Colonial Notes.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIX, Issue 6, 7 November 1890, Page 2

Colonial Notes.

Oub Presbyterian friends still continue divided in their opinions aa to the orthodoxy of their creed. The degree of confusion that exists among them, is strongly suggestive as to the right of private interpretation. Holy Scripture teaching one body of divines that the Westminuter Confession containi only what is in strict conformity with tbe Word of God, but teaching another body of them tbat its contents are in part extravagant, false, and even revolting. To fallow the contention would profit us little. We are not greatly concerned as to the degree in which it is finally determined, if it ever be so, that Calvinism is to be maintained intact, as it was in the good old days of the Covenanters, or to be altered to suit the more modern disposition. Nor does it concern us to inquire how far men who have sworn allegiance to a creed, and professed on oath an implicit belief in it may renounce and condemn it, even partially, while still holding the positions to which, by virtue of such oaths, they have been admitted. What does interest U9 is once more to see plainly what tbe meaning of private interpretation really is. Tbe Westminster Confession remains as it was when the fathers of the Church who drew it up had concludtd tbeir labours. Holy Scripture still remains the same, the Authorised aud not the Revised Vertioo being that in use. The men it is who have changed. Tbe necessities of the modern mind require a different interpretation, and it is easily forthcoming. These are the inevitable fruits of Protestantism . The infallible Word of God becomes its variable servant, and no one seeks a proof there that it reiases to furnish. The grim Presbyterian elders found in a lost world, the greater number, even the little innocent children, condemned to perdition— matter of edification, and additional strength for their ferocious spirit, and they forced confirmation strong of their fierce imaginings even from tbe Guspel of peace. A milder generation abhors the prospect, and. revoltiog agaiust it, «a easily cites proofs of Holy Writ 10 bear them out. Bat is thiß, indeed, the word of the unchangeable God ? The imbroglio will probably terminate in the separation from the Free Church of a new sect — nothing veiy uncommon where the Protestant sects are concerned. Catholics, meantime, may find the dispute instructive, as enabling them to contrast the steadiest nature of their Church, the firmness and unity of truth, with the unstable and Bbiftmg nature of error.

A discussion on Bible-reading in schools has also taken place in the Presbyterian Synod. Our good friends are, of conrse, very ready in explaining the unreasonable nature of the objection made by CatboliCM. ineir committee, in a report, signed by Jamea Copland, Convener, argnea as follows :— " Probably the strongest objection of some members was due to the opimon they entertained tbat in justice

would thereby be done to Roman Catholics. It is well known tbat they feel aggrieved under the present syatemfrom which tbe Bible is excluded, and that they also feel aggrieved under a similar system, as existing many years in Otago, under which the Bible was read. It is evident, therefore, tbe mere presence or absence of Bible-reading is not the gronnd of their grievance."— Now, we are very sorry for it, but we cannot call this Convener " Truthful James." Ha has often been told, and he knows quite well, that Catholics would have in schooU where the Bible was read a double grievance. In addition to the hardship imposed on them by secularism, they would in that case suffer the direct pc ial wrong of being forced to contribute towards the teaching of religious Pr >testantism— a creed eondemaed by them in all its forms — and towards a misuse of Holy Writ, denounced by tbair Church. — James Copland, Convener, we say, knows all this perfectly well. How, therefore, can we call him " Truthful J*mes"— and is not non-Truth-ful James a more appropriate name for him in view of the argument advanced by him 7 But what is that the Rev. J. Kirkland said in the course of this debate?— " The Roman Catholic Bishop of Tictoria stated the other day that he vastly preferred that the Bible should be introduced into the schools than that it should be excluded."— Here is another gentleman, an nnalulterated divine this time, who hardly deserves tbe epithet " truthful " before his name. Whoever the " Roman Catholic Bishop of Victoria " may be, and if he is a Catholic Bishop at all, he said nothing of the kind. One of the Victorian Bishops may possibly have said tbat if aid were givea to Catholic schools, and every step duly taken to protect Catholic children against the proselytiser, a Bura accompaniment otherwise of Bible-reading in the schools, and in himself a sufficient objection in Catholic eyes against it, he would prefer to seethe Bible read by Protes'ant children. But th*t is the Catbolic attitude genera ly towards the question. We believe we may state, in reply to a remark made in the Synod by Mr. Hutchison, tbat it is also the attitude of Bishop Moran. They would prefer to see Proteitaut children instructed in the Bible. They would, in a word, prefer to see them brought up as Christians rather than as infidels. It is not, however, lawful for Catholics to do evil that good may come, and not even for the sake of trying to prevent the destruction of Christianity among Protestants can they consent to pay for the support of a false system of religious teaching, suoh as Biblereading, under any form, in the schools must be — or for a use of Holy Writ pronounced by tbe Church to be an abuse and a sacrilege. The report, tharef jre, which states that, because Catholics have a grievance already, in the secular schools, they would have no grievance in tbe introduction there of Bible- r aJing states a falsehood-r-witb which f iUehood, we may add, James Copland, Convener, knowing the circumstances of the case perfectly well, identifies himself in a particular manner.

