THE MUST AND LAST PAPERS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3567, 24 June 1872, Page 3

THE MUST AND LAST PAPERS.

TO THE BDITOS OP THE X.TTTMTOH TIMES. Slß,—l would, with your permission, give through your columns a definite shape to a •iaw thoughts further suggested on the subject of this heading. And I would first ask the Tea. Archdeacon of Westland to what end he was in his paper so laboriously intent upon fixing in the minds of others. What leading Aden was the whole excursion of his mind idkirabgat? It seems, to me it was an attempt to enunciate views tending to bring the laity Jntq a sort of a cramped straight-laced "position, and at the same time to resolve all jagjSlative power into the hands of the Bishop. Now, not tospeak of this from a “liberty of conscience ” point of vie#, or yet to advance its tendings and bearings as derived from the fountain of truth, we will speak of it from a civilisation mid march of intellect point of view. And hero I must beg the reader’s attention to. the paper read by the Ven. Arch-, deacon of Christchurch, as I had occasion to. -do;beforc. From what period of church history does he derive data tor assuming—for indirectly he certainly does assume—that when the laity took the.' most active part in church affairs, and when they manifested most anxiety to emulate to holiness and zeal, while they at the time showed most intent interest in the welfare of their ministers, being jealous over them for the truth’s sake, , that then such action, showed a spirit contrary to the spirit of Christ ? I admit that individually, or in the case of certain individuals, zeal may take the march of prudent judgment, when fancy is dominant and “ conscious intelligence ” is out of jphue. But when in modern or ancient records can facts be presented to us of a community or communities of. believers—for such they must‘be supposed to be who are entitled to port in church government? I say when did they show signs of being guided or influenced by narrow or indiscreet motives,” or of being the voice or “ choice of a clique or of ill-informed but well meaning persons ?” It will be seen that I use these quotations in the same sense in which the ven. gentleman used them, viz., to refer to the whole body, -claiming suffrage right. Now it is not necessary to go back to the church in the wilderness—the Jewish theocracy—a claim to, ■thin could scarcely be substantiated ; but we’ may confine ourselves to the Christian church, properly so called. What do we find ? That •“ lay agency was made use of.” But the Fen Archdeacon does not argue from that point of view, or, if he does, he destroys its; weight by subsequent argument. He admittedly allows the huty “ a will ” and " some share” in nomination, but this cannot be taken so much to mean a right by position and privilege claimed on account of Christian «tending, as that it is a power allowed in a nominal sense by the Bishop _ to " his inferiors,” or, in the mournful, bitter, and untruthful language of the Yen. gentleman himself, for it cannot be borne out by facts or scripture, “ each parish, ” in its present system of nomination —“ each parish looks out for itself. The Bishop is as the general of an army with no power of distribut-; Mg his officers. The choice of the parish may be the choice of a clique, or of ill-informed , but well-meaning persons. They, as a Board, rUky have no special advantages to lead to a wise choice, and some motives for on unwise <me, whereas the Bishop is pronounced to have special fitness for the work,” &c. Now no one sorely supposes the Church to act throughout without the co-operation and_ advice of those they are bound by peculiar ties to respect, and look up to as having " special fitness.” Certainly not, neither is the Church to be taken in an absolute sense as a power apart from the Bishop, nor vice versa. But the work allotted to them can only be successfully met as they work together as one harmonious whole. In the language of the Yen. Archdeacon of Christchurch, “ Doubtless the clergy have the highest functions to fulfill. But is not every man a priest unto God? ‘Has he it not in his charge to spread (in his measure) the knowledge of Christ’s Gospel. Surely it will be hailed ss the most important step that can .be taken in the progress of lay organisation, when it is recognised as a matter of couive that the. laymen shall as naturally undertake the offices of lay reader, catechist, Sunday school teacher as those of churchwarden, vestryman, or nominator.” ~ But to return; it was observed that in the early church lay agency was made use of. Now, did our Saviour or his Apostles choose the most accomplished in “ education and ** theological knowledge ” P Quite the reverse. But was it not needed as much then as now r In a sens*, Yes j in a sense, No. Surely error in its highest forms was rampant then as now, it may not have been so specious; neither was religion. It attempted then as now to mix its misty conclusions with the pure light, when as yet philosophy had scarcely the semblance form. It behoved them to he careful over "their precious and youthful charge, yet were all excluded from Christian work but those who were inspired, and who were entrusted more especially with the leadership of the sacramental hosts of God's elect ? Admittedly

