CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 72, 22 May 1852, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir,—lf the letter of H. J. appears to Mr. Chohnondeley unsatisfactory, and he has availed himself of the medium of your columns to vent his dissatisfaction, I shall, I trust, need no other excuse for trespassing on your space, hoping to receive the same favour. H. J., according to Mr. C.'s account, must be an extraoidinary individual, and grossly misapplying his time and talents, and Mr. 0. a very farsighted one, when he discovers him fortifying an unknown position, and we must certainly regret H. J.s unfortunate choice of circumvallation to answer the purpose Mr. 0. imputes to him. It is scarcely credible that the dispute can be between professing churchmen. When Presbyterian judgments, on an expression made use of are threatened, for there is scarce a point of doctrine, or discipline either, we could name, but some sect or other would be ready to oppose; but where the point in question is one on which both, as churchmen, are agreed, it appears futile in Mr. C. to remind H. J. that there are others who do not agree with him, unless it is an indirect way of asking the support of these people, and exciting their antagonism. ' It must, as members of the church, be painful to themselves, and also to many others, to bring a subject so intimately connected with, suoh Holy Mysteries before the public ; for though they may be most sincere, and ontertain'the most reverential feelings on the matter, they must be aware that it will not be treated so by every one; with some it will produce debate, anger, and strife, and with others it will become a subject lor jest. But to return to Mr. C.'s letter. " Where," he asks triumphantly, " is it found in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, that they (i.e., the early Christians) voted because they were communicants ?" Where is there one tittle of evidence to shew any substantial connection between voting and communicancy ? Now really these' questions betray a greater degree of simplicity than we could expect to find in a mind like Mr. C.'s He appears unfortunately to tike the generality of professing Christians of the present day, as his standard of these primitive Christians. The simple fact of their being Christians assures us they were communicants ; for is it possible that men should join themselves together for the purpose of attaining some great object or privilege, and yet when that was placed within their reach, they should not avail themselves of it? Is it possible that a man should join himself to a body to whose members the words of St. Paul might justly be applied, " They had trials of cruel mocking and scourging, yea, moreover of bondsand imprisonments?' 3 To endure all this, yea, and even death itself, and yet to suppose them neglecting that Holy Mystery, the very groundwork and foundation of their"belief, without which their religion were vain, and the death of Him their Lord of none effect—to suppose them neglecting this Holy Rite, for their belief in which they were pun-

ished, is almost too much for an age like the present, the character of which is unbelief; even Mr. C. himself admits it in an earlier part of his letter. Why should they vote ? Because they were communicants; who else should vote; who, but those who were ready to forsake all, who counted not the cost, whom the fiery zeal of the Pharisee could not intimidate, nor the threats of the Council silence ; who but these could wish its (i.c.the church) welfare. But Mr. C. unfortunately does not appear to think anything worthy belief which is not directly stated in so many plain words; now I think we may justly infer many things which are not directly stated, more especially on a matter of this kind : for being at the time this book was written, so notorious a fact, no particular mention would be made of it; the more so as from the reasons I have shewn, none but Christians or communicants (for at this time I take the terms to be synonymous) would wish the right. Is it possible, let me ask, that enemies and persecutors would wish the right, or seek the welfare of that society, whose grand object it was to subdue and destroy; men had not then learnt the art which is brought to perfection in the present day, nay, become al-most-to be thought a virtue, of using the garb of friendship to inflict the deeper injury. I must also call your attention to another, unfortunately, prevalent idea Mr. 0. wishes for, and thinks with the many, that greatness is strength ; there must be no narrowing the basis, never mind the faultiness of the materials, do not reject them, that is no ground for it, we must have a wide basis. Is this, I would ask, wisdom? Is this the spirit of Christianity, to take men for our help, to sacrifice the sacred principles of truth and to pass over that which we should deem most holy, as a subject of little moment in comparison with popular opinion? Is this wisdom to attempt to raise our superstructure on a faulty basis, merely because'it is a wide one ? If such is to be the. basis, I fear the walls