A QUESTION OF CRITICISM.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 9266, 28 April 1892, Page 4

A QUESTION OF CRITICISM.

Sir,— ln your issue of this morniog tliere is a letter eipued "Fairdealer" which I should liko to reply to somewhat briefly. In the first place, .before our friend came More us in the position of critic, ho fhonld certainly fiavo learned what the j iirst principle of crilici'in was, viz., accuracy, which he shows his want of iv bin lirst remarks, as lie says "as nearly as I can recollect." This in itseU shows i want of accuracy which at once puts all ho can bring forth in a questionable light, for he is not at all certain of what he is writing about. And he further goes on to say that " It was a physical impossibility to iliscnss a quarter of tho various views held upon the subject of the resurrection in the half hour or hour duriup which tbo sermon lusted." Now, sir, in his letter ho acknowledges that he was not present at the sermon, nnd how cau lie defino what powers tho rev. gentleman posseted ? Apart from that, he would have known hud ho been there that it was treated trom an historical point, and the leading schools of thought from that point of view were dealt with only, and ib was consequently to this the Dean referred in hi* opeiiiug remarks of last Sunday evening. Re his renmining remarks referring to Dr. Abbot, if >nur correspondent, was so fun 1 of fair d-'.iling r« his norn de plume would leiid one to uippuee, lio would lmve ili'all fairly with this, for in thj lirst place no i!hiirchmn!i nun hold thn.ee views lv spite of his avowal daily in the Apostles' creed, which clearly admits of do donbi in the ru'ud of anyone who caa sub 3 crlbc tn it. Therefore, if tl.ose referred to hold Mich, they cannot bu churchmen. The two prreiit division;* of thought nre either the di«eiplw were impostors or they were imposed upon, both of which weic condiu>ivi,iy utuU with ; uuil n' Dr. Abbot or

any'other man holds both of these views, which are so diametrically opposed to each other, he mutt bo fit for a lunatic asylum. Lastly, onr critic evidently is not a believer, and as such, when he came into' our place of worship, let it be for whatever purpose he might, he would at least have shown better taste to have refrained from criticism on that Which to so many present meant Worship.— l am, &c, Churchman.