ANGLICANISM AND CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22305, 20 January 1938, Page 8

ANGLICANISM AND CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

TO THB BDITOB OF THI PBX3®. Sir, —Four correspondents have been so good' as to reply to my letter, so I can only offer brief comments on each. (1) Mr F. K. Tucker’s long letter makes no reference to the Anglican Archbishops’ Commission on doctrine reported by “The Press,” which was the occasion of my letter. It, however, contains much irrelevant matter. Thus Mr Tucker evidently does not understand what is meant by the Immaculate Conception, apparently confusing it with the Virgin Birth. He also thinks that to give to Mary the title “Mother of God” is “blasphemy” and “the combined sin of Peter and of Judas.” He does not know, apparently, that to refuse her this title is the sin of Nestorius, condemned in the General Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431 (a council the Church of England officially accepts), when it was defined that Mary is “Theotokos” (i.e., Mother of God), and Nestorius, denying this, was anathematised. Obviously, if she is not Mother of God, her Son is not God. Mr Tucker, evidently, is a Nestonan. May I say here —in answer also to another correspondent—that or making a general accusation of infidelity (or "modernism” if the word is preferred) against all “AngloCatholics” I had no intention; but Anglican friends have assured me that the "Anglo-Catholic” party is becoming infested with this plague, especially in England. This was not the case to any great extent, when I left the Church of England <1907). Evidence can be—and has been — produced, to show that our Lord meant Peter to be spiritual ruler ot the Church. But I do not propose to produce it here. (2) The Rev. Cecil Muschamp, 1 am glad to note, seems, in the main, to agree with what I wrote. The attitude of the Holy See to Anglicanism Is only what must always be its attitude to all sects which teach, or tolerate, heresy. It is true every Anglican must submit to the Holy See. as soon as the obligation becomes apparent to him. Other sects, as the Salvation Army, con rightly claim some spiritual vigour, but that does not make them Darts of the visible Church. It is quite likely that many of thenmembers are invisibly united with the Church, however (3) The Rev. H. S. Hamilton think* I am to blame for not waiting for a fuller report of the findings of the commission; I see no reason to suppose that the present version will be substantially changed. But, even if it is, the down grade tendency in Anglicanism, both regarding faith ana morals, can hardly be disputed. Must Mr Hamilton, like others with a similar complex, drag in the Inquisition by the back hair, each time he discusses anything with Catholics? But I have no space to discuss it here — nor King Charles’s head either! tte asks. “When was the Church ever free from heretical infection?” I reply, “Always.” Then he inquires. “How does Rome deal with heretics nowadays?” Answer: “By excommunicating them.” That is how the Church keeps free from infection. (4) The Rev. F. N. Taylor thinks we ought to presume—whatever the cables say—that the Anglican Church Is quite incapable of denying any article of the Catholic faith. I do not agree; considering how many are denied by different groups of her members, it is a wonder if she retains any vestiges of them. He speaks of “reunion” between tne “Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church”; but these two never were one—so cannot be reunited Nor will they ever be united in the future. The Church cannol unite with sects—nor the living with the dead. He requests the date of the inception of the Anglican sect Answer; November, 1534. Though the Church cannot unitemuch less reunite—with any sect, she can, and does, welcome the member of the sects to unite with her. They must enter the fold as individuals and the sects they once formed will then naturally cease to exist.— \ours. etc., (Rev.) FRANK B. SEvVARDLincoln’ January 19, 1938.

TO THJS XDITOB OT THB PRES 3 c; r _i was particularly interested to read the letter by the Rev. Frank B. Seward of January 18. As a onetime member of the Church ° f land and living m England he will undoubtedly be well the real position of the EstaDiisnea Church and the causes which led to its establishment. The causes which existed were sufficient for an open breach to be made between the Latin Church and the English P 6O ?I®-Would 1 ®-Would it be presumption to suggest that in the light of his article the Rev. Frank B. Seward has not yet had opportunity of acquainting himself with Church history and secular history. If he had. he would understand the causes which forced men to seek the clear light of the Gospel and the saving Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ who is the only mediator between God and man (1 -Timothy, n. 5). Commissions making a report for the bishops have no authority and their observations cannot possibly be viewed in any official light. The basis of the faith of the Church of England is laid in the Word of God. The interpretation of doctrines contained in the Bible are set out in the Book of Common Prayer, which is regulated and allowed only by Parliamentary sanctioThe Church of England took the right as a national Church of formulating its own liturgy and system of worship. In formulating its liturgy the Prayer Book was issued in 1549 (provisional). In 1552 the second Prayer Book of Edward VI was issued. Minor amendments were made in 1604 and 1662, but these did not affect the doctrines of the 1552 book. Since 1552 the Church of England has maintained a consistent body of doctrine down to the present day without any additions, and this is more than the Roman Catholic Church can maintain over the same period of time. Where, then, can anyone suggest that the historic faith of the Church of England has been jettisoned. , I cannot argue as to the divided opinion which I admit exists in the Church of England. Opinion is divided in every communion in Christendom. The Rev. Frank B. Seward will admit, I feel sure, that whenever a body of men is assembled, as in a church, opinion is divided. As opinions vary in the Church of England, so they do in the Church of Rome. The Rev. Frank B. Seward may not have had the opportunity of studying the doctrines -of the Church of England on the two points which he raises. To clear the mind of your readers from any misapprehension that may exist, I state that the Church of England accepts the so-called Apostles Creed, as does the Church of Rome. This creed is binding on all the members of the Established Church, and states “I believe ... in Jesus Christ . . . born of the Virgin Mary . . . the third day He rose again from the dead." This is more clearly stated in the 39 articles formulated for the avoiding of diversities of opinion, and for the establishing of consent touching 'true religion. I refer to articles II

