To the Editor of the Otago Witness.

Otago Witness, Issue 240, 5 July 1856, Page 4

To the Editor of the Otago Witness.

Dunedin, 2nd July, 1856. Sir, — In the Witness of 21st June last, there is inserted a letter which appears to me to require an answer. It is generally admitted that education is not only a benefit, but necessary to our existence as a well ordered community, as well as necessary for the comfortable prosperity of each individual. It thus becomes of importance whether Government should, in any measure, and to what extent, provide for this necessity. Undoubtedly the first and highest obligation rests on parents to have their children educated, but in such a scattered .community as ours, it is often impossible for parents to provide a teacher, school, &c, for themselves : hence, if there should be no other reason, it is incumbent on Government to make that provision, so that, as far as possible, no child be deprived of the blessing of education. But there is a further obligation on Government to furnish the means of education, if it is to fulfil the true ends of its appointment — the promoting the real good of the community, and the glory of God the au • thor of Government. Few will deny that morality exalteth a people, but how can there be a high state of moral feeling if the population is left in ignorance ? Raise the moral tone of the people, and crime is prevented, and it is surely better and cheaper to prevent crime than to punish it. It is therefore clearly the duty of Government to provide the means of, and it is both the duty and the interest of every individual to pay for, education. There is a common interest, and there should, therefore, be a common payment. A tax theie must be, and none able to pay should be exempt. Every man is benefited by such a tax ; and to argue that any should be exempt is to argue that one portion of the community should relieve another portion from the greater burden of suppressing or punishing crime. But some will say, let there be education, if you will have it, but let it be without religion. This seems to be like a demand to " make bricks without straw." From whence can we have anything like pure morality without religion ? God hath joined the two, and who then can put them asunder? Knowledge is power, but it is like the power of steam — dangerous without religion as a regulator. But besides, even secular education cannot be so well promoted as when the soul as well as the intellect is cultivated. The conscience cannot be reached except through the light of religious truth. It is that which touches the heart that is truly an education of the man. How can a child be impressed effectually with the duty of loving a neighbour except by an exhibition of the love and character of God as seen in the face of Jesus Christ ? But it is said that to provide by an Ordinance that religion shall be taught in j school is an attempt to legislate in matters relating to religion ; and Mr. Russell says, " for any man to attempt to do so is an attempt to set God's law aside." Not so fast Mr. Russell. When man legislates aright in matters relating to religion, he establishes God's law in place of setting it "aside. God saith " Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." When man enacts that, as God hath made the Sabbath day holy, therefore no man will be compelled to work on that day, but will be fiee to keep it holy. He legislates about a religious matter, and yet he sets not God's law aside — he establishes it. When God says " train up a child in the way he should go,". and man says — that is j right, and calls on Government to provide the means, and the Government compels every man to contribute of his substance to do so, I ask, Does man thus set aside or establish God's law ? Did Cyrus and Darius, kings of Persia, establish or set aside God's law when they made decrees as to the building of the Temple, and providing sacrifices for the worship of God ? And was Ezra wrong (vi. and 14) when he said it was done according to the commandment of God and the king ? And when Artaxerxes made another decree (Ezra vii. and 26) was he wrong ? And was Ezra wrong when he gave thanks for that decree, verse 27 ? " Blessed be the Lord God of our Fathers which hath put such a thing in the King's heart to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem." Space would fail me to go into this argument fully, as I must notice briefly that most extraordinary and most illogical production of Mr. Russell's before referred to. I do not write to uphold the Education Ordinance as it stands. I condemn the nominee principle^ but how Mr. Russell, or any other man, could draw a parallel betwixt the non intrusion principle, contended for by the Free Church, and this nomineeism, is what I cannot understand ; or why he should drag the Free Church at all into this controversy, I am at a loss to find out. The Free Church left the establishment because the Courts of Law gave a new interpretation to law never heard of before, — not only granting the right of nomination to patrons, which was never disputed, but assuming the right of judging whether or not the Presbyteries of the Church did their duty — refusing the right of the people to judge of the fitness of the patrons' nominee to be their pastor — commanding Presbyteries to ordain men to the ministerial office, contrary to their consciencions convictions of duty to God — restoring to the ministerial office men deposed for the crimes of drunkenness and theft — interdicting ministers and people from doing spiritual duties, such as administering the Sacraments, &c. &c. The Free Church contended that Jesus was Loid and King in his own house, and had committed the right of ruling within his house to his own spiritual officers. When the legislature refused to compel the Courts of Law to keep within the bounds of their own jurisdiction, as they had hitherto done, the Free Church left the establishment. But what has the Free Church to do with this Ordinance ? The framers may have been Free Churchmen ; they might have been Independents or Episcopalians. There are Free Churchmen in Otago, who, if they had been in power, would have produced a veiy different Ordinance. I protest against the too common practice of dragging the name of the Free Church into everything, setting up Dissenters, so called, in opposition to Free Churchmen, and Free Churchmen in opposition to Dissenters, as if Free Churchmen were not as much Dissenters as United Presbyterians, Independents, and others ; and on the other hand many of these are in reality Free Churchmen. Is this piteous distinction kept up because the great body of Free Churchmen are not Voluntaries ? If so, it is lamentable to see men professing to be brethren in Christ rending and tearing one another, and dividing the body of Christ, simply because they cannot see eye to eye. There is no difference in Otago betwixt Presbyterians of every name ; and as to Independents the difference is merely nominal. Why

