Letters to the Editor. Letters on any subject of public interest are cordially itivited. The insertion of a letter does not necessarily mean that the Editor agrees with the views ex- pressed therein. Correspondents should write on one side of the paper only, and no letter will be published unless the writer sends his name and address, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith.
--+-- 1 he Church in Wales." To the Editor of the Rhondda Leader." Sir,—The reply of Mr. Morris in your last issue is more characteristic than his previous letter. In fact, a little more of the same sort will establish a new style in literature and you must, I am sure, Mr. Editor, be of all men the most fortu- nate in being able to present such Morrisoniana to the world. One thing, however, I would suggest to my opponent; it is this, that while contri- buting to the- literature of controversy, he should refrain from contributing to the literature of misrepresentation, abuse and humbug. Let me explain what I mean. I quoted the Archbishop to show that the Church of England has a distinctive character." Mr. Morris wrote to his Grace saying that some controversialist had quoted him as saying that the. Church of England came into existence at the Reformation." The two statements are quite different, yet Mr. Morris is quite willing to pervert my meaning in order to suit his own ends. Again, I referred to Mr. Gladstone, stating that he said Tithes were national property," Mr. Gladstone dis- established and disendowed the Irish Church," and asked your correspondent, How much of Mr. Gladstone would he accept?" also, "Why did he not say that Mr. Gladstone, in later life, aban- doned the main argument of his book as no longer tenable." Now, Mr. Morris challenges me. to prove that Mr. Glad- stone ever changed his mind on the con- tinuity question. I never said that he did. All I said was that he abandoned the main argument of his book." Not only so, but after the manner of a penny quack, Mr. Morris offers me a hundred pounds if I can prove what I have never dreamed of asserting. I sup- pose it is all his gentle way of playing to the gallery. Why. only six or seven weeks ago he told his parishioners that he was worth only £10, so that his wealth has increased by £ 97) already—in spite of the Budget, too I congratulate him on „ the increase, but would suggest that he hand it over to the authorities of the Baptist College which educated him for the ministry! I understand, sir that there is a prac- tice in certain circles known as hitting below the belt," but I have never before heard that this has been covered by the cant and humbug of Pro Deo et Ecclesia." It will interest Mr. Morris, no doubt, to know that there is a con- sensus of opinion locally that there is very little of the Deo in the style of his letter, and, I will add, if the "Ecclesia" stands in need of such sup- port, then she is in a bad way indeed. I trust, however, that the inglorious defence of Mr. Morris will not harm the Church as a, spiritual institution. He has discovered "the mote" of a few gram- matical slips and a. few awkward sen- tences (due to haste and the desire to compress as much as possible) but what about "the beam of his wilful and malicious distortion and misrepresenta- tion? I had rather be guilty of bad grammar seventy times seven than bad Christianity. I challenge and defy your correspondent to prove to any fair- minded man that there is any likeness between the statement I attributed to the Archbishop, viz., "the distinctive character of the Church of England," and the statement he has attributed to me, viz.. "that the Church of England came into existence at the Reformation." Four times in his letter, either directly or in- directly, Mr. Morris fastens this state- ment on me. I challenge him to find in either of my two former letters any such words. He says: Continuity is the pivot on which Mr. John made his argu- ment for Disendowmerit to turn." I beg his pardon—I did nothing of the. kind. The issue I raised, and the issue to which I adhere, is that contained in my first letter, which I will quote for the sake of clearness —" The Church in the reign of Henry 1. was Roman Catholic. Many other endowments were given in the Church's Roman Catholic days. On what principle of equity, then, does the Church of England retain these gifts? Nothing here at all about the Church of England coming into existence at the Reformation, but everything, it is true, both by the plain meaning of the words and by impli- cation to indicate that a new character viz., Protestant, was given her at the Reformation. This is the point at issue. It was Mr. Morris who brought Con- tinuity" into the discussion. If, how- ever, 'he thinks the. statement that the pre-Reformation Church was Roman Catholic and the post-Reformation Pro- testant, breaks the continuity, well—that is his contention and his auairel is not with me. but with the facts of history. By dragging the term continuity into the discussion in reply to the question I raised, he has defined