PARADISE LOST!

New Zealand Herald, Volume VII, Issue 1839, 6 December 1869, Page 6

PARADISE LOST!

To the Editor of the Heuald. Sik,—Tn reply to a letter signed " T. Guthric Carr," in your issue of the 3rd hist., I would, at the outset, intimate to that gentleman that personal abuse is not argument, and a candid expression of opinion would bo all the better without the animus manifested. It is possible that Mr. Carr would see no profanity in theatrical exhibitions of " The Giving of tho Low on Mount Sinai " " The Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord," or of the awful solemnities of " The End of the World, and the Great Day of Final Account." He would, perhaps, require that the scenes and performances should not ejragijiTate. tin' text, and in his view all would be conducive to lvligion! It is plain that on the whole subject we occupy different ground. Nevertheless, I feel it my duty to express my unqualified condemnation of this resource for making money, and on behalf of all that is sacred I again protest against the above exhibition. Mr. Carr says it is "an exhibition of ignorance a- d presumption for anyone to venture to give judgment on that which has not come under his personal experience and observation." Lot me ask where he learned that principle, and how far he considers it mav be applied ? Am Ito believe that he is unable to mesmerize a subject because I have not witnessed it. ? Is the testimony of a number of qualified witnesses nothing ? Jlust a jury refuse to give judgment where witnesses differ, or because the facts of the case have been "only heard" by them without, coming under their personal observation ? I leave the public to judge to whom pertains " the unqualified exhibition of ignorance." The fact, however, "of this exhibition" has come under my personal observation, which I again pronounce " to be profane." The illustrated placards posted nnd scattered through the city, stumps its character, and no laboured reasoning of your correspondent can render one insensible to the gross pres.unption of those who dare to present such a diorama fo the public, or induce'me to withhold an humble but, earnest protest against it. Nor less is Mr. Carr in fault in assuming that in the bazaar of the Young Men's Christian Association tempting lures we.-e thrown open to young and anxious Christians;" let him exhaust all his ingenuity to find the least approach to such "lures for the unwary," and it. will prove as vain as his attempt to justify the profanation of God's Holy Word, now exhibiting in Bachclder's Diorama. Will Mr. Carr, who appears to know all who have witnessed the exhibition, judging from his assertion—" I have seen what he hm not" —say, that somo who unsuspectingly went, to visit, it, were not compel ed to signify their indignation by abruptly quilling the place. I have abundant testimony from those who have witnessed it as to its injurious influence. Mr. Carr also forgets that "to the pure " only " all things are pure," but. unto the defiled is nothing pure : but even their mind and conscience is defiled. His scorn of " broadcloth and palm leaves " (possibly meaning fig leaves) intimates his belief in purity so universal that there is no longer the necessity for either the one or the other. I have neither time nor inclination for personal controversy, and have my own Tiews of the pictures and works of art to which he refers, nnd will only say that it is an unqualified exhibition of ignorance and presumption to compare the Diorama to the paintings of Reubens, De la Kouche, aud Vandyke, and regret that he endeavours to defend an exhibition which 1 feel is really indefensible. For the extent to which the press has shown its reprehension of an evil threatening the reverence of man for the sacredness of the character of our Creator, I, with many others, thank you.—l am, &e. S. Hague Smith.