Sir Robert Stout reassures us a little by a speech he made the other day at Napier. Sir Hobart, as a matter of course, lays out for us a philosophical future— with every child warranted to stand any amount of education and educated accordingly ; with Socialistic institutions providing for all oar wan'B and fostering our tastes ; and everything, in short, as it ought to be, if not, to burrow an old joke, a great deal better . Sir Robert, however, proposes to take things quietly. Altruistic he declares, we are ultimately to become, but, meantime, he proposes to leave our individuality untouched, We are to be at liberty, in a word, to take care of ourselves until time develops in us a capacity and a perfect desire to taku care of somebody else instead. Sir Uobert differs ma erially from Mr. Bellamy who gives only one hundred and ten years from tha present time for all that is desirable to be tbe established rule. Sir Robert estimates the necessary time at centuries, ia which perhaps he acts much more wisely, though few of us will probably ba spared to put bis wisdom to the proof. People, however, who contemplate getting themselves hypnotised to prove the truth of Mr. Bellamy's prediction, would do well to tnke in a sufficient stock of sleep to last six or s?ven times as long as the American savant suggests. But is tsir Robert himself an example of the slow growth of altruism ? The equanimity, at least, claimed by him at his being in a minority seems significant of something of the kind. "If any man in New Zealand," he said, " knew what it was to be in the minority it was the speaker — but he could say this, tbat he never lost a night's sleep through thinking of the fact that be was not agreed with." Now does not this show a failing io the matter of altruism? Surely if Sir Robert believes that he is rigrht, and consequently that those who differ from him are wrong, and must more or less suffer from it, it is a very faulty indulgence of bis individuality to snore away in comfortable indifference the whole night through. Or is it that Sir Robert distrusts the soundness of his own peculiar views and does not think it can matter a fanhing to any man whether he agrees with him or not ? This we believe to be a very likely interpretation, for, we canuot help thinking that, some where or another, Sir Robert Stout has sowed away about him a grain or two of Bound sense by whose light he must, sooner or later, read his fads in their true meaning. Sir Robert snoring over his fads while all the world is going to the dcvil — or to whatever serves in his mind for the idea of the dcvil — through want of an agreement with him ia a veiy suggestive picture. And what is tbe altruism of a man, whose peaceful snoring has Buch a significance, worth ? Never since Nero fiddled while Rome was burning has anything to equal the situation been heard of. Meantime we may pursue our leisurely coarse. Centuries, Sir Robert Stout tells us, are before us in which tbe changes are to be accomplished. Let it then form our exceeding great comfort that we may look upon ourselves as the ancestors only of a race of altruists and of men who, as Robert Burns writes, and Sir Robert Stout quotes, " Shall brithers be for a that." It really ia a great relief, at least for old-fashioned common-sense people to find they are called upon for nothing more than that and they cannot but feel grateful to Sir Robeit Stout for the reprieve.

Mr. Fisher also sympa'hises with us. So much information did he give to the electors at Wellington tbe other day. He told them as well, however, tbat he had not thought it worth nil while to fop*

port Mr. Pyke's Bill for the purpose of relieving their legitimate grievance. Prom the report given by the Wellington dallies we cannot quite nnderstand Mr. Fisher. What, for example, did he mean by sayiDg, as reported, " that, if the Catholics forced their children into the public schools, it would increase the expenditure by £50,000 per annnm ?" Is he inclined to behave better on a future occasion and to save tht State from this danger ? Wellington Catholics, however, will nnderstand all about it— and will know how to act —as they have acted on many previous occasions. We fancy a barren sympathy will not go far towards gaining their support. lodeed it should have a contrary effect— foi its profession only shows that the man making it knows what his duty is, and refuses to do it. What confidence can be placed in a man like that— Mr. Fiiher or another ?

