LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE LABOUR MARKET. Sir, —Noting your remarks labour this morning, and tho conclusion ' no unemployed," 1 submit tho following:—An' advertisement in two papers on one day tins week, "married man preferred, elicited over 30 replies (with one exception only), ranging in ages from 22 to _G. This should not count for much in a population like Wellington, but compared with previous advertisement excursions it points to a considerable dearth of employment. A party ot four single men who applied m connection with tho same advertisement w-ent away by train on Wednesday' to try their luck up country. The men were a good active lot, witli '110 " rabbit-poisonmg-preferred appearance about them. I am, etc., September 3. HENRY I3ODLE\. SYDNEY STREET CEMETERY. Sir,—l notice our City Council has now, pulled down the old caretaker's residence erected some 40 years ago, and having made inquiries I cannot ascertain whether another is going to be erected in its place. If a caretaker's residence was needed 40 years ago, surely 0110 is needed more so now. if is one of the most beautiful cemeteries in tho Dominion —naturo has done its work,' and so lias the City Council by keeping it in order. Undesirable:visitors, occasionally go there. Tho present caretakcr can look after it 111 tho day, but if' living there he could go his rounds at night. The greater number of the pioneer settlers are buried there, my parents included—Trusting our City Council will spare this little money to erect a small cottage for the caretaker, I am, ctc., James kilmister. August 31. THE CIVIL SERVICE. Sir, —I have read the articles recently appearing in .your paper regarding the supposed anomalies of' salaries paid to civil servants, and in common with many others cannot help having been struck with tho extraordinary assumption that. appears to have "been accepted as a principle by the writer of tho articles, that increases and amount of salary depend almost entirely upon length of service.' It js continually pointed out that ill the same Department officers of different lengths of service are not paid in accordance with their years of service.. This, I am glad to sa.y, is everywhere tho fact. Officers of any ability at all expect to receive increases of salary according to the work they .perform, and their qualifications therefor, and to lay down tho rule that the man with longer servico should always receivo higher pay than his junior is to reduce the service to a dumping ground for incapables. No Government in the world ever desires this. To quoto a typical case —ill the same Department.-may bo threo officers, as under :—
"A" has served 25 years, worked as messenger at first, then as copying clcrk, and lately as an assistant record clerk. His .duties consist of entering letters into a book, and giving numbers to same. Although a very decont man, and hard working, neither his education nor his ability fit him to occupy a more responsible position, as ho was one of those many "temporary" officers taken on without any examination or qualification for a position in the service. His pay is £180 per annum. , "B" has served 20 years. Entered as a cadet through passing the Junior Civil Servico examination; since when he has passed no other. He is fairly intelligent, but certainly not exceptionally so. Ho is somewhat careless, and though ho has been tried at many things is only fit for typing correspondence, and doing jobs of checking, assisting senior officers, etc., in their work;' He gats £200 per annum. "C" has served 15 years, passed both Junior and Civil Service examinations, and, in addition, has passod. the examination of tho Instituto of Accountants. He is very smart, and can turn his hand to anything. Ho is looked upon by his chief as very reliablo, and has filled with credit the positions in which lie has been placed. He is getting £220 per annum, with prospects of early rises. . . ' _ According to tho theory in your articles, this is an example of anomalies in salaries. On tho contrary it is the very reverso as anyono who takes tho trouble. to look into, the matter can'see at a glance.' Three-quarters of such alleged anomalies are explained in this manlier. I admit thero aro exceptional cases of unfair promotions, but those aro tho exceptions, and do not form five per cent, of the differences in salary mentioned in your articles'. Tho other 95 per easily accounted for. Moreover, 'tho work in no two departments is tho same. In some offices it is entirely rontino calling for no intelligence or ability. In othersy it is very responsible, and needs special knowledge and caro. This explains tho alleged anomaly between two officers of equal service who aro paid different salaries by their departments.
