THE CLERGY AND THE WAR

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 67, 17 September 1917, Page 2

THE CLERGY AND THE WAR

■ TO THE BDIIOtt. Sir, —In a letter which appeared in The Poet a few days ago, Professor Hugh Mackenzie asks : "Can you suggest any sound reason for exempting young' able-^ bodied unmarried clergymen, and conscripting hoye of nineteen?" ■ The Professor ought to know that boys of.nineteen are,not conscripted; and that .there is no intention of conscripting them. The Government has made this quite clear. The reusons for exempting the clergy Save been stated by the Minister of Defence, and they sbouM he sufficient to satisfy anyone whoso mental vision is not distorted by sectarian prejudice. "The denominations," says the Minis- j ter, "havo supplied their quota, (of clergy) j on every occasion for service nt the front, which ha-s been rendered willingly and has been excellent. Great and good work has been done by the clergy of the several denominations, who have served at the front or who have assisted in the training camps. That is one reason why I think it is justifiable to exempt them by law— partly because they aro comparatively few; partly because they have sent to the front their share ;^and partly because we should leave sufficient'clergy in New Zealand to carry out the very valuable work the clergy do among the civilian population.'! j Professor Mackenzie selects the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches for special attack. His bitterriiisa against the Anglican Church has been made manifest on more than one occasion recently. A few weeks ago he insinuated that the proposal of. the Anglican author rities to build a memorial cathedral was a proof that the Anglicans aie anxioue to pull out of the waij' and now. he wants to create the impression that Anglican j clergy are less patriotic than the clergy of j non-episcopal churches. .What proof can ! he produce in support of his statement that "so many young clergymen from the non-episcopal churches have gone into the trenches" as compared with Anglican clergy? . ' . ... Is he not aware that' some of our Anglican clergymen are serving - aa combatants? Is he' not aware that a good many have joined the Ambulance Corps? Does he not know that there ate far moro Anglicans at the front than members of ah'y other religious denomination, and that the Anglican Church has tb provide more chaplains than any other Church? Does he not know that the theological colleges have been depleted of students who have gone to the front? Dots he not know that St. John's College has Irad to be closed because there are no students left? Can he not see that the^ supply of clergy has thus been cut off at its source? If he does not know 'these things he ought to have made enquiries before rushing into print with the object of discrediting a Church to which he does not. belong. If he does know these things he ought to have stated them if he imen<Jed to be fair.

I believe Professor Mackenzie is a Unitarian, and that he occasionally occupies tho pulpit of the Unitarian Church. Will he srate how many-Unitarian min-. istem are serving with the New Zealand Forces ? The percentage of the Anglican population who have left New Zealand, with the Expeditionary Force up to and including the 25tb Reinforcements is V.95; tho Presbyterians have supplied 7 per cent., and the Roman Catholics 6.2 per cent.—a fine record fov each of these.Churches. Of tho 1316 Unitarians in the Dominicii (according to the 1911 Census) 39 have gone, the percentage being 2.96. I make no comment on these Unitarian figure's. They may be capable, of satisfactory explanation. But they certainly do not justify any Unitarian in making an attack on the Anglican Church or its ministry. The Anglicans have done remarkably well. I do not intend to state the case for the Roman Catholics. They are well able to defend themselves, and their position has' been authoritatively explained more than once. Professor Mackenzie seems to find it much easier to ignore their arguments than to answer them. What is his object in going out of his way to stir up sectarian strife? —I am, ANGLICAN LAYMAN.