LECTURE.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2588, 3 June 1871, Page 2

LECTURE.

Last evening the Lord Bishop of Nelson gave a lecture at the Masonic Hall, on "Periods, persons, points and prospects of contact, between Presbyterians and Episcopalians.” The attendance was large, and on the motion of the Rev. E. G. Edwards, the Bhhop elect (the Rev. T. Nevill) took the chair. On the platform were several bishops of the Episcopal Church ; and the Revs. I). M. Stuart ( Presbyterian), J. Williams (Baptist), and A. Reid (Wesleyan) ministers. r ) he Chaikman very briefly introduced the lecturer, who prefaced his observations by stating that, when asked by the Rev. Mr Edwards to lecture that evening, he felt some hesitation, because the duties of his calling only gave him limited opportunity of working out the subject, and he wished it to be clearly understood that in any observations he might make, he merely expressed his individual opinion. What he said must not be regarded in any way as official. He wished this to be clearly understood, as he did not wish in any manner whatever to compromise the position of Mr Nevill, who would so soon stand in the relation to the Church as Bishop of the diocese. He spoke, therefore, mer ly as a member of the Christian Catholic Church. Mr Nevill, for aught he knew, might approve of what he said, or he might dissent from it; but he did not wish to make any remarks that might act prejudicially to his position as Bishop of the diocese in entering into any relations he might judge best with ministers of other el nominations. Ho and Mr Nevill might differ in their way of bringing cordial co operation —he did not say they did differ —but they might. He claimed for both the right to individual opinions. In order to cordial cooperative action, antiquated prejudices re presented by such foolish expressions as " nailing one’s colors to the mast,” or "not forsaking the Church of our fathers,” must be discarded. As to that, it depended upoi the religion of their fathers. It would justify a Buddhist or a Mahommedan contiuu ing to worship their idols, or their this prophet. In entering upon his proposed enquiry of periods of contact between tin, Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches, In wished to gather his friends around him. With regard to the large body of Wesleyan Methodists, the chief point of difference seemed to be Church government—in doctrine the difference was very slight, and that they could easil/ merge into the Episcopal Church was evinced by the union already formed between the Wesleyan Methodists and United Church in Ireland. He could not speak in the same way of the union of the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches. It was not a question of love at first sight Before they could unite there must be a recognition of each others’ good qualities, otherwise there weuld be a chance of saying to one another, " I cannot accept you, hut J hope we shall always meet as friends which was equivalent to saying, " I hope J shall never see you again.” Union might somewhat alter the form of the Church of the future, hut he hoped ultimately it would take place. In treating his subject it would be necessary to refer to many periods of history familiar to most present. Both the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches were offshoots of the Roman Catholic Church. Ho would press that point of union, for ii was a time when it might have taken placi