it in that sense. He must not run away from his definition and seek to raise another question. In the definition he gave, he included "one sacramental system." I say that this involves a beiief in Transubstantiation— a doctrine which (perhaps you will allow me to explain) means, that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper become the substance of the body and blood of our blessed Lord. I referred to Wickliffe, not in order to raise the question of persecution (though the less he says on that score the better), but to show that it (i.e., Transubstan- tiation) was the orthodox belief of the time. It is now repudiated by the Articles as "repugnant to Scripture." I say. therefore, that there, is no con- tinuity in the sacramental system. I defy Mr. Morris to -rove otherwise. He has, however, admitted that this doctrine was repudiated at the Reformation, and sought to cover up his retreat by bluff, bluster and bombast. Let him stick to his definition. It is not sufficient for him to cry narrot-like "essentials of faith." Who is to decide as to the essentials of faith "? Mr. Morris? The first six cen- turies? The Church? Was not the spiritual supremacy of the Papacy an "essential of faith" when Sir Thomas More and Bishop Fisher died, rather than accept Henry VIII. as Supreme Head of the Church ? Was it not so in the. case of Henry himself when he received the title of 11 Defendei, of the Faith from the Pope for writing against Luther?- and again, when he applied for a divorce from Catherine? Was not Transubstantiation equally an "essential of faith" when included in "the Six Articles" of Henry? Green's Short History" says, recognised by law (n. 355). Again, in the reaction under Mary, was it not an "essential" when Ridley, Latimer and Cranmer "were I put to death because they would not believe it? "It was to deny transub- stantiation that the martyrs had died. It was in the name and defence of the Mass at Mary and Pole had exercised their savage despotism (Froude Hist., vol. 6. p. 116). Surely, sir, when men are prepared to die, it is for something essential." Mr. M-orris cannot success- fully deny that this was the official teach- ing of the Church for at least 200 years- a big break enough, surely! It is per- fect nonsense to talk of continuity in such a connection. Bishop Gardiner con- demned John Rogers in Mary's reign for denying the doctrine of Transubstan- tiation. Thou hast taught, hoiden and affirmed, and obstinately defended divers errors, heresies and damnable opinions, contrary to the doctrine and dettrmina- ticn of the Holv Church—viz., that the Catholic Church of Rome (mark these words) is the Church of Anti-Christ. Item, that in the Sacrament of trie Altar there is not, substantially, or really, the body and blood of Christ." How much more does Mr. Morris want? Is it a damnable opinion and contrary to the doctrine of the Church now to deny this dogma? He has admitted that it is not. How, then, can there be any "continuity" in such a. position? he "nibbles over the distinction drawn between the two sacraments of Baptism and the. Lord's Supper and the other five, when he knows that the Homilies ex- pressly say that there are only two according to the exact signification of a sacrament." Will he affirm that the official teaching of the Church of Eng- land regards these latter as Sacraments in the sense of conferring grace as does the Church of Rome? If not, let him withdraw his miserable quibble. In my last letter, I repudiated an idea Mr. Morris said I held but now he has imputed something else I do not hold. Apparently, the only way he can manage to construct a. case is by twisting his opponent's words, or by imputing to him some idea. which he does not hold-and then quarrel with what he himself has constructed! I suppose he thinks he scores a point on the word Reformation." He believes, evidently, that I think it means origina- tion." I think nothing of the kind. But since he wants to spend his wrath on someone that does, and since he has quoted Macaulay as to what every schoolboy knows—let him fight Macaulay himself! In his "History of England," vol. i., page 26, Popular Edition, this great historian refers to the Reformers (Cranmer, &c.) as the founders of the English Church." Macaulay practically repeats the phrase in his essay 011 Hallam." The paragraph in the first mentioned book is termed in a side note the origin of the Church of England," and the reference in his essay on Hallam is indexed by Macaulay him- self as the origin of the Church of England." He moreover, speaks of "the compromise from which the Church of England sprang in both of these books. At the same. time, I want to make it clear that this is not my contention. Another sentence of Macaulay's would practically crystallise my view. In his essay on Mr. Gladstone's Church and State. he vigorously attacks the idea of the unity of doctrine advanced by the author. Is it not quite clear, that as far as the doctrines of the Church ot England differ from those of the Church of Rome, so far the Church of England conveys the truth through a broken series? Now I come to Mr. Asquith's state- ment. Ah, that quotation from Hansard! With what stateliness Mr. Morris moved toward it. I cull," &c.