LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18295, 11 January 1923, Page 3

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

I, THE ROMANCE OF OUR TIME. ,-' j; Sir.--In the Hep, a ld '■ Supplement of -V • the '6th insl., m... ah article on " Holi- ■.••' days arid Romance," Ko'tare refers in de-f i' • tail to Masefieid's well-known poem, }* f' Cargoes.":.' Now. I heartily agree with...-'-, [I JKo.tai'e-'s assertion, that •; to-day .■there is■'-■-: j| as much romance as over there was, in. I the brave days. of eld. Also,. I Juiyo a if great admiration for Maseiield, Bub it I does.'seem 'to me that in "Cargoes" I Masejfield is so -far .from...teaching us to '.■■ K see the romance of. our own time -.that ho [I: goes out his way to show its-utilitarian-jj ism. .'. As typical, of other, ages he has ~ 8 taken their most beautiful ships returning || front most ; romantic : quests; of .ours he || has taken the. ugliest, on the most comI monplacc 'fluty., It is not a fair coinpari- ;| .son. Our beautiful ships, with wonderful I cargoes are not far..to seek, but' the? do I not figure in this poem; It ispresump--1 tubus to cliffer" from KotHre, still more ! presumptuous to criticise Masefield. There--1 'fare it. is probable that I anV suffering ] from 'mental bb'hdness.. Awaiting e-u---111 has taken the ugliest, on the most comI tiioti place duty. It is not a fair compariI .son. Our beautiful ships with wonderful jj cargoes arc not far. to peek, but they do 1 not figure in tins poexn. It is .pvesump--1 tuous to differ from Kotare, still more I presumptuous to criticise Masefk'ld. T-here--1 'fore it is probable that I am _ suffering I from mentalblindness. Awaiting euI iightenment. HoitAHcH. | V THE POPULAR PADRE. ' S Sir,—Few will he deceived by '"Digjj ger's" high-ialuti':i' reason ;-. for keepj ing in ambush. Nor -will they pass over' I the- fact that in both letters lie attributes \, to-me statements which I never made or ]; implied. He -continues 'to,;-, beg the t P question, and as he will not. give the A popular padre's prohibition history, t will. i| Before going to the front Mr. Taylor ; } : wobbled this way and that' on the liquor I question; at the front he ridiculed pro--3 attrition;'.£■ little while sines he.'came out--1 on the side-of prohibition, once more; I on the eve of the poll he was one of I the speakers at a crowded Wellington i meeting- He outdistanced any other I speaker in the lurid liquor stories he told, § and in the strength of his remarks deI daring, " the liquor ' traffic must .go!", i He stirred the.audience, and was cheered § by rabid and mild prohibitionists alike. I No wire announcing Mr. Taylor's accept- . I ance of prohibition : was sent throughout the Dominion, or of his speech at a great meeting. A .few days, after the poll Air. Taylor, repudiates prohibition, and that |. is scattered.broadcast by the press. .-The ' point in my first letter in mentioning Mi'. i Taylor was to show that he was never ! a "leader, and counted for little in the ' ' i prohibition . movement. .This _ wobbling ! tvpe of reformer is " Digger's'' ideal of-" J what we all should be. Macau;ay. Green, • j and every historian of note tells lis thati the real reformer is made of sterner stuff. I I prefer your Clarksous &v.A "■ Wiiberforccs, I you : -Taylors and Isilts. We know %vbero .. § they are to-day. and where we will find - N them to-morrow. J. A. LocitOßE. - | Epsom, January 10, 1923. I them to-morrow. IN ENGLAND: : ; .... Epsom, January 10, 1823. THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND. -. Sir, —"Cathoiicos," in reply, to a letter... of mine" on the Church,in England, _is guilty of . questionable taste in - referring '.•;./: to the English Church, as the ■'.-." so-called a English Church," but as I am concerned ■ 8 in his reading of history rather than' his - ; jj manners I pass it. by. "As a reply,-his I letter reminds me of a smoke-screen, A'br . I his imposing list of names can only servo \ I to cloud the issue. My statement that 1 there never .was a Roman Catholic. i Church in England is to "Caiholicos' 1 ah,. I| extraordinary statement. Well, I repeat 1 it, notwithstanding "what every school-. || boy knows." The- is, that while. .-•_'■ § the Church in England in the days'; of I Augustine, Theodore, ■ and Lahgton— ? I period touched on—was in communion I with Rome, At was. a national branch of. § the Holy Catholic Church, and as such'•' I " possessed -freedom from. Papal domina- - | lion. The Bishop of Rome was recogI nised m the first bishop in Christendom, : I and as such was frequently called upon | to act 'as an arbitrator. That in* a Targe j| measure" ,is the .secret of. the dqniiivAion• •;. if that did, an I said in my .first letter, '.heA measure is the secret of ths dqrnihuiinon that did, as I said in my first letter, beI come more end more evident in the Eng- . »3 lish Church, after.the Norman Conquest, -v.. till it ■" was effectively 'finally over- -' thrown in the 16th century. "Cathohcis',',--., asks: "Does not every .schoolboy:- know : ' : '. ' that St.. Augustine .was sent by. Pope St. . -.