BISHOP REPLIES TO JOYNSON-HICKS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18466, 18 May 1928, Page 10

BISHOP REPLIES TO JOYNSON-HICKS.

DECLARES HIS POLICY WILL CAUSE DISRUPTION. (United Press Assn.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) LONDON, May 16. “ ou seem to ignore the fundamental fact that the old Prayer Book is still usable unaltered,” says the Bishop of London, Dr Winnington Ingram, replying seriatim to Sir William Joyn-son-Plicks’s letter. “ Nobody knows better than myself the feeling of the Protestant laity. I believe that you and others unduly worked on it under a misunderstanding. “Second, the Assembly’s reduced majority was probably due to the abstention of those differing (not agreeing) with you. Some did not vote, or voted against us, because they were disgusted with what they regarded as efforts to placate you. “ Third, regarding disorder in the Church, you do not find it easy to produce order in the country, despite the fact that you have the most efficient police force in the world. You have not fulfilled last year's promise to a clerical deputation to deal with night clubs and drink clubs. I don’t blame you. I know the difficulties owing to the opposition of both party and public opinion. Similarly, the public opposed prosecution in the Church, which was once tried and failed. You taunt us with want of courage, but we produced a Bill, which you have done j r our best to defeat. We w r ould be more sympathetic if you were officially courageous enough to produce a club Bill.

“ Fourth, you hold receptionist views on the Sacrament. That there is a doctrine of Christ’s real objective presence in the Sacrament, which the Court of Arches and the Privy Council pronounced equally tenable, I believe. You don’t realise that consideration is due to many holding this view. “ Fifth, my speech at the Diocesar Conference referred to a desire for liberty to give Communion to night nurses and churchgoers who usually go to work too early to attend service. “ Sixth, I deny any discrepancy in the statements of the Bishops as a \yhole. The contention was that opposition to the Book was due to misunderstanding. which amendments not involving a breach of principle removed/ “ Finally, are you and your friends aiming at driving the Anglo-Catholics from the Church, repeating our ancestors’ awful error of driving out the Wesleyans? Surely oujr large-hearted Archbishop’s policy of keeping the Church comprehensive is preferable. Admittedly there is a handful of priests and laity who would be happier with the Church of Rome, but antagonising the whole of the loyal Anglo; Catholics is not the way to deal with them. Your policy, if successful, will lead to disruption, which none will deplore more than yourself.”—Australian Press Association —United Service.