THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND S1R,—Perhaps a Nonconformist
may be permitted to comment upon the most interesting correspondence which h a developed on this topic.
On the principle that ' on- lookers see most of the game'
I hope I may he forgiven if I assert that Mr. James and Mr, Pumfrett are both equally
wrong-headed. They b o t h
desire to stretch the wording of the so-called Reformation Settlement' so that while re- taining their own particular views they may still remain
within the Anglican Establish. ment. Most members of the Establishment neither study the questions raised nor care about the answers. The Book of Common Prayer (I emphasise the significant word ' Common ') has always been a typically English compromise which caters for the average Englishman who normally does not attach too precise a meaning to any particular word. (The attitude of Mr. Vaughan Williams and your other contributors is typical. They assume that as ' charity covers a multitude of sins' it is possible to excuse woolly thought and even casuistry on the part of the extreme elements in Anglicanism.)
really tried to understand and follow the teaching of Holy Scripture have found no place for themselves inside the Establishment.
To be perfectly honest, Mr. James ought to associate with some Independent Evangeli- cal Church or Assembly, and Mr. Pumfrett ought really to become a Roman Catholic.
Many'years ago it was my privilege to hear the late Mr. Kensit. He preached (as Wesley, Whitefield, Billy Graham and others have done) that a man could only be born again or regenerated by faith in Christ and by faith alone. I assume that Mr. James agrees with him, as I certainly do, upon the authority of our Lord's own words in John, 3. The Prayer Book, however, clearly and unequivoc- ally teaches that an infant so young as to be enable to comprehend or speak one single word may, by being subjected to the rite of baptism, become .' a child of God and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven.' More- over, immediately following the rite the priest or Minister is required to say, ' This child is regenerated.' This is all explicit and inescap- able, and my dear evangelical brethren in Christ who remain associated with the Establishment are either deaf to the words or blind to the print or are subjecting their consciences to a pathetic compromise.
On the other hand, the Reformation Settle- ment did involve a fairly clear (though not always coherent) condemnation of many of the doctrines and practices taught or indulged hi by Romanists and Anglo-Catholics. We are becoming used to the sight of notices on some of the doors of our English cathedrals and church buildings announcing the celebra- tion of the ' Mass,' which is condemned by Article XXXI as a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit.' Let Anglo-Catholics be honest and go to Rome.
But, Sir, these things being so, the Non- conformist asks once again whether the Establishment is fitted to be guardian of so sacred a trust as was intended to be imposed upon it when in the reign of the first Eliza- beth England became (in the words of John Richard Green) ' the people of a book, and that book the Bible.' One fears that Article VI pays merely lip service to the Bible and most of our countrymen do likewise.—Yours
Previous page
