LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 91, 10 January 1918, Page 7

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

STATE SCHOOLS FOLLOWING GERMAN bEClMiilSlu Sir,—ln reply to letter re above in this morning's issue 1 must ask your correspondent, liov. Mr. M'Oaw, to read again my lotter of January 5. Hβ states that if 1 dislike being branded "secularist" I ; 'must dissociate myself from the recent secular deliverance." A reporusal as requested will lead him lo sco that I claimed tile right to spoak as I did by virtuo of my already having made my attitudo clear. I did not, and do hot intend to, discuss the executive's deliverance. Further, ho. will observo that I did not say that there was no case, but that tho strictures taken exception to did not meet the caso. His repudiating vexation of spirit becauso of tho apparent failuro of the Church, and rejecting my sympathy with him therein, might leave ono in doubt'dls to the reuiiits which form tho basis of his grievance against the instituto and educational system. Surely his voxation is due, as I stated, to his "deploring tho present position with regard to the religious training of tho young," and our point of difference is that while he by inference at least saddles tho educational system with nearly all tho blame in the niattor, I pointed out that his doing so warranted our drawing attention to n'hat 'a widely , held to do the real root of the evil, and I tacitly acknowledged its inlluenco U]>on both teachers and parents. This draws from Rev. Mr. M'Caw charges of "introducing extraneous matter," of "drawing a herring across tho track," a suggestion of a desiro "to have a slap at the churches," and a perception' on his part.that I am "hard pushed for argumentative stock-in-trade." Now, .an alternative explanation of a recognised fact cannot bo called extraneous matter, and tho matter so introduced should not bo dubbed "red herring" by so "canny a Scot." ' AVhile tho Ohurch speaks according to the "law and tho testimony" no nian can have p. slap at her; and, finally, no arguments were attempted in my first letter— facts only were stated—therefore my "argumentative ■ stock-in-trade" underwent neither exhibition nor depletion. Your columns, Mr. Editor, would be taxed beyond even your liberality did I consider it wise to comply with llov. Mr. M'Caw-'s request to give names of ministers whoso German theology has shaken faith in tho inspiration of tho Word of God, but that ho may have full opportunity for the .investigation of the truth of such assertion I refer him to the last two meetings of the General Assembly of the branch of the Church of which both ho and 1 are members, when the common procedure of that Church Court was raised as a barrier to present consideration of tho appeal of an elder who had been censured for taking exception to such faith-undermining utterances or ministers who were named. Eev. Mr. M'Caw has no grounds ot controversy with me, but 1 have unconsciously side-tracked him. He joins issue, in his opening by averring that he "did not brand all State school teachers as secularists." I did not say that he did, but I personally took exception to being, if only by inference, included with those whom ho wisely or otherwise saw fit to brand. The number of teacher delegates whom 1 personally saw present-as I believe to be their wont-in church last Sunday is in itself sufficient to challengo tho correctness, let alone the wisdom or such indiscriminate branding.-I am, Cte " J. D. M'NATJGHTON. Shannon, January 8, 1918.