Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 73, 29 May 1852, Page 6

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —I sincerely thank my friend Mr. Jacobs for his letter of May 22. As each of us is desirons of truth, 1 feel persuaded that this discussion will not, in the end, prove disadvantageous to either ; and if the truth shall* discover Itself on his side, I shall count defeat a benefit, and be the first to congratulate him on his victory. I also thank your correspondent R.T., "between whom aud myself there is not, I believe, so wide a difference as he seems to imagine. It has indeed been suggested to me that the correspondence on this subject should be dropped, on the ground that religions enquiry ought to be kept out of a newspaper. My answer is, Why should it be? Religion is a matter of every day life, and enters naturally into every channel of social and political communication. I will not therefore yield to this, or to any other one-sided conventionality of these times. Besides I have a duty to perform in maintaining a ground, upon which many of my fellow christians stand along with me. For, Sir, I apprehend that we have not yet received our quietus And how does the matter stand at present? My excellent and revered friend Mr. Jacobs states openly enough that Church franchise " existed only by virtue of communicancy," and if asked where he finds this out, he refers us to the passages in which Christians are spoken of as voting because they were Brethren ; thereby, I conceive, meaning that the terms Brother and Communicant are exactly convertible—that they define each other. And at this point I pause for an instant, to remind.him that the question at issue is the validity ef a scriptural reference: to wit, whether there is, or no, any scriptural precedent to be found for affirming that the franchise qualification ought to rest upon a certain Sacramental Basis. In our, enquiry, therefore, it will perhaps be advisable to confine ourselves to the book—to the document before us. We are not yet arrived at the stage of Ecclesiastical or Lay history. Now by the word "Communicant," I understand Mr. Jacobs to mean, a habitual partaker of the blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; and this is its signification in our ordinary parlance. But in this signification, can it be said that the word Communicant does or ever did define ' Brother'? How can it? Such communicancy being only one act out of many which constitute the common Brotherhood or Communion of Christians. Such a definition is no more exhaustive of the term Brother, than the well known definition " cooking animal" is exhaustive of the term 'man.' If my friend affirms the sacrament in question as a condition ; (taking that side of my alternative) surely he will not deny that there were other conditions also. Now what is there in the bible to lead us to assign it a separate place above the rest? I mean : if we are to establish a condition of Franchise now, it appears either, that all these spiritual acts must go together to form one; or, if it be necessary to make a* particular selection, the selection must be made on general grounds including History and the circumstances of our times, with which we have at present nothing to do. At any rate I find no precedent, in the verses originally quoted by Mr. Jacobs from the Acts—why he should select the Lord's supper: I find nothing in that Book to warrant or determine such a selection. Why select the Lord's Supper more than the Creed ? Again, did I mean to quote " the favour of all the people" as standing upon the same footing, absolutely, as such Acts as the " Breaking of Bread" and "Prayer"? Is it possible to have been so misunderstood ? My obvious meaning was and is, that, in the pass;ige of scripture to which I followed my friend, all the acts and privileges specified in those verses stand together upon the same footing,— for all the service, that any one of them singled out from the res! will render to his argument. But is it not really true, that all essential spiritual acts aud duties, went together in Aposio ie times, as elements, to imike up the condition of Christian privilege ? One was not enough. I have no doubt that Simon Magus partook of the Lord's Supper. As a condition of Church Franchise now-a-days, I would, therefore, ask for none, of them, but only for a simple declaration. And now having.given the items of debate, I leave it to your readers, Sir, to sum up a balance for themselves. But further I am charged v/ith having taken

a low and worldly ground when I ask your readers to examine " what there is in the nature of a spiritual act to guarantee the sound exercise of a mere act of common judgment" ? " Where then" (asks my friend) «' is the use of introductory prayers"? May they not be of the nature of a 'Grace' But whatever their use is ; can they be said to be guarantees of sound thought, anymore than a grace before meat can be regarded as a guarantee of the goodness of the fare ? which perhaps may be the case. As to the question, " Are we to rely upon our common judgment ?" it will be time enough to enquire, when we have decided upon what matters our judgment is to be exercised, until our scheme and plan of constitution takes shape; and I will hazard a prophesy that the decision of our much-vexed " Franchise" question will depend entirely upon what our plan turns out to be : for instance, whether our church assembly is to be legislative, or executive, or both, or a little of both, or neither. As to the very term Franchise, it is dangerous, because ambiguous. Introduced among us by I know not whom, we must now, I suppose, pass it for what it is worth (which I shall perhaps take some future opportunity of enquiring). But putting that aside, I need hardly say that I fully agree with Mr. Jacobs that Church Franchise ought to be co-exteusive with full adult male church membership ; while, on the other hand, I believe, history will show'us, that, in point of fact, the voice of the laity has been variously employed upon church matters. - The two questions which conclude my friend's letter, I shall endeavour to answer as briefly as possible. Ist, I disclaim all intention of appealing to any existing prejudices by making a long face about tests or qualifications now repealed by the wisdom of the British legislature. 2nd, I propose as acondition for the exercise of the churcli franchise, an answer in the affirmative to the following questions,—lst. Q. Have you been baptized into the church 1 Ans. To the best of my knowledge, I have been baptized. 2nd. Q. Do you receive and believe the truth as expressed in the Apostles' Creed ? Ans. I do. This is a simple statement upon the word of a Christian man, and not a spiritual act of any kind whatever. In conclusion, if there be in this letter one word calculated to interfere with the right position and influence of the church among us, may that word be altogether as if it had nerer been written. I beg to remain, &c, &c, Thomas Cholmondeley. May 25.