UNITED CHRISTENDOM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVIII, Issue 13001, 17 December 1902, Page 9

UNITED CHRISTENDOM.

TO TUB EDITOR. Sir, —Airs Cunnington’s sermonette. which you published on Monday is a curiosity in literature. Tho scripture quoted would have been very pertinent if the boys of the High School had belonged to the Cannibal Islands, and if some jealous Non-conform-ist- liad striven to prevent the good offices of tbo High Churchmen in their favour. The quotation from Dr Abbott would shock tile gentlemen, in whose defence it was written. No section of tho Protestant Church is more dogmatic than the High Anglican. None is so exclusive, and to none is the conception of Christianity, which Abbott held and which Seeley popularised, more repugnant. That, however, may pass. 11 simply write to defend Dr Erwin from the covert attack made upon him. Ho was actually -guilty of withdrawing his boy from a scripture class taught by a High Churchman! Ho was also guilty of speak-' ing against a mistaken arrangement on tho Board of Governors. For these offences) your contemporary assailed him with the) usual charge of bigotry—a charge always] levelled by those who find that a monopoly enjoyed by their friends is endangered by the attacks of daylight and common justice. Your own leader, however, was conspicuously fair, and until this article was published none of your correspondents objected to the protest that was raised. May i say for Airs Cunnington’s benefit that the two groat interpretations of Christianity. ,do not admit of the blending process, winch she so pleasantly describes. The Sacramental interpretation is one tiling. The Evangelical interpretation is another. The Sacramental interpretation is held by tho Roman Catholics and hy the High Churchmen. The larger section of the Anglicans are Low Church, and to them and to all Free Churchmen, Saoramentalism is abhorred. They believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that it is a serious misinterpretation of‘the-Gospel. AVhen the religious instruction to the Boys’ High School was given by a Low Church Anglican minister,. Dr Erwin did not withdraw-his sons. He. and we take exception not to Air Averiki as a man, but to Air Averill’s doctrinal position. The immense majority of Englishmen are evangelicals. If, therefore, religious teaching must ho given in the Boys High School by ministers it ought to lie given bv Evangelicals. Air Levan-Brown., however, called in a minister representing; a small proportion of the population, and a still smaller proportion of the High School constituency. For it must not beforgotten that the English Church has ai High School-of its own, in which it imparts that dogmatic teaching which Mrs Cunnington so eloquently deplores, Churchmen have no bias against Air Avenll ais a man. His ability and his succe.ss command the respect of us all. They do, however, object, and the objection is innocent of bigotry, to have one, from whoso opinions they dissent, as the religious teacher of their boys. I personally believe that the religious teaching of the High Schools ought to he brought into linewitil the Bible-in-schools movement, and ought to he given by the teachers themselves. It would thus have a peculiar force, and the High Schools would furnish to the whole community an illustration of whuff nrimary schools are presently to he.—l am,, ctc , ’ J. J. NORTH. Dec. .15, 1902. , '