THE REVOLT OF THE "WORLDLY."

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8263, 23 May 1890, Page 3

THE REVOLT OF THE "WORLDLY."

TO THE EDITOK. Sir,—Some time ago I came to the conclusion that circumstances compelled me to lead too busy a life to permit of my taking part in religious controversy, and I was about to leave unnoticed the letter of '"Another Christian" under the above heading in the Herald of the 13th inst., but his vain and egotistic challenge in your issue of the 16th inst. made me resolve to write something in reply as soon as time permitted. Another Christian" says that he speaks on behalf of people for the most part members by birth and baptism of the three great national Churches of the British Empire— the Anglican, the Roman, and Presbyterian Churches. He includes also Freethinkers and Materialists, and men of every shade of religious belief provided they are' men who lead and have habitually led for the most part a sober, decent, and cleanly life. Speaking on behalf of such, lie goes on to say :— " Now what we all agreo in thinking about the Evangelical sect who may be said Xo comprise the remnants of the Evangelical party in the Church of England, all branches of Methodism, the Baptists, Congregationalists, Plymouth Brethren, and the Salvation Army, with a few minor sects, may be briefly formulated as follows." Then follow 10 paragraphs directed against the so-called ;' Evangelical-. full of bitter un-Christian invective and false misrepresentation, and which I propose briefly to deal with in order. I should like the reader to take up the Herald of the 13th inst., and study " Another Christian's" letter along with this. Whether the Presbyterians will thank the latter for classing them as above will best be judged by any unprejudiced person who daily sees Presbyterians joining with this socalled "Evangelical sect" upon pulpit and platform, and in every good and Christian work, but who does not see the Anglicans exchanging pulpits with the Presbyterian, or as a rule joining cordially with him in Christian work.

In re|>ly to paragraph I.—l say that it is a false misrepresentation to allege that the socalled "Evangelical sect" call themselves exclusively " Christians," and the great body of Anglicans. Romanists, and Presbyterians, " the world.' What they do hold is that all who are united to Christ by faith, and are bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit, are Christians, whether they be Anglicans, Romanists, or Presbyterians, or members of the so-called " Evangelical sect." This is what Mr. Varley, Mr. Corrie Johnston, and Pastor Birch hold. St. Paul classes as Christians many whose lives were far from perfect: but St. Paul never called an unbeliever a Christian. As to paragraph 2.— is false to say that the so-called " Evangelical sect" call the great body of Anglicans, Romanists, and Presbyterians " worldly" or " unconverted," or to say that there is an assumption of superior sanctity on the part of the greater number of those who form the so called " Evangelical sect." But the latter do say that it is not enough for a man to lead an outwardly decent and moral life, or even a fairly decent and moral life, in order to be a Christian. They say that in order to be a Christian a man must believe in Christ, and believe in Him as his Saviour. If " Another Christian" holds that this is not an essential of a Christian, let him prove his position from Scripture. But there is no assumption of superior virtue in the heart of those who like "Another Christian" profess only to claim "a fair reputation in the world, which they fairly deserve?" I do not return his vaunt and say there is, but let him remember, " The heart of man is deceitful above all things."

