SIR ARTHUR GORDON'S ADDRESS AT CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1340, 1 February 1881, Page 3

SIR ARTHUR GORDON'S ADDRESS AT CAMBRIDGE.

TO Tim EDITOR. Sir, — I cannot think you were quite fair in your criticism of His Excellency the Governor's address at S. Andrew's foundation in your leader of Tuesday last. In the first place you accuse him of contracting the Church of England in New Zealand with other religious bodies, and very markedly giving the palm to that churoh to the disadvantage of the others. Now, if I understood his Excellency aright (and his speech is still, before us in both Waikato newspaper*) there was no comparing whatever between the Church of England and any other religi- - ous body, The Governor's address on this occasion was an address delivered at a Church of Englaud ceremony at which, no doubt, members of ,roany other bodies (both Christians and others) were present, and gladly welcome ; and the unity of feeling which brought them there was fefer'red to 'by His Excellency '.in terms of the highest eulogy and satisfaction at the proper time in his address. Speaking then, at a Church of England religious ceremony, and' (himself ( himself a' Churchman. His Excellency spoke chiefly of that church, and 'of contrasts between daughter churches of that fchuroh and'that ohuron only. "He was reported indeed in the Waikato Mail to have used an expression namely that of " any modern ohurch," which' 'might', 'had, he u«edj'it," have been under-stood as haying's reference 1 beyoridi and outside the' Okurcb. of'feiglaud. But, asafac/; he did 'iot ,' v& 'this expression ; and you have here fastened" upoa thp bn\y error tW-T'can, flH# in 1 the singu}ariy full and accurate report' pi 'His Excellency's address whion '.appeared! in that paperJ Why yon should a^cbeptftnis ■ version of what His ExceU'eW'swl a '8 f th.e dorrecfc brie "is to me in'copipfeMMble,, seeing ( ypar, own reporter •' ''was present, and -reported' this passage at, ftijy P>ifa in v,er£ ( different ( iwords^^piir, own .co^rnnsj Wha-i Pty|bse]letsy did say YAB tUat^he,qlei?gy qj4l»a 'jjey.gea- ' land' 'churcK, would poh^pjty-e 1 favourably in some 'payilapniar£>witif /' the , clerey" >6f any^qther^limpQh similarly flijaated^stUl' .spe^kingfmmply^aiidJonlyjflf^gV^g^^^^ , cKurches^pflth* .Church

say that my. attention was drawn to it on the morning of its publication, and I called at the office and pointed it out, but omitted to | have 'an understanding that the correction shduld tie publicly made — an omission which 1 now regret. In the secoiuLpart of your article, if as appears to me, you accuse His Excellency of exalting revelation at :ihe expense of science, I am perfectly certain you again misinterpret him. He was commending the various Christian bodies for .that they had points of agreement as well as of disagreement, and congratulating them chiefly upon the fact that they held in common a very firm belief in a personal God. His Excellency held that such a belief made men more happy (and he expressed that belief) than those who do only balieve in a power, call it what you will. He was condemning uo form of thought but saying that he thought it a matter for great thankfulness for their own sakes that the various Christain bodies could believe not only in this power, but the humanity, the love, the self-sacrifice, the sympathy, the support, the protection, and the comfort of Him who wields it. He "was not contrasting those who believe in a real personal God with those who, also believe in a power which that God wields. Rather he was contrasting those who believe in in a real Personal God with those who disbelieve in Him. I maintain that there is this class of mind which is pictured by His Excellency, — a clabs of mind w Inch cannot accept the scientific definition of God without denying the testimony of Revelation— a class of mind which cannot believe in 'natural laws without rejecting the idea of a God who hears and answers prayer. That ckss of mind we should none of us. cnndomn, but many of us must deplore. I rejoice myself to think that already tho number is beginning everyday to grow of those who aie able to accept all that science from time to timo unfolds to us, without having to abandon one iota of our belief in the personality of the Creator. I would have much preferred that some other better qualified than myself should deal with this very deep subject ; but in the absence of such, and having to -write upon tho first part o * your article, I could hardly remain silent ou this second part. With regard to the concluding part of your article, I certainly cannot agree with, you that there is the least fear that His Excellency's address will lead any but the moat wilfully ignorant into trusting in prayer to the exclusion of work. If there ever were any body of clerery who advocated " fasting and humiliation" iustcadof "attention to sanitary regulations, " they must have been a, body very ignorant of the ways in which God works amongst men. Few cf us can be ignorant of the old French proverb, or of the truth to which it testifies, " Help thyself, and Heaven will help thee." Apologising for troubling 'you at so great length.— l am, &c, Wm. N. deL. Willis. The Parsonage, Cambridge, January 28, 1881. [The above letter should have appeared in Saturday's issue, but was unavoidably crowded out at the last moment. — En.]