THE VOLUNTEERS AND THE CHURCHES.

Waikato Argus, Volume IX, Issue 767, 29 September 1900, Page 2

THE VOLUNTEERS AND THE CHURCHES.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Mr Major, in his letter in yesterday's issue of your paper, has entirely misapprehended the purport of my letter. He might do me the honour of reading it over once more. I had, and have, not the slightest objection to him, as an individual, being appointed chaplain of our local volunteer corps. On the contrary, as regards his personal character and work, I do not think any minister in Hamilton is more worthy of the honour, or would better fill the position. What I did, and do, object to, is the principle, or rather want of principle, oh which the appointment was made. When Captain Reid had charge of the corps, he told me that there was a desire that I should be appointed chaplain, but that, in his opinion, the fit and proper thing was to give the appointment to the senior clergyman of Hamilton. In that opinion, I heartily concurred. As the Anglican minister of Hamilton happened, at that time, to be the senior clergyman, he received the appointment. That was the principle on which the last appointment was made; it was also the principle, I believe, on which preceding appointments were made. Is there any fault to be found with this principle ? Is it not, on the contrary, right and proper that the senior clergyman of Hamilton should have the appointment ? If it is, perhaps Captain flume will tell us why he set this principle aside and passed over the senior clergyman of Hamilton in the present appointment. If it is not, perhaps he will tell us the better principle he has discovered, which induced him to set aside the old oue. That is what the people of Hamilton, and many of the volunteers, would like to know Mr Major, on his own confession, knows nothing as to why he was appointed in preference to the senior clergyman of Hamilton. Perhaps, in that case, it would have been better had he said nothing. Not having any information, he proceeds to make a number of suppositions as to the reason for his appointment. He says: "Perhaps it was because of the position which the Church of England occupies ; perhaps because the late chaplain was a churchman" (as if there was a clergyman of any church who was not a churchman); " perhaps because the churchmen in the corps nuy possibly number more than any other denomination" (as if the non-ADglican volunteers who belong to other churches were not churchmen); " perhaps because I have been chaplaiu to a volunteer corps for some years past, etc." If he had added fifty more suppositions, perhaps he would have been no nearer the truth. When he has lived in Hamilton a little longer, he may understand things that are at present incomprehensible to him. Mr Major hopes that he has not said anything in his letter "which is opposed to the principles of Christian love and harmony." Is it not opposed to such principles to think and speak constantly of the clergymen and members cf other churches than his own a 3 not churchmen. In my native country, Scotland, Presbyterians are churchmen and Anglicans dissenters accordiug to the law of the land ; yet I never heard of a Presbyterian who had the bad taste to refer to Anglicans or members of other churches than his own, as dissenters or not churchmen. That, in my opinion, is a peculiarly offensive sin, and especially so, in a colony such as New Zealand, which has no State Church, but where all the churches sustain the same relation to the State. As to sectarianism, Mr Major again misapprehends me. He says, "1, for my part, can see nothing sectarian in any Christian in New Zealand attending the public services of the Church of England." Neither do I, and I fail to see anything in my letter which could fairly be construed in such a way. I aflirm. that it is not sectarianism for any Christian to attend the Church of England; but it is sectarianism, and sectarianism of the . worst type, for our volunteers, as volunteers, to ignore continually, for no reason at all, every church in Hamilton but the Anglicau Church. I, for one, refuse to believe that our volunteers, the majority of whom are not Anglicans, will tolerate this much longer. Their sense of British fairplay will not allow them. If it is not to be the rule that the senior clergyman of Hamilton is to have the appointment of chaplain of our volunteer corps, then perhaps the next best rule would be to appoint all the clergymen in Hamilton chaplains, and have church parades to the various churches in rotation. Mr Major, at the close of his letter,.refers to me as the representative of " The Presbyterian Free Church." So far as I know, no such church exists. lam the representative in Hamilton of " The Presbyterian Church of New Zealand," which is " The Church of Scotland," in I precisely the same sense as the Anglican Church of New Zealand is " The Church of England." The Presbyterian Church, in common with every Christian church hy whatever name known, is a true branch of the one Primitive, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. Moreover, according to the latest New Zealand religious census, " more people attended the Presbyterian thau any other church." Notwithstanding this, she has not assumed to herself, and it is to bo hoped iu;ver will, the name of " The Church of the Pioviuce of New Zealand, commonly called the Church of Scotlaud."—! am, etc., J. M. Mitchell. The Manse, Hamiltou, 29th September, 1900.