—the Morris- onian style at its best! But I have been reading that Parliamentary debate, and I propose to begin the quotation a sen- tence earlier and extend it further still. I quote from "The Times" for March 22nd, 1895. "I assert," said Mr. Asquith, that from the earliest times in this country the State has claimed and exer- cised a controlling voice in the civil government and regulation of the endow- ments and privileges of the National Church. I hold very strongly that it is an historical fallacy," &c. (here follows Mr. Morris' quotation, and Mr. Asquith continues). But that does not in any degree affect the importance of the legis- lation to which I am referring. What was that legislation? It was the asser- tion of a claim upon the part of the Crown and Parliament first of all to establish and define the real supremacy of the Church, next to confine the Church, even in purely ecclesiastical matters as its final court of appeal, to a Court of Secular Judges appointed by the Crown to change the doctiines (mark these words), modify the ceremonies taught and practised by the Church; at one moment to permit, and then prohibit again, such an institution as the marriage of the clergy. I defy anyone who has read with an impartial mind the legislation for the 40 years between 1530 and 1570, who has studied the course of the revolution (mark this-not reformation merely) in the reign of Henry VIII., the counter-revo- lution in the reign of Mary, the restora- tion of the pre-existing state of things in the reign of Elizabeth—I defy any fair-minded man acquainted with that history to dispute, the proposition that Parliament did at that time assert and exercise the right to prescribe the con- dition of tenure upon which every ecclesiastical benefice of this country was held. Many of those statutes we can only read with amazement and con- sternation that a body of laymen should have deemed themselves qualified to deal with that subject matter. But this is the price which the National Church pays for the so-called privileges of establishment." Is it not clear, sir, that what Mr. Asquith was arguing for was not the continuity of the Church" in Mr. Morris' sense, but rather the continuity of the action of the Crown and Parliament with regard to the Church-an absolutely different thing ? Mr. nryceno mean historical autho- rity, as Mr. Morris will admit-—speaking in the same Parliament, said: "Every- one knew that the legal and historical continuity of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Church was complete. Our argument is that the changes made at the Reformation were' so great, involving a complete change of doctrine and the substitution of the supremacy of the Sovereign for the Headship of the Pone, and the passing of statutes that are now regarded as intolerable or harsh—as to amount to a State dealing with ecclesias- tical property far greater than is now proposed." The continuity of the Church as an institution is not in dispute (I am not going to be caught in the mesh of legal technicalities like the transfer of pro- perty," the end of one Church and the beginning of another "), but I entirely dispute that there is continuity between the character of the Church and the objects for which she lived and wrought in the periods in question. Mr. G. W. E. Russell ("Times," March 27th, 1895) said, in the debates on the Bill: The break at the Reformation, which we all admit, was in my view, rather a doctrinal, rather than a. struc- tural break—I mean it appertained to the doctrine of the Church of England rather than to the framework." This is the point I raised. Surely, I cannot do more than I have done to make my position clear. Since, however, Mr. Morris accepts Mr. Asquith's authority, he will not mind if I do the same. My opponent claims that "the Church" cleansed herself. Mr. Asquith attributes the cleansing process to "the Crown and Parliament." I accept Mr. Asquith's authority before Mr. Morris'. "Oh, the humour of it all!" Mr. Morris "at variance with his own" quotation! Had he not better try to teach" himself a little bit of Church History ? Now, I am going to refer to Stubbs and Milman to prove my position—not something Mr. Morris has set for me. Dr. Stubbs (Const. Hist., vol. 3, p. 302), in regard to the authority of the Pope, says There were not wanting men who would try to persuade him (the King) that even without any such commission he was supreme in spiritual as well as in tem- poral matters. Reginald Fitz Urse, when he was disputing with Becket just before the murder, asked him, From whom he had the Archbishopric? Thomas replied, The spirituals I have from God and my lord the Pope, the temporals and possessions from my lord the King.' Do you not,' asked Reginald, acknowledge that you hold the whole, from the King? No,' was the Prelate's answer, we have to render to the