Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4527, 23 September 1875, Page 2

It is seldom we find ourselves at issue, on any point, with the clergy as a body, or with any Minister of Religion individually. As a rule, we think it best to refrain from commenting upon their deliverances, unless the cause of truth, and what lies at the foundation of all truth, freedom of discussion, demands it. When such an occasion arises, however, we shall not betray our public trust by silence. Now, we conceive, such an occasion arose at the Manners-street Wesleyan Church anniversary meeting, as reported by us yesterday. We refer mainly to the remarks of the Rev. Mr. Paterson, directed against "some of the " Wellington journals," who are accused of making "persistent attacks upon "Christian doctrine; and he instanced '' certain correspondence on miracles which " had appeared in the leading journal " published in Wellington " —pointing to the New Zealand Times. He then went on, at some length, to criticise the correspondence in question, with which, heterodox or orthodox, we have nothing whatever to do. Mr. Paterson, however, appears to forget that truth loses nothing by inquiry and fair discussion. He would not tolerate these, if we understand him aright, lest it might shake the faith of some young man. He would only publish what is perfectly sound and orthodox, calculated to build them up in Christian doctrine. But who, let us ask, is to determine what is sound and what is unsound in Christian doctrine 1 Are ecclesiastics agreed among themselves ? Have they yet settled, to their own satisfaction, the simple question : " What is religious truth 1" ■ It would be absurd to say that after centuries of dogmatic teaching, the ecclesiastical order have agreed upon this common and absolutely essential platform. We do not say this out of any spirit of hostility, but simply to illustrate the untenable character of Mr. Paterson's position. It involves a censorship of faith and morals repugnant to the spirit and genius of Protestantism, which he stoutly champions. For what is the genius of Protestantism but the spirit of free inquiry. Stop that, interfere with it in any way, and the work of the Reformation, about which so much has been spoken and written, is undone. Doubtless Mr. Paterson does not wish to go this far; but if his argument is good for anything it cannot stop short of it. He has taken his ticket and must go to the terminus. There is no way-station or loop-line in logic. Speaking as journalists, we deny that the reasonable discussion on the subject of miracles, on which both sides were heard, was any attack whatever upon Christian doctrine. And we say further, that the faith of any man, young or old, that could be shaken by such a discussion is not worth much. Men of strong faith, of settled convictions, are men who have not shrunk from considering the difficult problems of life and immortality, and this every Minister of the Gospel should be aware of. The faith which is nurtured in a dogmatic forcing-house is neither vigorous nor enlightened. We respect the religious scruples of our fellow-men as much and more than the bulk of those who would stifle inquiry. A glance at the Spectator, or any high-class English newspaper, will be sufficient to show that the leaders of thought in England do not go with Mr. Paterson, or hold with the language which he uses touching the most difficult and debateablo points in the whole catalogue of the evidences of Christianity. Nay, further, it will satisfy any impartial person, that in opening our columns to the limited extent we havo done on this subject, we were following the precedent set by journals of pronounced orthodoxy. Indeed, we might quote from a brother clergyman at the same meeting, as furnishing a reply in full to Mr. Paterson. Tho Rev. Mr. Ogo referred to the highly acceptable and edifying roports of sermons delivered in the Manners-street Church, which appeared in our columns ; and wo might refer to our report of the anniversary meeting itself, concurrent with a long parliamentary report brought down to half-past three on the morning of publication, to prove that, as a public journal, the New Zealand Times makes a special point of doing the opposite of that of which Mr. Paterson accused it of doing.

We desire to ; be plain in this matter. We recognise the responsibility of our position as ; public journalists, and we shall not submit to misrepresentations from any quarter, by words however lightly spoken, which are calculated to create a false impression. We have no quarrel with the clergy, and we desire to have none ; but the pulpit has become a fair subject for criticism, _ and should necessity arise we shall criticise it quite as freely as we would do anything else. With regard to the other point raised by Mr. Paterson touching public amusements, we have a single word to say. Men will frequent places of amusement, more or less innocent, so long as there are no other means of gratifying their natural craving for pleasure and enjoyment It is the duty, therefore, of the spiritual guides of the people to take such a part, in relation to places of public amusement, as will tend to elevate the taste and improve the morals of the people frequenting them. This will not be accomplished, however, by turning their backs upon the theatre or concert room. A great deal might be done by example, as well as by precept, to raise the standard of public amusements in our midst, and we commend this side of the question to the consideration of Mr. Paterson, and gentlemen who think with him on this matter.