During the debute in the Presbyterian Synod on Bible reading in schools, the BeT. Mr. Bylpy said, •• Men who were in a position to know declared that juvenile crime was increasing in Otago, and he thought it was fair to state that a Urge proportion of that crime might be traced to the want of moral and religions instruction in the day-schools." Even the Bey. Mr. By ley, nevertheless, might be expected to recognise that the Bible read without note or comment, and left for interpretation to tht discretion of the children would do little towardß mending the matter. What, in fact, is there to prevent children of an ingenious tnro of mind from quoting Scripture to justify their escapades f At any rate, the effect of fetiih worship on morals is not likely to be very marked.

An Adelaide newspaper reports the death of a gentleman whose name has a familiar sound for those who same twenty or <hirty years ago were acquainted with the county Gal way. We allude to Mr. Columbus Rocbfort, who, after a crediable career in the Australian colonies, bas recently died in the city alluded to. Mr. Rochfort was evidro ly the son of a gentleman whose name in an abbreviated foim, Col. Rocbfort, was known from one end of the county to another, as that of a remarkably sharp and clever attorney. No court of sessions was perfect at which Col. Rochfort did not assist, and no man in trouble was sure of au acquittal who hart not secured his services. Mr. Rocbfort bas left a widow and two children.

The following letter from the Archbishop of Melbourne has appeared in tho Argus : — " It seems to me that tbe time has come when those who have been unwilling to obtrude their opinions regarding the merits of the contest between capital and labour may now advantageously speak out regarding the necessity and conditions of a conference which will command the support and sympathy of both parties. Tbe only obstacle to such a conference at present arises from tbe unwillingness of the employers to make the question of freedom of labour a subject for discussion. The representatives of labour, on the other hand, say that no condition precedeot should bar the way to a free and full discussion. In these circumstances I would venture to suggest that, after having plainly and emphatically announced thtir determination to maintain tbe freedom of labour, the employers should withdraw this preliminary objection, and allow the conference to proceed. If freedom of labour is to be established, as I believe it should be established, in the interests of working men no less than the interests of employers, the sanction of a conference will Berve to coi firm the principle of free labour and to remove it from the domain of future debatable questions. I make this appeal to both parties. Take the strike all in all, aad in no other country I believe wonld less violence accompany so serious and so protracted a struggle. The conduct of the working men, as a body, bas shown that ■elf-restraint and self-reliance which come from their intelligent appreciation of the gravity and the responsibility of the situation. If after making known to tbe public their firm resolve not to yield on the vital question of free labour, and instructing their delegates to the conference accordingly, tbe employers meet the men in an open generous spirit, a durable and satisfactory settlement will issue in the cessation of th<> strike, the revival of trade, and a return of happiness to a thousand Victorian homes. Thoße in whose spiritual and temporal welfare I am, by my position, so deeply interested have so considerable an interest in the issue tbat when the opportune time has come I feel bound toipeak a word of conciliation to both parties."

Mr. Thomas Butler, 8.A., an old St. John's College boy, who has been attached to tha Sydney University staff for some years, (says tbe Freeman's Journal of October 26) has been promoted to an important post in the University. A resolution waß carried at the meeting •f the University Senate on Monday evening to tbe effect that the chair of classics be divided into a chair of Latin and a chair of Greek ; that Professor ticott be appointed to the chair of Greek, and Mr. Thomas Butler, 8.A.. to that of T atin. The new scheme is to take effect from the first of March next ye r. Mr. Butler is one of three brothers who have' done credit to St. John's College.

