LECTURE.

Evening Star, Issue 3288, 3 September 1873, Page 2

LECTURE.

The Rev. William Gillies, of West Taieri, delivered a lecture in the Masonic Hall, last evening, in reply to that of Bishop Nevill on the true position of the Church pf England. The Mayor occupied the chair. Mr Gillies said he would make a few preliminary remarks. He had indicated by advertisement that his lecture would be in the way of reply to that of Dr Nevill, and the special title which he had therefore given to his lecture, was “ The true position of the Church of England, vindicated against that ascribed to her by Dr Nevill” At the same time he did not intend to make any attack upon Episcopacy, or upon the Church of England in general, but rather to defend her from a misrepresentation of her true position —hurtful to herself, and insulting to other Churches—and to set forth plainly what was her true position as regarded the especial point raised by Dr Nevill in her relation to other Churches. He did so in the interests of Christian charity and religion, and in order to prevent those heart-burnings, alienations, and strifes, which would inevitably result from the acceptance of Dr Nevill’s position by the Church of England. That gentlemen had, in his lecture, claimed the dogma of Apostolic succession for the ministry of his Church, setting that forth as the difference between that ministry and the socalled ministry of. other Churches, or rather sects ; for, taking up the position he did, Dr Nevill could not admit them as branches of the Church of Christ. Still with an inconsistency that did more credit to his heart than his head, he admitted that Christ was preached in some of those bodies. If Dr Nevill took up the above position, he had shown his inconsistency by accepting an invitation some months ago to visit the Synod of Otago and Southland in a fraternal manner. The question forces itself upon one’s mind—ls Dr Nevill a mere disciple of Rome on the dogma of Apostolic succession, or is it a new dogma of his Faith ? For it was evident that that gentleman’s mind swayed between faith and doubt. That dogma was one which many of the best in the Church of England had protested against, and it was strange, if the succession were so undeniable, that many of those said by Dr Nevill to possess it, should deny the profession, and protest that it never existed. On August 24, 1662, the cruel act of Uniformity was passed, compelling all the beneficed clergyment of the Church of England to be episcopally ordained, the result of which was to drive eat iat? thy

World 2,000 of the most godly divines—Mr Marsden, a Church of England writer, styling it a “melancholy triumph.” The lecturer then quoted from a large number of •writers, showing the recognition of the existence of a ministry without episcopal ordination in Scotland, and that the Church of England had never declared against the validity of uon-episcopal ordination. The fact was that the doctrine of Apostolic succession could be traced back to Archbishop Laud, of no very blessed memory, and in our own days this Laudism, which was the root of ritualism, and an approach to Popery, waa making great strides ; had even approached us here, but having given warning of its approach, the door of the < hutch of England had been shut in its face. Hr Nevill stated that Apostolic succession could be traced back to St. Paul and St. Poter ; but what a humiliating position to be placed in to have to trace one’s pedigree in the manner that an owner of racehorses will endeavor to discover the strain of blood in his animals! After quoting Archbishop Whately, to the effect that “ There is not a minister in all Christendom who is able to trace with any approach to certainty hia own spiritual pedigree,” the lecturer said he would conclude with the words of Dr Hamilton : “ This figment of clerical caste, or exclusive prelaticor Apostolic succession, which the Church of England took on board when it turned out the Puritans, is the magnetic disturber which makes useless the compass, and baffles tbe most skilful of pilots. Besides all the bigotry it creates on one side, and all the bitterness and heartburning on the other, it gives to the old ship a steering so bizarre and bewildered —at one time back toward? the enchanted shores of Popery, at another straight for the breakers of Rationalism—that looking at its unaccountable course, the spectator might bo apt to imagine the helmsman asleep, or half seas over; or he might imagine that a civil war had broken out on board, and that the mariners and cap tain were in alternate possession of the tiller,” The rev. gentlemen, whose lecture was frequently interrupted by applause, spoke with great energy and even heat, at one time expressing his regret that he could not reproduce the tones of Dr Nevill’s voice and the accompanying gesticulations when delivering bis lecture. The Rev. Dr Stuart proposed a vote of thanks to the lecturer, saying that it was a noble effort, but that ho was sorry to observe the personal nature of some of his remarks, as in his (Hr Stuart’s) opinion, “the good Bishop had only, perhaps unintentionally, misrepresented the position of his own Church." A vote of thanks to the Chairman concluded the proceedings.