As to paragraphs.—"Another Christian" asserts more than he can prove. He cannot prove that the so-called " Evangelical sect" do not substantially hold the doctrines of the primitive Christians. That their discipline and practice (by which I assume he means church discipline and practice) differ more from the primitive Christians than does that of Anglicans and Romanists is certainly more than ho can prove. Would Paul or Timothy be more at home in a Congregational assembly or in an Anglican cathedral of the present day I wonder ? As to paragraph 4.—Here " Another Christian" misrepresents the so-called " Evangelical sect." The latter attach at least as much value to the revised edition of the Holy Scriptures as to the version authorised by King James 1., and if "Another Christian" can furnish or translate from the original tongues a version which will have more weight and authority with the world's students and scholars than the said revised edition the socalled Evangelical sect" will gladly adopt it. If " Another Christian" can justly afford to despise the revised edition why was he not placed on the revision committee. Why does he not command a position in England at least as prominent as Mr. Varley's, instead of burying his talents in a small colony like New Zealand. But does " Another "Christian" deny that the Bible is the word of God, and that the miraculous events it narrates should be accepted ? > As to paragraph 5.— "Another Christian" is Unitarian why does he not say so dis tinctly ? The views he evidently holds were enunciated by Mr. Barker, the founder of Unitarianism, many years ago. The so-called " Evangelical sect' do believe in the mystery of the Holy Trinity; yet they believe and preach one God, and it is false to say that, as a whole, they believe or preach otherwise. What, no doubt, makes the God of the socalled " Evangelical sect" odious to suoh as " Another Christian" is that the former insist that their Saviour is " the Christ, the Son of the Living God;" and not merely a great man, such as the men may hare been whose lives and teaching gave rise to the generallyreceived conceptions of Confucius and Buddha. They believe that the Father gave His only Son Jesus Christ to be the one full and sufficient saorince for sin; that " God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son (not many sons), that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have eternal life." " Another Christian" talks in a vague, highsounding way about" the Fatherhood of God." Such talk has become fashionable in many ecclesiastical circles of late. Most men who talk so are weak imitators of such as the late Rev. Henry Robertson, of Brighton. When St. Paul, writing to converts, calls them children of Gbd, Be is careful to tell them i

upon what ground they are so : "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." As to paragraph 6. —1 do not know what is Mr. Varley's view as to the narrative of the creation in Genesis, for I did not hear him, upon that subject, but I do know that the scientists of the day are not, as represented by " Another Christian," unanimous in the opinion that man has existed on the earth for more than 6000 years ; and, at anyrate, I am quite certain that neither Mr. Varley nor the great majority of the so-called " Evangelical sect" would refuse to receive a mail as a brother Christian because he did Aot hold such narratives to be literally correct. As to paragraph 7.—lf by " regular ministers" " Another Christian " ministers', of the Roman and Anglican cb.arches, I make no great objection. Only £ would observe that many of the regular ministers worked hand-in-hand with Mr. "Parley, while most, if not all, ministers of the so-called " Evangelical sect," and the F/resbyterians, and even some Anglican minsters were in sympathy with him upon tl\e main points of his mission. All honour to them for their noble spirit. It is eajsy to understand, however, how men who fay their earnestness and eloquence and power are able to command immense audiences in England and America and the colonies, and to sway the minds and hearts of thousands, should be objects of jealousy on the part of men like " Another Christian," who nesd to be bolstered up by chuvch organisation. 1 would remind Another Christian," too, that the Anglicans some time since brought out certain missioned named Bodington and Mason, who created no small stir at the time. The principal difference between the latter and Mr. Varley is that he preached Christ, while they preached the Church, meaning by " The Church " the Anglican, Roman, and Greek Churches.

As to paragraph B. This is a base libel on the teaching of the so-called " Evangelical sect." They do insist on morality and good works, but they insist that these must spring; out of a renewed heart. They say that anything not built on Christ has not deep enough foundation, and cannot stand. " Other foundation can no man lay." Good works must be the fruit of love, not the price of Heaven. I will give " Another Christian" a sample of my experience of one of the churches on whose behalf he writes. I was well acquainted with a man who was a member of a leading Anglican church choir, a close friend of the incumbent, and a frequent visitor at the latter : s house. This man spoke somewhat like " Another Christian" about people who had & fairly good reputation which they fairly deserved, and he, too, disparaged the socalled " Evangelical sect." On my expressing dissent he repeated my remarks to the incumbent, who, he said, entirely sided with him in the matter. Indubitable ovidenoe was afterwards afforded to me that this man had previously frequented, and did then habitually frequent, nouses of ill-fame for immoral purposes. I do not say that this is a fair specimen of Anglican practice. But Ido say that Anglican clergymen too often show a childish ignorance of the human heart. And I affirm that in my opinion, with all their faults a far sounder morality obtains in the Presbyterian and dissenting bodies than in the. Church of England. I cannot speak of the Roman Catholic Church, for I have not had sufficient experience of it, but my father and grandfather were Anglicans, and I was a member of the Church of England for more than 25 years, and J have been a Synodsman in that Church. It, however, Christ and Apostles did not lay emphasis on belief, then must the whole or the New Testament be re-written. If only men would read the New Testament for themselves, how much less of the spirit of Anti-Christ would be abroad !