According to your theory, if a reporter on your staff has equal newspaper service with yourself, it is an anomaly that you should be paid double his salary. The work you respectively perform does not appear to bo taken into account at all. I should, be very glad to see the writer of your articles go into tho matter in a sensible maimer, as tliero are many needed reforms that would porhaps be taken m hand if properly presented to tho public, but to start m this obviously fallacious .manner is to alienato any sympathy, for tho service, arid tends to discredit. any recommendations that your paper may make eventually.—l am, etc., CIVIL SERVANT. August 29. r"Civil.Servant" has taken up a good'deal' of\>ur space in a laboured attempt .to justify a contention which requires no justification. Merit should tell; tho general complaint isthat thcro is too much politics and too much .wire-pulling and too littlo attention to merit in connection with appointments and advancement in the Public Service. Tho absurd "theory" which our correspondent is pleased to saddle us with exists only in his own imagination. We shall be pleased to give publicity to his idea of the. "needed reforms" ill the service should he choose to submit them.] "A STUPID LAW." . Sir, —By this name I mean Tho Destitute Persons Relief Act, now on tho statuto book of this country. I have known in my time very cruel cases under 'this wicked and stupid law. But lot me take my own case. I am 0110 of. what, was once a large family, who camo to Wellington somo 50 years ago; Besides .myself, three men and a woman now survive, all being unmarried. Every one of them inherited at their father's death moderate means, sufficient, with ordinary prudence and industry, to havo put them boyond anything like destitution. And yet "two of them are at this .day .practically destitute, and the others are on the straight road to tho same house. With my very moderate means, I am the only one of the family who has practically anything. During more than 30 years past, I have had no control or influence whatever over any of them, helplessly looking on at their eccentric career of indolence and folly. They have all insolently rejected any attempt of mine, though tho eldest of tho family, to advise or suggest, and yet any one or all of them qan under this " beneficent" statuto of New Zealand como upon mo, and take from'mo by magistrate's orders my modcrato'ineans, and make mo practically as destitute as any of the lot.
I have twice provided a homo for tho woman, but she has never kept it. During 30 years she .has always had her private adviser, whoso counsels sho has followed, ivliile scornfully rejecting mine, that is until those counsels brought financial trouble. Under the trusts of her father's will sho owned a valuable property in the city of Wellington. Some seven years ago, acting under advice, as 'usual, sho contrived to evade the trust, and get the legal estate into her possession, and now the result is that tho Registry at Wellington shows encumbrances as totalling more than half tho entire value of the property, which is, after all this alleged expenditure on it, in a state of disrepair. Of course, this brings her far on tho road to destitution,and already attempts are made to come upon me. And now comes in this "beneficent" statute, and makes mo bear tho brunt of upwards of thirty years of wilful and insolent eccentricity and recklessness. Within its purview, it is hard and indiscriminating, leaving, 1 believe, very little discretion to tho magistrate administering it. I deny its justico, and I challenge its expediency. It is ,
cruel and unjust and mischievous in its working. If it be pressed fully against me, I will certainly gather up what I can, and clear this paradise of humbug, leaving the lovoly land where it is always afternoon to those who may find themselves at home in it. This Act is in my opinion just a wicked and mean evasion of a Poor-law, enabling certain people to indulge in cheap braggadocio _at the exponso of those who suffer under it. Hoping you will kindly give space in your valuable columns for this complaint. —I am, etc., A VICTIM. Auckland, August 21, 1908. THE NATIONAL PERIL. Sir, —The startling announcement in your issue of to-day's date that the latest statistics have proved an excess of deaths over births in- France will be read with regret by all those who regard this statement as the beginning of a nation's downfall. This significant news will help to remind us that tho armoured forces of outside nations are not so much to be feared as the cancerous growth of immoral practices, and that a nation's decay is more likely to commence from within than without. There is a lesson hero for our own Dominion, aiid a warning that must sink, deep into tho heart of those who are proud of the Empire to which they belong. We appear to bo a self-satis-fied community, and closo our eyes to a danger more to be feared than an invasion of swarming Asiatics. The 1 peril is no longer tho yellow peril, but a whito one—the peril of race