"A BUTTERFLY ON A WHEEL."

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13674, 17 August 1906, Page 6

"A BUTTERFLY ON A WHEEL."

TO THE IDITOB. SIR.-Permit a brief reply to tho Rev. !>. U. Urrics somewhat angry communication in your issue of to-day. I thtnlhe may regret it in his calmer moments! I trust ho will do himself and all concorned justice, and prevent any mistakes and falso inferences being deducted from liis action by staling cloarlj; his own convictions (as I have stated'"mine) in this mill tor. instead of those of "J. B." and of hundreds of the ministry of the Congregational and Anglican Church," or of lie theological authority he quotes from a ocal paper: "The whole business looks i , a „ eas " of breaking a butterfly on a. wheel. Let me say that lam not going <"t ~ ,! nixed U P in a controversy with •J. B. or "hundreds of the ministry of II!" V- < ?? grosatlonal or ovon Angl'ican Church. I keep to tho article in question and its appearance in the "official organ, -that is my count; and I stated, and reaffirm, that the article is worthy of Voltaire or of Rousseau. If these sentiments are those of some clergy in tho various churches, sis Mr Currio affirms, that will form, not a reason for permitting them in the columns of iho official organ of the L'rosbyterian Church, but. for talcing (lie action of the Clut-ha Presbytery: disowning them, and "sincerely regretting" I heir appearand) in the columns of Sie official organ of tho Church. ' The Presbytery declared its conviction that tho nnielo in question, "denying tho guilt of crime and sin, and tho retributive naturo of justice, is intensely hostile to the foundation truths of natural and revealed religion, and tends to sophisticate tho minds of the unlearned and unwary into beliefs that would destroy in such minda ' Hie foundations of tho Christian faith." To do this, according to Mr Currio's approved authority, is " to break a butterfly on a wheel." Well, Presbvtorians and Christian people who have read" the article and my condemnation of it and the condemnation of the Presbytery, and also Mr Currio's letter, can take their choice and form their own conclusions on the subject. As fo your report in Monday's issue, which Mr Citrrie speaks of as "mangled" —it is not clear what ho means. You will know where you got your report and who "mangled" it; certainly I sent you none, and did not know it. had appeared till two days after ils publication, waiting for Mr Currie to send tho report to your columns. His objection, however, lo your report amounts to this: that, it only states that my first motion was carried with two dissentients, and the other two unanimously. He points out (hat tho first, was carried by 6 to 2, and that a. number did not vote. But it is also true that tho motion was never put as a substantive motion to the Presbytery, and there is no saying what the result would have been. Everybody knows that at almost every' division of both Presbytery and Assembly "a number fail to vote." The plain, incontrovertible fact is that the" only speaker opposed to mo was Mr Currie, and that the only votes recorded against my first motion were those of himself and—unless I am much mistaken—his own elder, and that the other two wore curried unanimously. All the other ministers who spoke on the question strongly supported my position. For tho rest, those• concerned can form their own conclusions.—l am, etc, P. B. FItASEII. Lovell's Flat, August 16.