THE ORANGE INSTITUTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7796, 16 November 1886, Page 3

THE ORANGE INSTITUTION.

TO THE EDITOR, Sir, Will you kindly allow me to say a word in favour of an Institution, many hundreds of whose members are among the intelligent readers of your widely-oireulating • paper. I refer to the " Loyal Orange Institution." (During the thick of the correspondence I was out of Auckland, other wine I should not at this late period trouble you.) Very much has been printed in the columns of our city papers bearing against this much-abused Institution, from our excellent Bishop down, down to a "Pro* testant Minister." Now, it happens that the cause which we represent, as with many other good institutions, has been, and is, exposed to the calumny and opposition of its enemies. Some mock at the Institution and its members. Well, mockery is a wretched argument at best, a cheap method of evading at onoe the exercise and the demand of reason, the last resource of the shallow and conceited sophist. He who falls back on a sneer is certainly destitute of every rational or even plausible argument, and therefore we accept the mocking of the mocker as the highest tribute he can pay us. The institution has been denounced as the disturber of the peace and invader of the rights of others. While those who make this charge keep conveniently in the background the truth—the faot— its existence is demanded and vindicated by another system which is fatal to mental independence, moral freedom, and religious liberty. It is easy to hurl slanders at an institution and to pour out anathemas upon a cause; but such things must pais as the idle wind until they are confirmed by the evidence of facts. Sir, I do not defend all that is said and all that is done in the name of Orangeism—as Ido not and could not defend all that is done in the name of Christianity but I do say that when we separate all that is accidental in it from all that is essential; when we dis< criminate the aots of some individuals from the spirit of the system; when, in a word, we resolve it into Its primitive element— an open Bible for its basis, the fear of God for its regulative force, the spirit of the widest religious freedom for its inspiration, and the devotion to Queen and country for its watchword,—then I say that, thus interpreted and thus expressed, Orange' ism deserves the attention, and should com.-, mand the respect, of all free, right-thinking liberty-loving men. The two pillars of the institution are "Liberty and Bible religion." We are accused of enmity towards our fellow Roman Catholic colonists. This we most emphatically deny. The rights we claim for ourselves we cheerfully give to them. Our quarrel is not with individuals, but with a system—a system which if allowed, we feel sure, would sap and destroy those cherished liberties handed down to us from a glorious though blood-stained past. Against this system we are arrayed, and our object ought to wake the utmost watchfulness, call forth the sturdiest resistance, and combine in opposition the best energies of everyone who loves freedom and values truth. Sir, let who will coquet with Romanism, we will not. Her principles and her spirit are not to be gathered from the exhibitions whioh we see around us, held in on the right hand and on the left by the limitations which Protestant sentiment and Protestant teachings supply. To know we must study her standard of doctrines, we must study her dogmas of faith, we must note her claims and prerogatives, be familiar with her arrogant spirit, and mark the workings of her power when that power is untrammelled and unhindered by any corrective influence from without. And looking at her thus, I have no hesitation in saying that our duty is to follow the example of our noble ancestors—wpp. whc "trenched from ..the , yam grasp of tyranny the liberties we now enjoy, men who disdained to be mere reeds carried hither and thither as the strongest current Belt in. I repeat, our duty is to keep at the utmost distance from anything that savours of sympathy with such a system, and to present to it no point but the point of a firm, courteous, yet unbending opposition. So far as Romanism is a religious system, it must be confronted with the truth ai it is in Christ Jesus. The power that must unloose its grip from the human heart must be the power of God's gospel. So far as it is a political system, it must be met by organisations such as Orangeism. Nor must we forget that what* ever Romanism is as a moral and spiritual organisation, that as a political and earthly confederation she is a compact, energetic, and terrible reality. We have only to look at the way in whioh the Church of Rome is increasing her priesthood, her funds, and her edifices, and then ask ourselves the ques* tion whether our colony is not acquiring every year a more Roman look. We have to meet a system that combines religion and politics, and whioh aims to have supremacy not only in religion, but also in politics, i In view of all this we are asked, forsooth, Ito forget the past. Sir, I cannot forget that we are deioendants of those who in the years long ago fought and struggled with this power,, and purchased the freedom we to«day enjoy at a terrible cost—the cost of tears and suffering, and agony and blood. Nor can I forget that we olaim descent from a land whose greatness and whose honour dates from the time when she cast off the fetters of the ohains with whioh Romanism had bound her; and when basing her national life and her glorious constitution upon the Protestant faith, and the free teaohings of God's infallible word, she entered upon a career of glory that has enabled her to distance all competitors, and plaoed her In the van of the world's progress—the undisputed empress of nations. And knowing this, I cannot but feel that the future of this my native land, so far as it is to be a success, must depend upon our loyalty to those great Protestant principles that have wrought such triumphs elsewhere. Sir, ours is a glorious inheritance, and ours is a mighty responsibility; we have magnificent possibilities before us. The coming years will tell whether we have risen to the height of our opportunities, or whether we have fallen far below them. This is not the time to play the craven. There must be no trafficing of truth, no bartering of rights; our motto and our aim must be "equal religious rights, equal educational rights, equal political rights." We must labour to make the Bible what God intended it should be—the foundation of every man's creed and the guide of every man's life. We must struggle to bring all the blessings of education to every man's home, and open the path of intelligence and culture to the poor man's child as well as to the rich, and so develope a people that shall be strong in the power which intelligence gives for all the duties, civil and political, and religious, whioh will devolve upon them. We must see to it that while there is liberty for all, there shall be license to none, and see also that there shall be no seotional advantage enjoyed by any whioh may be injurious to the very best interests of society, or perilous to the wellbeing of this young, vigorous, and growing commonwealth. Sir, I have taken more of your valuable space than I ought. My only excuse is, that we are taunted at) our silence, hence the length of this letter,—* I am, &c., 0. E. WaHD, Franklin Road.