they weveaot* And- shall wo now t whan aili true science and philosophy may bring their ; richest treasures to adomin ■ beauty modern Christian thought, withhold it , ,fipn the uses to. which all believers may ; subordinate it ? I think it is too often forgotten in thds jpidflt Of superior outward standing and supposed attainments that the Holy Ghostdwells equally in every believer, ; and that Christ has promised over to bo with ( his church. Again, to what past standard©! organisation ! does ho wish to bring the church ? lie would restrict present liberty of voice and vote to i some ideal standard of more or loss “ rospon- ■ sible personal government.” If this is not his drift, then I fail' to see the use of his paper or arguments. But what is its standard? To what given point in church or ecclesiastical history would ho land us ? that we may take a view, and from which conclusion may be drawn indicative of Christian progress pursuant to the restriction of lay power. Why, according to the Yon. Archdeacon of Christchurch, we arc progressing in the right direction now; and for the very reason that laymen nro becoming alive to their position in the church, and moving as an clement of usefulness, and only ns this is brought about will the Church assume its proper proportions, and be fitted to accomplish the work it is appointed by God to do. Hear what ho says : “We stand simply in the position of the first converts to Christianity, voluntary members of a voluntary body. Each one of us, if our profession means anything, has received a treashre of Divine knowledge and blessing,—the one treasure which, beyond all others, grows by distribution. Men and women, we are called on to see and try how much we can do by our own personal efforts to evangelise the world, and well will it be for us' if the progress of our Church shows a constantly increasing company of lay fellow helpers in the work of the ministry, such as gladdened the hearts of the first preachers of the Gospel, and received in Scripture their living commemoration.” In fact the last paper takes up the first at almost ersry step and punishes its rendering with ease. Again, after describing some of the means afforded in the present day, “ and, above all, with the ever present influence of the Holy Spirit to enlighten the mind and purify the heart. The [ laity of our day are highly privileged—so thoroughly furnished with the means of studying, and holding fast Divine truth, that they may well be expected (according to their abilities and opportunities) to co-operate heartily in the work of spreading the Gospel of Christ,” nay, “ they are well able, and they are bound, &c.” Again, " they have to reorganize their position as occupying the whole field of the Church; and "It thev will not labour in church organisation and finance, the work must stand stub” But the Yen. Archdeacon of Christchurch has anticipated objections for he says," Doubtless many will be found even in the colonies, and certainly in Eng-, land, who will he alarmed at the idea of conferring on the laity an effective control in matters of doctrine and discipline.” Nevertheless, he says “ In the church of the future they will make their influence powerfully felt in the regulation of church discipline and doctrine.” He also opposes the first paper in the matter of “ shades of opinion,” and says that while at present it may be a blessing in the course of Providence that antagonism is prevented, yet the time must come when (referring to the mother church) “ partisans will be set free if they he so minded to attack and persecute each other.” “This danger will be encountered in the interval between the cessation of Church and State organisation, and the complete construction of independent church organisation.” Again, would the Yen. Archdeacon of Westland point us to the Reformation, as a time of spiritual progress, conjointly with episcopacy ? Why, that was the time, above all, when the wants of human nature rebounded from the sinking sands surrounding it, and assumed a right of liberty founded, in the deepest recesses of confidence, to seek a rock— • a firm foundation of belief—it was the reverse of episcopacy in its worst form, as then raging, and hion would be no less so now, hut for th* dement. Evangelical Christianity, in tut> two centuries, gave place to ecclesiastic ilicism in the next five; and, from the St, nth to the fifteenth papacy reigned: now, the Reformation, instead of. retreating to the first of these, and the written Word of God, might l ave stayed in its way, at the Via Media, or ecclesiastical Catholicism, but it did not, “it vrent the whole way;” as D’Aabigne says, “ and, rebounding with that force which God gives, it fell, as at one single leap, into the evangelical Christianity of the Apostles.” But there is always error opposed to truth, and this case is not an exception. And here Archdeacon Wilson’s parable of the inkstand may teach us a lesson, for although we may not look upon antiquity in the same light as the Archdeacon of Westland, yet we would, by no means obliterate it altogether. Nay, the antiquity we appeal to must shine with unsullied lustre, and remain unto us the living temple of truth itself. This glorious book man can never interpolate, neither will it enter into man’s quarrels, it being no converting voice, but, like the Apocalyptic angel, amidst all the speculations of men which has surrounded it, looks out from amongst it all with a calm and serene dignity, entering its protests against the nomenclature with which it is endeavoured to invest it. The New Testament is no mud wall on which anything will stick.

