PRESBYTERIANS AND WESLEY

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12240, 8 April 1903, Page 7

PRESBYTERIANS AND WESLEY

TO THE EDITO.B. Sir, The following sentence occurs in " Physic's" letter in your issue of March 30 last: — " Sacerdotalism does not exist in the Church of England." To the honour of the Church of England it may be said that such is the case in a considerable portion of the Church; but what about the Anglo-Catholic section ? In a book called " The Catho'ic Religion," by the Rev. Stalcy, assisted by some of the most prominent members of the AngloCatholic section, the views of that party are clearly laid —and sacerdotalism is the keynote of the book from beginning to end. It is a pity that the book is not in more general circulation, so that members of High Church congregations might learn what it is they are supposed to believe. "Physic" says:"Even supposing that anything of the sort (referring to sacerdotalism) did exist, which it does not, what right have they to meddle with the doctrine and discipline of the Church ?" Quito right, provided only thev keep within the four corners of' the Thirty-nine Articles (read in their ordinary grammatical sense, not with a foroed ecclesiastical rendering). These articles,' be it understood, have to be subscribed to by every clergyman of the Church _ of England before taking orders. Now, sir, with your permission, I will put only Anglo-Catholic witnesses in evidence as to the question of how they look upon the Thirty-nine Articles, and their view of the priesthood:---The Rev. H. H. Henson, in the Guardian of August 24-, 1892: —"The half-abrogated articles (referring to the Thirty-nine - Articles), cracked and ' strained . by three centuries of evasive ingenuity, are rather a trashy foundation for anything-." Union Review v for 1870, p. 289:,—"Soma {of the Thirty-

nine Articles) contain statements which are unintelligible; in the case of others, one is tempted to wish that the statements were unintelligible 01 nonsensical, in order to escape the disagreeable impression of their beingwell— protssta.nt." Union Review, 1870. p. 294:—"We maintain that so long as this article (article VI.) remains among the formularies of the Church of England, so long will there be an insuperable bar to any union or fusion of the' Church of England with .the rest of the Catholic family. The article distinctly ignores tradition, and it positively affirms private judgment." , Church Review, January 3, 1863, by the Rev. Archer G-urnay :— Doubtless they (the Thirty-nine Articles) tire articles of peace, and have always been intended to be construed largely and charitably, so as to square with ' the faith once delivered to the saints,' but the prims-facie aspect of more than one of them is nothing less than most erroneous. ... We can, and we must, and do put a Catholic interpretation on thorn, as they aro, but this is only making the best of a bad matter." I will refrain from giving more extracts from the views of Anglo-Catholics on the articles, but would add here, that if an ordinary business contractor acted upon his specifications in a similar Catholic manner, there would bo trouble for someone. There can be no question that a clergyman of the Church of England stands in the same relation to the Thirty-nine _ Articles that a contractor does to his specifications. As regards the charge of sacerdotalism, which I contend has rightly been made against the. Anglo-Catholio section of the Church of England, I will confine myself to three Anglo-Catholic witnesses: — "Hints to Penitents," p. 128 :— (Referring to confessor priests) . . . with whom you are not to talk as you would to others, as on an equal looting,' but as speaking to one to whom respect and obedience are due. He is neither to be spoken to, nor of, in any manner approaching to familiarity." English Church Union Monthly Circular for 1863, speech by the Rev. Luke Rivingbon:—"The lay element already too greatly preponderated "(in the Church of England) and no more of it was needed. It was not that he undervalued the office of the laity, whose high and noble prerogative it was to listen and obey, but it was for the ministers of the Church with all their responsibilities to magnify their office, if so be that others would intrude upon it." "A Book for the Children of God," W. Knoll, 1891:—"The Bible is the Book which God has given to His Church, and it belongs to the Church alone, and not to any dissenting sent. No one but .a Catholio can safely read the Bible, and no Catholic can read it safely who does not read it in the Church's way." Is this not sacerdotalism to claim that we cannot read the Bible without a priest at our elbow ?—I am, etc., ' Kent.