Correspondence. NELSON CHURCH.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XXII, 8 August 1863, Page 3

Correspondence. NELSON CHURCH.

To THE EDITOB OB THE 'NELSON EXAMINEE.'

Sm — As you have acknowledged the importance of the affairs of the Nelson Church by giving a leader on the subject, you will, I hope, allow me space in your columns to answer some misconceptions in that article, and these I will for the Bake of clearness, put under separate heads : — Ist. The whole argument is based on the wrong premiss, that this is an act of the Bishop and churchwardens. 2nd. The principle is wrong of the churchwardens not being allowed to act, unless a large part of the congregation are annoyed. 3rd. The analogy is a false one, of the relation thnt these officers bear to the ordinary ministers of a country, 4th. It is not requisite for the officers to ascertain before they act, that the congregation deem action to be necessary. sth. It is not a matter in which either pride or offended dignity is concerned. 6th. The wajt to secure the sympathy of the congregation is not to drop the present proceeding*. 7th. The defiance of a churchwarden is not the subject of contention.

First. I maintain that the whole argument is based on the wrong premiss that this is an act of the Bishop and the churchwardens, and this I gather, not from anything that is said, but from the very material fact, that the writer does not seem to be aware, of, or, if he is aware, wholly ignores, the existence of a vestry. This vestry iscomposed of seven members of the congregation besides the minister, to wit, two churchwardens and five communicants, chosen as representatives of the congregation ; and it is on the acts and resolutions of this body that the churchwardens, as their executive, have acted. If exception should be taken at the component parts of this vestry, I can only say that the congregation have nobody to blame but themselves for placing men in the vestry in whom they have not confidence, or allowing men to be pub in who might be excluded were they to tuke the trouble of attending the election of these officers: and losing sight of this fact has made your writer lose sight of the still more important one, in this instance, that the churchwardens have only given voice to the feelings of the congregation ns expressed by their own seKcted officers.

Second. This supposes that it is impossible for anyon« in the Church to be annoyed or insulted without a large part of the congregation being witnesses of it ; whereas one can imagine numerous cases in which a member might be annoyed or insulted without anyone seeing it, and without any knowledge being obtained of it except by the complaint of the person annoyed ; and in such a cafe I can hardly suppose your writer would recommend that the Church officers should not act.

Third. Your writer draws an analogy between the churchwardens and the ministers of a country ; but, by starting on the wrong premiss to which I have alludeii, he has made the analogy a false one by omitting the fact that Parliament, that is the voice of the nation, is represented by the vestry, which is or ought to be the voice of the congregation ; bo that these acts have the support, virtually, of the congregation through their representatives.

Fourth. This view seems to me so entirely unpractical, that I wonder any man of your writer's ability should adopt it ; and still more, that any man who has ever witnessed the effect of popular clamour should suppose for a moment that true justice is ever likely to be done by such a course. The practical effect of the working out of this principle would be, that if ever you could get officers to stand for posts in which they were bound not to act until they had ascertained the feeling of the majority of those for whom they acted, you would get men utterly unfit for the confidence of any number of respectable people, for the delegated power in the hands of officers of this or any other assembly implies that their constituents have, so far, confidence in them that they will allow them to act in their behalf ; and the necessity of delegating this power has arisen from the impracticability of getting, on emergencies, the sense of those who have delegated such authority. Where is the use of a Parliament if the sense of the nation has to be taken on every question before it can act ? And where is the use of a vestry if the sense of the congregation has to be taken before it can act P

Fifth. As I have before said, this position seems to have occurred to your writer from his supposing that this offensive act of the ohuroh wardens is one for which they are personally responsible j for if he had not done so, I can hardly imagine that he would have attributed to such motives acts which, as I have shown before, were borne out by the unanimous voice of the vestry. Sixth. Your writer supposes that by dropping the present proceedings, the sympathy of the congregation will be secured. If by the sympathy of the congregation is meant the sympathy of those who have done wrong and refuse to acknowledge it, and of their supporters in this position, I agree with him ; but if, on the other hand, the writer means the sympathy of those who love order and quiet, and who feel as keenly for a wrong committed on one member as if it were committed on, say, a majority of the congregation, then I entirely disagree with him, and maintain that, as no man loses his right to protection from individual insult by joining himself with any body of men, so he has a right to call upon the officers selected by this body to protect him from insult and annoyance, even though the majority of the congregation may not be aware of the need.

Lastly. To sum up the whole argument, your writer says that, although a churchwarden may be defied, a congregation will assert itself if its toes are trampled on. Once for all, I beg to say that the defiance of a churchwarden is no more the subject of contention than the defiance of any one member of the congregation. The offence was brought to the notice of the churchwardens by certain members who had been annoyed ; and, although the defiance of a churchwarden may seem, and is, a small act in itself, still, when that churchwarden is acting fairly and honestly in the performance of his duty, and acting with the sanction and by the advice of the whole vestry, it implies the defiance of the collective body of church members, and becomes thereby an act involving the most serious consequences j for, grant that it is of no moment, and where is the guarantee to any member coming to the Church, not to speak of the minister, that be will be allowed to say his prayers, in peace and quietness ? The only security you can have for the maintenance of peace is, that the officer should feel that he will be supported in the forcible ejection, if necessary, of any offending member, or that, in cases where the insult and annoyance are not so conspicuous m to tttmot the notioe of » large part of the oongre*