King the things that are the King's, and to God the things that are God's. Bishop Stubbs continues: The words of the Archbishop embody the commonly received idea; the words of Reginald, although they do not repre- sent the view of Henry II.. contain the germ of the doctrine which was formulattd under Henry VIII." The fact of the matter is, through the Middle Ages the Church of England occupied a double position—in its spiritualities it owed allegiance to the Pope, in its temporalities to the King. It was this double position that occasioned the struggle between the monarchy and the Church—a struggle which culminated in the reign of Henry VIII. in that monarch being declared to be Supreme Head on earth of the Church of Eng- land." The afore-mentioned double position" ceased, and the Church of England became, what it never fully was before, a, National Church. (References Stubbs' Const. Hist. vol. 3, pp. 299, 300). Also extract from an essay by Mr. J. W. Lea on "Bishops' Oath of Homage," quoted by Stubbs in a footnote. Again, Of attempts by the clergy, except under Papal authority to tax the laity, or to enforce any general payments from them. English history has no trace." Ibid, p. 352). I think, if Mr. Morris will compare the above with Mr. Asquith's words, he will find there is substantial agreement. Milman (" Latin Christianity," vol. 4, p. 4) says: With all the Teutonic part of Latin Christendom, the belief in the supremacy of the Pope was coeval with their Christianity—it was an article of their original creed as much as the redemption." Now, who is making very free with the names of Milman and Stubbs"? (Hooker I did not refer to in this con- nection). If my opponent is going to meet these references, he must come out with something more, than challenges and flat denials. If not, let him have the grace to acknowledge that someone else knows a little of history besides himself. I am glad Mr. Morris said he was forgetting when he referred to those Acts of Parliament. He is certainly great on some Acts of Parliament—others he conveniently forgets. That blessed word "catholic" covers a multitude of sins and bridges any number of yawning chasms! Mary thought so much of the catholicity of the Acts of Parliament of the previous reign that she repealed practically the lot. But my opponent has referred to The Homilies." If he can quote them, so can 1. Whether you will permit the quota- tion, Mr. Editor, I do not know-it is not very gentle-but as it is Appointed to be read in Churches," Mr. Morris at least cannot object to it. I take it from The Homily of the Peril of Idolatry," part third. After condemning Gregory (one of the Popes) for setting up image worship, the Homily proceeds Which the idolatrous Church (of Rome) under- standeth well enough. For she being indeed not only an harlot (as the Scrip- ture calleth her), but also a foul, filthy, old withered harlot she doth (after the custom of such harlots) paint herself and so entice to spiritual fornication with her; who, if they saw her (I will not say naked) but in simple apparel, would abhor her, as the foulest and filthiest harlot that ever was seen." Yet this is the sort of hurch from which Mr. Morris wants recognition of the validity of Anglican Orders! I submit, sir, he cannot get out of this. Moreover, he is a member of the English Church Union; he has a branch of the E.C.U. at St. Thomas'. The avowed object of this Union is Reunion with Rome." Lord Halifax, the president, I nates- the Reformation like poison; told us a few years ago that it ought to be repented of in "tears and ashes." This Union is the offspring of the so-called Catholic revival initiated by the Tractarians, Newman, Keble, Pusey, &c. Prof. Gwatkin says that their successors, who have flooded England with so-called history are men who systematically set aside the plainest facts of history and human nature." Prof. Gwatkin is Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge, and the above appears in his new book just published, Early Church History to A.D. 313." He is equally severe on the Anglican doctrine of Apostolical Succession it rests, he says, upon a fundamentally mistaken con- ception of the Church." Are we, sir, to take our history from such men as these, who, whatever else they may be, are the victims of a theory and must make his- tory square with it somehow? Mr. Morris adopts the Catholic position. He must not complain if he is judged accordingly. To conclude, let him meet the issue I have raised. He must not be elusive nor '< abusive he must not distort, misrepre- sent nor quibble. If he does, I have done with him, I give him up as hope- less. The issue is this—The. Church was Roman Catholic before the Reformation and has now no moral right to endow- ments given to support that form of faith. Bishop Gore, in Convocation last May, said He hoped the Bishop of London would not suffer himself to use the argu- ment about the wishes of the pious founders, because it was totally impossible to say what the wishes of the pious founders would be after the great changes which had come about from the time of the Reformation." Sir, I thi^k Bishop Gore's conscience is as good as Mr. Morris', and neither the Bishop nor my- self ought¡ to be termed advocates- of robbery," simply because we plead for Disestablishment and Disendowment. I am not going to follow Mr. Morris on his penny donkey ride. I offer him a penny reading instead. Will he please leave points of grammar alone and give attention to reading—correct reading, too He winds up for God and the Church." I write For God and Truth," and I think I have the better right. But per- haps, Mr. Editor, you will put it in Latin. It may look better. Pro Deo et Veritati." Where is the list of those tithes? Thanking you for your space.