then keep up these distinctions ? But Mr. Russell plumes himself on the idea, that as a Dissenter he was free-horn. Ah ! Sir, the Jews plumed themselves on the fact that they were Abraham's seed and free-born, but our Lord told them that it was the truth that would make them free. I am inclined to think it was not a Christian spirit that guided Mr. Russell when he went out of his way to get a thrust at Mr Bannerman. Mr. Bannerman did not make the suggestion Mr. Russell attributes to him in the sense adopted by Mr. Russell ; he was merely arguing that if certain parties would follow the method of resisting the law which the Free Church did, they would leave the colony as the Free Church left the Establishment; but, says Mr. Russell, the Free Church sold her freedom for the emoluments of a State Church. Pray, when or how? The Church of Scotland accepted of a State Endowment on the distinct understanding that the State would not interfere with her laws as a Church ; and so well was this understood, that when the Erskines, &c, seceded in 1732, they protested against the conduct of a dominant party in the Church, and not against the State. They protested and appealed to the first Reforming General Assembly. They were not then Voluntaries ; but ere a Reforming General Assembly arrived, their descendants degeneiated, as I consider, into Voluntaryism — a principle which it appears to me they have never been able to maintain except by setting the one-half of the Word of God against the other half. But Mr. Russell, in his anxiety to attack the Free Church and Mr. Bannerman, forgot he was treading on very insecure ground. Does he not know that the Free Church did establish this colony, gave out the ptinciples on which it was to be established, and declared that every man who should come to Otago and buy land must pay a certain portion of his means to support the Free Church 1 Mr. Russell did sell his freedom to a ceitain extent, and he never can regain that freedom honestly but by leaving Otago. I only state this to shew the folly of Mr. Russell's proud boasting or egotism, (for argument we cannot call it) and not to imply that any man is bound to suppress truth or leave Otago ; but certainly Mr. Russell should adopt another method of expressing what he considers truth. ' But I have not yet 'noticed the most extra- | ordinary portion of Mr. Russell's production — his grand objection to the Education Ordinance, "that it lays down a compulsory measure of duty for every man," and thus destroys Christianity. No argument, or fact, or scripture text to prove his poJ sition, but only a declamatory statement of his own j views, with Voluntaryism in his eye — forcing scripture from his pen in somewhat the same way as the Popish Bishop Milner does in his book entitled " End of Controversy." By a slight alteration, any person might apply to Voluntaryism the same language as Mr. Russell uses. Does Mr. Russell not know that feeding the poor is a Christian duty — a more direct Christian duty than education ; and will he object that the compulsory measure of an assessment for the poor destroys Christianity 1 Does he mean to say that there are no poor widows or orphans in Otago requiring the aid of Christian liberality ' Does he mean to say that Christian liberality has exhausted the field of supplying ministers of the Gospel to the whole of the Province of Otago, while there is scarce as much money collected as will support three, and at least as many i more are required ' Does he mean to say that no Christian liberality is required for the distribution of tracts? that no more money is necessary to send the Gospel to the heathens or the Jews ? These and such like duties more fully belong to, and develope the character of, the Christian, than mere education, important as it is in another point of view. But, moreover, does Mr. Russell mean to say that the Church or Christians alone should educate the colony ? I hardly think he will maintain this, as there could be no display of Christianity in providing education for the children of rich parents ; but he at least insinuates that there are no poor. If not, how can Christian liberality be exercised in the way of education ? If there be poor to be educated, the Ordinance leaves ample scope for the \ Christian to exercise his liberality in paying the nei cessary fees. But how an assessment for education, or for the poor, when it is required, puts an effectual check on true Christianity, or prevents it from growing, lam at an utter loss to see. But Mr. Russell rises in declamatory eloquence as he proceeds. He says — " this tax says to living Christianity, you are a description of tree that shall not grow in Otago." How any sane man, having any pretensions to Christian knowledge, could pen this and some other sentences in Mr. Russell's letter, is to me one of the greatest enigmas I have met with for a long time. It is unworthy of an answer. But Mr. Russell fuither says "that any attempt of man to legislate on any matters pertaining to religion is a direct infringement of the Redeemer's Crown rights, and a throwing of gross dishonour upon the statute-book of his house. And we could not desire a plainer illustration of the direct tendency of such procedure than is furnished by this Ordinance. It is so plain that when once pointed out it is impossible to mistake, and equally impossible to deny." Really, Mr. Russell, you have a high opinion of your own judgment ; but if you had more wisdom you would be a little more humble. Are you so ignorant as not to know, when you were penning this sentence, that there are thousands who cannot see, and who most positively deny both this and many other statements you make, though uttered by you with all the self-complacency of an oracle. I deny it most positively, and challenge you to the proof. But I must pass over several equal absurdities, and proceed to notice briefly Mr. Russell's climax. He says — " With every feeling of kindness and respect towards our Free Church brethren, I must nevertheless distinctly state that I can suffer the penalty if they choose to inflict it, but I dare not yield obedience, &c." The italics are mine. Now, Mr. Russell, what object had you in view in dragging in the Free Church here ? Is such conduct characteristic of a Christian ? Can there be living Christianity in a mind capable of dragging any church into a matter with which no church has anything to do ? I have not space to argue the merits of Mr. Russell's determination, but permit me to say that if he makes himself a martyr as he proposes, it will be in support of his own proud opinions, and not in support of any Divine law. But I have exhausted my space without being able to notice the one-half of the errors in Mr. Russell's letter ; but I must again protest against the unwarrantable and an ti- Christian practice of continually placing Free Churchmen and Dissenters in a position of antagonism. I am, &c, John Gillies.