THE REREDOS CONTROVERSY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1411, 19 November 1886, Page 3

THE REREDOS CONTROVERSY.

TO THB EDITOB. Pm. Allow me a few woidain answer to your Monday’s remarks ; then, so far as i am concerned, the subject is ended. You say, “ Holy Writ nowhere condemn* the adornment of edifices sot at art for public worship.” Neither does it forbid polygamy or slavery, which are cfter mentioned in Us pages, yet will anyone key it sanctions such customs i We are left In doubt as to what is meant by the Chris tian Church, and excepting as regards the temple no weight Is attached to buildings by God’s Word. I agree with you tha> private and personal holiness is not enough. We must adorn the edifice collectively and pnblicly. Ornaments aro not wanting. Shall we mention a few 1 The proclamation of American Indepi n deuce, the Emancipation Act, the passing of Reform Bills, the bursting of slaw fetters, setting such countries as Greece and Bulgaria free from Turkish tyranny, and the opening of Neapolitan prison, lot your readers glance, down ihe annals of hi«»ory ; there they will find recordeo deeds which have adorned, which will adorn theOhntch ofChrist tilllimeshall be bo more. Justly fon observe that eanb and «ky are studded with beanties man’* works may IMVar equal. Yet are all these given for the eervico of those templts nanud in 1 Corinthians 3 16. and the Giver bath said “ Heaven is My throne and earth is My foo'stool and where it the place of My rest ? ” There is an answer to the question. In memory of the Cross, tie altar on which was offered the sacrifice for all mankind, let ns ketp high onr hope in tho present, our fab hithe future *trencth of the Church and its Hem'', adding bTa and good will to ali and while differing from yon in opinion permit me to offer my sincere thanks fir the kindness and courtesy with which you. have given publicity to these opinions —Yours, etc. Rs flection. IWe on onr part also gladly acknowledge the kindnesa and courtesy of out correspondent. It cannot be, it will never be, while the world lasts that we shall ail see eye to eye. We are always open to conviction, but nothing in onr correspondent’s letter convinces us that per se there ts anything harmful, nay anything unfitting in the erection of a reredos in a cathedral or in the ornamentation by works of art of tho interior cf any building devoted to pubic worship, even though the representation of the Cross of Christ be the leading featnre cf that adornment. At the same time, we readily admit that when such ornamentation is fonnd to offend those who are weak, Christian duty dictates that we shonld abstain from that which though quite lawful in itself is a etumbllng-bh ck to the weak. Yet it la perfectly legitimate at tho same t’me to seek to deliver our week brethr n from the bonds of their prejudices, and we feel persuaded that the spread of that true Christian liber aliam, which is the fans et origo of such noble measures as K» flection ii stances, will one day have so broadened out the minds of Ch> Ist lens as to emancipate even the narrowest from the ancient and, aa we venture to think, unenlightened, prejudices which would ba> lab all beautiful occeseorles from our Churches and our public worship, and which were they pushed to their logical limit would unstring the very harps of the angels, and picture the plains of Heaven in tints of sepia.— Ed.]