through similarity in ideas of teaching anc discipline. If John Knox, that sagaciom Presbyterian, had had the work of Reforma tiou, he would have accomplished that, ant not the destructioi of the Church, Here fer;ed to the time of Edward the Sixth os i pei iod of contact between the Episcopal ant Presbyterian Churches, during which th< union between them might have been ac complished. In 1590 the union might hav< been feasible, but the struggle for politica power by the Bishops drew from James th< First the expression of opinion that it woulc be a good thing to issue licenses to break ministers’ heads. As for Charles the Seconr aod James the Second, they conspired against the social and political privileges ol their own subjects. After quoting som< clerical opinions of the character and doing£ of James the First, he said that men like Tillotson, Hooker, Archbishop Ussher, and others protested against the assumptions of Episcopacy in their day—and why should we not in ours ? There would have been mnny points of contact in those troublous times, but the action of the Sovereigns created and widened the breach between the Presbyterian and Episcopalian Churches. Passing rapidly over the periods between 1597 and 1037, during which the attempts to introduce Episcopacy into Scotland were resisted, Jenny Gcddes going so far as to introduce, what he humorously styled, a dangerous contact between the cuttie stool and the officiating, bishop’s head, the progress of divergence from union was traced. Necessarily persons and their doings were mixed up with periods, and his Lordship dwelt at some length upon the action taken by Leighton, anterior to and in 1665, when he tried to resign his bishopric, but was not allowed by Charles. Leighton’s efforts at unity in the Church were more particularly dwelt upon until his retirement in 1674. He expre.sed the opini >n if the leaders of the reformation in Scotland had been animated by similar spirit to Cranmcr, Latimer, Hooper, and others, who were ■willing to sacrifice th ir lives for their principles, the separation I between the English and Scotch Churches would not have occurred. Amongst those whom he claimed as favorable to Episcopacy was Baxter, and quoted an extract from his writings in favor of that opinion. Passing rapidly over the names of persons between ) whom there was snob difference of opinion as to preclude all hope of union of the Churches, he remarked upon the change of ideas that had taken place since their day, as shewn in the liberal statements of Dr» Chalmers, Alexander, Smith (of Jordan Hill', and several other eminent devines. He then drew attention to the labors of the llevs. J. Hamilton, Norman M‘Leol, and Dr. Guthrie. They were all men whose lives, and works, and powers, like the times in which they live, were favorable to contact. It was impossible that men taught in the same schools, who read the same books, should long be content to separate. As evidence of points of contact, in looking over the ]Preshyter;an hymnal, he was surprised to find that one hundred out of four hundred hymns were tho composition < f members of the Church of Euglan- A though the points specified might appear trifling, they formed in the aggregate a degree of influence point' iug in the direction of union. He then alluded to the unity of purpose that characterised the efforts of the missionaries in heathen countries. He instanced Dr. Canol sh, who in 1843 would not cossent to be tied, but insisted on being allowed to look at things much as we looked at them in I{>7o. Lieviewing the obstacles to urion, he remarked that some might say the Westminster confession of fa th was one, but it was not accepted by the Presbyterian Churches in its entirety. He then adverted to the prospects of contact between the Presbyterian and Episcopal Church rs, and alluding to the anxious wish of many in the Colony that such should be the case, he observed that some might imagine that the Bishop of Nelson and others were so anxious for union that, if they were only let alone, they would fall into the arras of the Presbyterians ; but he must be excused saying he did not think they would. He poirted out that Episcopalianism was an organisation ‘ ruled by Synods, the resolutions of which were binding upon bishops and clergy. He considered it better than Presbyteries, and because the clergy in a diocese were better :o be under the supervision of one man than of many. Under one man, his conscience only was to be satisfied ; but if there were a number of supervisors, one man’s conscience was apt to bide itself behind those of others. However contrary to the practice, bis own private opinion was that the Clmrcb of England should receive ministers of other deno? urinations as ministers of the Gospel, and allow them to officiate in our churches, subject to ] rescribcd conditions. Reference to authorities since 1469 was made, and the hope was expressed that ultimately the points of difference would be settled, and ‘ the two Churches practically be merged into one. This was the more necessary on account of the attempts made by the Roman Catholic Church in many parts of the world' to fetter civil and religious liberty. People pointed to the Census, and showed that nu- ' uerically they were only one-tenth of the population, but what they lacked in numbers they supplied in tact. They were asking what was to be the limit of education? The Churches of Otago were asking what were to be the limits of Romanist claims and educational views? They were told chat even history was to be altered to please chem—that the most instructive page in England’s history was to be blotted out — that the Reformation was a mistake, and brought about by mixed motives ; an I that liberty of speech, of reading the Word of Cod in our tongue, and refusing to admit an agent between ourselves and the Mediator was wrong. He was willing to run the full ri k. of the consequences of the right of private judgment. He did not go in for ignor- 4 nit, but for well-informed private judgment, to which be was quite sure revelation might be left. With the ight of history in their memories, and the teaching of the Bible, in their hearts and consciences they could not go far wrong. The doctrines advocated by the Roman Catholics were dangerous to the liberties of the subject; for they held that the Church had power to punish departures from doctrine, and as such the Colonists ought to be thq last to support them. Let the Government give them their fair share of taxation and everything fairly claimed by them ; let the teaching of their children be insisted upon—; give them their fair share as citizens, but leM no part be taken in support of the dangerous ■ doctrine of punishment for ec desias deal jffences—of the p.i’secutiug power qf the Romish Church. In common with the Episcopalian Church, the Presbyterians would feel bound tp ire-ist this assumption, md the necessity for a common defence would be another link to bind the Churches . . , .aal

together. He ho;ied Otago would maintain the system of having the Word of God read in the schools. Where parents taught their children at home, it would assist them ; and where that was done, it was not a valuable means to religious truth. His Lordship concluded by expressing a hope that the points of difference between Presbyterianism and Episcopacy would be so lessened that by mutual concession they could act unitedly. The Rev. D. M. Stuart moved a vote of thanks to the lecturer, and remarked very peitmently upon the stranpe anomaly that it was necessary before permission of a Presbyterian clergyman to occupy an Episcopalian pulpit, that he should have to acknowledge he uas not a minister of the Gospel, after having dispensed the ordinances of the RrMbytcriaii Church for twenty-one years. He showed how in times past the Rev. Mr tontaine, of Waikouaiti, had worked in harmony with other churches, and the good that had resulted from it; and he hoped that this fellowship in Gospel teaching would be fostered until all merely nominal differences should cease. The Rev. A. Rfid seconded the vote of thanks, and commented upon the consequences of the right claimed by tbe Episcopalian Church, not to accept Wesleyan and other denominational teachers as authorised ministers as tending to prevent the spread of gospel teaching. He contended that from the numbers of Wesleyans in England and the colonies, should there be anyamalgamatiou between Wesleyans and Episcopal ians, the latttr being, on the whole, equally, if n it more numerous, was likely to absorb the Episcopalians, and not the Episcopalians them. . A vote of thanks to the chairman, proposed by the Lord bishop of Nelson, and carried by acclamation, closed the proceedin"s. In the course of the evening the remraks of the lecturer were frequently and heartily applauded.