SOUTH AFRICAN MARKETS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11874, 28 January 1902, Page 6

SOUTH AFRICAN MARKETS.

TO THE EDITOR. ' Sir,—Mr. Be attic, the secretary of the Na. lional Dairy Association, remarked to a Wellington interviewer that, in his opinion; the host route for a direct- service would bo via Fremantle to the Cape, returning via Mauritius and Calcutta. . Mr. Beat tie does not suggest what freight the steamers leaving Capetown on their return journey should load up with for India, neither does it, apparently, strike him that largo as the trade in gunnies, tea, and bone-meal is with the East, a four-weekly service from Calcutta to New Zealand would likely overdo it. Now Zealand must have a reliable _ and constant service, rather than a full ship, if sho wishes to secure the South African market, and this will be best attained, as I have for the last two years through your columns suggested, by subsidising the Union S.S. Co., in order that that firm may be in a position to quote a through rate, including all charges, via Melbourne, or Sydney, the cost of which will not be greater from New Zealand ports than the rate of freight from Australia to South Africa. With apologies for constant reiteration on this subjcct.— am, etc., H. Johnson. January 25, 1902. THE POSITION OF UNITARIANS. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Your report of my brief exposition at Onehvmga of the foundation truth of the Christian Church took me very much by surprise, the said exposition having been delivered at a Presybteriar.: congregational meeting without any thought of publication, and the almost inevitable controversy consequent thereupon. Still, being ready, I hope to stand by my statements wherever and whenever made in the exercise of my ministry, I cannot object to your publication of any of them, provided that what is published is adequate to convey a correct impression. This, however, unfortunately, is not the case in the present instance, with the result that Mr. Jellie has had to make an explanation in your issue of to-day, and I am now under the necessity of troubling you with a reply. I am well aware that Unitarians admit, in a sense, the Divinity of Jesus, and, therefore, in my address I was careful to define the Divinity of which I was speaking as His "true and " proper Divinity,"' "proper" being, of course, used in its fundamental sense of "peculiar." I am also well aware of the distinction between the Church and the Kingdom of God, which Mr. Jellie quotes from. Dr. John Watson, and most freely and thankfully accept that distinction. It enables one to be unequivocal in his adherence to the unity in essentials without detriment to the charity in all things. Many may belong to the Kingdom who do not belong to the Church. And, with S. T. Coleridge, one has always to remember to make the greatest difference between an? and isms. One may be quite convinced that Unitarianism is not Christianity, and yet shrink from the responsibility jif saying that individual Unitarians may not possibly be Christians. Thanking Mr. Jellie for the courtesy of his letter, and yourself, in anticipation, for inserting this reply.—-I am, etc., W. Ghat Dixon. St. David's, Auckland, January 24, ■ 1902. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The Rev. Gray Dixon is reported in the Herald of January 23 to have said that Unitarians cannot bo recognised as spirii tual stones in the Christian Church, because they deny ■ the Divinity of Christ." I beg to state that the Unitarians do not deny the Divinity of Christ in the sense in which Christ himself claimed to be Divine. Canon Liddon, in his Bampton lectures on the ."Divinity of Christ," says that "it is undeniable that the most numerous and direct claims to divinity on the part of our Lord are to-be found in the Gospel of St. John. He further says: "It is well understood on all sides that no question of mere dilettante criticism is at stake when the authenticity of St. John's Gospel is challenged. It would therefore nut Unitarians under great obligations if the Rev. Gray Dixon would briefly enumerate the proofs: First, that St. John wrote the Gospel which bears his name ; ' secondly, that it was written and was in circulation before the end of the first century. I am, etc., G. Hkaley. Archhill, Auckland.