gation, such offenders may be prevented from entering until they have, in some way or other, expressed regret for their behaviour, oi- at least pledged themselves not to repeat it. A Layman. Nelson, August 4, 1863. To THE EDITOB OP THB 'NELSON EXAMINES.' Sir — " Fair play is a jewel," and your insertion of the following few remarks upon your leader of August 4, will prove whether you attnch any valua to it. I perfectly agree with you "that the unseemly dispute regarding Church matters must be matter of regret to all who think seriously." Were I to enter upon a criticism of your panegyric of Bishop Hobhouse, and your reprobation of his two antagonists, it would lead me from my present purpose. Neither should I have presumed to notice your remarks at all had you not gone out of your way to attack the memory of a man who, when alive, ranked second to none in his own time, and would be consider, even in our owned, as a philosopher, a philanthropist, ah, and a Christian in the true sense of the term.

You say " people who go to Church to hear the principles of Tom Paine expounded, will not unfrequently be disappointed." What connection the fact of two individuals quitting a Church because they went to hear a particular clergyman preach, and found the pulpit filled by another can have with the principles of Tom Paine, I confers my utter inability to form the most distant idea, unlees the individual expected had been in the habit of expounding those sound moral and Christian principles with which the writings of that person so eminently abound ; at the same time you never uttered a greater truibin thau when you penned that sentence. And why do I say so? Because I very much question whether, from the Bishop down to your lay-scripture-readers, they ever read his works ; and I will say further, that were you to take Tom Paine for your guide in discussing upon either religion, so called, or politics, you would not so constantly discard sound reasoning and have recourse to sheer declamation, 83 you do when answering your opponents. Having j said this much, I will add, for the benefit and instruction of yourself, and tho Bishop and his clergy, the following extract from his "Bights of Man," and defy them and yourself to match it, by any extract from' the whole body of the ancient or modern writings of the Church Hierarchy, for purity of thought, eloquence, or true moral and religious sentiment. In this work, there is only a single paragraph upon religion, namely, " That every religion i% good that teaohes man to be good." He Bays :—": — " I have carefully avoided to enlarge upon the subject, because I am inclined to believe that this [and he might have added all] Government wishestoseecoutentionsaboutn-ligionkeptugtoprevent the nation turning its attention to subjects of government. It is, as if to say, * look that way or any way but this,' and that is the sole ground for the union of the State with the Church. But, as religion is made a political engine, and the reality of it destroyed, I will conclude this work by stating in what light religion appears to me. If we suppose a large family of children, who, on a particular day, or a particular occasion, made it a custom to present to their parents some token of their affections and gratitude, each of them would make a 'different offering, and most probably in a different manner; some would pay their congratulations in themes of verse and prose, by such little devicesas their genius dictated,oracooriling towbat they would please, and perhaps the least of all, not able to do any of those things, would ramble into the garden or the field, and gather what it thought the prettiest flower it could find, though perhaps it might be but a simple weed. The parents would be more gratified by such a variety than if the whole of them bad acted on a concerted plan, and each had made the same offering. This would have the cold appearance of contrivance, or the harsh one of control. But of all -unwelcome things nothing would more afflict the parents than to know that the whole of them had afterwards gotten together by the ears. Boys nnd girls fighting, reviling, and abusing each other about which was the best or the worst present ! Why may we not suppose that the Great Father of all is pleased with variety of devotion, and that the greatest offence we can act is that by whioh we seek to torment and render each other miserable."

I could add more in the same eloquent strain ; and, if I thought I could hear the principles of Tom Paine enunciated from the pulpit of Christ Church, the Bishop would find me a constant attendant. In conclusion, let me tell you and him, that " T'was not for the sake of a hasty prayer, Forgotten as soon as naid, Nor boasting nor worship at glittering shrine, With a crouching form and a face divine, That Man alone was made. " All this can be done by the veriest wretch, . That sun or moon ere shone on, With a brow of heaven, but a heart of hell, Whose life of curse and of crime could tell Of many a dark deed done 1" Whether you will have either the justice or moral courage to insert this remains to be seen. Should you decline to do so, you will oblige me by ackuowleding the receipt of it ia your answers to correspondents. I remain, &0., Geo. Whitb. [Our correspondent has imposed on himself a work of supererogation, for which we hope he will have his reward. It appears he agrees with us that Bishop Hobhouse does not preach the principles of Tom Paine, and that is all we have said about the latter worthy. If, howerer, Mr. White wishes really to know what we mean by referring to his hero, we will tell him. It is many years Bince we opened Tom Paine, nevertheless, we perhaps have as clear a general idea of his doctrine as our correspondent. The religion (we wish to gratify Mr. White) of the revolutionary school, may be distinctively called " the religion of self-assertion ;" Christianity, on the other hand, is " the religion of self-denial." By referring to Tom Paine, we meant to suggest that those who go to church to assert their little personal dues and rights, and unwilling to submit to any annoyance for charity and duty's sake, are really, though unconsciously, disciples of the noted deist — theirs is the religion of self-assertion. There are practical uses for self-assertion, but its place is not at Church. — £d. 2T.&1 ■ *