The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-06
Refusal to Hear Read n Message of
BrotherIy Greeting from the
Archbishop of Canterbury.
PART PLAYED BY AN EDITOR
GROWING SENTIMENT FAVORING RE-
UNION OF M~ETHODIsTS.
Attitude of the Conference Toward
Biblical Criticism Noted Men
Who Were Not in Attendance.
o-rrespondence Of the Indianapolis Journal.

Correspondence of the Indianapolis Journal.
LONDON, Sept. livery early in the
fortnight of its proceedings the great
Methodist conference, which closes to-day,
did a very bold thing. BY some its action
in this matter has been thought more bold
han wise. 1t refused To nave read a mes
sage of kindly greeting from the Arch
bishop of Canterbury, the primate of the
Church of England. This act was all the
holder, whatever may be said of the wis
dom of it, because il was solely the act
of the delegates from this side of the
Atlantic. who nave usually been suspected
of toadying to the church rather than de-
flying it or treating with discourtesy any
of it's high officials. The American dele
gates very properly took the ground that
the interment OF that kind mes
sage was no funeral of theirs, and left the
arrangements to leading Englishmen like
DR.. T. Bowman Stephenson and the vener-
able DR.. j. II. Rigg. These gentlemen
both claimed to be personal friends of the
offending archbishop, and they promised in
this Instance to act the part of really cam
did friends by writing to him a full ac-
count Of his shortcomings. This they
promptly did, with results which seemed
entirely satisfactory to themselves, but
which hardly left a satisfactory impress
sion Upon the conference or the general
public.
The message from this great church dig
nitary was read to the conference at last.
and in precisely the form in which 1t came
from him at first. The form, in fact. was
as unobjectionable and as cordial as the
most exacting could have desired. The
ground OF complaint was against the me-
dunn used in conveying it. The medium
was an enterprising London editor. The
press is constantly teaching lessons 10 the
pulpit, and often unfortunately as in this
case, the pulpit is less benefited by such
instruction than it is chagrined at the
thought that ii has been caught mapping.
Ii is very likely that, excepting for the
thoughtfulness of this editor. the Arch
bishop of Canterbury would have left this
world-gathering of Methodists. held under
the shadow of his own palace, without a
word Of recognition, for he is an extreme
ly busy man, with great interests engross-
ing his attention. and naturally. being at
the ripe age of eighty-two, is not so alert
as a younger man would be to outside
happenings. One OF the London editors
considered this, and, in tn. interest of re-
ligious amity. with, perhaps, an eve also
upon the interests OF his paper, which was
surely justifable in a world of such mixed
motives. he logged the archiepiscopal
memory upon the subject. In other words.
he appraised both the Archbishop of Can
terbury and the Bishop of London of the
approach of this great Methodist gather
ing. and suggested that they extend a
suitable welcome TO it.
MEANT NO DISCOURTESY.
One can only wonder why some of the
English Methodist preachers had not
thought TO do this. But the editor got
ahead Of these brethren. and the archbish-
op, not for q moment smelling the adyer-
Using mouse, which was so obvious 10 the
senses of leading men in British Method
ism, sent his greeting to the conference
through the medium which first offered
itself. the result being that before the
conference received II this kindly message
TO Methodism from the primate Of the