Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 942, 11 May 1881, Page 2

Gisborne seems to be in bad odour with the Wesleyan clergymen. Some years ago the Rev. Mr. Smalley, (who, while on a visit to this district, occupied his leisure hours by a little amateur negro-minstrelsy), returned to Napier, and denounced Gisborne as the most immoral town in New Zealand. Then came the Rev. Mr. Isitt, on an insurance lecturing tour. Unfortunately it was bad weather at the time, and on his return to Taranaki, the local Press was filled with anathemas on the place generally, and the abominable habils of the people in particular. Now the Rev. Mr. Dellow, the present respected occupant of the Wesleyan Church pulpit in Gisborne, takes up the cry of lamentation and woe. This rev. gentleman denounces sabbath-break-ing, and very properly ; but he goes so far as to become responsible for stating that, foremost in the list of the places to be denounced for this religious crime stands the town of Gisborne. This may, or may not be correct; and it is not in our province to disprove the rev. gentleman’s assertion. Neither should we now even notice the fact, but that on Sunday evening last, during his denunciatory remarks on this subject, he invited secular animadversion by expressing his somewhat unnecessary disregard as to what “ either the Standard or the Herald might say ” in reference to his opinion. It is a well-known rule of newspapers that they avoid, as much as possible, any unseemly conflict with ministers of the gospel. And it has been our rule to shut out from our columns, the discussion of polemical subjects, or church matters generally, unless forced to admit them therein. In the exercise of a clergyman’s duty, he must be held to be indifferent to outside opinion. The Rev. Mr. Dellow, probably, cares as little for the Devil himself, as he does for the “Standard and Herald” put together ; but is it wise, causelessly, to step out of one’s way to defy him to open retaliation ? With regard to the Sabbatical notion

of what is “ Sabbath-breaking,” we offer no opinion; and we decline to enter upon a disputation—though inferentially challenged to do so—-which can have no good result; and from which, probably. Mr. Dellow would come off second best. Mr. Dellow

is understood to be an earnest, painstaking pastor; one much esteemed by his own congregation, and held in popular favor by those outside the communion of his church. But ho must not forget that there are “ parsons and parsons,” some of them as bigoled, and contracted in their views, as ever declaimed from a rostrum ; and whose inner, and every day life would as little stand the light of day as some of their parishioners. These gentlemen think that going to church twice on a Suliday ; and making long prayers in the nmeting-house, whose praise is that of men, is not “Sabbathbreaking;” and that if these things are not strictly observed, their congregation must be engaged in some act of wickedness. I’here is no via media with them. Either a person must don his broad phylacteries and go to church ; or, if he takes a ride or a walk instead, he is surely riding or walking straight to the Devil.

Whatever the pulpit utterances, as to what really constitutes breaking the Sabbath, may be, there is no denying that the march of modern theological thought, has completely upset the old

school of priesthood interpretation, as to how a man can conscientiously spend his “Sunday,” without desecrating the “ Sabbath ;” and as far as the mere fact of going to lhe churches of the present day, is concerned, we offer our opinion that, within their walls, there is, yu-o tala, more wickedness enacted in thoiujhf than there is, outside, in deed. But, whatever means clergymen employ to keep these evils xvithin proper bounds, that of defying the hostility of secular journals is not the best adapted to the success of their cause.