to be “going to Rome.” One thought, that the name was that taken by English Roman Catholics, and four professed utter ignorance. If those ten are representative of the public, then we get these figures:— lo per cent, understand the controversy; 50 per cent, know absolutely nothing of the arguments; 40 per cent, have a vague idea of what we are talking about. It was to the paucity of those that knew what was going on, that I referred in my last letter. So that if 15 per cent, of tho readers of the paper understand my arguments. I shall be satisfied. In regard to the fact that the Bishop of Wellington has given a pronouncement on the Prayer Book to be used, I should like to sav that T understand that nil dioceses in New Zealand are in the same "box,” as our constitution is so framed as to prohibit our taking the devised Prayer Book until the old constitution be repealed or revised as the case may be. Trusting I have vindicated myself of the charge of incompetency to correctly quote,—l am, etc., ANGLO-CATHOLIC. Wellington, February 7.