“THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND”

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 98, 24 January 1928, Page 3

“THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND”

Sir,—To keep silence while that grand ulil barque, tlio Cliureli of England, heads directly for the breakers, savours surely of cowardice on the part ol ;ber true sons. It has remained for a J’rcsbyteriun pastor, capable and impartial observer as he is, to clarify lor us Ihe existing perspective of our church at Home today, ami nothing but gratitude towards tlu> man can any loyal Anglicuu entertain. That same malignant inllueticc at work behind the Great War is unquestionably at the back of this luovemeiit to disrupt, if it be possible, our ancient edifice. Not without adequate reason did Dean Inge recently utter those grave words: “11. is not pessimism, but sound pati;iotisni, lu warn the public that a new tiu.v Fowke? is laying his mines under (he fabric of our political and social institutions.” And he might have added, “Under the flour ot our national church (as bv law established) us w ell!” “Above Hie ridgCH the wolf and bear "Look dowu with a patient settled stare. “Look down on us . . . and laugh.” Lamentable indeed is the weakness exhibited by the bishops bodily in dealing with insubordinate incumbents. “He of London” in particular appears paralysed in the matter of discipline; the curate in his diocese (us in several' others) figures as master. For the benefit of fho less well informed of my countrymen, let me assure them that, as in the past, so now, the English Church is well able to supervise and mnnago her own affairs. England has hurl experience of foreign rule, both lay and clerical, and neither of these of' the happiest. She invites no repetition! WeeWillv’s praver would l>o exemplified in real life, that baneful influence oiu’c nioi-c in control. “Oh! Thou who in the heavens-dost dwell. And as it pleases best thyscl’, Sendst an’ to Heaven and ten'to Hell, All for thy glory . ; . And not for any good or ill They’ve dope afore thee.” All to the good is it. that this clamour over the Pra.ver Boek revision has arisen, provided it rouse Io action the “fathcrs-in-God.” Let them put their houses in order and feel no longer impotent (following the mandate of the House of Commons) to assert their power. With inspired provision was it .said, “the strength of the Protestant cause in England rests largely with the Nonconformist bodies." Timo and again have they protested at. the State clergy proving false to their ordination oath. The Commons it is, and not the Lords, who - gauge correctly the minds of the vast hulk of the-Motherland : and these, despite the palpable and hollow ascuses made by the defeated, turned down Lips cunning effort of the Anglo-Catholic fraternity to undermine our long-time, manual of public worship by removing tlicrofj’Oii) it’s cliiof RoforiiKitioii buttresses. AVhcn will this perverted faction of Latin mentality discover that the pulpit of the Anglican fold is no pitfee for them? - “Norman, Saxon, and Dane are we (But all of us one in our verdict of Uwe.) . , r Only one course is open in dealing with Bullock Webster and his clan. As il minister of the Reformed < liurcli- he underlook certain specified duties, to be carried out in certain, specified ways at a certain specified "price, the legitimate rules of an organisation. Persistently Inis that contract been broken by him: hence immediate ami permanent removal Hom both office and emolument is, in justice to all a plain necessity. The Church of our fathers can well spare his ministrations. A. recent cartoon of “Punch s illustrates the position. The host in that picture is depicted as addressing Ins guest as follows:’“Sorry, but I must ask you to go/* f< But I am your conies from the injured party. ‘ thunders his host, rr but there are things guests don’t do,.and you've done them. ("Depart!”—l am, etc., January 19. p.S.—I noticed the remarks of an es r teemed correspondent yesterday anent 'the term “Catholic.” Let me say tljat, so far as being a welcome addition to our Prayer Book, the word has often jarred on a lavman’s ears as being wholly out -of place there. As a substitute, nnd le:w mj/leading, why not employ ‘ universal” ?