extinction. Where is the sense, in continually talking of the volunteer m'oveliient, and other questions for the defence of our Empire, if the n«ni are not forthcoming to work the guns? Now, sir, for this national calamity that has overtaken France surely some cause can be assigned.. Is it that the love of pleasure and excitement is dearer to the women of I France than, a sweet little child, and the cares and responsibilities,of a family too irksome for ,a frivolous, pleasure-seeking community? The responsibility of presenting sturdy sons and daughters to a nation has been left to the worker in the past, and what reward has ho received? —a life of weary toil for a bare existence; a grinding life of misery in many cases, and few opportunities to better ..his position. Ho has been looked upon as hewer of wood and carrier of water: placcd in this position by an all-wise Providence, and kept there by social conditions, which .pre-vent-him from becoming other than a-mere machine. But now that tho worker has fouud that he with a family is worth more to a nation than a millionaire without one, and that ho is tho- richest asset any nation can claim, periiaps he is waiting to see what offer the State will make to save herself from self-destruction. He is beginning to realise that he", is an important factor ill the world after all, and not merely a mechanical contrivance for the producing of .wealth; but, as the father of a family, something that the State must carefully guard and tender'. This being so, the saving of a nation from self-destruction is to be found' in the protecting care of those of her children who can mqko or unmake a nation —tho workers.— I am, etc.,
August 26. A CITIZEN. EPISCOPAL AND PRESBYTERIAN UNION. Sir, —The day after the date of "Presbyterian's " present letter appeared an interpretation of the cable message of August 10, given hy a Presbyterian member of the joint conference held in Melbourne. This oxactly agreed with the interpretation already given in my letters published-by you on August lo and 20. Perhaps now he will admit that,l was correct. I have asked three times for the Presbyterian theory which .we are invited to graft into episcopacy, but can learn nothing from him. If i a question will drag out some information I will ask- whether the theory is that the ministry is self-originatisg and selfappointing.; If so, -wherein does the Presbyterian theory differ from, say, .Congregationalism ? I, referred him -to his own Dr. Cumming; now will he. please mark his own Dr. Dod's .words, " Admission to the minis-' try being 'regulated ' by those already in office, iire, less 1 likely- to'o'ccur.lf tlie c ;church .jvas together and to was' necessary that those already in offico should bo allowed to scrutinise the,claim of aspirants to'office." What is this but to -assert tlie principle of the Apostolic succession? Perhaps " Presbyterian " sees reason to believe that if he assorts such a principle- ho must admit that the principle is most secure in episcopacy.. At any rate, if he falls short of that principle, then lie moves from Presbyterianisin to, say, Congregationalism, or reduces Presbyterianism to a modified Congregationalism. Bishop Moule, ho points out, says: "There is reason' to think that the' episcopate rather grow out of tho presbyterato in the order of providence than otherwise." Tho. Bishop merely finds a "reason to think," and would not bo justified, unless, 1 perhaps, in " Presbyterian's" opinion, in throwing over episcopacy on so slight a pretext. Surely every subject has its pros and cons. Further, I would refer- "Presbyterian" to Sadler's excursus on the Christian ministry in. his commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy, where the question is fully considered, and he will find'convincing "reasons to think" that episcopacy did not grow out of a presbyterato. But assume that it did, then we only arrive at the position that a time came -when the right of conferring ordination was for some reason lost by the presbyters.' Could they, we may ask, to say nothing of the strong-handed manner in which it was done, 1 destroy episcopacy, originate a now communion, and take up again tho rights and powers they had surrendered, or that had been rightfully withdrawn from themp "Presbyterian" asserts that Presbyterianisin had a very ancient origin. How then did it die out so that nothing was heard of it? He must remember the extraordinarytenacity of modem Presbyterianisin. "Presbyterian" . after, all, cannot find' Presbyterianisin as wo -know it beforo Calvin invented it and read it into the past. As to tho opinions of tho Anglican divines who recognised the v reformed churches. oil tho Continent,' I have shown him that those same divines did not recogniso a Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The Church' Quarterly of April, 1902, in reply to Henson, -says, "Tho canons of 1604, which include the 'Church of Scotland' in the 'bidding prayer,' aro no evidence, as they are often controversially supposed to be, of _ a .recognition of Presbyterian ministries. For James VI, before ho succeeded to .tho English Crown, had already restored! the northern hierarchy, and only waited the conve : nicnt' moment ' to procure canonical consecration. And when .in 1610 -that omission was made good, the argument of necessity, the only argument which had been admitted by Anglican divines, was no longer applicable to Scotland." The preface . to tho ordinal certainly forbids the schcme advocated by "Presbyterian," who slides into another question which I will elucidate later if permitted, shp.uld there be any necessity.