Methodist Ministers Reply.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 405, 2 July 1908, Page 3

Methodist Ministers Reply.

(to the editor). Sir, —In reply to the Anglican Vicar’s letter in your last issue, I am sorry that he has taken the view he has of the action of both myself and Mr Aitkeu. I can asssure him it was with no feeling of bitterness towards his church that I adopted the course I did. I respect and acknowledge the Anglican Church so long as the spirit of our Common Master controls it; it is.a true church and every clergyman whose words and actions are controlled by that same power is in the true Hue of Apostolic succession. After reading his sermon, however, I felt it a duty which I owed to my own people to assure them that although not belonging to the Anglican-fold they could nevertheless be members of Christ’s great and universal church. I am sorry that our friend fails, in my judgment, to incorporate in his own life and teachings those larger views of unity and brotherhood which characterise some of the saintly leaders of his own and other churches. The Bishop of Stepne}” a few months ago addressing a working men’s meeting said : That the call, “ Wanted, men!” had appealed to the eye if not to the heart and

conscience of most people in Ramsgate. Men were wanted for a great business—the business of bringing the whole of human life personal, civic, industrial, political, national, and imperial—into the Kingdom of God, so that it might be purified, deepened, and strengthened, and, therefore, in the truest sense, saved for ever. That was the great task for which men were wanted. Not merely clergymen, but all men who had been called to the ministry, not by Ordination, but by Baptism. Those stupid ideas about a man who was ordained going into the Church as though he were not already there, and bad been there since bis Baptism, and about any man who chose to throw himself into the active interest of his Church being clerical, as if the interest and concerns of the Church belonged to the clergy any more than to the laity—those stupid ideas must be banished from the minds of Churchmen. In other words there ought to be no such thing as a baptised man who was not also a minister and servant of Jesus Christ. This is what i call catholicity of spirit. Dean Farrar, shortly before his death, speaking upon a Methodist platform, and eulogising Wesley’s Ijfe and work said : “ My own diminutive stature is not such as to enable me to place a wreath upon his forehead, but I lay it humbly upon the lowest part of the pedestal on which his statue stands. I am proud to be here to give my humble tribute, not of praise, for he was far above it, but of simple admiration for his great and glorious work. To him the Church of England owes an immeasurable debt, because he revived it from deadly topor and shameful inefficiency.

With regard to the vicar’s challenge to debate so important and sacred a subject, respectfully decline. I ask: What are we to understand by a man’s belief? Do we understand by it simply those things of which he has an intellectual conception? Does that amount to a belief? That which touches a man not merely through a cold perception but through some warm feeling, is the kind ol truth the Scripture teaches to constitute belief. The Anglican vicar knows that such is not the case with all kinds of truth—physical, scientific,! arithmetic —deals with truths which have no relation, directly, except with the understanding. Such truths never come with desire, sorrow, sympathy, or emotion of any kind. Truths that relate to moral duties never stop with the understanding, but touch the feelings as well. Until I can feel a kindlier sympathy towards those who are trying to extend the Kingdom of Righteousness, and a fuller recognition of the Christian brotherhood, I feel sure a debate would be of little profitYours etc., Peter J. Mairs.

fro THE EDITOR.] Sir, —In your report of the meeting of the ratepayers of the Moutoa Drainage Board, held on the 18th of this month, you state “that the Chairman showed by figures how impossible it would be to rate on the basis suggested by Mr Edwards.” Doubtless it is the custom of the press to put as good a face on such proceedings as is possible, but to go the length of stretching a mere empty assertion into a fact, is to exceed safe lines to the extent of creating an erroneous impression in the minds of your readers. That the Chairman attempted to show that the law is an ass, is correct, but that he proselytise one of thejaudience is quite contrary to fact. It was manifest that the Chairman, in his position, had the sympathy of those present, and probably nothing more would have been heard of the incident. I, however, in the interests of your readers, to many of whom this is a serious question, so much so that it will not permit ol being trifled with, cannot allow the error to remain uncorrected. The true account is that the Chairman, in attempting to rebut my argument in support of classification of the rating areas, used some figures without any given basis, but subsequently said that he was muddled. The rest of his arguments were to the effect that someone had told him that classification was not satisfactory in other Boards, which prima facie is absurd, as it is merely an ex parte statement, and if true, could only be due to the administration of the law and not the principle of the statute. In conclusion, sir, allow me to say in all my experience I have never seen or heard of public business attempted to l- connected in the way the Moutoa Drainage Board is desirous of commencing, and I would warn those interested that if it continues there will be serious trouble. —Yours etc, Robert Edward [Mr Edward’s letter is amusing, and judging by his attitude and monopoly of discussion at the meeting of ratepayers, at which we hold he had no legal right to be present, it would be impossible to convince him on any point—and we are not going to try. The ratepayers of the drainage area can rest satisfied that the Board has fully considered the whole drainage scheme and loan proposals, and being men of honour will Isee that everything is done on the most equitable basis and ; in the best interests of every ratepayer, Mr Edwards 1 notwithstanding.—Ed- H.]