As to paragraph 9.—This is almost too childish for notice. lam satisfied that the majority of thoughtful people have yet to be convinced that the chosen and revered pastors of the so-called "Evangelical sect," (Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Plymouth Brethren, Salvation Army, and. evangelical Anglicans), are " men of very inferior moral worth," or that " the vast majority "of evangelical churchmen, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Plymouth Brethren and Salvation Army members are '' feeble-minded, of feeble physique, pale, sickly, dyspeptic, nervous." Most; people will say it is quite the other way. That there are not so many amongst them who have been nursed in the lap of luxury, and physically pampered, as there are for instance in the Church of England, lam willing to admit. But it is a favourite delusion of the man who puffs out his body and inflames his face with beer-drink-ing and good living, that he is healthier than bis less florid and more abstemious brother. As to the accusation of feeble-mindedness, I could almost wish there were a little more truth in it. I am satisfied, however, that most thoughtful people will say on reflection that if the Anglicans and Roman Catholics generally were as strong-minded as the members of the so-called " Evangelical sect," they would insist for one thing upon having a greater voice in the appointment of their ministers, and would not allow fledglings fresh from college, with a good ear for music, harmless nonentities, or drifting latitudinarians, to be foisted upon them. Nor would they tolerate Ritualists or practical Unitarians in their pulpits and training colleges. I have much affection for the Church of England, but her camp is full of traitors, and her people are too feeble-minded to cast them out. They will also say that it is not feebleminded to have fixed principles, and to adhere to them even when it involves self-denial in regard to horse-racing, dancing, wine-blb-bing, and playing cards for money. Pity some of " Another Christian's" atheism could not be directed like St. Paul's, who would abstain from meat (much more from strong drink), rather than cause his weaker brother to stumble.

As to paragraph 10.—"Another Christian's" statement here as to what the religion of the so-called "' Evangelical sect" consists of is utterly false. The religion of Anglicans and Romanists is far more a matter of emotion. For what purpose else the carefully - trained and surpliced choir, the intoning of the sorvice, the rich and gorgeous furnishing of chancel and altar, and the generally sensuous form of worship that obtains in the Roman Church and is being gradually introduced into the Anglican. The so-called " Evangelical Sect" does insist on change of heart and surrender of will. The Anglicans are too often content with a decent outward life and an occasional stirring of the emotions by means of fine music, solemn pageantry, and imposing ceremony. " Another Christian" forgets that the blood of the martyrs was largely shed by Romanists, and because the martyrs were Evangelical. If those whom he calls "miserable sectaries" are so engrossed as he would have us believe in the work of saving their men poor little souls," wherefore his long letter in the Herald ! How is it that these " miserable sectaries" are the most active and aggressive people in Auckland in regard to other peoples souls? How is it that an Anglican clergyman can hardly come down from his pedestal to join in any philanthropic work without finding himself shoulder to shoulder with these "miserable sectaries?" How is it that the Anglicans most noted for philanthropy are also noted for their genuine sympathy with these " miserable sectaries?" Will " Another Christian" say who it is that hires the City Hall and seeks there to reach the masses who never enter churches, or who conducts the Mission in Freeman's Bay, or supports the Young Men's Christian Association, with its gymnasium and other helps to physical as well as mental and moral culture? Who are they who go out into the streets and submit to insult and abuse in the endeavour to benefit their fellow men ! Are they the ideal respectable men whom another Christian holds up for admiration? No! The same class endure persecution nov/ for Christ's sake who endured it in the time of the martyrs. He asks, is there a single woman in Auckland belonging to the Evangelical party who can honestly say that she has gone to church in a shabby bonnet or a shabby dress, in order to give the money she would have spent on new ones to charity? Yes, many such ! But they are not as a rule to be found among the fashionably dressed women who flock to Anglican places of worship. As to whether the men who have made the name of France something of a byword among nations are men after " another Christian's own heart, I know not. But Ido know that a very large proportion of Germany is Evangelical. I have a strong impression that Livingstone was Evangelical. And I feel sure that "Another Christian " has not convinced thoughtful people that (as he so boastfully alleges) men of his own type form the pith and marrow of the population any more than he has convinced them that America was made by such men, and not rather by the Puritans, whom his soul so abhors."—l am, &c, Theta, Auckland, May 19,1890.