THE TEACHING OF WE MISSION.

Waikato Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2103, 31 December 1885, Page 3

THE TEACHING OF WE MISSION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — I jun very much surprised at the tone and substanco of the letter of " Habet "' m Tuesday's Times. I appe.il to you, Sir, and your candid readers as to whether he answers any of the arguments contained in my letter of the previous issue. Contiadictions are easily made, and I fe-1 some what flattered by hia omitting to debate any of tho points brought foiwaid in my letter. I can stand a little eh iff. The main points I treated of weie as follows :— 1. The necessity of the Press to religious as well as to political freedom. 2. The contradiction of Mr Mason's definition of the Church to that of the Piayei-book. 3. The inability of nnny of the cleigy, e-petially the ritualistic, to cope w ith scepticism. 4. The danger of the Church from those who would destioy her latitude and toleration. 5. The Apostolic Succession. The first point " Habet " triumphantly crushes under his eminently logical teet by comparing it to " getting up a concert and dance in aid of tho funds fora ceineteiy," but I must confess that I am unable to recognise the siniil*', metiphor, or whattnei it may be. I wonder if "Habet" hasevet assisted in getting up a bizaai with gambling, &.c, m aid of the Church. The fact that these things are done confirms my assertion tint the clergy are neglecting moiality and practical religion m favoui of ceremonial nnd doctrinal "schemes" of salvation. I think that if "Hibet" would le read my lott-i, he would find that Ihiu> there dis tmctly pioverl that Mi Alison's teaching with Tetrad to the Chuu-h is diametncally opposed to the teaching oftlie Piayer-book, and I quite concur with him that it "re quircM no prr.it amount of ability " to do this, as it needs only the quotation of Article XIX., as I ha\e gucn it, and which "H.tbut" has veiy wisely '■huked. He seems to be boxing the cimpass throughout. It is very amiiMiig to soe the nn.sconfitruction he puts on my assertion of the Church being in danger. The danger I mentioned Was tliut of " foea who would destroy her liberty, who would narrow her bolder*, and Tt up the Church in tho place of the Bible," not of the High Church movement when kept within the bounds of the Prayer-book. I ho irtily appreciate a Cathedral Service, and have seen such performed in churches connected with the Church Association. As to vestments and candles, they are almost unworthy of consideration, except, perhaps, to the ladies. Of tlieinsehi'4, they do very little harm or good. I am a little suspicions (perhaps wrongly sn) with regard to hia quotation from Mr Gladstone, as the word "Protestantism "is inserted by "Habet" himself. But I should infer that Mr Gladstone is refen mg to Puritanism, nnd as a de*cnp tion of Puritanism I wholly agree with it. But surely our learned critic does not fancy he can persuade us that PiotestantWm and Puritanism are synonymous terms. This is too much. Lastly, "Habet" says that " Religion ha* bern brought back to life in spite of opinion, and that, too, mainly by men of the stamp of Messrs Bodmgton and Mason." Then, ritualistic shopkeepers never adulterate their goods, ntualistic publicans never allow men to get drunk on their premises, ritualistic ladies never talk scandal about their neighbouis, ritualistic clergy are meek and low ly in heart, gentle, bearing and forbearing with their weaker biethren. By all means, Mr Editor, let us seek admittance into some ritualistic community. I confess th.it the Missioners teach to some extent that men should live godly, righteous, and sober li\e>, but I doubt whether spasmodic sensations ha\e any lasting effect. At the same tune they have sown the seeds of schism among the different sects. They have taught doctrines, vi/ , the sacnfice of the altar and the confessional, that we know from sad experience to have a tendency to undermine fieedom, godliness, and morality, as they did in our own Church in pre- Reformation times. The most grievous thing I have to coiuphin of, however, is of their settincr up other foundation than the Word of God. And so it is that we find two di-t net movements going on in the Church. The ritualistic clergy are tilling their churches, winning people back to acknow ler'ge the efficacy of ceremonial progiess, and giving an outward appeal ance of progress to their party. But look at the modem dimensions of infidelity. See how ni.iny of our wisest and best of men aic being driven from religion by the shallowness of theology, hypocrisy and sham in religi >n. Surely the time will come when our clergy of all denominations will awake on from aleep, and sty "We have no time for paltry matters, no tune to cavil about sectarianism, about outward forms and ceremonies, which einn<>t in themselves affuct the soul. We will devote our time to the inward and spintual truths of religion ; we will seek to raise the ignor ant, and we w ill seek to manifest religion more acceptable to tho-o who cannot now conscientiously receive it. We will help to bring about the tune when ' the kingdoms of this world shall be-otne the kingdom of the Lord and His Christ, and He shall reign for over and ever.'" — Yours obediently, Broad Churchman.

