THE TEACHING OF THE MISSION.

Waikato Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2102, 29 December 1885, Page 3

THE TEACHING OF THE MISSION.

TO THK KDirOK. Sir, — I notice in your is>ue of the 2lth inst , three letters having reference to tin* subject. Will you accept my apology for inflicting a furthei contribution ? Let me preface my remarks by noting a striking peculiarity common to e.ieb of the writers of these three letteis. It is this. They are all perfect! y satisfied tliat wli.it Dr. Maunsell aiysisiiglir, andth.tt what Mi Mason says is quite wrong. So simple and easy a thing it is to agree w ith a man whose Views coincide piccisely with your own. Now, let me biiefly icwcw these throe letter* in order. And, first, as to the Key. J. S. B<>yd"s reply to Mr Mason. Here we have a laboured, and not altogether success ful, effort to vindicate the Piesb\ tenansys tern of Church government. I say not altogether successful, because the sum and substance of what Mr Boyrl has to s.iy is merely a reitet.vtion of the stock arguments on the point. He adduce* nothing new. The whole question has so long Miite and so often been fully disposed of, that it is really hardly worth while rp-openmg it at the pte-ent juncture. But since on<i or two of Mr Boyds arguments «re calculated to mislead the casual reader, it may be as well to direct them a little. For instance in Section II (The Ministry), he quotes Bishop Lightfoot thus, "as late as the year 70, no distinct signs of Episcopal Government appeared in Gentile Christendom." That h to say foi about the first 33 years of the Church's history. Now, dm ing the whole of this time, the one sole Supreme Government is the Apostolic, with the exception of the Church of Jerusalem. S. Paul, to whom wan entrusted the care of the Gentile Churches suffered m.utyrdom A.I). o'3, and by the middle of the next century the ■very memory of any other foim of government but Episcopacy was unknown to such men as Ire minis, Bishop of Lyons, m 177, and to Tertnlhan, who w is b >tn about the year 1,30, that is, just about 80 odd yeais after S. Paul's death. If, therefore, S. Paul had organised a Piesbytenan system to regulate, after his death, theu/F.uts of tin 1 Cburchea lie had founded, he must have done it in so loose and slovenly a fashion that it speedily became unwoikable, and had to be superseded by something else. Perhaps that is what Mr Boyd means when lie tells us that Piesbyteiy preceded Episcopacy, and that the latter is a meie outgrowth of the former. Judging of S. Paul's character from his Pastoral Epistles he appears rather a shrewd, fai-seunar and withal » very careful man in his mode of doing business ; a man not at all likely to make such a complete mess of things as thnt. Then, again, m Sec. 111. (the S.ici.iments) To follow Mr Bojd here involves newspaper discussion on a point of doctnne, and I can therefore only quote one statement of his which I d>> not even pietend to understand. " Continuation," he says, " WeW a part of the ceiemony of Baptism in the early Church ;" and then, he adds, "but we have now.virant foi it in Scnpture." This is quite too "technical" for me. Now let us see w hat your corie»pondent "Broad Chmchman" bus got to say foi himself. Well, mthefiist place that the newspaper is tho »>nly medium for discussing Uocti inal questions. To me, it appeal * just a*, contrary to the eternal fitness of things as it is to get np a concert and dance in aid of the funds for a cemeteiy — a thing rfx^ntljr Ameat Hn.itlv But if ''Broad Churchman" thinks ! otherwise, why on eaith doesn't he undertake the refutation of Mr Mason's teaching, What's the two of his dodging behind Dr. Maunsell, and fiom that secuie position extolling the ability displayed by tho veuei.ible gentleman lii telling us that that the teaching of the Missioner is diametrically oppomto to the teaching of the Prayer- Book. It lequties no great amount of ability to say that much. But it would requiie a lot of ability to substantiate the statement. And this Di. Maunsell, though pressed, has not been able to do. It in quite curious how the perusal of "Broad Churchman's" letter awakens reminiscences of fourteen or fifteen yeats ago. English papers in those days used to reek with just such letters as his. And now, hero we aie again, with the same old Latitudmariau Shibboleth, "Sound an alarm ! the Church is in danger !" I am positively disposed to agreo with Froude in his opinion quoted by " Bioad Churchman," that "Protestantism may revive if only it can recover the spint that gave it birth " (there in much viituc in that "if "). Very well. Then, here i-, Mi Gladstone's description of the condition of the Chuich after, say, three-quaiteis of a century under ProtestantvinHuence. Writing in the Contemporni y Review (October, 1874), ho gays:— "The actual state of things as to worship was bad beyond all parallel known to me in experience or leading. Taking together the expulsion of the poor and labouimg classes, the mutilation of the fabrics the baldness of the service, the elaboiate hoiroih of the so-called music, and above all the coldness and indifference of the lounging and sleeping congiegatioii, our f<ei vices were probably without a paiallel in the world for their debasement • * * anc l could hardly have been endured in thi> cnuntiy, had not the faculty of t.u-to and the peiCoption of the seemly or unseemly been as dead as the spirit of devotion.' Now if "Protestantism" can only recover the spirit that gave it birth, that* about the uortof thing we may expect to sec revived. Froude goes on to say that " Religion mny yet be separated from opinion and brought back t<> life." I will go farther than Froude, and say that religion has been brought back to life in .suite of opinion, and that, too, ni.n'nly by men of the stamp of Messrs M.iM>n and B^dington. If "Broad-chuichman " wants proof of this let him contrast Mr Gladstone's description of things as they wpre with thing* as they me, and then ponder over the result. And when he has done that let him consider well under vvh.it lugimc John Wesley, Priest of the Church, was dm en out of it. \fter which, perhaps, ho had better keep silence. With regard to Mr Trewhcellar's letter, I have- read somewheie that it is in vain thn net is spread in the sight of nny bud. Mr Trewhcellar'-. attack might be woith something if it ware not directrd against points upon wh'ch I cannot fence with him. Mr Tiewhevllar ih, peihapn, justified in taking the Bible as "his only authority on nil matters connected with Christianity," but then he probably puts his own construction upon what he finds there. Would it not bo moie satisfactory if he adopted the views of men who long ago, from a mass of matter, sorted out what hencefoitli was to be Bible and what wasn't? Yours &c, Hark r.