—I am, &c., S. B. JOHN. Clydach Vale, Nov. 30th, 1909. P.S.-I have just received the enclosed from the Archbishop. I wrote to his Grace, giving chapter and verse for the quotation Mr. Morris has distorted. His Grace has been misled. The reply speaks for itself. I am sending the whole corres- pondence to his Grace. (Copy of letter). Lambeth Palace, S.E., 30th Nov., 1909. Dear Sir,—The Archbishop of Canter- bury directs me to say, in reply to your letter of November 25th, that the copy of the Rhondda Leader which you tell him that Mr. Morris has sent to him does not appear to have reached this house. It is possible, however, that among the large number of newspapers which arrive daily, it may have been overlooked. If you will kindly let the Archbishop have copies of the letters to which you refer as having appeared in the nublic Press, His Grace will be ready to consider whether any reply from himself is called for.—Yours truly, ARTHUR SHEPPARD, Private Secretary. "The Rev. S. B. John." To the Editor of the Rhondda Leader." Sir,—Kindly allow me to correct a printer's error which occurred in my letter of last week. In the sentence, There are other institutions, too, who have not been harmed by an occasional swill," for who read" which." Thank- ing you, &c., WM. MEREDITH MORRIS. To the Editor of the" Rhondda Leader." Sir,—Now that Mabon has deserted the Liberal Party, the local Liberals are with- out a leader and without an Association. Why not a Liberal Association for the Rhondda? Then the electors of the Rhondda would have an opportunity to answer your question of last week— "Freemen or Lackeys?" In the forth- coming election, they have no such oppor- tunity.—Yours, &c.. A YOUNG LIBERAL.
Prof. Folia's Herbal Remedies will cure all diseases and skin eruptions, whether constitutional or acquired. Advice Free at his Consulting Room, 279, But Street, Cardiff. 5012 APPLE FRITTERS. Two eggs, beaten sepa- rately, tablespoonful of butter, one cup sweet milk, teaspoonful of baking powder, and enough flour to make a batter a trifle thicker than for pancakes. Add half a dozen apples chopped fine, a pinch of salt, and a tablespoonful of sugar; fry until a light brown, in deep lard, and sift powdered sugar over them when done. Servo hot with sweet sauce or maple syrup. APPLE TARTS. Lay a disc of puff paste on a round tin, and place a strip all around it. Spread on the inside a layer of apple marma- ade or jelly a quarter of an inch thick. Peel and core the apples, cut them in small slices, and arrange over tlii, marmalade. Cover with sugar, and bake in a auick oven. THE days are getting darker. If yon want your rooms to look brighter, use Bagley's Y Goreu Furniture Paste (which does not finger mark). Sold everywhere in Id., 3d. and 6d. tins. One customer said Mr. Bagley, you have no need to advertise, your Paste advertises itself." 5006
The Girl Who Took The Wrong Turning," a particularly strong attraction, will be staged at the Theatre Royal next Monday. It is a play containing many elements of interest for 4heatre-goers with a. love of the sensational and romantic. When it is said that Walter Melville, the author of The Worst Woman in London," A Girl's Cross Roads," and many other striking and successful plays, 11 is the writer, it will be readily under- stood that the piece is full of strong situations. The story, as is suggested by the title, is of a girl who is lured to London by a woman who lives by exploit- ing youth and innocence. She is, how- ever, discovered and rescued by the sailor lover whom she has forsaken for a life of pleasure. Altogether, the play is one of Mr. Walter Melville's best and has met with an enthusiastic reception every- where. The company is a strong one. Mr. Ronald A'dair will be seen as the liodit-hearted, breezy British Tar, a typical son of the sea, who seems to send a smell of the ocean over the foot- lights. Miss Jessie Belmore plays the title role, Sophie Coventry." Miss Nannir Meade will portray the doings of Vesta Le Clere," and will wear some dresses that will provide a study for the lady members of the audience. The whole play is interspersed with interludes of comedy which constantly provokes the audience to fits of laughter. Therefore, next week should be a very busy one at the Theatre. Miss JESSIE BELMORE as "SOPHIE COVENTRY."
