TREE DISCUSSION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4529, 25 September 1875, Page 2

TREE DISCUSSION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, — I have read your article commenting on my speech at the Wesleyan Church anniversary, on Tuesday evening. If you had had before you, when you wrote that article, the whole of what I said, it would have been, X am sure, quite different both in matter and tone. In saying tills, Ido not cast the slightest reflection on the reporter or his report. I should be sorry to do so ; for the report was on the whole a full and fair one, as full as could be expected with the limited space at your disposal, and as fair perhaps as , a mere summary well could be. It is almost impossible to give, in such a condensed summary, the various explanations and modifications with whicli a speaker qualifies his statements. The report on which you found your strictures says that I “ referred at some length to a source of danger to the Christian profession of many to be found in the persistent attacks made by some of the Wellington journals upon Christian doctrine, and instanced certain correspondence on miracles, which had appeared in the leading journal in Wellington.” Now, I' do not think that is what I said, or the purport of It. Certainly it la not what I meant to say. But as I spoke quite extempore, and too rapidly. I may not have expressed myself clearly. I did not say that “persistent attacks had been made by some of the Wellington journals on Christian doctrine." There is a distinction between an attack made by a journal on Christianity, and an attack made in a journal. ' The latter I did say, not the former. My remarks were directed not at the views of the paper, but at the views, or rather the spirit, of some of those correspondents who favored us with their effusions in the paper. I said there was a source of danger to the Christian faith of many in the persistent attacks of certain individuals in the community—who seemed anxious to lose no opportunity of attacking Christianity—who wore ready on every occasion to rush into the newspapers with their smart letter, signed with some pretentious signature, as if they thought themselves the very embodiment of the thought and intelligence of the age, and witli a show of learning and argument, and often with much irreverence and sneering, assail the truth which as Christians we hold dear. Sensible Christian people do not care on all occasions to follow such writers into the newspapers, and there engage with them in religious controversy. Many think newspapers are not the best place in which to discuss religious subjects. I need not enter into the reasons for this opinion, but several very good substantial reasons could be given. You are mistaken when you allege that I seem to “ forget that truth loses nothing by inquiry and fair discussion;” and that I “ would not tolerate these lest it might shake the faith of tome young men.” I am not opposed to inquiry and fair discussion on any; subject ; but observation leads me to believe that the daily newspaper is not the place for calm inquiry and fair discussion on the most weighty and solemn subjects of human thought. That there are those in the present day—as, in tact, there have been in all times—who have earnest, honest doubts and difficulties in regard to the Christian faith, I know and admit; but these are not tho individuals who figure so largely in the newspapers with their smart letters and their high-sounding pretentions. I' arnest seekers after truth do not write in the strain of those letters to which I have referred. I was not brought up in a school which would not tolerate full inquiry and fair discussion, and I do not belong to such a school. I know tho truth has nothing to fear from such discussion. The whole drift of my speech on Tuesday evening was to enforce the precept, “Prove all things: hold fast that which is good.” To prove all things ; not to take anything upon trust from anyone, but to examine for themselves ; not to think that what was said in smart letters in the newspapers Was all that could he said on any subject; not to run away with the idea that because dilttculties and objections there stated were not on every occasion answered, that therefore they could not ho answered; that anyone who thoroughly knew the subject knew that these had been met and answered a thousand times before. Not, therefore, to take their opinions from smart letterwriters who sneered at the Christian faith, any more than from ministers who preached it, but to examine the truth tor themselves, and not superficially, but to go down to the bottom of every subject—the deeper the better, the surer would be their foundation ; to search till they found the truth, and having found it, to grasp it and hold it firm and fast: thus to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good. The evil is that too many in the present day, instead of proving all things only seem to pride themselves on attacking all things ; and instead of holding fast that which is good, hold fast nothing. They would it they could sweep away tho foundations of our Christian faith and hope ; and what would they give us instead ? Nothing. They do their best to destroy, but they have .nothing to build up. May a gracious Providence preserve us from so destructive a system, from a system which would sweep away if it could the best hopes and consolations of humanity which would bereave us of all Unit makes life really noble and blessed, and which would make both tho present and the future so dark and so cheerless. As to the other matter referred to in your article, you certainly have quite a wrong impression of what I did say. It. was far from ray intention to condemn all public amusements, and I am not aware that I said anything which could have implied such sweeping condemnation. On the contrary, I said' that ‘innocent amusement was a right and proper thing, that our nature was designed for enjoyment, and that I could not understand or sympathise with the man who could not enter into it. And I spoko with the highest approval of the Choral Society, to which I am a subscriber, and whoso concerts 1 always thoroughly enjoy. And musical and literary entertainments in connection with my own or other congregations I heartily encourage, as affording the means of spending a pleasant and not unprofitable evening. You are certainly mistaken if you think that in regard to all healthful recreation and enjoyment 1 am anything of a cynic. ‘ , , But what I did condemn was that passion which too many seem to have for going night after Eight to theatres, and balls, and other entertainments of that class; so wholly giving themselves up to a life of mere pleasurable excitement, and so foolishly squandering their money, which might be more usefully spent. It is a fact well known to all of us that there are many people who seldom spend a quiet evening in their own homes, who are constantly on the run after some exciting pleasure, and who thus acquire a distaste for anything like sober rational enjoyment. And this is growing and spreading amongst us, and is having in many ways a most injurious effect. It tends to make character superficial, and to foster habits of extravagance and frivolity ; it lowers the moral tone, and it eats into and destroys all earnest Christian life. This is what I condemned, and these are the grounds on which I condemned it.—l am, &c. , James PATEnsoN.