Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 70, 8 May 1852, Page 6

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sic, —Your correspondent of the 3rd of April, signing himself H. J., writes what appear to me an unsatisfactory letter. He evidently wishes to strengthen a foregone conclusion; Having concluded that it would be advisable in the readjustment of our church constitution to restrict the power of the laity to the voices of those who are in the habit of partaking of the Blessed Sacrament, he seeks to fortify some unknown position behind a circumyallation of. Scripture tests. He begins with a general recommendation to study the book of the acts of. the Apostles, referring us particularly to eh. xv., which contains the record of the first christian council. The letter to the Churches which was the result of this council goes forth in the name of The Apostles, elders, and all the Brethren : The Apostles answering to our Bishops; the elders to our Priests; (though here the Presbyterians will have a crow to pluck with him), " the Brethren" answering to all the rest of the people. And important, doubtless, it is to mark the congregational unity of those early times, when ' Church' was not, as now, a word of doubtful meaning. The Brethren then had their voice in all the deliberations of the little flock of christian folk. And we know, he says, that in those times all the Brethren (i. c. all christians) were communicants. They were so indeed : and would to God they were so still! Most true : " a learned judge"! But where does he find that they voted because they were communicants ? How does he make out that this ancient and most undoubted right passed in virtue and by condition of communicancy ? Is there one tittle of evidence to show any substantial connection between ' voting' and ' communicancy?' except only this, that the same people did both. And Sir, they did other things besides, and possessed other advantages over us, as he, that Qonsidereth, may learn from the 2nd chapter of the same Acts, (to which indeed H. J. refers us.) —Here, verses 44-5, we find that " all that believed were together, and had all things common ; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." Was this then another condition by complying with which they became voters? Again, verse 46 " daily with one accord in the temple." Was daily service another condition ? And again, as a final testimony to the supernatural character of the time, v. 47, " having favour with all the people:" which those, I fear, Will never have, who seek, under a vain shadow, to saddle upon the highest act of christian communion the burden of a constituency qualification. Why, either each of these acts and privileges were alike conditions, or not one of them was «ingly and in itself a condition : for they all stand exactly upon the same footing in the Holy book referred to. But if IT. J. denies that be meant to affirm communicancy as a condition of Church Franchise in those times, what becomes of his precedent for making it a Condition now? Choose which side be will, I defy him to escape the double edge of this al-

teruative. But the error into which he has fallen is obvious enough. It consists in what Logicians would call the substitution of a ' sequitur' for a ' simul;' or, in other words, a mistaking of ' cause and effect' for simple coexistence. An excellent intention has led to an unintentional sleight-of-hand upon the texts in question. Thus much for H. J's. scriptural reference; which as a case in point is not in my humble opinion worth a nutshell. But inasmuch as the beautiful tone and spirit of his letter makes me regret being obliged to differ with him as to the validity of his reference, I beg, as a peace-offering to supply a reason (he has not given one) why even a valid appeal to Holy writ is by no means conclusive upon matters of this kind. For he, very justly,"confines himself to the plea of ' general recommendation.' Agreeing with him most fully in this respect, let us see why he has not understated the value of his lesson. We all know that Christianity resolves itself into two great divisions, internal or spiritual ; external or temporal; the first head includes the word of God, the sacrament, creeds, &c, in short all the inner organization of the Church : the second represents ceremonies, services, customs, &c, in short all the outward machinery of the Church. The first then, being the counsel of God Himself, is unchangeable: tbe second, being human wisdom, may undergo change— may differ in different countries, and according to circumstances. Church Franchise obviously belongs to the second. It is, therefore, a question of time, place, and circumstance: in all which we stand upon very different ground from that of the first christians. We are, therefore, not bound by their practice, from the very nature of the subject matter, and (that being so), other influences coming in, reduce its value to a single precedent; and nothing more. When we consider along with this how men's thoughts work onward with the process of the Heavens, and that the Church has power to impress the full measure of whatever strength and beauty the earth manifests into her master's service; we can comprehend how amid all her temporal changes she substantially maintains the very same spiritual Being, just as the unchanged spirit of my friend looks forth upon me, the self-same ancient kindness albeit through altered lineaments. Only let not the Bible, let not the congregational customs of antiquity be called up for the purpose of narrowing the basis of our operations. Let not * the letter' be quoted against ' the spirit.' Let not the rich mine of God's mercy be ransacked in order that its pure gold may be beaten into chains wherewith to shackle the immunities of His own People. I speak strongly, for I feel deeply, inexpressibly, interested iii the great church movement now going on among us. It may lead to a great religious revival. Let it be as free and extensive as possible: it will be none the weaker on that account, and if any one doubts the truth of what I have affirmed concerning the Church details hereinabove alluded to, let me refer him to the articles of religion in the Prayer book, Art. xix., Art. xx., and Art. xxxiv., and to that chapter in the introduction to the Prayer book, entitled, " of ceremonies," and let me assure him that, even among the Roman Catholics, customs and "matters of discipline" (as they term them) have differed greatly, and still do differ; e.g. Gisalpene from Transalpine ; and even Milanese from Roman. Though greatly trodden down since the terrible council of Trent, still there is more of liberty among the Churches which follow the Roman teaching than we Protestants are apt to imagine. And now, Sir, in conclusion, let me remind my readers that this letter is chiefly of a negative complexion ; nor will my space allow me to enter into a positive examination of the Church Franchise question, however much I desire it. I am, however, ready-; and only wait for the proper time and place. But, in order to indicate the direction whereabouts the truth may be discovered, let me propose two simple questions to the consideration of your readers. Ist. What does the term " Church Franchise" mean in itself, and what does it imply ? 2nd. What is there in the nature of a spiritual act to guarantee the sound exercise of a mere act of common judgment? Let us clear our head of cobwebs by way of a beginning; at present we resemble a number of men groping about in a dark room in search of they know not exactly what. I might sign myself " Communicant," in order to show my friend " H. J." that there are

communicants who by no means relish the thought of a Lords-Supper test; but, disliking anonymous letter writing, I beg to declare nvyself your attached reader, T. Cholmondeley. May 3rd, 1852.