and IV. These articles are appended to every Book of Common Prayer, and undoubtedly the author of “Anglicanism and Christian Doctrine” knows where they are to be found. I recommend that he reads them once again. The Established Church has very definitely declared against the Pope of Rome in her liturgy, and this position is still held to-day. The Church of Rome has not always adopted the particular stand that the Rev. Frank B. Seward suggests. It would appear that Pope Pius IV in 1560 was prepared to accept the English Liturgy to gain supremacy in England, but his ambassador was unavailing. Members of the Church of England are under no illusion regarding union with the Papacy. Allow me. as a member of the Established Church, to disillusion your correspondent by stating that I desire no reunion or even understanding with the Pope or the Church of Rome while the Latin Church formularies are opposed to those held by the Church of England and Holy Scripture. —Yours, etc.. W. OSBORNE-BROWN. Runanga, January 18, 1938.

TO THI IDITOi or TH« PRESS. Sir,—The cablegram in “The Press” of Saturday is quite interesting, and one looks forward to reading the full report. The statement on the “resurrection of the body” is what one expected, for the resurrection “from” the body or “out of” the body takes place immediately at death. The spirit, or soul, never enters the grave or the tomb, for it is only the casket or the shell that is buried there. The idea of the soul waiting in the grave for the last trump arose from the mistranslation of a verse in the Book of Job. “Though worms destroy this body, yet ‘in’ my flesh shall I see God,” should read, “Though worms destroy this body, yet ‘out’ of <or (apart from’) my flesh shall I see God.” —Yours, etc., E. M. LOVELL-SMITH. January 19, 1938.

TO TUB KDITOB OF TUB PRESS. Sir, —In case our dignitaries of the Anglican Church pass the Rev. F. B. Seward’s letter by in dignified silence, I take it upon myself as a “voice crying in the wilderness” to explain my point of view. The learned people of old—and we will notice of to-day also —explained to the multitude by parable, allegory, and metaphor, those truths which could best be explained so. Now scientific research up-to-date Ras no proof to give us that there is a spiritual life at all. showing to us that things concerning the spirit belong to another dimensional world and cannot be proved by matter. This is where faith has its place. All the stories in the Bible have to be taken on the value of the understanding only; the understanding creates a confidence (to oneself only) which we calf faith. Many men wrote the story of the birth of Christ, which was supposed to have happened many hundreds of years before those witnesses of “truth” set down an account of the circumstance. These men wrote in symbolic language, in order to suit the understanding of the multitude, The virgin birth conies to every heart which was pure enough to see God. A matrix ot purity has to be built before the God can be born. This spiritual experience does not concern matter at all. The ancient Egyptians believed in rhe resurrection, but not of the material body. And the whole of the mysteries of Egypt were concerned with this resurrection. We have it handed down to us in the hieroglyphics of horns coming from out of the mummy wrappings on the back of Scarabs, we have it handed down to us in the examples of their great zoo types (before man made God in his own image), when God was depicted as a power only. This resurrection is the foundation of all religion, also the birth; but they both occur in the spirit, not in the material world. —Yours, etc.. B. M. DOWNES. PS —1 recommend those interested to read Tolstoy’s “Where Love Is, God Is.” Islington, January 18. 1938.

TQ TUB EDITOR OF TUB PRESS. Sir—l have read the Rev. Frank B. Seward’s letter. I am not a heretic, but a true Christian, and the language of Scripture—" Behold, a virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son and they shall call His name Emmanuel,”—is quite sufficient for me I am not a Roman Catholic; therefore, your correspondent would regard me as a “heretical Christian.” However, it does not matter, for God is the Judge of all and He will do right. I am not an Anglican, but I spoke to an Anglican minister a few weeks ago and religion came into our talk and I told him of my conversion, and he seemed pleased to hear it. Hell, also came into our talk. I passed the remark that quite a number of gentlemen who wear their collars back to front seemingly do not believe in the Hell mentioned in the Bible. However, this minister was most emphatic; “Yes, I believe in a hell!” was his remark. . The religious leaders of Christ’s day were heading for hell as fast as, time could carry them. “Ye are of your Father the Devil!” were the words of Christ. . If Popes and priests land in hell, all the money in the world could not redeem them. As for purgatory, it is not to be found in the Bible; therefore it does not exist! If your correspondent would like a wrestle on Christian doctrine I am willing. Is he game? — Yours, etc., EGLON SERCOMBE. January 18, 1938.