We learn from the London correspondent of the Melbourne Argus that a lady who may be regarded as the first oratorio contralto in the Kingdom, is a Home Ruler. The correspondent quotes the lady as expressing her regret, apropos of her art that religious sentiment in London had decayed. "I am sorry for it," she said, " for, although a Home Buler, I believe in religion." The suggestion of antagonism ii, perhaps, due to the correspondent himself— for undoubtedly Home tiule and religion are closely associated, and so all intelligent Home Rulers must understand. All the interests of religion in Ireland depend, in fact, on Home Rule— by which a Catholic population would be enabled to remain among surroundings calculated to sustain their faith. We are pleased, me>ntime, to see that the great question has also made its way into tbe artistic world and obtained a favourable place there. The more fully it permeates tbe population the surer it is of success.

The centenary of the Blessed Margaret Mary was celebrated at St. Mary's Cathedral, Sydney by tbe formation of a children's League of the Crosi. Between 8000 aod 9000 children were conse-

crated to the Sacred Heart on the occasion, also taking tbe pledge of total abstinence. The procession, and tbe ecene in the cathedral, which the children completely filled, are described as beautiful and impressive in the extreme.

It is ominous to see that an orgaa which, like the Wellington Evening Press, assumes a higher tone of enlightenment, and boasts itself the mouthpiece of a society far superior to the prejudices and foi oles of the old world— still makes a retrograde motion towards tha greatest blot that exists on the old-world history of the past. Oar enlightened contemporary, in short, upholds the secular system from motives that are distinctly penal, and associated with religious persecution. He tells us openly he supports the system because it tends to break down the fence, which, he says, the creeds have built up between sections of the community. But what right has the State to break down any such fence— even supposing it to exist in tbe most marked form it was capable of taking t The right of the religious persecutor only ; the right arising from a repeal of the Emancipation Act, from tbe abolition of freedom of conscience. It was, in fact, to break down such a fence that all the persecution of the past was taken in hand. — " Yet we do not and never have advocated the suppression of either denominational day-schools or denominational Sundayschools," magnanimously adds oar contemporary. This, nevertheless, is a mere matter of expediency. The time is not jet come when such a step could be taken with any prospect of success or without causing alarm md resistance. The principle, however, from which it must follow is affirmed, and we may expect it in due course. The Press, moreover, gives us a taste of hii quality , and shows us tbat he is quite capable, if the opportunity offered, of pushing matters to a logical conclusion. He assumes to himself the arrogmt privilege of being an arbiter of men's consciences. "We maintain," he saya, " that the duty of the State is to provide a school into which all children may come, of whatever religion, without violence to the consciences of their parents. This, we claim, has been done in New Zealand."— The claim, however, is a monstrous one, and has been fully disproved by the action of the Catholic community. To do our contemporary justice, he seems not quite to understand the claim he has made, and to go some way towards contradicting it in his next sentence.—" We also maiatain," he continues, " that if aoy denomination is not satisfied with this, and their feelings are too strong upon the matter to permit them to take advantage of the State system, they are justified in bailding and maintaining schools to suit themselves, but ibe State would be decidedly wrong to step out of its way to assist them to do so." — The antagonism implied by our contemporary between conscience and feelings may be philosophic, we admit, but does it not seem to the ordinary mind just a little bit ludicrous 1 Is our contemporary quite sure he understands his own meaning ? Let us hope, at least, that he really does not know that, notwithstanding bis vaunted enlightenment and superiority to the elder Britons, he 8 advona ing the repeal of Emancipation, the abolition of freedom of conscience, and the imposition of restrictions on religious teaching. Into his argument, in fact, tbe persecuting element undeniably enters— and, iadeed, he is not singular in tbis argument — a matter that should nerve the religious bodies to determined resistance. As to another point advanced by the Press, even if he urges it correctly, we do not see that it bears much on the position, at least, so far as regards Catholics, with whom alone we are concerned. It is to the effect that the State schools in England have taken away tbe vast majority of the pupils from denominational schools. Such is not the case with regard to tbe Catholic population. They are just as much and as conscientiously opposed to secularism in England as they are in this colony or elsewhere, and juat as zealous in supporting their own schools. At all events, the fact tbat a majority — eveo a vast one — prefers it, cannot justify the imposition of godlessness on those who abhor and reject it, nor can it justify their being forced to contribute towards its support. An organ, however, that, like the Wellington Press, deliberately argues in favour of religious persecution, cannot bo expected to perceive that such is the case.