METHODIST UNION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 222, 17 September 1895, Page 2

METHODIST UNION.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I havo no desiro to interfere in any* way with the dispute between you and the Rev. A. Peters on the above subject, aad would not have done so had not the reverend gentleman, in endeavouring to sbrengbhen his position, drawn a red herring across the scent by introducing.a. comparison bebween bhe relative values of, the Church properby of bhe Primitive .Methodists and United Methodists ia Christchurch.

Your argument, if I understood it correctly, referred bo New Zeaiand.asa whdla. and nob to any particular portion of ib, and*.' was nob intended to deal go much.with tlia .' value of properbies as wibh the numericalstrength of the two bodies.

I have in my possession a copy of the _ basis of union proposed ab one time to be adopted by the minor Methodisbs in New Zealand, and attached to bhab basis we have tabulabed tbe strength of the two churches as ab December of 1892, from which I geb bhe following figures:— P.M. U.M. Church and other preaching places .„ .„ ._ H2 3S Members ._ ... ... 1411 912 Minisbers ... ... ._ 25 12 Local preachers 118 28 Class leaders _ 42 20 Sunday-school teachers „. 511 242 Sunday-school scholars ... 4401 2222 Adherents as per census rereturns _ 5220 1905 We leave the above to speak for themselves, and come now bo the lasb paragraph in my friend's lebber, which is so contrary. to facb (so far as the official life of the. Primitive Methodist Church is concerned), thab I am surprised that Mr Peteshould have made ib. He says, " I fear, sir, thab some Primitives are determined not to unite wibh the parenb body, or even with the minor sections ot Mflbbodism, unless they can retain their oum polity intact, which they are inclined to regard at perfection."

Now, I might with equal justice say, and perhaps be just as incorrect in saying it, that there are some ministers in the minor Methodist churches who are so eager tor union because of the gain thab will result to themselves from it, bhab they are pre? pared to sacrifice every principle bhat their church poliby is established bo conserve; not only so, bub will make prodigious, efforts to beat up members to abtend official meetings where this question has to be discussed, who have never been to as official meebing before in their lives, and: others who have not been worshippers in bhe church for months, thab they may by such means carry a vote in favour of this union. It in making such an assertion I am wrong, I am nob one whib more so than my friend is in his statements with respect bo ourselves.

Now whab are tho facta of the caser Simply these : In 1883 we agreed to accept \ a baßis of Union for the sake of union, which required us to give ud one-half of our lay representation to our "highest Church Courts, and, further, we agreed that.upon the question of ministerial chatacbe. minisbers alone should be the judges. This decision we reaffirmed ab our late Conference in January of this year, when we, by a unanimous vote, passed bhe following resolution :-" Thab, in the opinion of bhis Conference, any union of the Methodisb Churches in bhis colony which wil_ meet with the hearty support of our people should be upon the lines of a basis of union for New Zealand similar to thab of 1883." ' In conclusion, I regreb bhab Mr Peters should have forced upon us Primitife Methodisbs the necessity ot writing to tbe public press upon this subjecb- We are out of the running ab present upon this question, and intend to remain so, until tha rights of laymen are more fully conceded than they are in the basis proposed, which he appear, to be so willing bo accept.-I am « otiC -« D. Goldie. Auckland, September 12, 1395.