CLERICS' VIEWS

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue 123, 26 May 1943, Page 4

CLERICS' VIEWS

CLAIMS OF PROPHETS

ARCHBISHOP AS WITNESS

The final evidence was heard before Mr. Justice Callan and a jury of four to-day in the libel action in which George Ernest Hyde and Harry Ellingworth, claiming to be prophets, arid George Henry Griffiths and Emily Ellingworth, sought £500 damages from the New Zealand Baptist Union for alleged defamatory libel. The action arose out of* an article in the New Zealand Baptist journal describing the plaintiffs as impudent prophets, a brazen group, people who despised their Master, and who had practically seized on the term "Campaign for Christian Order." £ In cross-examination, Harry Ellingworth saM that even if the jury was not satL-ied that he was Divinely appointed he would still think he was. People who said something was coming that did not come might be false prophets, but they would have to wait till July IS next year to disprove his prophecy. Mr. North: _ Would you like an adjournment till then? His Honor: There would have to be a fresh jury, and possibly a fresh judge. The Ways of God The name Campaign for Christian Order was used in Heavenly guidance. He admitted Mr. Hyde s Divine message was optional to use the name Campaign for Christian Order or the name Campaign for Christian Brotherhood. He knew some churches had banded together for a campaign they called the Campaign for Christian Order, but witness' authority was to use that name. Mr. North: But it does not seem just that you should use that name. Do you think God would be less just than man? —The ways of „God are mysterious. . , . Mr. Ellingham said that plaintiffs wrote to the defendant body asking for an apology and a payment of £500, and before the present proceedings were issued Mr. Hyde got the Divine message to take the case to Court. His Honor: If you had got the apology and the £500, would you have gone on with the case?— No. "But you were told you had a Divine injunction to take the case to Court?" —Yes, but we were also tola they would defend the case. _ , Witness admitted that his mission had not been progressing well lately. At one time 'the ™ el v,+ about 90, but it had declined to about a third of that. +v,;„v Mr. North: Do yofi really think God intended you to irritate the churches by taking this name your mission? —I positively do. '•That appeals to you as the sort of thing God might do?— Yes. Emily Ellingworth said that in August, 1941, she got the power to receive messages, and later _to hear signals. Although ignorant of .poetry or poetic metre she was msmred to write a poem entitled Sunday, the Lord's Day."

Strange Atmosphere Opening for the defence, Mr. North said the Court had been in a strange Alice in-Wonderland _ atmosphere, where ordinary rules did not Q fPP but the jury had to considei that this was a Court of law, and they must come down to r said plaintiffs complained of being called impudent prophets, a brazen group that practically seized a certain name and invited dupes to cal or wite to them. The defence rested on two grounds, that the truth was told and that the comment cwas fail. Whether the plaintiffs were honest, or justified, it was impoitant Preserve the right of free speech, and the;more-serious the question such as a prophecy of tthe < end of the totg fffiss* asirsisnt is Fng it they were engaged in a wicked mission. Case for Defence Tpqtifving in a personal capacity, JWAvefflWgChg the time of His ietuin unknown, and The Church held that the great principle was for people t be ever ready- His view was that it was dangerous in this time of war, when people s minds were unsettled to give out such a message- of the Second Coming. . Evidence was given by the Rev. James D. Smith, of the Mount Eden Presbyterian ChurGh.thattheAuckland regional committee of the paign lr Christian Order of which he was secretary, instituted o Tulv 17 1941, prior to the use of the name by the plaintiffs. The movement had been given wide publicity, and when plaintiffs ad ,y^ se^ il t ness mission in the same name Arable told them it was a dishonourable course. He also warned them that if they collected money in that name they would be in danger of a charge ° f Nath e an r ß te Wood, Methodist minister said the regional committee foi the Campaign of ChristionOrder was inter-denonunational. He was lee turer in Church history at the Baptist College.. He had read Hyde s Everlasting Gospel, and the _ othei books and leaflets issued by the •nlaintiffs" His opinion was that they were the scnbblings of an unsettled mind and valueless as religious doctrines. He referred t theological mistakes- m the papers, some of them such as he would not expect a Sunday school scholar to : • Witness said there was a reference +n Thrift being a reincarnation oi the Aixhanjel Michael. That was contrary of the doctrine accepted bv every branch of Christendom. In a' leaflet, the Divine Truth, it was stated that anyone who rejected the view that Christ was Michael oi that Mr Hyde was Elijah was guilty ot blasphemy. Witness referred to historical prophecies of the second coming in the past which had caused great panic and disorder. In reply to Mr. Ellmgworth, the witness said he had read plaintiff s publications very carefully ana Cr Edward M. Blaiklock, M.A., _ lecturer in classics at Auckland University College, said he had read the plaintiffs' writings. "My conclusion, he went on, "is that they are disconnected utterances of a form of mental delusion. The poems were cacophonus and unmetrical; very poor doggerel of no literary value." Speaking of numerics, he said it was not a recognised branch of human knowledge. In addressing the jury, his Honor said the topic commented on in the N.Z. Baptist was one fairly open to comment. In its intrinsic nature it was of most stupendous importance to all who believed in God. The plaintiffs had courted publicity. They had set out to convert mankind, and must be prepared to find considerable numbers who would take a deal of converting. Anyone who took the public floor must expect criticism and hard knocks. The law was that comment, strong comment, was allowable so long as it did not impute dishonest or sordid motives, and was not malicious. (Proceeding)