I She (angrily): Why do they deny ffio right I of suffrage to women because they are not 6oldier ? Don't you think women, if called upon, could fight?"—He (deprecatingly): "I suppose they could if it came to the scratch." By the way, what has become of Brown's book, 'One Hundred Short Cuts to Wealth,' that he was working so hard upon last yeax? Oh, Brown finished the book all right, but was unable to raise money enough to have it pub- lished." Alas! sighed the tramp, dramatically, "no matter where I turns there's a 'and raised against me! Which shows you ought to be thankful for one thing," said the big farmer.— "What's that? That it ain't a foot wot's raised! "There goes (Jount Nociougli., the famous duellist." "Did he ever kill anyone?'' "Not until recently, when he became a chauffeur. "What are you so glum about?" "I was worrying about something yesterday, but, con- sarn it all, I can't remember what it was! Talkative Lady: Ten years ago I had a seri- ous illness, and the doctor was afraid I would lose my mind." Her Friend: And did you? First Toiler: My doctor ordered me to drink beer for insomnyer." Second Toiler: "Can't you sleep, then?" First Toiler: "Only at night." "Ah, I see you are married! exclaimed the merchant. No, sir," replied the applicant for a position. 11 I got this scar in a railway acci- dent.
The Largest and BesG Selection ef Useful XMAS AND NEW YEAR'S GIFTS TO BE HAD AT J. KINSTLEY, JTOrSfPANDY I ESTABLISHED 1874. Ladies' Gold Watches from 25/- /fS\ 9ct. Gold Alberts and Chains, 80/- Gents' Gold Watches from 35/- Silver Brooches from 1/- Ladies' Silver Watches from 7/6 wpP Gold Brooches from 3/6 Gents' Silver Watches from 10/- Grand Selection of Gold Brace- Real English Levers, 32/6 lets of the latest patterns and all 22ct. Gold Wedding Rings, special kinds of Jewellery. Large Stock from 20/- up A Fine Stock of Clocks, Cutlery A present given with each one. MCi A JBB and Optical Goods. 9, 15, 18ct. Gold Engagement a Silver and Silver-plated Goods, Rings from 4/6 to £ 10 10s. most suitable for a present. FANCY GOODS DEPARTMENT. Albums from 6d. to 25/- Photo frames 4-Jd. to 12/- Dressing Cases from 4/6 Necklets and Fancy Jewellery in great variety Brush Sets in Cases from 2/3 Inkstands 6d. to 18/- Glove and Handkerchief Cases from 9d. to 10/6 Pipes from 6d. to 12/6 Writing Cases from 65 d Pouches, Cigar, Cigarette Holders and Cases from 6d. to Bags, Satchels of all kinds 6d. to 12/6 15/- Jewel Cases, Workbaskets, Workboxes from 1/- Flower Vases from 51d. upwards. 2 Ladies' Companions 1/- to 10/6 Dolls from 4d. to 14/- Purses from 6d, up. Mechanical Toys, Mouth Organs, Auto-Harps. Reliable Workmen's Watches, 2/9, 3/6, 5/- NOTE THE ADDRESS- J. Kinstley, Dunraven Street, Tonypandy. 5149 ————amn—«—mbmm—1^————MM.—— THE FURNISH BY m factory | You're willing—the Girl's wIlhng-w. re willing PRICES j. No need to wait—no need FURNISHING needto Yon can get married AT IjQ ON OB—have your home thoroughly well and hand- mp IIA| llcc soiiiely furnished—without ED Taff St. (Penuel Chapel), PONTYPRIDD trouble-without experse. 1 (See name before entering,. Inspect Onr Magnificent Stock We will nx terms ——" to suit your own needs- Also at just a few shillings a week. High Street, Bargoed, That's all, FREE Church Street. Abertil.e.y, w' ? —— CATALOGUES Headquarters: 42, City Road, Roath, Cardiff, EASY TERMS I