Correspondence. CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Southern Cross, Volume 6, Issue 35, 10 December 1898, Page 3

Correspondence.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

[To the Editor.]

Sir, —Some time since in your ‘ Church News ’ column I saw a paragraph expressing regret that the Church of England was so poorly represented in Sydney. This was because at a large meeting - held there the practices of the Ritualists at Home were heartily condemned. The paragraph in question induced me to think that your column would be m'ade the medium of advocating the doings of the extremists in that church. My suspicion was confirmed by another item in the same column in your last issue, which is only half true and we know what half-truths are,’and wholly partisan. While stating that a recent cablegram announced '‘that the Bishops had agreed not to institute to any benefice any ritualists who would not submit to certain limitations, it further says, * A mere handful of ritualists are responsible for the present ritual crisis, which has been brought about primarily by Mr John Kensit, a publisher in London, end a band called Gideonites. Lord Halifax had denounced their actions as the outrage of hired ruffians, and this is scarcely an exagerated description,’ to which I reply that if the Bishops have taken any action at all, they have been stung into taking it, not by the leaders of ‘ hired ruffians,’ but by such men as Lord Salisbury and Sir William Harcourt, and such papers as the London Times. Veiled threats of disestablishment only have galvanised the almost comatose Bishops into any semblance of action. The ‘ mere handful of ritualists ’ comprise three-fourths of the Meroi, clergy, who seem to be but leroi , wolves, rending the flocks. Three-fourths of such a large body as the Anglican church is not truthfully described as a ‘ mere handful.’ So strong is the. ritual party, so strong is the leaning of the Bishops to that party, that an evangelical can hardly secure ordination at their hands. As for Lord Halifax, he is the most outre of them all, and allows himself as much licence in speech as he does the clergy in ritual practices, which is saying a great deal. If he had used the expressions which fell from his lips at the recent Anglican conference in 4he days of Henry VIII or Queen Elizabeth, he would be a head shorter by this time; and the party would be weeping for their leader, and refusing to be comforted because he was not. I have no sympathy with Mr John Kensit. He and his 4 Gideonites ’ may be lawless, but not more so than the rituals, and not so blameable, for who should pay more respect for the law than the clergy ? They hold office to defend Protestantism, and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this are they paid officials of the State. They pledge themselves solemnly to do this, and on obtaining office at once use their position to secretly undermine and openly attack the very principles they are paid to defend. Is this right F Is it honest ? When prayers for the dead are uttered, confessions openly heard, mass is openly performed (though possibly not under that name), when no service can be conducted without candles, processions, crosses, incense, and the rising of the people and bowing when some shaven youngster of a curate comes into the church, when, I say, all these Popish practices are not only not discouraged by the Bishops, but covertly encouraged by them, then it is no wonder that men like Mr John Kensit, who hates ritualism, while he Joves the church, begin a crusade against it. There is only one pleasing feature to me in the present crisis. The disestablishment and disendowanentof the Anglican church will be materially hastened by the lawlessness of its clergy, and when the laity possesses the power which has for so long been usurped by others, they will do what statesmen and Bishops have failed to perform, viz, mend the clergy

or depose them from office. Pardon me for trespassing upon your space. I could not well say less, I might have said much more. Yours, etc., Allon Poole. Dec. 2, 1898.