THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1894. HERESY HUNTING.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2623, 20 February 1894, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1894. HERESY HUNTING.

Herbsy-hvjnting is an institution which has never enlisted our sympathy. Such heresy-hunting as is instituted, probably two or three times a year, by Mr A. 0. Begg, of Dunedin, has always appeared to us a 3 extremely ridiculous. The Church to which Mr Begg belongs claims to be the mpst democratic, the most progressive, aud the most enlightened religious organisation on earth; yet no Pope, no Bishop, no Grand luquisitor, ever showed a greater want of tileration for any deviation from accepted tenets. But the heresy-hunt which has resulted in the Rev. Mr McNeil, of the Thames, being dismissed from his parish, and from the ministry of his Church, is altogether different from anything of the kind which has hitherto come under our notice. Iu all other heresy-hunts with which we have had auy acquaintance the offence consisted in some expression of opinion considered to be at variance with the doctriue laid down by the founders of that Church about 250 years ago, but in the Thamos case a clergyman who has. undertaken to preach and teach Christianity has openly espoused a form of religion which is entirely opposed to it. This is not a case of whether Mr McNeil is right or wrong, The question is : Is he teaching the religion which he undertook to teach, and f r which he receives pay. la he carrying out the contract into which he entered 1 It is absolutely plain that he is not. No man. can serve two masters, and no man can properly preach Presbyterian ism and believe in Theosophy. The two forms of religion are as distinct as chalk and cheese. Theosophy iB a system of philosophy so abstruse and so mystical that it is next to impossible to understand it; indeed, it may be that therein lies the fascination it possesses for its votaries, for many people like what must remain a mystery to them. There is, according to some of the Theosophißts, a God, and behind'this a Godhead, which is not knowable, and which does not know itself. Hegel and Spinoza held that the Universe was an evolution of the Divine Essence, and that there is no world beyond this which we see ground us. Boeheme makes the Godhead referred to already as the " Eternal Nothingness," " The Essanceless Quiet." Then he has something about God being the Father, and the Eternal Nature the Mother of all things, and regards Creation as an eternal process which is still going on. It is useless to go through the list of Theosophißts and their ever-varying speculations. No one can profit by speculating on the existence of " Eternal Nothingness," and " Essenoeless Quiet," or a "Godhead whioh does not know itself." Madame Blavatsky gave a great impetus to Theosophy in recent years, but she has grafted on the speculations of the West the mytticism of the East. According to a note in The Press, Mrs Beaant, who is one of her disciples, has stated the system as follows : " One of its cardinal teachings, us stated by Mrs Besant, is that there are seven stages of cosmioal evolution, aspects of the Divine consciousness, corresponding with whioh are seven stages of human evolution, aspects of the human consciousness, by each of which men oan have knowledge of the corresponding cosmio state. Those in man are distinguished as (1) Atmu, pure spirit, one with the universal spirit; (2) Buddhi, the vehicle of Atma and inseparable from it, sometimes spoken of aa the spiritual soul; (3) Manas the mind, the Qgo or individualising principle, sometimes called the rational or human soul. These three are the immortal pirt of man, Manas striving for union with Buddhi, such union making the spiritual ego, the spiritual man perfected. The remaining principles form the perishable part of man. These ore (1) Kama, the emotions, passions, and appetites; (5) Prana the vilality; Linga Sharira, the astral double ; and (7) Shthula Sharira, the Physiol body. In a/ way faQ abstruse to be explained here, ifc is taught that human evolution is carried pn by a series of reincarnations, the agent in progress being the Manas." We do not profess to know much about Theosophy, for.to us ft appears, its Godhead,' f unknowable,'' and what astonishes us is, that there should be a widespread sympathy with M? McNeil in the attitude he has taken up. In the city of Auckland an address of sympathy signed by 1335 persons has been presented to him, This address talks of the persecution £o wh}.ch he has been subjected being more fitted to the olden times thai} to the close of the 19th century. It also talks about the numbers who are driven piit of the Churches; the educated men Who pefuqe $q onter the ministry, aud winds up with "the sacred pause of trutft and liberty." The reference to Truth is at ai»yrate charmingly unsophisticated. Preaohing as a Presbyterian minister while associating with Theosophists and inculcating their doctrine, is a peculiar way of promoting the truth, The Rev, Mr McNeil is by all accounts a very good man, and tho very fact that he is sacrificing his means of living denotes that he is sincere, but he had no right to remain iu charge of his pastorate after his opinions had changed, and the Church authorities could not do less than expel him.

