THE TEACHING OF THE MISSION.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2104, 2 January 1886, Page 2

THE TEACHING OF THE MISSION.

to the tmrou. Sut, — Mrßoyd is a man whoso rule it is n«it to reply to anonymous lott'-r^ in tlie p ipei s ; Init he in ikes an exception in favour of my list— ii letter winch disnlayseudenceof my miMit.il confusion and utter w.mt >>i know-* ledge on the point at i.ssue. I Use no arg.iin "lit ; I only assert, nnd can bung no evidence in support of mv ..-,. ition-. Xow it ocuiis ti« m tint this was jiwt k ,ho Kind of letter which Mr lloyd mijrlit .veil have tie.iti d with "contemptuous indiffeienc" 1 . ' But nut' I . id of this, he tike* tli" trouble to vviite a full column in leply. Vii'l (ititnf all he c "lipl.uns tli.it I hit 'ii-ii in -i weik. spot, lie pi'iduuet a nuin>>^r of anthontie-. to which mv slender lil.r.n v doe-, not admit of my refei'iincr. and theietoie I cannot sivnnylln i;, about them IVit in the one anthouU <ivi'«to*i by him to which I tin leter I se" his wcik sp 't, and I foi tli with " pink '' linn theie (Mabet). Before I pioceed fmth'i let mi', albeit e\en at the n-k of hmv' considered pedantic, explain to Mr Bo yd how it comes tlut the peuod down to *.u 70 c nei- only ibcitit 3."j jenrs >i\ the Chinch's hi«toiy. rno"l"^i vi's generally leckon the biithday of the Christian Church not from a.d. 1, imttiointhc tiist Fe.ut of I'ente-ist after our Lonl's A»e<? lsion. the d.ite of which is 'iven in tin' lu'irgm of lefeiv-nce Bibles ;is \.l>. Xo. Hence it follows that Bishop Lightf.iot is right when he says that 10 s-li^lis of ail KplsCOpll (Jowmuient .iad appeared as late as \.i>. 70 F.ir ihis iv .wm : Tint tho Apostolic College -vas at tint time in full wmking older. Vlr B >yd is- undoubtedly light in saying Jut the Ap.)-tol.ite was designed to be merely tempoiary. And thon he asks what form did tiic early Ch'iich assum> undei he Apostles' fostering c.vro 7 Did it assume i Pre-bytmal ot an Kpiiuopil foim? L-t ne try to assist Mi" Boyd a httle bit in nrrivur at n correct determination nn t'n-> jioint. In the hist pLice, tlio only epistle* fiom •vhich \vp c.tri gather a»iy pieeisa inforiuatio:i respecting the piinciples of Ciurch „npmni"nt are the epi-tU>» of S. Paul to lYnothy and Titus. Now, these letter • c addressed to uvlividuaU, not to Ohuvches, nor e\en to Indies in the .hiuehes. NuiuiUM' lind any trice of •istniLtioii- to those nu-n as to the orgmis.tii> iof b idi 's-, c ■n^iejration.al or othpr- \ ise, toe\eici'i.' jurisdi 'tion in tho ChnichcH. O.i tho contiary, the-e ovcr-eei ■>, lii-h'> t j-, or dut'Mer you 'like to c ill tli mij (f<>r it i- not a question of limit's, but of offi" l^, these in 'ii were entrusted, pitsonaUy, with plenaiy authoiity as to tho regulation <.f nateis penerallj, incl'idmi? t'.u 1 mrtiiution of the cWtfy. A.id wlun tliey fo jnd r !nngsweio going wrong in any way, th^y •veie 111 1 "rebuke with all auth jri^y" to ''re•uke sh.uiily," and th y w\>i« fur.hir irmed with poweis of uvcoinm inieition to 13 used a-3 a- last losort m else-, of con n mcd heiesy. Xow just fancy what a nice mess things vmklh.we got into, s.vy for c\.unple, in i le Churches of Ephcsiis and Crete, when | Timothy or Titiis came interfering, if <heso Churches had bjjn educited into he ide.a that the airangements of olieir Jiff an*, were to be regulated on Presbyterian principles— either then or p.o-ently. By presently I iiuan when tlvj tirect Apostolic rule had passed away. And when that rule hid pis-ted away, though hi stoiy is silent for about seventy vear--, yet wlnsn it >pj\ks ••ydn it tells vis r,hat everywhere the, Cli' i-aiau Church \-> " rtllieared by miim 'ii possessing the go\ern.nentil and ord lining powers of the \posloiic dilegat-s (reteir-d to above), th nigh •vith mire defined and local^ed sphotes of tction." That i^, it wis under the rule of l)i »ci;s.vn Bishops. During that interval >f 70 year» Mr B >yd would have us think that some form of Presbyterian government j\i»ted. If so, as I said in a previous letter, it took a very short spice of time to prove S. Paul's idea of a sound Church policy to be practically \inw orkjble. So imich **•> that I repeat neither [tenants nor Tertullian ever S|)e.vk ir even allude to the thing. Thi* is one of my assertions without pi oof. Very well. If Mr B>yd will refer t«i Ireii.en.s (Adv. Hceie«, lib. iii, cap. 3), he will read this: "We aie in a position t< icukon u]> those who were by the Apostle: instituted Bishops in tho Churches, and (t< leinoustrate) the succession of the^e men t< •iir own times." This does not appear t«i .nake any leference t> a change in the form of Church (Joveuuueut. Nu\t, here is what Tertullian .says in hia De Puescrip, Hoar. \\\ii, p. 41H (Oxlord Translation) : '" But if there be any lieresiewhich venture to plant them>elves in tho mid*t of the age of the Apostles th.it they miv theiefore be thought tt hove been handed down fiom the Apostle*, we may say, let them then make known the orKiinaJs of their Churches, let them unfold the u>ll of their Bishop*, so cominp down in succession from the beginning, th.it their h"i.st Bishop had for his ordainei and predecessor some one of the Apo&tle* or Apostolic men." And then he adds, '• For in this m inner do the Apostolic 'Jhurches reckon their origin : as th* Church of S.nyrna recounteth that Polvc irj; ((iod's great Mu*tyr, Polyciip, Mr Bijd] vTas placed there by John .... Just s< can the rest also show those wliotn, being appointed by the Apostles to the Episcopate, they lrue as transmitter of the Vpostolic .seed.' This appears to imply, at least, tint these two great Christian wiitsis of the secoud century positively declined to hue anytoing to do with thiKso religious sect* of their day who had continued stedfast neither in the Apostles' doctrine nor the Apostles' fellow ship. And these are the wo men whose evidence Mr B <yd says ia Jend against me. It is not always safe and never polite tt wiito y ntr opponent in controversy an ass. Vnd I am vury to find that i gentleman win orefiKes th a title " reverend " t> his name, will condescend t • inipoit into his argument he clumsy bludgeon • Homisiunsf nf |ier s mal abuse. It anpp.ua to me the better ilan is always to tie.it your opponent as a Oiitlenian until he proves linn-elf otherwise, and never to foiget that you are one yonr-elf. With regud to Mr Tre vh^ellar's letter. lam afraid he rai-undei stands me. I dm not say I cotildn t " fence ins attacks" be-jju-c I don't kn «vv what that mean-.. I did -ay I could not fence with him for the eason th it I decline to argue in a now*,ia,ppr on points of the Chinch's Doctiine. \.nd. futther, I certainly never expressed uy opinion either way as to whether the ching-f which he •.•numerate- vveie or were aot taught in the Bible.— Yours faithfully, Ha bet.

