RITUALISM AND THE PRESBYTERY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15900, 11 April 1912, Page 8

RITUALISM AND THE PRESBYTERY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Tlio august Presbytery in in session, and is on the warpath right enough. If anybody doubts it, all ho has to do is to read the report you published in Wednesday’s issue concerning the question of ritualism, and the action of the Presbytery in regard thereto. All ministers (Presbyterian, of course) and missionaries are to be circularised, a number of questions being formulated that each minister p.nd missionary is requested to answer. Question No. 1 in part is ns follows: “ Does ritualism or Anglo-Romanism prevail to any extent in your district?” I cannot help thinking the “ ttucoguid ” folk of tho Assembly are making “ Meddlesome Matties ” of themselves in this matter. ’ If ritualism became tho order of tho day in every Anglican church in tlio dominion, what has that got to do with the Presbyterians, any way? They have only to keep tlioir own house in order—if they are able. The Anglicans are surely to ho trusted to look alter their own affairs. Question No.'2: “Does the evil of mixed marriages prevail in your district?

Ilavo there been any cases of perversion to Rome through such marriages? Has the No Tom ere, decree been so apI plied as to disturb the peace of homes?” In common with the Presbytery, Rome regards mixed marriages as an evil. How the learned presbyters will be able to contain themselves | when they learn they agree with Romo I on any one point of any ono subject I remains to be seen. The Ne Temero decree has got them down, and appears to worry them badly. Poor fellows 1 Their plight is pitiable—or laughablo. If they rcallv deplore tho evil of mixed marriages they ought to go down on their knees and thank God that the. Pope did issue that decree, tho chief object of which is to prevent mixed marriages! Are they aware that this decree is a piece of domestic legislation intended, solely for members of tho Roman Catholic. Church and such other persons as voluntarily bring themselves within its scope? They have been told this often enough to convince any reason able-minded unbiassed man that this much-discussed donre-e does not apply to non-Catholics in any way, so long as they do not bring themselves within its scope by marrying a Catholic. If a non-Catholic does bring himself within its provisions he does so voluntarily, henco ho has nothing to complain of. Question 3is rather funny. It asks if convent or other Roman Catholic schools draw into them the children of Protestants. Most pooplo would suppose that children attend the schools their parents elect to send them to, but tho Presbytery thinks differently it seems. “Romish” or “Papist” or “Popish” schools “draw” Protestant children whether the parents desire it or not. No doubt this is due to that subtle “Jesuit” influence that nobody knows anything® about—not even a Jesuit—barring the sharp-nosed members of tho Presbytery. Question 4 asks what steps might bo taken to remove tlio ignorance that obtains in many places on certain stated subjects. In tho first place, I would like the Presbytery to begin with the A BC. From this they might gradually work upwards, and, with patienco and perseverance, by the timo they become very old men, they will probably havo at least some of their own ignorance removed. With their ignorance, their prejudice will also disappear—given duo timo, and if the excited elders and ditto divines will only assiduously practice, as well as preach, charity towards all men, the day may yet como when tho scales will drop from their eyes, and they will then blush for their present exhibition of blind bigotry and uncharitableness. No wonder Christianity is unpopular if their action is a fair sample of its teaching reducod to practice. —I am, etc., "MUCH AMUSED.