CORRUPTION. Tub unseating of Mr Monk, the Conservative member for Waitomata has caused the Conservative Press to indulge n a doleful wail. Thoy say that Mr .Monk did nothing but what every mombor does, the difference being that the other members have not boon found out, is tbU the way they would have spoken.

had Mr Monk been on the other side of the House 1 No. They would have delivered scathing denunciations of the corrupting influences which " the Seddon crowd " exercised to get into Parliament, and treated us to beautiful homilies on the desirability of keeping such men out of power and place. How different is the tone of their criticism when the culprit is one of their own chosen few. We can, however, derive a consolation from the fact that never has a Liberal been unseated for any act of wrong-doing in this colony, while on two or three occasions, if not more, Conservatives have had to pay the penalty of their misdoing. As regards Mr Monk, he and his friends seem to have acted very foolishly. Mr Monk was a prohibitionist candidate, yet he made—or rather his friends made—liquor flow like water. The Premier, in commenting on this fact, Bays that it is absolutely necessary to shut up the public-houses on election day, as poor men are placed at a great disadvantage in contesting elections with rich men. We thoroughly agree with Mr Seddon, and what has astonished us is that when it was proposed last session to closa public-houses on election day the majority of the members would not agree to it. In ail probability now, however, since Mr Seddon has taken the matter in hand, a law will be passed which will shut them up, and if so it will be a great blessing to candidates for Parliament. But if the public-houses are to be shut up it is necessary to go a step farther, and make it illegal for anyone to give any intoxicating drink to an elector on the public highway, in a private house, or anywhere within the electorate. The shutting up of the public-houso* would not prevent urinking. Thoae who desired to corrupt the eleotors would find other means of supplying it. The Christchurch Press appears to be very much annoyed over the Monk episode. It says that Parliament stands sadly in want of purifying, and the remedy it suggests is to abolish Party Government. We cannot see how that would purify Parliament. History is entirely in favor of the opposite view. Before the institution of proper Party Government in England corruption ran riot, but the more Party Government has been developed the purer are British politics. It is not necessary for us to enter more deeply into this question, more especially as we did so iu a recent article, but we cannot help noticing that the Conservatives are very anxious to abolish Party Government now when their own party has vanished into thin air. We never heard of such a suggestion as the abolition of Party Government coming from the Conservatives until recently. However, the present Government are entirely opposed to the abolition of Party Government, and consequently it is unlikely that any change will take place, at any rate for the next three years. The unseating of Mr Monk will do good; it will open the eyes of the public to the fact that candidates for Parliament must be careful, and consequently so much will not be expected from them in the future as has been exacted from them in the past. There is nothing to a candidate for Parliament more disgusting than the way people endeavor to fleece him during the time of the election. The moment a candidate announces himself letters pour in on him from all parts of the district asking him to subscribe to this, that, and the other thing, and everyone who has the slightest excuse tries to extract money from him. This is scandalous, and if the unfortunate yields to the importunities of these harpies he ought not to be punished for it. The people who ought to be punished are those who shamelessly worry the life out of him to get money from him, and wo trust that iu any amendment of the Corrupt Praotices Act these people will not be forgotten. All the corruption begins at home. Before Parliament can be purified the constituencies must begin at home, and cease to prey upon unfortunate candidates. There is where the whole thing begins, and anyone desirous of going to the root of the evil must make it an offence for anyone to canvass a candidate for Parliament for subscriptions to anything during the time of the election.