1O THE EDI TOR. Sin, — 1 do not reply to writers who have not the courage to append their names to their contributions, but I will nuke this letter (" Habao' ) an exception. To me it would be ludicrous, were it not painful, to see the mental confusion of which this letter bean evidence, and the utter want of knowledge which it displays on the point at issite. Inste id of argument we have a few flippant assertions ; tlieie is not the shadow of proof anywheie. It wa veiy convenient thing, though I cm hardly think it is honest, -vhen one's adversary piodaci-t a number of authorities to select tho lea-t forcible, and quietly ignoie the rest, which may not bo so easily disposed of. This is precisely what has been done in this case. The authors quoted by me weie designed to ■how and do show that dm ing the whole of the first and a portion of the second century, Episcopal government in the, modern senae hail no existence, and until " H.iliet "' convicts these men of ignorance oi produces other* of opposite views more learned than they, he is completely out of court. It is Rinusing to nee how jauntily the wnter talks of -took arguments which have been no often and so fully disposed of. The question is, Have they been so disposed of? It will reipiue more than " Habet s " assertion to convince us on this point, when some of the foremost men in his own Cl-mch think otlißi wine. It is no less ainu-ing to | notice Ins mistake in regard to the only in stance he does notice— that of Lightfoot. 1 did not reinesent this author as sa3 ing that uigns of Episcopal government then appeared, ie , A. D. 70; but that as late as that period no such signs had become manifest—two widely different thing-*. The other wutcrs quoted were designed to carry the argument down to a much later period. It wo* doubtless morn convenient not to notice tbe«e. What follows is certainly not remarkable for lucidity or its chronological accuracy. He nays my argument only covers 33 years of the Church's history. Now, during the whole of this time, the sole supreme governments is the Apostolic. " Paul, to whom was entrusted the care of the Gentile Churches, suffered martyrdom a.d. f>3." How these 35 years are calculated, we are at a loss to know. Paul's conversion, we know, took place about a.d. 37. Then with regard to the apostle's martyrdom, it happened not in 03, but in the last year of Nero'a reign a.d., «8. But even were the dates given correctly what bearing have they on the argument. The Apostolic office was designed to be merely temporary, a fact admitted by most wntei s of eminence from the closo of the Ist century and downward. It ceased when the apostles passed away, but long prior to that event, tho organisation of the Christian Church had been completed. Episcopal as well as non-Episcopal Churcben admit this to have been tho case, and the question is what form did the early Church assume under the apostles' fostering care, did it assume a Presbyterial or an Episcopal form? We have already referred to the use of the word .Episcopos in Apostolic literature, and we were careful to adduce, as our authority for the correctness of our opinion, some of the foremost Gieek scholars of onr time. A small matter this to " Habet " as he quietly ignores it. He says " Paul suffered martyrdom A.D. 03, and by the middle of the next century, the very memoiy of any other form of government but Episcopacy was unknown to such men as Irenieus of Lyom, A.D. 177, and to Terlujlian, who was born about 150, that is about HO odd yeais after Paul's death." H<*re is an asseition with a vengeance, but whore is the proof? It would have been better for tho writer hud he consulted the authorities whom he quotes before rushing int'> print, for let me toll him he is entirely mistaken, nnd I will put in, in evidence against him, among others, tho very witness he lelies on. Itatullian who flourished a.d. 200, says in his Apology, Chapter 39, "and those •klcrt (Seiuores i.e. Presbyters) who are Mtpoiated, rujt, having gained thek honour