The antiquity then we would appeal to is twofold. The first is New Testament truth unalterable and fixed. The second is humanity, the pent-up consciousness of man as homogeneous. It is an antiquity ever widening from the centre darkness which obtained during the “ dark ages.” There is an adaptedness of truth to man’s nature; he is a being never satiated without it, and the more he gets the more he wants. Let, then, the Evangelical Christianity which is amongst us circumscribe darkness and error; embrace the truth in the love of it j and in the folds of that friendship that Book was intended to accomplish evermore rest in Christian oneness, truth, and love. But perhaps this is impossible ; nevertheless, it refuses to compromise. The Pope, the Church as represented by its bishops, or the revealed Word of God : choose thou. The Constantian state of Churchism is fast disappearing; and while we say —

“ Hark! what is that ? ’Tis but the stone from yon turret top As it Mis heavily to the sward beneath.”

May we not “feel ashamed that human nature has so little power, to hand her greatness down to future times” for it is but “ Dagon falling before the Ark. ” and may it in its propulsion become sunk, imnk, sunk into oblivion. I cannot stop to enquire what the Ven. Archdeacon Wilson means when he says “ to the Church of England we at present look for our rule of orthodoxy,” nor to the “ selfish principle ” which Archdeacon Harper says the << Congregational choice of ministers is based on; ” on this latter veiy much doubtless may be said as to the correctness of its principles as well as its practical bearings. I may say that since I wrote the above, I have seen a letter, being an answer to my former remarks, in which Mr Harper uses the term critic; this is far-fetched, as it was only written (in the interest of Congregationals, it is true), to lay the facts more disconnected before the main body of readers, who would otherwise perhaps tsike all for granted. I accept the further explanation of Mr Harper, as consistent with his practice, vet at the same time maintaining my protest against its truthfulness. As to the request that I would look in other places besides in the works of the professed non-episcopalian Mosheim” I may mention that this letter, as far as I know, finishes my present remarks called forth by the “ First and last papers, and that having already trespassed I fear on the space of this paper and the patience of the Editor too far, I must be content to refer to only one other not on our side, whose admission attests to the truthfulness of my remarks ; it is in page 360 and 361 by Professor Ben Jowett, M.A., in essays and reviews:— “The term Bishop is clearly used in the passages referred to (the Epistle to Timothy and Titus) as well as in other parts of the New Testament, indistingmshably from presbyter, and the magisterial authority of Eishops in after ages is unlike, rather than like the personal authority of the Apostles in the beginning of the Gospel, and again,

p 1,11 % ■. r " ■ y ija»» ■pnj!i r * ■ m «, a ■ ■“ Tke episoepal form-of-~Ghureh;'government’ has sufficient grounds; the weakness is tie attempt to demo it from Scripture!” And yet wo are told by Mr Harper that the principle of episcopacy it, to be found in the New Testament. .

Your obedient servant, PLAIN TRUTH.