will be "daubed with untemperedmortar." Mr. C, growing quite eloquent, accuses H. J. of an attempt to "shackle the immunities," not of those living totally regardless of God, not of the world, the men for whom Mr. C. pleads so earnestly, but of ;' his' own people." Now let it not be thought for a moment that the opinion is entertained that all who partake of the Holy Communion must be so ; we naturally form our judgment by their obedience to his commandments ; we know that the term •' own people" is used in scripture, to denote those who are living in, as far as man can, strict obedience to His laws with letter and spirit. Now if Mr. C. Avill admit these non-communicants to be doing so, I shall be willing at once to concede the justness of his expression, and their claim to the . right. —Truly the souudnessof that man's judgment is to be doubted, who thinks that a religious revival can take place by a weak compliance with popular prejudices, or that it is to be brought about by sacrificing (if such an expression may be used) the very essence of it ; for what reasonable hope can we have, nay, how can our Saviour's death benefit us, if it is not as we are duly partakers of that Holy Mystery ? who can be called members of Christ, except s"di as fulfil the duties required by members? shall we call those members, who, by their habitual absence, disobey His commandments ? shall we call those members, who, of full age and matured understanding, refuse to fulfil their duty, refuse to acknowledge their sonship to God, and their brotherhood to Christ, by actually refusing to " abide in Him." Sir, religion is not a subject on which to display a morbid liberalism, or with which we can temporise successfully; many have tried to do so, are still trying to make it suitable to the generality of mankind, and such, alas, is, I think, too much the case there. If it be so, farewell to all our hopes of a •' Church Settlement." Alas ! for the prediction of the " Spectator," that some centuries hence a people will be discovered in New Zealand, using the Book of Common Prayer; farewell to those bright hopes which as it were beckoned us o'er the mighty ocean ; farewell to all our hopes of existence, as a church or a nation. It is with regret, deep regret, that I have now addressed you. Surely churchmen must feel, when engaged in intestine contest, that they had needfthough victorious, like the men of Israel, "get them by stealth into the city, even as men who had tied in battle." E.T. Lyttelton, May 11, 1852.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sin,— My friend Mr. Cholmondeley and I are widely at issue. He has quite misconceived my drift and meaning. Did I mean merely to assort us a fact, that"all Christians in the Apostles' times were communicants ? Nay, I meant far more than this. I meant to assert that connnunicancy was, and was esteemed to he, an essential part of Christianity, so much so that the idea of a Christian Non-Communi-cant would have been considered an absolutecontradiction. Neither should I he afraid to assert, because I believe that I should be able to. prove, that it was so esteemed, not only in the Apostles' times but in all ages of the Church down to the period of the Reformation, and for a considerable time afterwards. Ido not think that any one, even slightly acquainted with Ecclesiastical History, will consider this a rash assertion. But it is not my purpose to go into any of the proofs of this position at present; suffice it to say, that I am prepared to do so, if time and opportunity be allowed. I say thus much at present, to explain my meaning in my former letter, and to account for the answers which I shall now give to Mr. Cholmondeley's questions. When \e asks, where I find that they voted because they were communicants I answer, in the same places that I find that they voted because they were brethren. When he asks, how I make out that " this ancient and most undoubted right passed in virtue and by condition of communicancy," I answer that this ancient and most undoubted right existed only by virtue of communicancy. Distinctly, then, I did mean to affirm that Communicancy was a condition of " Church Franchise" (if we must use the term) in those times. It was a condition, implied and understood, but not expressed, for the very reason that such a thing as Non-Gommunicancy was never, apparently, thought of, except as* identical with Apostacy from the Christian Faith and Name. Now. in choosing this side of the alternative which my friend offers me, I do not find myself wounded by that " double edge." which he defies me to escape. ■ Perhaps the edge may be found, upon examination to be" somewhat blunt. He follows me to the passage which I had quoted from the 2nd chanter of the Acts, where he finds that Christians in those very early days v did other things and possessed other advantages over us. besides " continuing steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellovv"siiip. and in breaking of bread and in prayers." as for instance" that "' all that believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need :" and