I i<) thk Eniron. [ Sib,— Under tins heading Mr Trewheellar I and (.» gentleuun signing himself) " Ltev. J. S. Bcyd" propose to discuss the loundne^ of the doctrine and practice of 'he Chinch of England, but I mint confess I do not feel that seim of imminent danger to my Church which would tempt me to reply to thoir timeworn arguments. But a " Bro.td Churchman" raises the vretL-hed old cry of "No Popery,'* and attacks, Mr Mason in a way which in the interests of truth and fair piny, demands a reply. For the 'sake of brevity I will confine myself to two of the main statements on which he bases his bitter attack. 1 1, He «a.ys that Mr Mason taught the doctine of the confessional as practised in the Church of Rome. I give this the most unqualified denial, and I challenge " Broad Churchman" to state the time and place Mr Mason e\er taught any Mich thing. 2nd. He accuses Mr Mason of " Ritualism," of neglecting morality and practical religion in favour of ceremonial and doctrinal schemes- of salvation, and associates his teaching with " Ritualistic vestments and candles." Now, I defy "Broad Churchman "to justify one word of this. Mr Mason never caused the slightest alteration in the ritual ot the Church in which he preached, or wore any other vestments than those used by every priest of the Church of England. The fact is " Broad Churchman *' has not Imitated to make the most grave accusations on mere hearsay. We of S. Petei's Parish Church know the enormous good that the Missumer has done in onr midst, and are vying one with another how be>-t to commemorate the Mission. It is impossible to put on paper the great religious and moral benefit-. t<> which all can testify. But the outward evidences aie not wanting. We know that many who were in doubt and unbelief have 'ien i tily embraced Christian tity. Many who had hitlierto'neglec'edther' tt.oof our Chmch have braved public opinion in older to perform their duties. Our service is far more heai ty and our communion table crowded. The secret of Mr M.yson\ wonderful success is that his teaching in before all thin°y practical and thorough. He came with an open Bible and preached " a living faith." It is i*eu Hke this,full of zeal, piety and scholarly learning, who are making such a grand fight against scientific scepticism in England, and against this man a. " Broad Churchman " levels his unfounded accusations under the safe protection of a "norn de plume."— l am, Yours Faithfully, ENGLISHMAN.