MR. LOUIS'S PAPER.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1260, 7 July 1864, Page 3

MR. LOUIS'S PAPER.

TO THB EDITOB OP TIIE LTTTKLTON TOIEi. Sir,—Perhaps you will permit me to make a few observations on your leader of last Tuesday. Let me assure you that I have no objection in a general way to be censured by an editor. I know something by experience of the exigencies of journal ism; and am aware that to find fault is the permanent necessity of a journalist; to do justice, a luxury which he occasionally allows himself. But I really am at a loss to understand the drift of your energetic protests against the paper I read the other night at the meeting of the Church Institute. You seem to complain that I put in the background " the higher and more sacred functions of the Church;" and go the length of saying that I " ignored her fundamental doctrines and the sacred functions of the Church grounded on them." It is undoubtedly true that I abstained, and advigedly so, from enlarging upon such matters. And I even expressed a hope that those who heard me would appreciate my motives in doing so. It appears, however, that I failed to meet with that appreciation from yourself. Will you allow me, therefore, as this is so, to remind you that I addressed that meeting as a layman in presence of the Bishop diocese; and that, to say nothing of the superfluity of such topics for my immediate purpose, had I presumed to insist upon the importance of Christianity as a religion and rule of life, I should have, been simply guilty of a piece of sovereign impertinence and bad taste. And permit me to say that you have misapprehended altogether the purpose of my paper. It was written to discuss, not as you seem to think the question of the founding of the Church ; that was done rather more than eighteen hundred years ago. The question I treated was the far different one; what churchmen in this age should do in regard to lengthening the cords and strengthening the stakes of the Church in christian colonies. And if a man addressing on such a subject a meeting of a Church Institute may not take for granted the common ground on which all present may be presumed to stand aa - to the Christian faith in its essentials, it is a strange thing indeed. So far as I can gather your meaning, you seem to be of opinion that I ought to hay® preached something in the nature of a sermon to the meeting. It was no part of my business to do anything of the kind. That I made " no reference to its (the Church's) fundamental doctrines," I mast beg leave to deny. Again and again I insisted upon the doctrines, the theology of the Church as part of that

complex development which is of vital import to a new community. Is it your opinion that I a layman, speaking with limited space at my disposal, and, as I have said, in presence of the accredited gnardians of the faith, should have gone into a discussion, say, of the Atonement or the Incarnation ?. You expresa yourself not merely "disappointed "but even "pained" at the views I put forward; but if an emphatic state-

ment of the importance to a colony of those of Church development in regard to those accessories, of which you speak so slightingly, is really painful to you, I can only suppose that it is because you do not share my feelingsas to that" spiritual club " view of Church life, which I meant to decry. Let me say, too, that your reference to the Clmrqh of the Apostolic days might be in point upon a question of the planting or spreading of the Church among the heathen. Indeed, in your strictures on my paper yon fail entirely to observe the distinction between the two cases of transplanting the Church into the midst of colonies of christians and civilised men, and the planting of it in the first instance by the conversion of heathen populations. The practical application of the "Apostolic times " notion to colonial Churches resolves itself into absurdities of ft grievous kind. Indeed, it is in flagrant opposition to all the facts and necessities of the present time. The first ages were ages of poverty, persecution, martyrdom for clergy and laity alike. Bow much of all these things do you propose to revive ? Do you mean that if the faith in these latter days cannot have the advantage and support derived from the throwing of an occasional batch of Christians to the lions we had better do the best we can, and half starve the clergy ? For Ido not see what part you reserve for the laity in the revival of the troubles of the Apostolic ages. Bo you really object to cathedrals and colleges, to an endowed clergy, and all the dignified appliances of the English establishment ? Do you thinkthat the barefooted Franciscan method is exactly the one by which English colonial churches ire to be dealt with ? You say we want clergymen who will work and not seek wealth. Do not be afraid, Sir, there is no immediate danger of the colonial clergy being overburdened with " wealth," ind just as little, I imagine, of their shirking their

work. But there is no part of your Article against which I more desire to enter my firm but respectful protest, than when you say that " Members of other christian denominations would have reason to complain if they thought that churchmeu were disposed to accept mjr views." I suppose that churchmen may endow their Church, and help her to such vigour and efficiency as shall seem right to them, without submitting the matter to the judgment of those not in communion with her. I asked nothing of the State. 1 spoke to churchmen of the duties of churchmen only. And surely the utmost stretch of the duty Of christian charity can hardly oblige churchmen to cripple their Church for fearof offending those who decline her offices. Let me assure you, Sir, that by such a suggestion as thia you are more likely to revive in the minds of earnest men than to allay those animosities between Church and Dissent which are happily subsiding. And I say advisedly that the old hostility would be faY better than the new - cordiality, if such a construction were put upon the latter, as would cause Churchmen and Dissenters to forego all vigorous action from their own points of view for fear they should hurt one another's feelings. One is tempted to say that it would l»e better almost to go back to the fiercest hostility of former days than to fall so low as that. Your's & c., A. H. LOUIS. Christchurch, July 7th, 1864.

TO THE EDITOR OP TUB LYTTET-TON TIMKS. Sir,—-Unable through illness to be present at the meeting of the Church Institute, it gave me no little pleasure to find Sir. Louis' paper at length in your columns. I had expected much from it, but my expectations fell far short of what I found. Nothing that I have seen printed or written in New Zealand, no speech or sermon that I have heard since f loft old England, has given me such deep gratification. I nose thoughts which, from time to time, I have attempted feebly, and by spasmodic efforts, to give utterance to, he has put forward nobly, and clear y, j» » ■whole. Tfou may judge, then, what P mn leader this morning gave v^. Though there are many things in » remarks, I do not propose now to do >» or e | test against its tone, and suggest that .. stancTs under which that paper was ought not indeed to have secured it J, ( . ourteß j e!r ,, least to ha.ve won for it u , of literary warfare. Much less ■ .A add any arguments of my flnmtnfices may Mr. Louis. A master has sp<>ken, 4 hold their peace. But whensos.gnji ajgtts *mr dpfefcF Moreover, my conviction relr to vear of the truth qtUr.Jgmm^mmiß 25 Ji tLir <» ■ • JSfllM ra. w«lou. to UM *WIMMB .

T have to induce those who may not yet have reac Jht essay, to study it patiently ami carefully Hoping that even your own unfavourable notice of it may further this result, ' I remain, Yours faithfully, CHARLES ALABASTER. Christchurch, July 7 th, 1864.