MR. EDGER AND THE SUNDAY QUESTION.

Auckland Star, Volume V, Issue 1250, 7 February 1874, Page 3

MR. EDGER AND THE SUNDAY QUESTION.

To the Editor of the Evening Stab. Sik, —In the Southern Cross of Wednesdaylast and of to-day the Rev. Mr. Edger maintains his old character of " the accuser of his brethren." His clerical brethren attach but little importance to what he says against them. They regard his attacks as Lord Derby's big navvy regarded his little wife's blows, which did. him no harm and gave her much pleasure. Mr. E.s attacks on Dr. Maunsell and myself I understood Dr. M. intended to answer, and I gladly left the controversy in his able hands. But I cannot longer remain silent and allow Mr. Edger, nncontradicted, to misrepresent my views of the Sabbath, to curry favour with the Templars at my expense, to hold me up as a hypocrite in connection with the North Shore Ferry Company, and to publish the shocking lie that I invoke divine judgment on those who differ in their religious convictions.

1. Mr E. speaks of me as a Sabbatarian. He ought to know that the -word Sabbatarian denotes peculiarly strict and narrow yiews of the Sabbath and its observance. And "whatever my errors on the Sabbath question may be, they are errors which lean to the side of the fullest freedom and largest toleration consistent with Scripture. The real Sabbatarians would scarcely own me as one of their number. I have always preached that the Sabbath . was coeval with the creation of man — that whatever was distinctively Jewish in the Jewish Sabbath has passed away —and that the mode in which Christians should observe it can be learned only from the example and teaching of Christ and His apostles. These are not the views properly styled Sabbatarian ; and Mr E. should know that the fastening of an unpopular word like Sabbatarian on an opponent ia neither reasoning nor fair play. Nick-names are not arguments. 2. I was surprised to learn from Mr Edger's "Wednesday letter that I had gone out of my way to disparage the Good Templars. Templars must be thin-skinned indeed if my incidental allusion to them in an argument last Sunday was considered disparaging or offensive. If it be Mr Edger's object is to raise against me the wrath of the Templars—and it is difficult to see what other object he could have had —I am really sorry for him.

3. Mr E. is anxious to know if I hold shares in the North Shore Ferry Company, orif I think it right of a Christian to d o so. What right has Mr E. to poke his nose into my private affairs? The introduction' of personalities into a controversy of this sort, and the sly insinuation that I must be a Hypocrite in being a shareholder in the Ferry Company while I condemn the railway Sabbath desecration—things of this kind I know not whether to scorn or to pity. Would notMrEdger consider me very impertinent if I were to lug into the discussion his private affairs, or if I were to ask in the newspapers if he, a minister of the Gospel, was a dabbler and gambler in gold-mining speculations. To my mind gambling in these mines on the part of a minister of the Gospel is both a sin and a shame ; but having shares in a steamboat company, whose object is to promote intercourse and traffic between the two sides of our harbour is neither wrong nor unchristian. lam happy to inform the " Rev. Paul Pry" that I never had a share or interest in any mine at the Thames or elsewhere. The rev. gentleman seems so deeply interested in the moral purity of his brethren and so anxious that they, like Caesar's wife, should be above suspicion in secular matters, that I doubt not his benevolent and guileless soul will be highly delighted to hear that I am not and never was a shareholder in the North Shore Ferry Company, or in any trading company in all the world. 4. In his letter of to-day, in the Cross, Mr Edger speaks of me as invoking Divine judgment on those who differ in their religious convictions. When and where did I over do so? Such a statement I pronounce a gross lie—a monstrous falsehood. ■I hereby solemnly declare to the Auckland public that I have never in public or in priTatebeen guilty of the outrage Mr Edger charges me with; that I have never invoked the Divine judgment on those wlio differ in their religious canvictions. lam astonished the Cross should have admitted such a vile accusation into its columns. Surely Mr iidger must be growing crazy ? Incipient craziness is suggested bv^.his letters on the sabbath question—loiters so one-sided, "logical, and self-assertive. My fear of this being the case with him is further confirmed When I find him, a preacher of the Gospel, £°*£ ng forward to charge the Saviour with X £ a°bath-b r eaking. We Christians profess to "* a rIT Saviour lived under the law ana kept it in every particular ; and we are «n. -I ? preacher of His Gospel that «*.wklu t«deliberatdy violated the Jewish fcabbath. . # -If you, Mr Editor, hear that the ?oorman lß verging towards lunacy please

take no notice of my letter ; but if he be still considered in a rational and responsible state ot mind, oblige me by inserting it, and by sending a copy of the Star which contains it to the rev. gentleman with my compliments. Yours truly, James Wallis. | [Our reverend correspondent's concluding request has been complied with. We trust he will be able to produce that reform in Mr Edger's charitable sentiments, which we have so long struggled for in vain.—Ed. -Z?. aS.} ' I