Days of future past

This year’s celebration of Easter in Hamilton passed without incident.

One hundred and forty years ago, when minute points of religious difference had real significance for the faithful, The Waikato Times caused controversy with a seemingly innocuous piece of spiritual reportage.

The offending article had to do with Anglican services at St. Peter’s Church.

Noting that the 1877 Good Friday services drew a ‘‘large congregation’’, the paper mentioned:

That ‘‘the altar was draped in black, having upon the pall a white crucifix with appropriate mottos’’.

Five days later a letter of complaint, by someone who signed themselves ‘‘A Member of the English Church’’, was published.

The fact that St. Peter’s not only had ‘‘erected’’ an altar but that that altar was dressed in black, was a matter of grave concern to this correspondent.

The writer’s expressed a wish that ‘‘...some of the enlightened members of...[the] church will inform me through the columns of your paper if such ornaments should be used in the Church of England; if so, I think it is time that a change took place in our church’’.

The Times counted by pointing out that nothing in its original article suggested the altar had been especially ‘‘erected’’ for Easter.

This answer drew a further letter from the complainant, one that stated that it was ‘‘the piece of furniture’’ that was at issue, not when it first installed.

Furthermore, the writer had ‘‘...never known a communion table to be called an altar, except by Ritualists’’, a category of High Church Anglicans which he ‘‘hoped Hamilton was free from’’.

The Times editor gave a somewhat tongue in cheek response, declaring that ‘‘we detest Ritualism as the Devil is said to hate holy water yet we have always heard and called the altar an altar and not a communion table’’.

Nine days later a more opinionated writer for the paper weighed in on the issue with a further attempt a humour, stating ‘‘there’s a man down here who hates Ritualism so much that he can’t bear to see a clergyman ‘look cross’ ’’.

It is possible the joke was thought funny at the time.