again, that they weie " daily with one accord in the temple •" "and yet again, that they " had favour with all the people;'" aud upon "making these discoveries, he hazards the following assertion which is intended to constitute' the ki double edge," with which he threatens me. He says. •• why, either each of these acts and privileges were alike conditions, or not one of them was singly and in itself a condition, for they all stand exactly upon the same too tins: in the Holy Book referred to/ What ? To be " in favour with all the people !" does this stand "* cracr/y upon (.he shim footing as the •• continuing steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, ami in breaking oi bread and in prayer* ?" Oar friend has tail gin us a belter doctrine than this a HtUe iiirther on in his letter, where he says '* We all know that Chrismr.uy resolves itself into two ereat division*. imenial or spiritual. external \.r temporal." Now, how was ii ai.u it ci:.<i mil occur jo him to av;>'y tu:s ni.-st unquestionable yrineivie to the i».»:err-re:siv-,i t »f the passage he had just before quoted ? " I'hey ooir^sr.nvl steadfastly in ;l:e Ap ii.v:ruu-- ,»m A-:K>wsh:v. .\vA of hreak- ;: sr «•: brt\in ;>>.,: y.i r^yer?;" i.are we «i»: here t-.e " ::;: t -~:a": or s^r::::.ij." :hc Doe:r:-e. sh? **l :r.;y ».f :;:- S:-i:-. -n -j.* 3. 0=l = of t»f.u-e." s-.sc: ::;_; :iuv.:.s of grv.. * Aui oocs i:oi sll j S:"'':, •„„'-" ""**■ y: • "■•- '- • c "OXicKJS; \'T '.rVI- : ;> -,x. . .-^*-'- ";-'': v^-.r.0 a:>.i3i every «..i..1: " : c-.'c.;^.-:^" c-i-*. :;. «.„;,.. ;1.-.y *r:e -jlr-.i-ec ? i •• A.:.'. :■„.!- \ ..: \ >"--. its o^i-.c- t«v | v :.,•• -.-"'.v.:.> .: :.r <::.:.-• G.-.i; A^£ ;

with all the people;" does this belong to the immutable, or to the variable ? May Mr. C. never have occasion to discover by his own experience! But is it possible that he can have said, that all these facts and privileges " stand exactly'upon the same footing p" I may surely take a weapon out of his own armoury, and say " The error into which he has fallen is obvious enough. It consists in what Logicians would call the substitution of the" idem" for the " simul," the " eadem natura" for the "eodem tempore." Surely, if my. argument was "-not worth a nutshell," what is this worth ? It is not worth the husk, in which the nutshell grew. But a truce to this playing with edged tools which I did not commence, and which we had both better abandon. And from my heart I do appreciate, and turn with gladness to the " deep, inexpressible interest" which my greatly admired, and I will add, much-loved friend avows "in the great church movement now going on among us," and to the hope which he so nobly expresses, (God of His mercy grant its fulfilment!) that "it may lead to a great religious revival.'' But this revival will not take place, we may be assured, if we take our stand on any low' or worldly ground, and I am constrained to say that I think it is taking low and worldly ground to ask, as Mr. Cholmondeley asks at" the end of his letter, " what there is in the nature of a spiritual act to guarantee the sound exercise of a mere act of common judgment. Where then is the use of the prayers, with which we commence our meetings ? Are we then to rely upon our " common judgment," common to all mankind and not to Christians only, and to forget that our only hope is in the special grace of God, and the promised help of His Spirit, promised to Christians only, to guide them in the exercise of their " common judgment'" ?• And what "guarantee" have we for the fulfilment of that promise to us, and the conveyance of that grace, but in the faithful performance of those " spiritual acts," which Christ Himself has ordained as the channels of His Grace—namely, Prayer, and the Holy Sacrament? I am afraid, Sir, that I have already far exceeded my proper limits, but I must entreat the forbearance of yourself and your readers yet a little farther. I cannot agree with Mr. C. in thinking tliat " Church Franchise" so obviously belongs to the variable part of Christianity, and that it comes under the head of forms and ceremonies, and indifferent customs. I believe that it far more nearly touches the essential definition of Church-Membership. Church franchise ought to be co-extensive with full adult male Church-Membership. The one question we have to consider, men. is, in what does full Church-Membership, in the case of adults, consist? My position is, that it cannot coexist with habitual non-participation of the Holy Communion. And, therefore, should it be determined to base the Church Franchise on any lower ground, I for one should acquiesce iii such a course only under protest, as in an imperfect, temporary, suite of things, to be remedied as soon as possible. Audhere let it be carefully observed, that those who with me hold this view do not wish to exclude any; on the contrary, they invite, they earnestly implore all to become communicants, as they would implore them to prepare for death. For the preparation of the one is the same as the preparation for the other. They do not. certainly invite any person to come to the communion "except with repentance, faith, and preparation of heart. But then they certainly donot wish to see any wilfully unrepentant, unbelieving1 person take pun in the affairs of the Church :" ami let any such hewaie how he puts forth his hand to touch the Ark of Gap. 80 iai. certainly, those who agree wiih me are exclusive. Inn "no farther. They do not wish to turn Christian librr.y :ut<^ unchristian license, nor to throw cowj she C'liKn-j:*?