—l ani.' etc., PHYLAX. August 27, 190 S. DR. TUDOR JONES ON FAUSTUS SOCINUS AND THE REV. J. CIBSON SMITH. Sir, —It is. not my- custom over to arguo with anonymous correspondents, but as "Another Presbyterian." has brought forward tho names of two men whom I respect* —Faustus Socinus and tho Rov. Gibson Smith —I feel bound to take somo notice of tho letter. Both men are strangers to me: Socinus died in IGO4, and as I am ignorant of visitations of spirits and of visions I lay claim to acquaintance with his writings only. Mr. Gibson Smith is entirely unknown to mo except by sight and through his book. " Another Presbyterian" would do well to bear in mind the fact that I am no,t a member of his Presbytery, and cannot bo expected to consult his church or ally individuals belonging to his church as to what I shall say on the questions of theology and religion. And with all due respect to tho members of my own church,' 1 am not expected to consult them either on.these matters, and even if they expected it they could not get it. I have had to pay too much for mv freedom in theology and religion to bo dictated to as to what groove my thoughts should move in. I camo from tliat house of bondage, and it is not my intention to return to it. Mr. Gibson Smith lias published his book and sells it for three shillings and sixpence. Ho had no business
to put his goods on the market unless' lia was willing that tho goods should be valued, nob'according to tho judgment of any Presbytery alone, but as well according to the judgment, of any leader who might desireto;pass' an opinion on them. I passed an opinion on them, and intend to pass auotber. . ...:Thati.the book'-is'to come forward for judgment, and that it >vill be probably put on tho " Index," and that it may creato a crisis in the history of his church, are to me the Tiest tilings, that could happen for tho cause modern theology and religion in New Zealand. When a man publishes a book and makes- money from -it, he has to bo ready to take tho consequences to the fullest, for the issues at stake cannot be confined to the fixity of tenure of the individual who writes nor to tho particular denomination to which the man belongs. This is not ,1 personal matter as to the futuro rise or fall of Mr. Gibson Smith, but a matter pertaining to truth and the higher welfare of life. Tho forward march of , Truth is more important than the material, welfare of any man. If tlio. defenders of the book are in fear and trembling to.write their names to their letters I am afraid that in his hour of need Mr. Gibson Smith will have, to look elsewhere for support. . • ..The unknown .writer. of the letter states that I brought 110 proofs forward to show tho parallels of the teachings of Socinus in the sixteenth century and of Mr.. Gibson Smith in the twentieth. I brought the proofs forward in my sermon. The' proofs, it is evident, could not be contained in. a short report of about three inches. But .1 am willing to show three things when "Another Presbyterian" writes under his own name:—, , '. . (1) That " Another Presbyterian," in his quotations from the late' Professor, Ritschl and' Professor Harnack, attempts to blind [ieoplo to the rear issue a t stake. The real issue at stake is: Was the death of Christ a satisfaction which God needed in the form of a payment of a dobt? This js_ the main problem with Socinus and Mr. Smith, whilst tho issue is turned by your correspondent from tho, causG of the Atonement, to its effects and consequences. , (2) That the issues as t6 the cause of the Atonement are practically parallel with Socinus and Mr. Smith. . (3) That tho mode in which! ..the problem is stated by Socinus.and Mr.'Smjth lifts-been discarded entirely by practically ',all tjio religious thinkers of Britain, and America.—l am, etc., W. TUDOR, JONES.; September 1. . DR. TUDOR JONES AND THE ATONEMENT. • .-. o Sir, —Dr. Tudor Jones' is really Hopeless. Ho will not face the issue which lia "'himself raised. His letter" in your issue of' 'to-day reminded me irresistibly of Lewis Carroll's humorous geometrical postulate—"A controversy may be raised about Any Question; and at any distance from that question." ; Dr. Jones raised a controversy as to whether the questions raised by Mr. Smith's book, which are so keenly felt here, are still vital'issues in the seats of learning in the Old World. On that point ho said: "Theories,which were dead in all tho seats' of learning in the Old World seemed to have come here .to flourish."
