DR. HOSKING'S CANDIDATURE.

Waikato Argus, Volume VII, Issue 510, 7 November 1899, Page 3

DR. HOSKING'S CANDIDATURE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir.—ln your lust Thursday's issue you reprint a letter from the Rev. Dr. Morley which ap; eared in the Wesleyan newspaper, in which he criticises the action of rur last quarterly meeting (of which I am the chief officer) in passing a resolution wishing Dr. Hosking success at the polls, and as a good deal of political capital is being tried to be made out of the fact that Dr. Hosking's right (constitutionally) to contest the Waikato seat at the forthcoming general elections has been challenged by certain authorities iu the church I beg a little space to reply to Dr. Morley's letter for the purpose of enlightening your ro ders on the subj ut, and tn show that the church has "no c»jse" against Dr. Hosking, and couscqueut'y lias no right to interfere with his candidature, 1. Dr. Hosk'ng is not a Wesleyan minister, but u minister of the Methodist Chinch, of which the Wesleyans form a part by an amalgamation between the Free Methodists, Bible Christian Methodists, and the Wesleyan Methodists which it will be remembered, took place somo f'mr or five years ago. Therefore it appears to me to t e positively unfair to apply Wesdeyan rules to Methodist ministers; unless, of course, the said ministers were ordained by them or pledged themselves to accept them. Dr. Hosking says he v\as never ordained by the Wesleyan Conference, but by the Free Methodist Assembly ; and as the rev. gentleman was one of the committee to draw up the ple.u of union between the three denominations referred to, he ought to know what the basis of union was.

2. Even the Wesleyan Book of Laws, containing over 400 laws, does not prohibit a Wesleyan Minister from being a Parliamentary candidate. The ministers forming the amalgamation were never pledged to the Wesleyau laws, p.nd even if they were, there being no law on the Biibject the Wesleyans (or rather the Methodists—there are no Wesleyans now) have "no case" against the Doctor. When there is no law, precedent is generally taken, but as the church even has no precedent for or against Dr. Hosking's actions, it has not a leg to stand on. Mr Morley threatens to bring the matter up before the next Conference, aud if he does it will be a knotty point to decide kow far a law that does not exist is binding upon a minister. 3. The complaint, I understand, made against Dr. Hosking is that he is likely to neglect his work. Whoever heard of a man being punished for a crime he_ is likely to commit. Again, arc the duties of a minister defined ? How many hours a day is he supposed to work ? How many meetings must he attend ! Some ministers have leisure for recreation, some for one thing, and some for another, and if Dr. Hosking devotes his spare time to politics, it does not seem to me to concern anybody. 4. I contend it is useless to pray iu the Lord's Prayer " Thy Kingdom Come " unless we do something to bring it about. This applies more particularly to ministers of the gospel ; it is their duty to look after people for this world as well as the world to come. It must be admitted that during the last nine years the Seddon Government have done more than any preceeding Government to ameliorate the masses and make the people generally more prosperous and happy ; therefore God's Kingdom on earth has been extended during the time of their regime, and as Dr. Hosking by supporting the Seddon Government, will have opportunities for further promoting God's Kingdom on earth, it certainly is his duty, as well as his privilege- to do so. Consequently the quarterly meeting was perfectly justified in wishing thp Doctor success at the polls, whatever Mr Morley or anybody else may say to the contrary notwithstanding. 5. It has been said that Dr. Hosking, by supporting the Seddon Government, compromises the church, i fail to see this. Unless a minister makes his pulpit a political platform which Dr. Hosking does not—l fail to see how he compromises anybody but himself. His opinions are taken for what they are worth, whether on politics or any other subject. Be that as it may, I would like all church people to read the last chapter of the book of James very carefully aud thoughtfully, and hope by their doing so it will enlighten them.—l am, etc., John Andrew, Circuit Steward Hamilton-Te Awamutu Circuit. P.S.—Since writing the above, I notice that (although Mr Morley us in the church taking sides in politics) by the last issue of the Methodist Advocate, the organ of the church, the Editor devotes about a column to a leading article, dealing with party politics, aud criticising the last session of Parliament. Such inconsistency appears to me to be a question of " Don't do as I do, but do as I tell you." Had the quarterly meeting passed a resolution condemning Dr. Hosking's actions, no doubt Mr Morley would have been in high glee over it, and why should we not pass one resolution as well as the other.—J.A.