- "bulwarks," tumor the plea of jwauv.iatr her ei:ie:eucy. I had intemieri to r.e:lo-e sever.*3 n»ter win;* iv Mr. CYs letter. a::«i panioularly to a>k him what he means hv " u.triii- lLiv.isij:.? wv:shic finvani with the \>?o~ test ssi ihe heave:-?,/" bin I w:Si eoisime ir.\\eif -.c- t-\ig.'gfs',ziis_ iwo qufji^vos u*r ir.s eoHsidera::O2. !. "\\ ievher he :s a«,i r.Khueu::«.'tt:.*:"v jj-'-'^i^a^ a^oy.aJ.*: cTJvr ami uaista'sea prtju-c:r-e. ttlcs ac ecQr.-,>i';jis :-.» d:w«" wHum ii'^u ■rci-a' if- iritis a - L/[»j^ ic-?:,'" she eirvir z-zq vrrji-jd:^. I ■3ieh7>.-xh:csurs*s frra a c-co-:"^i;a -cd ihe 7 rco^-d CLuj-ch Fj-?jaeLi>r

throw upon a " Lord's Supper Test," would not with equal justice attach to his own Baptism test. If an unbaptized adult were to present himself to exercise the privilege of votinoMr. Cholmondeley, on his own principles' would reject him. Then is he not, with equal justice, liable to the charge, if there be anything in it, of attempting to " saddle" upon a Holy Sacrament " the burden of a constituency privilege ?" I must earnestly apologise for the undue length of this communication, and hope &*•' though I can scarcely expect, your imlulggnc¥ and that of your readers, to whom I feel it'due\ that I should follow my friend's example, and sign myself no longer with the initials of my name only, but as very faithfully your's, Henuy Jacobs. Christchureh, May 11, 1852.

To the Editor of the " Lyttelton Times." Sir, —Your readers will have learned with regret Mr. Brittan's determination, announced in your last, to withdraw from public life; for although, as you observe, the support or hostility of an individual, however great his attainments may be, can have little or no effect upon a general movement of the nature in question, still it is no less true that the services of a gentleman, possessed of the intelligence and capacity for business which distinguish Mr. Brittan, can but ill be dispensed with. But if this loss is great m itself, I think the reason which Mr. Brittan gives for his determination is still more to be lamented : that because we have no considerable grievance to complain of, therefore political action is undesirable. In the first place, it can hardly with truth be said that we have no " considerable grievance," for we have several real and very substantial ones ; secondly, even if this were true, it would be quite beside the question, for the cure of grievances does not constitute the whole, nor, indeed, the principal part of good government. I will, however, admit, for the sake of argument, that we have no grievance— that the whole system of our government is not based upon degrading and demoralizing prin--~ ciples—that all our officials are the most pureminded and disinterested of men—that no appointments have been made with a view* to lniying off damaging opponents, nor for the purpose of providing for some needy but perhaps disreputable protege of the colonial office —that only such as are distinguished for manly independence, moral worth, and qualifications for office can hope to obtain preferment amongst us—and, lastly, that so tender is the government of our interests, that no more of these exemplary officials are saddled upon our revenues than are absolutely necessary. Admitting all this (and the very enumeration of such, gratifying circumstances recalls to my recollection the catastrophe of the equally unsullied bureaucracies of Austria and Prussia) still 1 maintain, it is neither just nor politic to attempt to stop the people's mouth : mi the contrary, it is very desirable that they should possess opportunities of freely speaking their missds—they should feel that they have a means of making their wishes heard, and their grievances, if any, attended to. Wild schemes and unfounded reports would thus be brought to the test of public discussion and explanation, and that habit of suppressed »rumhiiiiff. so characteristic of the colonies, and which perhaps mure than auy other cause excites a feeling of hatred and contempt of the governing powers, would, in a yreat measure, be obviated. These are among the more otnkuis reasons fur not insisting iinon the existence, of some intolerable grievance as an imttsnonsahle requi site, preparatory to entering upon \mr political education. Others will no\iv»uln surest themselves: in the uu\\mune 1 will oouohule by e^ pressing a hope i»f yet M-du,tf M>\ Urittau tak- " ing an aotho part* in the atVs»u> ol' ovr Hale community, ami, instead o-f imiuv.sr sway in dJsgust at the whole >oheuK\ lemUns; h> ;i=>ist-, anoe in correcting sun! iiW.Uyusi uu\>e yarts 1 I v vdtieh may appear u> htm v>»r obeu:e«s servant. H, U T.OOKEP-Cbr-,0.-h=ivb. Mir U;V, j^Vi,