[To TIM EDITOR 07 THE " srEcTITcat."] SIR,—Like many of
your readers, I have been much interested in the article by "A. C." on this important subject, and I notice that the Church Times accepts the argument that every parishioner has a statutory right to communicate in the parish church unless he be lawfully excluded. But that organ main- tains that the article and your " leader " do not press the matter to its logical conclusion. It says that the law cannot be limited to Protestant Dissenters, that "it extends to all inhabitants of the parish; it extends to all Jews, to any Mussulmans who may be there resident, to professed atheists, to Hindu students, or agitators spending time in this country; in short, to all persons of any religious or irreligious belief or practice whatsoever. In particular, it does not extend only to the unconfirmed, but equally to the unbaptized." This "preposterous" law is said to be due to the fact that statute law remains law until repealed or amended, no matter what change of circumstances may reduce it to nonsense. But the Church Times goes on to argue that this statute is not a law of the Church of England, but only of the Realm, and as any amendment is regarded as impossible, the advice is given to ignore the statute as "a harmless piece of Insolence." So that, while you are said to be right in your exposition of the law, the Church Times remarks that it will be "universally disobeyed." It is something, however, to have elicited the admission that your interpretation is correct, and meanwhile many will rejoice to feel assured, as perhaps never before, that our Communion is, at any rate, open to members of Nonconformist Churches.-1 am, Sir, &c., W. H. GRIFFITH THOMAS.
Bestholme, Frinton-on-Sea, Essex.
[The proper answer to the desperate argument of the Church Times is easy. You can, by putting an imaginary case, reduce almost any positive law to nonsense, but that is no real argument against the law. The King cannot be tried before any Court of Law, and therefore if be killed a man he could not be made responsible. That is good law, but not a good reason for abolishing the Monarchy. The answer is, when we get a murderer-King we shall know how to deal with him. No Jew, Mussulman, or atheist will, we may be sure, ever, in fact, want to present himself for Communion. If he does, we shall easily find ways of meeting his impossible demands. We feel sure that no Court of Law would give redress to a parishioner who claimed a right to receive the Communion if he did not claim it as a Christian and in a devout and reverent spirit. In any case, a confirmed Anglican, to whom no one can deny the right to communicate, who had become an agnostic or sceptic, might abuse the right far more easily than the hypothetical Jew of the Church Times. Con- firmation provides no real barrier against the suggested abuses. As a matter of fact, however, such cases do not arise. To keep out the Christian Nonconformist, from fear of a mythical Mohammedan or Buddhist, is absurd.--En. Spectator.]
Previous page