not by ptice but by testimony." You see then that instead of being on the bide of Episcopacy, Tertullian is against it. The testimony »i Iremens, whom he relies on, is not los* dead against him. Says Bishop IStillmgfleet " What strange confusion unlit this cause in any one's mind that -,eeks foi a succession of Episcopal power over Ptcsbytera from the apostles by the testimony of lienu'iia when he plainly 1 attributes bntli the succession to Piesbyters and tho Episcopacy too which he speaks of," that is to say in the estimation of Stillingflect, Irencpui leg.mled Piesbjter and Bishop as tho s<viue. If "Halu't" knows anything of Patristic literature he must have heard of Polycarp of Smyrna. This individual was the personal duciplo of John. Writing to tlie Church at Phihppi 00 years aftei the dite of Paul's Epistle to the wme Chinch, Polycarp addresses himself to the Presbyteis and Deacons, and not a word is found lefening to any other order — a most remaik.ible fact, " Habet," if there was a Diocesan Bishop in that Church. The fact is, the whole weight of evidence during the fiist tw o centuries is against three oiders, and bears out our contention that there weie only two, i c., Presbyteis and Deacons, dining thi-. period. Th-n-e ia no highei authority than Jerome on the early literature of the Church. He is characterised by Ei asinu- as the most learned of all Chustians and the Prince of Divines. He makes the following statements :— (1) He imsitnelv denies that tilde is any dhine right for the sup-nority of Bishop over Presbyter ; (2) Ik> states it as an historical fact, that Bishops and Presbyters wore the same, until the Devil interfered and ni.ide paities in religion ; (3) he declares that this change in the government of the Chmch took placj not suddenly, but by degiees ; (I) he states it as an histoueal fact, that the elevation of one Presln tiT above .-mother was a mere human invention— that oui Loul Jesus Christ never appointed it, and that this was known and acknowledged m the time at which he wrote. What a- pit\ there was no *' Habet " in Jerome's day ; he would doubtless ha\ e convinced the learned Father of his eiror! What the wntei means by "too technical" I cannot peiceive. 1 leave him to evolve the meaning at leisiue funn the fog of his own ln.aiu. But if he thinks he has me on the horns of a dilemma he is entirely ujistaken. It is his own obtuseness that is to bl.ime. 1 spoko of the eaily, not of the Primitive Church; by the latter, as is well iindeistood, is meant the Church dm ing the age of ths Ano-ttles ; by the former is meant the Church subsequently and as late as the close of the 3rd century. 1 admit all that " Habet " s;vj.s in rcgaid to the chaiactei of the gieat Apostle, but I fail to see what guarantee this gives foi the continued pin it v of the Church. If its Divme Authoi could not guaid Christianity itself against human error, how could anj meie man, though an inspued Apostle, piovent the Chuicli from being corrupted by the pride and ambition of those who came after him, and this is certain — corrupt it did bewne when its pure and simple goveininent gave place to prelacy in the second centuiy. Let me tell the writer of this, and of a former letter under the same disguise, that it needs a. clearer head and a vast deal gi eater knowledge than he seems to possess to grapple with such a subject a^ this. To me there is something unmanly in one attacking another under an assumed name. It is like one entering the list-, with another, with his vizor down while his antagonist s face is ex po-sed It is the first time I have replied to an anonymous water, and I ahsuie him it w ill be the last. Whatevei he may publish m future will be heated by me with contemptuous indifference. Rev. J. S. Boyo.

to niK n)iro«. Sir, — Allow me to thank " Habet " for his candid admission that he " cannot fence my attacks." No! Neither can anyone else who will use the Bible with an unprejudiced mind. Which of us put " our own construction "on the teaching of the Bible, we must leave others to decide. I say the Bible ("as we have it from the hands of the men who, out of tho ma«s of matter, sorted out what was to be Bible nnd what wasn't ") does not teach infant sprinkling and call it baptism, or the appointment of god-fathers and mothers. It does not te ich confirmation ; it does not teach that in these d.iys one "infill man can foi give the Kins of another ; it does not teach any of the absurdities and ridiculous rites and ceiemonies that are performed in " Ritualistic serv ices," and it does not teach that I shall pi ay or pi aise or respond by act of Parliament, and at the command of .my priests or bishops. Well, now, "Habet ' says it does, and if he ("Habet") will in any public assembly show me thit he is right, then you shall hear a public retraction from — Yfouis tiuly, T. Thkwheellar. Hamilton, 30th December, 1885.