Sir, —Your correspondent, “Presbyterian Minister.” has been pleased, in due time, to essay a reply to Ins critics. One cannot but mark the less arrogant and iiresumptuous tone of his second deliverance. This we appreciate. He is sensible enough to concede It is a right and reasonable thing for a church to revise its book of worship, and it seems the height of absurdity and the acme of intolerance that a secular parliament should veto such a movement. This too his critics will appreciate. But he still loaves your readers asking With some indignation, why he, a Iresbyterian minister, arrogates to himselt the privilege of objecting in an offensive manner to this right and reasonable thing of a church in wjlich ho has not the least part or- lot. And further, what pre-eminent virtue has he as a Christian, not to say minister of religion, to stigmatise the action of the chief ministers, archbishops and bishops, ot that church as perfidious and treacherous? Surelv, arrogance, presumption, and want of charity, have seldom gone further. , , “Presbyterian Minister” makes much of tho coronation ceremony of the King of England, and an uncritical use ot the term “protestaut.” He fails to see that in calling in the rite of coronation to bolster up his hasty and illjudged attack on the Church ot. England he is producing one of the strongest testimonies in history, and one ol tiio most ancient, to the catholic character and faith of that church. It the Sovereign, as is true, takes an oath to maintain “the Protestant reformed religion established by law. and blatantly does “Presbyterian Minister, ' with nauseous reiteration, impress this on his renders, surely- it would have been only right and reasonable to balance such an impression by the phrase defence of tho Catholic faith’ in the delivery of the ring, and to have allowed that'the King in common with ftie crowning archbishop, bishop. nobles, and Commons, assembled solemnly professes his adherence to the holy, C»tnolie, am! apostolic Church.’ M hy should that one pfotoslant phrase be so uncritically used without qualification, and why should no mention be made of the presence of prelates in Culholic xest* inputs if Cope ami Mitre with crucifixes ami incense, the houselling towel, the special oifertory, the versonnl oblations, ami the service of the sovereign hnusolf. “sub-deaebn-wiso at the altar step” How this unqualified Presbyterian is to fill the role of exponent ot Church of England faith and practice may be further illustrated by his confusion concerning the Bible Catholic and Protestant. It may be information to him (his implied ignorance suggests it) that the Bible used at the coronation is the Bible proper, including the Apocrynlui. The other Bible is-permit-ted either at the coronation or on the Lecterns of the Church of England. It is a matter of histnfy that a gift of « Protestant Bible from the Bible Society has been declined for the coronation ceremony. No rite of the English Church so wit; nesses through the successive periods of her history to the continuously Catholic character of the national Church. From the saintly Archbishop Egbert, the friend of the-illustrious and venerable Bede, to the present reverend holder of the Archieiiiscbpal Chair of Cnntoi'bucy has the “Ecclesia Aimlica” treasured the serving of her Kings. By the rite o unction nnd benediction nnd nugust nn<» distinctive ceremonial has she consecrated the Sovereign to his supreme olfieo in Ihe Slate, .signifying her belief iu tho sacramental cIW-'ticter or J jaj unique service, and J ll . 1 he foct tbat the crowned King is indeed the T.oidls annointod. No service in the I’rayci Book more clearly shows tho ravages

of change ami time—the attacks of Puritans and J’ruteslants No service bus more stoutly ’resisted their onslaughts, declaring at the same time the relalioiiship of the State and Church of the English' people to the Papal system on the one hand and to English Nonconformity on .the other. “1 resbytenan Minister” is free doubtless to put his personal interpretation on the coronation oath, just as ffieu in t >eif day argued it did dut'.allow Catholic emucipation, or the disestablishment ot the Church of Ireland, but it would I’O wise before publishing Ins opintun, and lor t ho. sake of the man ’ he verified that, interpret:, uni by I e light of the Catholic setting ot the oath, and'the true Instoi.y ot * Church and people. . .11 ul, lM him from the ignominious re cut ot his unthinking predecessors with their prejudiced and personal op'" l '!', s - . Hi reading again the last It f this pugilistic protagonist of Pio est. ntism 1 have enuineraled not less than a score of errors-bad history a.nd perverted halMruths.. I should like (wine the space available) Io deal with, them in a series of replies, but in tho <?reuinstances the above must suthee. It m< serve io show that the coronation service has been presented, in- a distorted manner by your, corresponuent, amt with a view that lacks a right histone perspective. Further, in my.- opinion. U represents no authorised Presbyterian posit on. H lacks the historic accuracy 'of ropresoulalive men. of that communion. and its knowledge of the b andapL of Faith and Practice of the ( huieh-if England is not ol the sehol-aiship an erudition one usually associates sober Presbyterianism.—l am. CHURCH OF ENGLAND DllMbiUli. January 19.