The chief question raised in this discussion is regarding 'the' expiatory '.or. penal nature of our Lord's_ death, and its :being tlie ground of our forgiveness.. .Tliis is usually spoken' of as the expiatory doctrine of the Atonement. Now, .Dr; Joiies cannot. deny that his'words would lead your readers, to suppose that this view of the Atonement is not believed ;u.by scholars at.Home. He said that these questions discussed by us aro "dead in all the seats of learning in the Old World." In reply, I quoted the'names, of-nine leading' scholar-; whose books I have on my shelves who hold aiid teach the expiatory doctrine of tho Atonement. Here is a clear-cut issue, but Dr. Jones will not face it. In illustration of Lewis Carroll's postulate, he gets at as great a distanco from the question as he can. He fills columns with utterly irrelevant matter, .much of it contrary , to fact, but he 1 will not f-ace the issue which ho himself _ has. raised. ..With your permission I.will give a few quotations from leaders .of theological thought in Britain that- will, show : that Dr. Jones's statements are entirely contrary to fact. Principal Forsyth begins his. paper, in. "The Atonement in Modern - Religious -thought" by saying: "Back to Christ is a most unnecessary movement in every unsettled age; but the-Reformers' version.of it is the true one. ■ If the word is taken in spiritual earnest it means back' to tho Cross, and iljack to tho Cross means not only back to . the moral principle of sacrifice, but back to* the religious .principle of expiation." And the paper which follows is a strong defence of tho expiatory or, penal view of the Atonement. And bis book on "Tho Holy Father is full of passages expounding and defending tho penal view of the-Atonement. • .-Principal Gorrie. in his.commentary on the Romans,, says: "Christ's sacrifice is the means of securing man's redemption, .by which Paul moans first of. all acquittal, forgiveness, acceptance before. God." '.And readers, of the volume must know that Dr. Gorric's attitude to Christian-doctrine is that of liberal orthoPrincipal Adeuey, in his article on "Mediation" in Hastings's Dictionary, says: "Thus by His death. Christ becomes . the , sacrifice which removes the guilt of-sin and secures forgiveness for the penitent.": And-again the whole theological attitude of tho article is that of liberal orthodoxy. .- .
Professor'Orr-says': "there, are, in my judgment, two considerations which, make it indispensable that tho relation.- to law and* guilt in the Atonement of Christ, should bo retained. The first is that it is an indubitable element of the doctrine of Scripture— inter-woven -with its dec-pest teachings regarding God,'sin, and the conditions of forgive-ness-of siu. The second is that it alono meets tho needs of conscience in its: testimony, to the reality of moral law, and of the evil and condemnableness. of sin.-" Professor; George' Adam Smith, in his work on Isaiah, speaking of our Lord's death, says: "His'death was no mere martyrdom or miscarriage of human justice: in God 3 intent and purpose, but also by its own voluntary offering, it was an expiatory sacrifice." ' And the context shows_ that Dr. Smith is not only expounding, Isaiah's, views but is also giving, his owm - . ■ . From Professor, Dehney I Heed not-quote. Everyone knows that this brilliant, scholar is giving his strength to expound and- defend the expiatory nature of the Atoneinent as a central element in the Christian Gospel. Dr. Marcus Dods, in his exposition of John's Gospel, " says: "John / tho Baptist pointed to Jesus as the Lamb of God that taketh awav tho- sin- of tho world. How does a lamb .take away sin? Not by instruction, not by example,..but by beiug sacrificed; by standing in. the room of the- sinner and suffering 'instead .of .him. And when Jesus Himself, without sin, hung upon tho Cross, those who' knew His innoceiico perceived that it was as tho Lamb of God Ha suffered, and that by His death they wera delivered." ■ It is unnecessary for. mo to give turtuer quotations. Those that _ I have; given aro from real leaders of theological thought and teachers ill famous scats of learning in .Britain. I have before me passages from Professor W. P. .Paterson, Dr. _ Flint's brilliant successor in. tho University of Edinburgh, and from Dr. Driver, of Oxford, and others, of the same character as the. quotations I have given, but considerations of space prevent further quotation. From all this it is perfectly clear that Dr. Jones's statements are incorrect. It is also clear that his knowledge of the subject is limitecto a degree. . That is also-seen in the fact that lie gives the critical views of such men as Driver as, proof thai they do not hold tlie orthodox Christian doctrine. ■ It is so wel known by real theological students that uiaiij leaders in the field of Biblical criticism .hold orthodox views) on such ss the Atonement, aud tho ,I'erson of Christ, thai when Dr. Joiies talks as if ordinary Christian doctrine could not be held by adherents of the' higher' criticism lie merely shows how very limited • his knowledge 'of § theological questions is. Dr. Jones shows his egregious vanity by filling his letters with great lists of learned names,, and by making loud-sound-ing assertions without proof, but when his statements aro examined and tested it is really amazing how superficial his knowledge is seen to be. ; No wonder that he talks at large, and 1 keeps-as far as he'can from theissue which he. himself raised.—l am, etc., . . ' v'"..- ISAAC JOLLY. Palnierston North, August 31.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19080904.2.21
Bibliographic details
Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 293, 4 September 1908, Page 4
Word Count
4,345LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 293, 4 September 1908, Page 4
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.