-.. Gregory to' convert the English V* With-- ";. out-. answering for every schoolboy ' the ■- , statement is Correct. But if. "Gathoiicos'; : wishes to .: infer from; this that the ' entire ':' conversion .: of England was due to :ii - Bnrnam-mission, and,that Augustine ws& ■, the metropolitan of England, he is misr "* leading. It would take too much sprico ; to follow the missionary work in Eng-;; . land. It. is, however, sufficient for \my purpose to say.; 'th'sit tiiie Christianising ■'.' of:'-. England was from two distinct sources. •.. fl)"The Rom an mission of St. Augustine, : ';' •■' St. Felix," and St. Birimrs. ; (2) The Scot- ■ •:. ' tish mission-of:. St. Aidan and St. Chad/ ; .It .is true that: St.. -Gregory '■ consecrated ":.-'..> ;■■■"■ Augustine metropolitmii, .but he.-: was .' never.accepted - as such in England. The .-:■■;• remnant, .ot the- ..British Church in Wales''.-; ;-.'. would have iipno of him. Two synods -- were held in .602, with the object -of per- •: ■-.- suajdiijg ' tho.; British ~ bishops to accept : . Augustine ..but. without . success, arid vjtho.- , ot'her missions in-. England ".-_ had .not j , reached a .stage where national organisa- -..'."; tion was possible, Therefore there being -.: no ecclesiastical province in : ; England . ,daring the time of Augustine,'.- it is useless for. " Catholicos 1 *; to. tell lis he Wras : v made'an archbishop by, St. Gregory, the ; . determining fact being ■ that'- lie-, wiis not.. -.''-. accepted as such in England. : When by • the middle of -the ; seventh century the.-■' .- Conversion of England was complete, the . ~ dioceses were ; practically co-extensive with - the kingdoms. Differences in' character' -and method existed, due the differences in the Roman and Scottish, methods 'reiponsible.-. for their existence, and tho" - pressing need- was for a churchman with :. the gifts: of : statesmanship. Such a meat t, .. was found in; Theodore, a Greek monk of ■:-.; - Tarsus, ._ who ■ was consecrated . by.'Popa • .V Bitalian in 663, ;at the request of an. Eng- - : lish king, :Oswy.-, , ■ .'%'■ '", . "-■-.•': "Cathoiicos" that-; Thcodoi* ■"'-;'■ ■ organised the English Church, but insist*--' - that.it was upon a -'Roman ' model, alt ': : v ' does not hia'tteK'as far ris my point is. - ; concerned what model he followed, . ;' : neither does it ,affect the point. at issue ;' ■■;.:';'. that a Pope of Rome consecrated him.:: ■','' .- or gave him .priority over the English ■ , bishops. Theodore's special; work '.'was to unite the- different dioceses, which, as I : . have ; said,: Wei;e of each . ■V; other.. .This in doing, and ':' ho became the primate of this united Church of Ehgh'ihd, : not by virtue .of .a ' :■'" Pupal appoiritmeiOt, but by" Virtue of his'"■'■'.■■ -■' acceptance,..such.: by a "synod of -/English bishops- at illeriford, 'held -in-.; 673, , five years. after his consecration. ; .: ' ' : " Catholicos''. is unfortunate in. his re-; ; ; ference to .St". WiHrid, Bishop of, York, . \ 9 for the incident : quoted goes a.-long-way.-■-.■■.-; 6 to prove the; ind'iipendc'ice of thc.Eng'ish ! Church, for which I am contending; - Ho points out that in subdividing the dioceses ! of England, TheDdore came into conflict, with St. Wilfrid,-the Bishop of York. : St. . • Wilfrid, as ''Caitholicoi" says,; appealed . !. to the Pope, who gave judgment against Theodore. But i " Cathoiicos" is •careful ■ to omit the fact fatal to his '. contention j d that, Theodoro absolutely refused to .ac-. cept the Pope's judgment, ignoring it I completely: ,Tha% .Theodore, as the '.metro-' a pblitan of England refused to allow . * Roman - dominafioji, is evident, and' 9 this . is- . strengthened ~by , the :. ad- ;". Iditional . ■ fact: . dmt the " Pope's de- .; cision against him was supported." by . the. vote .of - a synod of Roman bishops. ■/ - He basied his. attitude upon the ground ithat, assuming he-had .been wrong: in . . interfering with Wilfrid's diocese, Wilfrid - was wrong, in' appealing-to-Rome. Can--. anything bo more convincing ? It is clear : © that Theodoro not only organised the ! Church of England, but fhat.he.organised ■■'~ it as- a; free and independent . branch of the- Catholic Church... and .. as its: firs& , metropolitan, lie maintained-that position. ;' 8 The rest of ''Cathoiicos' "letter has no ! bearing on the point- at - issue. May I , ' say in closing that this .. attitude.: is not taken up in any: spirit of unfriendliness • © to the Roman Catholic Church, ; but ■ix\:, if.:' defence of.-the historical; position thai I.: branch- Of* the-Catholic Chinch 'to whiclx -" b I belong, : W. ('. Woob? ' -'■■■ ■■ The Vicarage. Panakuva. .. ' ■'. '