Scotch mist
Sir: It is rare for an Englishman to show himself able to understand Scotland and few have any chance at all of understanding the delightful complexities of Scottish Church history. William Oddie in his article on the financial consequences of a possible future split of the Anglican Church ('An additional curate's egg', 20 March) points out the fascinating historical parallel with the 1903 Free Church of Scotland case. It is, however, wrong to say that the House of Lords found that the 'Wee Frees' were entitled to keep part of the original church assets. In fact their Lordships found that the 'Wee Frees' should keep the lot. They decided that if one group remains true to the original aims and purposes of the Church, then they are entitled to the assets no matter what their relative size compared With their heterodox opponents. Any read- er who wishes gentle pleasure is recom- mended to read the attempts of the Scotch advocates to instruct rather bemused elder- ly English judges in the finer points of Scot- tish Calvinist theology (Free Church of Scot- land Appeals 1903-1904, editor Robert Low Orr, McNiven & Wallace, Edinburgh, 1904). The judgment caused such an uproar that the Government used its power as an e. lected dictatorship to overturn their find- ing by appointing a commission under the
Earl of Elgin to distribute the assets, taking account of the local strength of the con- tending parties.
It seems to me that if the Church of Eng- land split and the law applied the same argument the people who would get the Anglican wealth would not be the liberals or the Anglo-Catholics but the tiny section of Calvinistic Anglicans. Notwithstanding the mock Gothic fantasies of Pusey and his friends the theology of the Elizabethan Church was solidly Calvinistic.
Has nobody read the 39 Articles?
J.A.D. Finlayson
West Tarbert, Isle of Harris
Previous page
