CHURCH UNION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17038, 23 June 1917, Page 15

CHURCH UNION

THE PRIMATE'S REPLY TO MR DA VIES. Following -upon a suggestion by the Primate in liis recent presidential address at tho opening of tho Anglican Diocesan Synod that, with a view to church union, each church should, through its court, draw up a statement (a) as to points of agreement with other historic churches, and (b) as to points of difference, giving reasons for tho adoption of thorn, the Rev. R. Evan Davies, preaching in Knox Church on Sunday last, made the definite proposal that tho Primate and he should exchange pulpits for a serviee in tho near future. The Primate has now written to Mr Davies in tho following terms: — Bishopsgrovo, Dunedin, June 20. Dear Mr Davies, I think it is becoming in me to acknowledge tho suggestion publicly made by you in relation to the proposal contained in my Synod address. I desire also to thank you for tho kindness of your references to myself. The proposal you challenge rao to make for a more exchange of pulpits has no relation to the one I put forward in the address referred to, and is too much like

"putting the end before the beginning; it is also too much liko a pretence of agreement by covering up the professed disagreements than by finding a. solution of them. Again, were it possible to arrango for exchange of pulpits without the general consent of the authorities of tho Anglican communion—which it is not—the question of reunion would remain where it now is, as is shown by tho illustration you bring forward of your exchanging with a Baptist minister. Pardon my saying that I seek for something truer and deeper than this, something which, emanating from tho acknowledged authorities of the different denominations, would be moro powerfully effective. I am well aware that what I put forth would take a long lime and much patient earnestness to work out, but there can be no real union until it is recognised that the grounds of tho separation are invalid, and indeed between some of tho sections it is not easy to discover that there ever were any stated grounds at all. In your sermon you glanced at episcopacy as being the chief obstacle to reunion on the part of Presbyterians and alluded to tho writings of Lightfoot, llort v and others. To enter upon the discussion of their writings would be to enter upon the very inquiry I have suggested, and, therefore, for the present T will only say that if you go so far as to accept their statements on the subject the Presbyterian position falls, there is no longer that ground for separation at least, though there are scholars of equal reputation who take higher ground than they. .It is important to remember that the churches in North. America are already engaged upon the inauiry I should like to see conducted in Now Zealand. I do not consider that the conferences held in Victoria a while ago were fruitless, although the Lambeth Conference was somewhat stunned at the presentation of their conclusions. t If Funh conferences were hpld in many countries it is possible that the cumulative force of them would suffice either to break down the walls or to enable some to .leap over th^m. Believe me to be, sincrelv yours, S. T. Dunedin.