(To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPEC-TAMIL") Sin, — May I appeal to
your well-known fairness with regard to some expressions in your article on "Ritualism and Prose- cution " ? (1) There are no doubt foolish clergymen as well as foolish laymen, but is the epithet a fair one to attach to men who have given many years of their life to work in such parishes as those now threatened with prosecution ? They are men of long experience, who have accepted work of a most difficult kind,—who have faced most difficult problems presented by such work, and have dealt with them steadily, courageously, and, on the whole, as far as their rely limited means have allowed, successfully, or at least as suc- cessfully as any other agency. They have been willing to live year after year in places and under conditions in which no other laymen of their education and social position, except doctors, would live. They know their people, and are loved and trusted by them. You may no doubt take many views of their present action, but is it fair to hold them up to the general public, who know nothing of their character and work, as "fools"? (2) We are being continually told that we are exasperating and alienating the laity. But what sort of laity ? Lord Portsmouth and the comfortable West End laity, or the costermongers, dock labourers, clerks, &c., among whom the three clergymen in question work ? How many of the attempts at prosecution, not only in London, but else- where, have been made by bond-fide and earnest worshippers of the churches attacked ? We may disagree with the views and the line taken by some clergymen, but do let us at least.
Previous page
